We are at 2 Peter 1:12. The author says he will always remind the reader of the stuff they already know. That seems rather pointless doesn't it? He thinks it is right to keep doing this as long as he is alive, because Jesus has made it clear to him that he hasn't got much time left. But no fear, he will find a way to be responsible for helping them remember, even after he shuffles off this mortal coil. This guy has issues.
He goes on to say that he and his cronies didn't make stuff up when they told about "the power and coming of our lord Jesus Christ." They were "eyewitnesses of his majesty" because they were with Jesus on a sacred mountain when a voice from god said, "This is my beloved son, with him I am well pleased." Well, well, well. This is the story of the transfiguration of Jesus in the presence of Peter, James and John. It is found in Mark 9, Matthew 17, and Luke 9. Mark says god's words are "This is my son, whom I love. listen to him." In Luke it is "This is my son, whom I have chosen. listen to him." In Matthew it is "This is my son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased. Listen to him." Notice that 2 Peter appears to be quoting from the book of Matthew. In all of the instances, god supposedly also commanded those present to listen to Jesus, but the author of 2 Peter did not include those words of god. Will he ever tell us any of the things Jesus is supposed to have said?
The author goes on to say that the readers would also do well to pay attention to the words of the prophets. (What about the words of Jesus?) However, they need to understand that no prophecy of scripture ever came about by the prophets own interpretation. That's funny. He's acknowledging that prophets got the meanings of their prophecies wrong. He says that's because the prophecies didn't come from the will of man, but from god, through the holy spirit. Excuses excuses. So, how in the world can anyone know what the prophecies actually meant, or if they came true, if even the prophets got it wrong?
We are now in chapter two.The author says, "There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign lord who bought them (AKA Jesus)." Okay. Let us recognize that both liars and truth tellers will say that the people disagreeing with them are wrong. These people "spreading heresies" could actually be the truth tellers, but of course the author begs to differ. He says people will follow the heretic's shameful ways and bring the truth into disrepute. They will also exploit the reader with made up stories. Is this projection? I'm pretty sure the story of the transfiguration is made up. The author says the story tellers will get the destruction awaiting them. When we point our finger, three fingers are pointing back at us.
The author goes on to say that after all, "God did not spare the angels when they sinned but sent them to hell, putting them in gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement" He also did not spare the people who were drowned in the flood. Nor did he spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were burnt to ashes, "an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly." These are all proof that sinners will get what is coming to them. A note about the angels who sinned and got sent to hell: there isn't actually any Old Testament scriptures that say this. Also the word "hell" here is translated from the Greek word Tartarus, which is a deep pit located below Hades, the land of the dead. This isn't the "lake of fire" hell that Christianity is fond of.
Till next time.
Edited to add: the bit about angels in prison and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah very closely echoes terminology found in Jude 6.
Showing posts with label Luke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luke. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Mark chapter sixteen
We are at Mark 9:28. It has been implied that Jesus has just healed a boy from a demon (seizures), but all I see is him helping the kid up after a fit is over. Later, the disciples ask Jesus why they couldn't drive out the demon. He replied that that kind only came out through prayer. Huh? Jesus didn't pray the spirit out, He commanded it. Are demons discriminating as to how they are exorcised?
Jesus and the disciples went on the move. Jesus was again trying to be incognito, supposedly because he was training his disciples. If you ask me, he may have been avoiding people who would know that the people he "healed" had relapsed. I'm having a bit of respect for the author of this book. If it had stayed the only gospel account available, Jesus wouldn't measure up to his current reputation. Told in a spare way, with comparatively few embellishments, and a publicity avoiding Jesus, I can see in this story the unwillingness of the author to completely commit to the notion that Jesus was supernatural. If there was a Jesus of Nazareth, I imagine Mark, as the earliest, has the account that is closest to the reality.
In verse 31 Jesus predicts that the son of man (presumably a reference to himself) will be betrayed and killed and rise after three days. The disciples were afraid to ask him what that meant. Later, they were in a house in Capernaeum, maybe Peter's? Jesus asked the disciples what they had been arguing about on the road. They had been jockeying for hierarchical position in the group. Jesus told them "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." This is good psychology on Jesus's part. Now they will be trying to outdo each other in acts of service.
Jesus had a little child stand in front of the disciples, and holding the child close, said "whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me." Wow. What a lesson for today. Christians take note! Children had no authority or power, they often were the household servants, which I think was the point. He was eliminating cultural hierarchy with this statement, telling the disciples that they weren't any greater than a child. If he wasn't a charlatan, I could like this version of Jesus.
Matthew's (18:1-5) version of the story does not include the concept of service or becoming servants. Instead he focuses on humility, which is more abstract. The disciples are told to be humble like children to be the greatest in the kingdom. (Mark's version does not mention the kingdom at all. It was a more earthly discussion.) The thing about humility is you don't actually have to do anything to be commended for it. It's a negative virtue, all you have to do is refrain from overtly saying or acting like you are better than anyone. You don't necessarily have to actively serve them. Plus, this conversation doesn't eliminate earthly cultural hierarchy. Matthew tries to make up for it by having Jesus put a curse on anyone who would harm a child. We all know how well curses work.
Mark and Matthew have this story happening in a house in Capernaeum, but in Luke there is very little context. Luke has Jesus read the disciple's minds instead of them telling him what they were thinking. Luke 9:46-48 has no discourse on humility or servitude or the kingdom. He just tells them to welcome that child in his name. "For he who is the least among you all--he is the greatest." The way it reads, Jesus could be telling them that particular child was the greatest among them. In Luke's version Jesus also does not tell the disciples to be like a child/children in any way. I like the Mark version best.
This was fascinating to me because, in all my years as a christian, I never caught that this dialog happened in a private home and not out among the multitudes.
Jesus and the disciples went on the move. Jesus was again trying to be incognito, supposedly because he was training his disciples. If you ask me, he may have been avoiding people who would know that the people he "healed" had relapsed. I'm having a bit of respect for the author of this book. If it had stayed the only gospel account available, Jesus wouldn't measure up to his current reputation. Told in a spare way, with comparatively few embellishments, and a publicity avoiding Jesus, I can see in this story the unwillingness of the author to completely commit to the notion that Jesus was supernatural. If there was a Jesus of Nazareth, I imagine Mark, as the earliest, has the account that is closest to the reality.
In verse 31 Jesus predicts that the son of man (presumably a reference to himself) will be betrayed and killed and rise after three days. The disciples were afraid to ask him what that meant. Later, they were in a house in Capernaeum, maybe Peter's? Jesus asked the disciples what they had been arguing about on the road. They had been jockeying for hierarchical position in the group. Jesus told them "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." This is good psychology on Jesus's part. Now they will be trying to outdo each other in acts of service.
Jesus had a little child stand in front of the disciples, and holding the child close, said "whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me." Wow. What a lesson for today. Christians take note! Children had no authority or power, they often were the household servants, which I think was the point. He was eliminating cultural hierarchy with this statement, telling the disciples that they weren't any greater than a child. If he wasn't a charlatan, I could like this version of Jesus.
Matthew's (18:1-5) version of the story does not include the concept of service or becoming servants. Instead he focuses on humility, which is more abstract. The disciples are told to be humble like children to be the greatest in the kingdom. (Mark's version does not mention the kingdom at all. It was a more earthly discussion.) The thing about humility is you don't actually have to do anything to be commended for it. It's a negative virtue, all you have to do is refrain from overtly saying or acting like you are better than anyone. You don't necessarily have to actively serve them. Plus, this conversation doesn't eliminate earthly cultural hierarchy. Matthew tries to make up for it by having Jesus put a curse on anyone who would harm a child. We all know how well curses work.
Mark and Matthew have this story happening in a house in Capernaeum, but in Luke there is very little context. Luke has Jesus read the disciple's minds instead of them telling him what they were thinking. Luke 9:46-48 has no discourse on humility or servitude or the kingdom. He just tells them to welcome that child in his name. "For he who is the least among you all--he is the greatest." The way it reads, Jesus could be telling them that particular child was the greatest among them. In Luke's version Jesus also does not tell the disciples to be like a child/children in any way. I like the Mark version best.
This was fascinating to me because, in all my years as a christian, I never caught that this dialog happened in a private home and not out among the multitudes.
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Mark part nine
We are at Mark 5:35. Jesus had been on his way to heal Jairus's daughter but got sidetracked by the woman who had supposedly been bleeding for twelve years. Now someone runs up and tells Jairus his daughter is dead. Jesus tells him to not be afraid, just believe. Only Peter, James and John were allowed to accompany Jesus to Jairus's home. When they got there, the mourners were in full cry. Jesus told them they needn't make so much noise, the child was only sleeping. They laughed at him.
Jesus took only the father, mother, and his three disciples, into the child's room. He grabbed the child by the hand and told her to get up, and she did. Then "he gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this." Which was probably the best way to get the news spread. On the other hand, it's an excuse, when someone says they never heard this story from Jairus, or anyone else. Then a christian could say, of course not, jesus swore him to secrecy. My study bible claims it is because Jesus didn't want to "precipitate a crisis" before his ministry was complete. That is assumed. It is not actually in the text.
By the way, just like the woman in the previous story bled for twelve years, this little girl was twelve years old. Do you think that was a coincidence? I don't. Twelve is one of the Bible's magic numbers.
We are now in chapter six. Jesus goes to his hometown with his disciples. He teaches in the synagogue on the sabbath, amazing his neighbors with his wisdom and miracles. Jesus is a carpenter. He worked with his hands, which would most likely mean he had no formal religious training. The people knew his mother Mary, his sisters, and his brothers James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. His father is not mentioned. It seems that Jesus came from a large family.
Let's talk about Jesus's family. It may have no significance, but I find the names of his family members interesting. If you look at the original text, his mother has the same basic name as Moses's sister, Miriam. His brother James is actually Jacob, the name of the founding father of Israel. This is thought to be the James mentioned in Paul's letters and the one that wrote the book of James. His brother Joseph has the name of one of Jacob's sons, as does Judas (Judah) and Simon (Simeon). Jesus himself is actually named Joshua, the name of the man who led the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan, also the name of a mystical high priest in the book of Zechariah. Another coincidence? Maybe. One thing the bible is good at is reusing names, or using names with specific meanings to the context. It may also just reflect the cultural popularity of those names.
Anyway, the text says Jesus's neighbors were offended by him. To which Jesus makes that famous statement, "Only in his hometown...is a prophet without honor." We are told Jesus was not able to work many miracles there, just heal a few sick people, because of the people's lack of faith. (He's got a built in holy spirit meter.) Can you blame them? What would you think if the local plumber in your town, whom you had known since he was a child, suddenly stopped working and became an itinerant preacher and faith healer? Do you realize that since he is no longer being productive, he must get his food/lodging/clothing from somewhere? That's where you come in. People are expected to physically support "men of god." Nice work if you can get it. Jesus couldn't get it there. You would think he wasn't god in the flesh, or something.
Another interesting thing, even though we are studying Mark as a stand alone book: In the book of Luke, and only the book of Luke, at the age of twelve (there is that number again), Jesus was amazing people in the temple with his wisdom. Yet, in Mark's story, we see no sign that Jesus ever gave his neighbors previous reason to believe he was special.
More to come.
Jesus took only the father, mother, and his three disciples, into the child's room. He grabbed the child by the hand and told her to get up, and she did. Then "he gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this." Which was probably the best way to get the news spread. On the other hand, it's an excuse, when someone says they never heard this story from Jairus, or anyone else. Then a christian could say, of course not, jesus swore him to secrecy. My study bible claims it is because Jesus didn't want to "precipitate a crisis" before his ministry was complete. That is assumed. It is not actually in the text.
By the way, just like the woman in the previous story bled for twelve years, this little girl was twelve years old. Do you think that was a coincidence? I don't. Twelve is one of the Bible's magic numbers.
We are now in chapter six. Jesus goes to his hometown with his disciples. He teaches in the synagogue on the sabbath, amazing his neighbors with his wisdom and miracles. Jesus is a carpenter. He worked with his hands, which would most likely mean he had no formal religious training. The people knew his mother Mary, his sisters, and his brothers James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. His father is not mentioned. It seems that Jesus came from a large family.
Let's talk about Jesus's family. It may have no significance, but I find the names of his family members interesting. If you look at the original text, his mother has the same basic name as Moses's sister, Miriam. His brother James is actually Jacob, the name of the founding father of Israel. This is thought to be the James mentioned in Paul's letters and the one that wrote the book of James. His brother Joseph has the name of one of Jacob's sons, as does Judas (Judah) and Simon (Simeon). Jesus himself is actually named Joshua, the name of the man who led the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan, also the name of a mystical high priest in the book of Zechariah. Another coincidence? Maybe. One thing the bible is good at is reusing names, or using names with specific meanings to the context. It may also just reflect the cultural popularity of those names.
Anyway, the text says Jesus's neighbors were offended by him. To which Jesus makes that famous statement, "Only in his hometown...is a prophet without honor." We are told Jesus was not able to work many miracles there, just heal a few sick people, because of the people's lack of faith. (He's got a built in holy spirit meter.) Can you blame them? What would you think if the local plumber in your town, whom you had known since he was a child, suddenly stopped working and became an itinerant preacher and faith healer? Do you realize that since he is no longer being productive, he must get his food/lodging/clothing from somewhere? That's where you come in. People are expected to physically support "men of god." Nice work if you can get it. Jesus couldn't get it there. You would think he wasn't god in the flesh, or something.
Another interesting thing, even though we are studying Mark as a stand alone book: In the book of Luke, and only the book of Luke, at the age of twelve (there is that number again), Jesus was amazing people in the temple with his wisdom. Yet, in Mark's story, we see no sign that Jesus ever gave his neighbors previous reason to believe he was special.
More to come.
Friday, January 4, 2019
The apostles part five and wrap up.
11)* Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus: Matthew 10:3
No other book mentions any Lebbaeus
*Thaddaeus: Mark 3:18
Only Matthew and Mark mention Thaddaeus
*Judas son of James (NIV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
*Judas (or Jude) the Brother of James (KJV): Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13, Jude 1:1
Was it son or brother?!! Which James?!! Is this the same person as Thaddaeus? Christians assume it is, because otherwise there is something wrong with the different apostle lists. Jesus had brothers named Judas and James. (Matthew 13:55) Was this another brother of Jesus? This Judas of James is not mentioned by Mark or Matthew. John 14:22 speaks once of a Judas "not Iscariot." Paul doesn't mention this person. Jude and Judas are actually the same name. So, since the book of Jude begins with a greeting from Jude, the brother of James, it is assumed the book was written by the apostle aforementioned.
More about Thaddaeus
12)* Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus: Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:19, Matthew 26:25, Matthew 27:3, Luke 6:16, Luke 22:48, John 12:4, John 13:2, John 18:2,3, 5, Acts 1:16,25
*Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve: Matthew 26:14,16,47, Mark 14:10, 43, Luke 22:47, John 6:71,
*Judas Iscariot, son of Simon: John 6:71, John 12:4, John 13:2, 26, 29,
John is the only book that speaks of Judas as the son of Simon. The question is Simon who? Paul does not mention Judas. Kind of strange, don't you think?
More about Judas Iscariot
13)*Matthias, Judas's replacement: Acts 1:23,26
Matthias is not mentioned anywhere else. More about Matthias.
*How many of each of the twelve are specifically named in New Testament books, generously interpreted:
Matthew-12, Mark-12, Luke-12, John-7(Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel, Thomas, Judas-not-Iscariot, Judas Iscariot) Acts-13, Galatians-2 (Cephas/Peter and John), 1st Corinthians-1 (Cephas/assumed to be Peter), 1st Peter-1 (Peter), Jude-1 (Jude/assumed to be Judas/ Thaddaeus), Revelation-1(John)
*Number of times the phrase "twelve apostles" or "Twelve disciples" or "the twelve" is specifically mentioned:
Matthew-8, Mark-10, Luke-8, John-4, Acts-1, 1 Corinthians-1, Revelation-1
I find it fascinating that the only two of the twelve that Paul mentioned by name are Peter and John. The James he mentions is considered to be Jesus's brother. Adding: I have caught a couple of mistakes and fixed them, mostly with chapter and verse numbers. So, I expect that I may not be precise with all my figuring, but I tried to be as accurate as possible.
No other book mentions any Lebbaeus
*Thaddaeus: Mark 3:18
Only Matthew and Mark mention Thaddaeus
*Judas son of James (NIV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
*Judas (or Jude) the Brother of James (KJV): Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13, Jude 1:1
Was it son or brother?!! Which James?!! Is this the same person as Thaddaeus? Christians assume it is, because otherwise there is something wrong with the different apostle lists. Jesus had brothers named Judas and James. (Matthew 13:55) Was this another brother of Jesus? This Judas of James is not mentioned by Mark or Matthew. John 14:22 speaks once of a Judas "not Iscariot." Paul doesn't mention this person. Jude and Judas are actually the same name. So, since the book of Jude begins with a greeting from Jude, the brother of James, it is assumed the book was written by the apostle aforementioned.
More about Thaddaeus
12)* Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus: Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:19, Matthew 26:25, Matthew 27:3, Luke 6:16, Luke 22:48, John 12:4, John 13:2, John 18:2,3, 5, Acts 1:16,25
*Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve: Matthew 26:14,16,47, Mark 14:10, 43, Luke 22:47, John 6:71,
*Judas Iscariot, son of Simon: John 6:71, John 12:4, John 13:2, 26, 29,
John is the only book that speaks of Judas as the son of Simon. The question is Simon who? Paul does not mention Judas. Kind of strange, don't you think?
More about Judas Iscariot
13)*Matthias, Judas's replacement: Acts 1:23,26
Matthias is not mentioned anywhere else. More about Matthias.
*How many of each of the twelve are specifically named in New Testament books, generously interpreted:
Matthew-12, Mark-12, Luke-12, John-7(Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel, Thomas, Judas-not-Iscariot, Judas Iscariot) Acts-13, Galatians-2 (Cephas/Peter and John), 1st Corinthians-1 (Cephas/assumed to be Peter), 1st Peter-1 (Peter), Jude-1 (Jude/assumed to be Judas/ Thaddaeus), Revelation-1(John)
*Number of times the phrase "twelve apostles" or "Twelve disciples" or "the twelve" is specifically mentioned:
Matthew-8, Mark-10, Luke-8, John-4, Acts-1, 1 Corinthians-1, Revelation-1
I find it fascinating that the only two of the twelve that Paul mentioned by name are Peter and John. The James he mentions is considered to be Jesus's brother. Adding: I have caught a couple of mistakes and fixed them, mostly with chapter and verse numbers. So, I expect that I may not be precise with all my figuring, but I tried to be as accurate as possible.
The apostles part four
8)*Matthew: Matthew 9:9, Matthew 10:3, Mark3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
The book of Matthew never uses the name Levi. However, the apostle Matthew is called the tax collector. John and Paul do not mention Matthew.
*Levi: Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27, 29
Levi is called a tax collector in Mark and Luke. However, he is not associated with Matthew in those books and Matthew is not called a tax collector in those books. Matthew, John, and Paul do not talk of a disciple named Levi. The Old Testament Levi is also mentioned in a few places in the New Testament.
Read about Matthew here.
9) *James the son of Alphaeus: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
There is not much to say about James the son of Alphaeus. He only appears in the lists of apostles. John and Paul do not mention him. In Mark 2:14, Levi is also called the son of Alphaeus.
*James the less, brother of Joses and Salome, son of Mary: Mark 15:40
Here's where things get complicated. Was James the less the same James as the son of Alphaeus? Then who was Mary his mother? Wouldn't she have been the wife of Alphaeus? Was it the Mary mentioned as being Jesus's mother, as well as the mother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon, in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3? Which Mary was the mother of James and Joses mentioned in Matthew 27:56? What about the Mary, mother of Joses, who went to the tomb of Jesus with Mary Magdalene? Are all these Marys, Jameses, and Joseses the same people? Some people think so. I haven't a clue. Plus, I don't think it's possible to know for sure who is who. Isn't possible that Joseph the carpenter died and Jesus's mother Mary remarried a man named Alphaeus?
Read more about James the son of Alphaeus.
10)* Simon the Zealot (NIV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 Acts 1:13
*Simon the Canaanite ((KJV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18
*Simon Zelotes (KJV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
John and Paul do not mention this Simon.
Read more about Simon the Zealot.
More to come.
The book of Matthew never uses the name Levi. However, the apostle Matthew is called the tax collector. John and Paul do not mention Matthew.
*Levi: Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27, 29
Levi is called a tax collector in Mark and Luke. However, he is not associated with Matthew in those books and Matthew is not called a tax collector in those books. Matthew, John, and Paul do not talk of a disciple named Levi. The Old Testament Levi is also mentioned in a few places in the New Testament.
Read about Matthew here.
9) *James the son of Alphaeus: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
There is not much to say about James the son of Alphaeus. He only appears in the lists of apostles. John and Paul do not mention him. In Mark 2:14, Levi is also called the son of Alphaeus.
*James the less, brother of Joses and Salome, son of Mary: Mark 15:40
Here's where things get complicated. Was James the less the same James as the son of Alphaeus? Then who was Mary his mother? Wouldn't she have been the wife of Alphaeus? Was it the Mary mentioned as being Jesus's mother, as well as the mother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon, in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3? Which Mary was the mother of James and Joses mentioned in Matthew 27:56? What about the Mary, mother of Joses, who went to the tomb of Jesus with Mary Magdalene? Are all these Marys, Jameses, and Joseses the same people? Some people think so. I haven't a clue. Plus, I don't think it's possible to know for sure who is who. Isn't possible that Joseph the carpenter died and Jesus's mother Mary remarried a man named Alphaeus?
Read more about James the son of Alphaeus.
10)* Simon the Zealot (NIV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 Acts 1:13
*Simon the Canaanite ((KJV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18
*Simon Zelotes (KJV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
John and Paul do not mention this Simon.
Read more about Simon the Zealot.
More to come.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
The apostles part three
5)*Philip: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, John 1:43-46, 48, (from Bethsaida) John 6:5,7, John 12:21-22, John 14:8-9, Acts 1:3
Only John has the story of Philip becoming a disciple. The strange thing about that story is that it is just a lead in for the story of how a man named Nathanael became a disciple. The other gospels and Acts only list him in the roll call of apostles. John includes Philip in a few stories of direct interaction with Jesus. No Philip is mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Philip.
There is a Philip mentioned in Acts, who is commonly called Philip the evangelist. He is assumed to not be the same as Philip the apostle because he is listed as one of the first seven deacons listed who do the grunt work of the new church. These deacons are not part of the twelve.Scriptures that include that Philip are: Acts 6:5, Acts 8:5-6, 12-13,26,29-31,34-35,37-40, Acts 21:8
Read more about Philip the evangelist.
6)*Bartholomew: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13,
There is no mention of Bartholomew by John, Paul, or anywhere else in the New Testament.
Read more about Bartholomew.
*Nathanael: John 21:2 lists Nathanael of Cana, presumably the same Nathanael that Philip introduces to Jesus In John 1:45-49, as one of Jesus's disciples. Soon after that introduction, is the story of the wedding at Cana, which is only mentioned in John. Because Bartholomew's name is paired with Philip's in the book of Matthew, and because Nathanael is brought to Jesus by Philip in John, and because Nathanael is listed as a disciple in John, there is a traditional assumption that Nathanael and Bartholomew must be the same person. I hope you can see that is not necessarily so. They are never explicitly connected. The name Nathanael is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament but in the book of John. (Do you find this as fascinating as I do?)
Read more about Nathanael.
7)*Thomas: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, John 14:5, John 20:26-29, Acts 1:13
*Thomas called Didymus: John 11:16, John 20:24
The word Thomas and Didymus are said to both mean "twin." Thomas is only called Didymus in John. John is also the only book that includes any dialog or stories of Thomas. This is the same Thomas who is also commonly called "doubting Thomas" because of his skepticism about Jesus's resurrection. Thomas is not mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Thomas.
More to come.
Only John has the story of Philip becoming a disciple. The strange thing about that story is that it is just a lead in for the story of how a man named Nathanael became a disciple. The other gospels and Acts only list him in the roll call of apostles. John includes Philip in a few stories of direct interaction with Jesus. No Philip is mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Philip.
There is a Philip mentioned in Acts, who is commonly called Philip the evangelist. He is assumed to not be the same as Philip the apostle because he is listed as one of the first seven deacons listed who do the grunt work of the new church. These deacons are not part of the twelve.Scriptures that include that Philip are: Acts 6:5, Acts 8:5-6, 12-13,26,29-31,34-35,37-40, Acts 21:8
Read more about Philip the evangelist.
6)*Bartholomew: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13,
There is no mention of Bartholomew by John, Paul, or anywhere else in the New Testament.
Read more about Bartholomew.
*Nathanael: John 21:2 lists Nathanael of Cana, presumably the same Nathanael that Philip introduces to Jesus In John 1:45-49, as one of Jesus's disciples. Soon after that introduction, is the story of the wedding at Cana, which is only mentioned in John. Because Bartholomew's name is paired with Philip's in the book of Matthew, and because Nathanael is brought to Jesus by Philip in John, and because Nathanael is listed as a disciple in John, there is a traditional assumption that Nathanael and Bartholomew must be the same person. I hope you can see that is not necessarily so. They are never explicitly connected. The name Nathanael is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament but in the book of John. (Do you find this as fascinating as I do?)
Read more about Nathanael.
7)*Thomas: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, John 14:5, John 20:26-29, Acts 1:13
*Thomas called Didymus: John 11:16, John 20:24
The word Thomas and Didymus are said to both mean "twin." Thomas is only called Didymus in John. John is also the only book that includes any dialog or stories of Thomas. This is the same Thomas who is also commonly called "doubting Thomas" because of his skepticism about Jesus's resurrection. Thomas is not mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Thomas.
More to come.
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
The apostles part two
3)*James the son of Zebedee: Matthew 4:21, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:19, 29, Mark 3:17, Mark 10:35, Luke 5:10,
*James the brother of John: Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37,
*James and John: Mark 9:2, Mark10:41, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:33, Luke 6:14, Luke 8:51, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:54, Acts 1:13, Acts 12:2 (James is put to death by the sword.)
This James is always mentioned in conjunction with John.
Read about James.
4)*John the son of Zebedee: See James the son of Zebedee.
*John the brother of James: See James the brother of John.
*James and John: See James and John above.
*John: Mark 9:38, Luke 9:49, Luke 22:8, Acts 3:1,3,4, 11, Acts 4:13, 19, Acts 8:14, Galatians 2:9, Revelation 1:1, 4,9, Revelation 21;2, Revelation 22:8
The John in Acts and Galatians is almost always paired with Peter. The John in Revelation is often assumed to be the same John, brother of James, author of all the books with John's name, but there is nothing that definitively identifies him as such.
Now the weird part. Neither John nor James are mentioned in the Book of John, which is traditionally supposed to have been written by this John. Instead there is a recurring cryptic phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved," assumed to be the John who is assumed to be the author of the book of John. Neither assumption has any basis in anything other than speculation and elimination. Why couldn't it have been James or some other unmentioned disciple? John's name has also been paired with the concept of altruistic love as the speculated author of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. Some similarity of style may mean the authors are the same person. However, at no time is any John actually identified as that person.
"The disciple Jesus loved" is found in John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:20. Most of these verses connect this disciple with Peter in some way, just as Acts often connects John with Peter. This may be one reason It is assumed to be John. The book of John also states that when Jesus was dying on the cross, he gave the care of his mother to the disciple he loved. It never says who that was. If John did write the book of John, what of James, John's brother? Would a truly loving person actually cut his close brother out of history?
The book of John ends by saying, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." Um. No. Hello. We don't even know who you are because you haven't actually told us. Why should we trust you?
Read about John
More to come.
*James the brother of John: Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37,
*James and John: Mark 9:2, Mark10:41, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:33, Luke 6:14, Luke 8:51, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:54, Acts 1:13, Acts 12:2 (James is put to death by the sword.)
This James is always mentioned in conjunction with John.
Read about James.
4)*John the son of Zebedee: See James the son of Zebedee.
*John the brother of James: See James the brother of John.
*James and John: See James and John above.
*John: Mark 9:38, Luke 9:49, Luke 22:8, Acts 3:1,3,4, 11, Acts 4:13, 19, Acts 8:14, Galatians 2:9, Revelation 1:1, 4,9, Revelation 21;2, Revelation 22:8
The John in Acts and Galatians is almost always paired with Peter. The John in Revelation is often assumed to be the same John, brother of James, author of all the books with John's name, but there is nothing that definitively identifies him as such.
Now the weird part. Neither John nor James are mentioned in the Book of John, which is traditionally supposed to have been written by this John. Instead there is a recurring cryptic phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved," assumed to be the John who is assumed to be the author of the book of John. Neither assumption has any basis in anything other than speculation and elimination. Why couldn't it have been James or some other unmentioned disciple? John's name has also been paired with the concept of altruistic love as the speculated author of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. Some similarity of style may mean the authors are the same person. However, at no time is any John actually identified as that person.
"The disciple Jesus loved" is found in John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:20. Most of these verses connect this disciple with Peter in some way, just as Acts often connects John with Peter. This may be one reason It is assumed to be John. The book of John also states that when Jesus was dying on the cross, he gave the care of his mother to the disciple he loved. It never says who that was. If John did write the book of John, what of James, John's brother? Would a truly loving person actually cut his close brother out of history?
The book of John ends by saying, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." Um. No. Hello. We don't even know who you are because you haven't actually told us. Why should we trust you?
Read about John
More to come.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
The twelve apostles
Happy New Year! I thought I would take a little detour and look at the twelve apostles in the New Testament before we continue on with Mark.
The twelve apostles and where and when they are clearly located in the bible:
1) *Simon: Mark 1:29-30, Mark 1:36, Luke 4:38, Luke 5:3-5, Luke 5:10 (partner of The sons of Zebedee), Luke 7:40, 43-44, Luke 22:31-32, Luke 24:34, Acts 15:14
*Simon also called Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Matthew 16:16, Matthew 17:25, Mark 3: 16,
Mark 14:37, Luke 5:8, Luke 6:14 , John 1:40-42, John 6:8, John 6:68, John 13:6,9, 24,36, John 18:10,15,25, John 20:2,6, John 21:2, 3,7,11,15, Acts 10:5, 18,19,32, Acts 11:13, 2nd Peter 1:1
*Simon, son of Jonah: Matthew 16:17
*Simon, son of John: John 21:15-17
*Peter: Matthew 8:14, Matthew 14:28-29, Matthew 15:15, Matthew 16:18,22,23, Matthew 17:1,4, 24-26, Matthew 18:21, Matthew 19:27, Matthew 26:33,35,37, 40, 58,69, 73,75, Mark 5:37, Mark 8:29,32,33, Mark 9:2,5, Mark 10:28, Mark 11:21, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:27,29,33,54,66,67,70, 72, Mark 16:7, Luke 8:45,51, Luke 9:20,28, 32,33, Luke 12:41, Luke 18:28, Luke 22:8,34,54,55,58,60, 61, Luke 24:12, John 1:42, 44, (from Bethsaida) John 13:8, 37, John 18:11,16,17,18,26,27, John 20:3, 4, John 21:19-21, Acts 1:13,15, Acts 2:14,37, 38, Acts 3:1,3,4,6,11,12, Acts 4:1,3,7,8,13,19,23, Acts 5:3,8,9,15, 29, Acts 8:14,17,20,25, Acts 9:32,34,38-40,43 Acts 10:9,13,14,16-19, 21,23, 25-27, 34, 44-46, 48, Acts 11:2,4,7, Acts 12:3,5-9,11,13,14,16-18, Acts 15:7, Galatians 1:18, Galatians 2:7,8, 11,14 1st Peter 1:1
*Cephas: John 1:42, 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Cor 3:22, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Cor 15:5, Galatians 2:9
The usage of Cephas exclusively in 1st Corinthians, tempts me to think Cephas may not be the same person as Peter. The author of John 1:42, writing long after Paul, may have assumed they were the same person. Since Cephas seems to mean rock and Peter means small stone, Paul could also have been making a translation, a play on words, or a backhanded insult. What I find fishy is that my NIV has replaced the word Cephas in 1 Corinthians 15:5 and Galatians 2:9 with Peter. Galatians is the only place Paul actually uses the word Peter. This is not the first time I have found the KJV to be more honest, much to my chagrin.
Other mentions of people named Simon: Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 (brother of Jesus), Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3 (Simon the leper), Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26(,Simon of Cyrene), John 6:71, John 13:2, 26(Simon Iscariot, father of Judas), Acts 8:9,13,18, 24(Simon the sorcerer), Acts 9:43, Acts 10:6,17,32,(Simon the tanner)
2) *Andrew brother of Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:16, Luke 6:4, John 1:40-41, John 6:8,
*Andrew: Mark 1:29, Mark 3:18, Mark 13:3, John 1:44 (from Bethsaida), John 12:22, Acts 1:13
Paul makes no mention of Andrew.
Edited to add:
Read about Peter
Read about Andrew
More to come.
The twelve apostles and where and when they are clearly located in the bible:
1) *Simon: Mark 1:29-30, Mark 1:36, Luke 4:38, Luke 5:3-5, Luke 5:10 (partner of The sons of Zebedee), Luke 7:40, 43-44, Luke 22:31-32, Luke 24:34, Acts 15:14
*Simon also called Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Matthew 16:16, Matthew 17:25, Mark 3: 16,
Mark 14:37, Luke 5:8, Luke 6:14 , John 1:40-42, John 6:8, John 6:68, John 13:6,9, 24,36, John 18:10,15,25, John 20:2,6, John 21:2, 3,7,11,15, Acts 10:5, 18,19,32, Acts 11:13, 2nd Peter 1:1
*Simon, son of Jonah: Matthew 16:17
*Simon, son of John: John 21:15-17
*Peter: Matthew 8:14, Matthew 14:28-29, Matthew 15:15, Matthew 16:18,22,23, Matthew 17:1,4, 24-26, Matthew 18:21, Matthew 19:27, Matthew 26:33,35,37, 40, 58,69, 73,75, Mark 5:37, Mark 8:29,32,33, Mark 9:2,5, Mark 10:28, Mark 11:21, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:27,29,33,54,66,67,70, 72, Mark 16:7, Luke 8:45,51, Luke 9:20,28, 32,33, Luke 12:41, Luke 18:28, Luke 22:8,34,54,55,58,60, 61, Luke 24:12, John 1:42, 44, (from Bethsaida) John 13:8, 37, John 18:11,16,17,18,26,27, John 20:3, 4, John 21:19-21, Acts 1:13,15, Acts 2:14,37, 38, Acts 3:1,3,4,6,11,12, Acts 4:1,3,7,8,13,19,23, Acts 5:3,8,9,15, 29, Acts 8:14,17,20,25, Acts 9:32,34,38-40,43 Acts 10:9,13,14,16-19, 21,23, 25-27, 34, 44-46, 48, Acts 11:2,4,7, Acts 12:3,5-9,11,13,14,16-18, Acts 15:7, Galatians 1:18, Galatians 2:7,8, 11,14 1st Peter 1:1
*Cephas: John 1:42, 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Cor 3:22, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Cor 15:5, Galatians 2:9
The usage of Cephas exclusively in 1st Corinthians, tempts me to think Cephas may not be the same person as Peter. The author of John 1:42, writing long after Paul, may have assumed they were the same person. Since Cephas seems to mean rock and Peter means small stone, Paul could also have been making a translation, a play on words, or a backhanded insult. What I find fishy is that my NIV has replaced the word Cephas in 1 Corinthians 15:5 and Galatians 2:9 with Peter. Galatians is the only place Paul actually uses the word Peter. This is not the first time I have found the KJV to be more honest, much to my chagrin.
Other mentions of people named Simon: Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 (brother of Jesus), Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3 (Simon the leper), Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26(,Simon of Cyrene), John 6:71, John 13:2, 26(Simon Iscariot, father of Judas), Acts 8:9,13,18, 24(Simon the sorcerer), Acts 9:43, Acts 10:6,17,32,(Simon the tanner)
2) *Andrew brother of Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:16, Luke 6:4, John 1:40-41, John 6:8,
*Andrew: Mark 1:29, Mark 3:18, Mark 13:3, John 1:44 (from Bethsaida), John 12:22, Acts 1:13
Paul makes no mention of Andrew.
Edited to add:
Read about Peter
Read about Andrew
More to come.
Saturday, December 29, 2018
Mark part five
If we look more closely at the list of the twelve apostles mentioned in Mark chapter three, we see that Levi the tax collector is not mentioned. However, in Matthew 10:3, we are told that Matthew was the tax collector. Are Levi and Matthew the same person as is traditionally said? Let's look at each gospel account.
Mark chapter two says Levi is the "son of Alphaeus" and a tax collector. He follows Jesus. Jesus eats with him. The name Levi is no where else in Mark. In chapter three, Matthew is named as one of the twelve, but Mark does not say Matthew was a tax collector. Matthew is nowhere else in the book of Mark. Oddly enough, The author calls another one of the twelve "James the son of Alphaeus." Were James and Levi brothers? There is no mention of Alphaeus again in the book of Mark.
Matthew chapter 10 mentions Matthew the tax collector and James the son of Alphaeus. Matthew does not mention the name Levi at all in the whole book. He tells the same story of the tax collector, in chapter 9, but uses the name Matthew instead. The author of Matthew does not call the tax collector the son of Alphaeus. Matthew is not mentioned any more in the rest of the book of Matthew, neither is Alphaeus. You would think that if the book of Matthew was actually written by Matthew, he would have injected himself into the story more.
Luke speaks of Levi the tax collector in chapter five. He is not called the son of Alphaeus. Matthew is mentioned as one of the twelve in chapter six, but is not called a tax collector. James the son of Alphaeus is listed as one of the twelve. Alphaeus is not mentioned again in Luke, neither is Levi or Matthew.
Acts chapter one also names the twelve apostles. It does not mention the name Levi. It names Matthew and James, the son of Alphaeus. There is no other mention of Matthew or Alphaeus in Acts. There are no other instances of Levi the tax collector, Matthew, or Alphaeus in the whole rest of the New Testament. Paul does not mention any of them either.
Now let's look at another of the twelve mentioned in Mark 3, Thaddaeus. In the KJV, Matthew 10 says his name was Lebbaeus with the last name of Thaddaeus. The NIV and other translations only say Thaddaeus. Neither Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus are mentioned elsewhere in the bible. Luke 6 lists a "Judas SON of James" in the NIV instead of Thaddaeus, and so does Acts chapter one. The KJV calls this person in Luke and Acts "Judas the BROTHER of James." The Greek actually looks like "Judas of James." It seems that Judas's relationship to James is actually unclear. Most commentaries tend to assume that all these names, Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, and Judas were the same person.
A Judas is also mentioned in Matthew 13:55 as one of the brothers of Jesus. Some people think this Judas is the same person as above and the author of the book of Jude. Though that seems problematic to me, considering Judas and Thaddaeus are supposed to be the same person and Thaddaeus is mentioned in Matthew 10.
A Judas is mentioned once more in John 14:22. This Judas asks Jesus why he will reveal himself to just the apostles and not the whole world. This Judas is also assumed to be the apostle. Paul does not mention any Judas.
Are we confused yet?
Mark chapter two says Levi is the "son of Alphaeus" and a tax collector. He follows Jesus. Jesus eats with him. The name Levi is no where else in Mark. In chapter three, Matthew is named as one of the twelve, but Mark does not say Matthew was a tax collector. Matthew is nowhere else in the book of Mark. Oddly enough, The author calls another one of the twelve "James the son of Alphaeus." Were James and Levi brothers? There is no mention of Alphaeus again in the book of Mark.
Matthew chapter 10 mentions Matthew the tax collector and James the son of Alphaeus. Matthew does not mention the name Levi at all in the whole book. He tells the same story of the tax collector, in chapter 9, but uses the name Matthew instead. The author of Matthew does not call the tax collector the son of Alphaeus. Matthew is not mentioned any more in the rest of the book of Matthew, neither is Alphaeus. You would think that if the book of Matthew was actually written by Matthew, he would have injected himself into the story more.
Luke speaks of Levi the tax collector in chapter five. He is not called the son of Alphaeus. Matthew is mentioned as one of the twelve in chapter six, but is not called a tax collector. James the son of Alphaeus is listed as one of the twelve. Alphaeus is not mentioned again in Luke, neither is Levi or Matthew.
Acts chapter one also names the twelve apostles. It does not mention the name Levi. It names Matthew and James, the son of Alphaeus. There is no other mention of Matthew or Alphaeus in Acts. There are no other instances of Levi the tax collector, Matthew, or Alphaeus in the whole rest of the New Testament. Paul does not mention any of them either.
Now let's look at another of the twelve mentioned in Mark 3, Thaddaeus. In the KJV, Matthew 10 says his name was Lebbaeus with the last name of Thaddaeus. The NIV and other translations only say Thaddaeus. Neither Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus are mentioned elsewhere in the bible. Luke 6 lists a "Judas SON of James" in the NIV instead of Thaddaeus, and so does Acts chapter one. The KJV calls this person in Luke and Acts "Judas the BROTHER of James." The Greek actually looks like "Judas of James." It seems that Judas's relationship to James is actually unclear. Most commentaries tend to assume that all these names, Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, and Judas were the same person.
A Judas is also mentioned in Matthew 13:55 as one of the brothers of Jesus. Some people think this Judas is the same person as above and the author of the book of Jude. Though that seems problematic to me, considering Judas and Thaddaeus are supposed to be the same person and Thaddaeus is mentioned in Matthew 10.
A Judas is mentioned once more in John 14:22. This Judas asks Jesus why he will reveal himself to just the apostles and not the whole world. This Judas is also assumed to be the apostle. Paul does not mention any Judas.
Are we confused yet?
Thursday, December 6, 2018
Resurrection part one
I feel like we need to cover resurrection in the bible as a natural segue to the study of heaven. First I want to note that the word resurrection does not appear at all in the Old Testament. What do you make of that? In the New Testament, the Greek word usually translated resurrection is anastasis, which according to Strong's concordance, means "standing up again" or a literal resurrection from the dead. It can also be used in a figurative sense. We will see how that works as we go through the scriptures.
We first encounter the word resurrection in Matthew 22. Verse 23 tells us that the Jewish sect of the Saducees did not believe in a resurrection. That would make sense, since the Hebrew scriptures do not contain the word. In verse 28, Jesus is asked a trick question about marriage after the resurrection by the Saducees. Jesus replied, "silly Saducees, marriage is not for the resurrected." Instead, Jesus goes on to say, the resurrected dead will have bodies like angels. Jesus's proof of the resurrection is that god said he is the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Since god is not the god of the dead, but the living, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, must be alive. How can they be alive, unless they are resurrected? Gotcha! Does this mean Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were already resurrected, before the final judgment? The book of Revelation skipped that part. Does this mean they were resurrected before Jesus? I thought he was supposed to be the first.
In Matthew 27:51-53, after Jesus died on the cross, there was an earthquake. "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. (Before Jesus?) They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people." Strangely, there is no other record of this extraordinary event.
Mark chapter 12 also tells the story of the Sadducees asking about marriage for the resurrected. So does Luke chapter 20. Luke adds that the resurrected will no longer die and they are god's children. Luke also adds that to god, everyone is alive, which is interesting. If everyone is alive to god, what's the resurrection for?
In Luke 14:13-14, Jesus says, "when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." Did Jesus appeal to empathy and say that all people need to eat and that it's good to feed those less fortunate, because if they were in that situation, the listeners would need food also. No, he did not. Instead, he appealed to their selfishness. They would get a reward from god...eventually.
We are now at John chapter 5. Here we get new resurrection information. Jesus tells the Jews who are persecuting him that he is the son of god the father. Verses 21-22 say, "Just as the father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the son." In Revelation 20:11 is unclear about who s sitting on the throne of judgment. It says things like "he who is seated on the throne." Revelation 22 calls it the throne of god and the lamb, as though the two are melded together.
John 5:24-29 goes on to say, "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (Sounds a bit metaphorical there.) ...a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the son of god and those who hear will live....Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." Wait, no baptism requirement?
More to come.
We first encounter the word resurrection in Matthew 22. Verse 23 tells us that the Jewish sect of the Saducees did not believe in a resurrection. That would make sense, since the Hebrew scriptures do not contain the word. In verse 28, Jesus is asked a trick question about marriage after the resurrection by the Saducees. Jesus replied, "silly Saducees, marriage is not for the resurrected." Instead, Jesus goes on to say, the resurrected dead will have bodies like angels. Jesus's proof of the resurrection is that god said he is the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Since god is not the god of the dead, but the living, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, must be alive. How can they be alive, unless they are resurrected? Gotcha! Does this mean Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were already resurrected, before the final judgment? The book of Revelation skipped that part. Does this mean they were resurrected before Jesus? I thought he was supposed to be the first.
In Matthew 27:51-53, after Jesus died on the cross, there was an earthquake. "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. (Before Jesus?) They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people." Strangely, there is no other record of this extraordinary event.
Mark chapter 12 also tells the story of the Sadducees asking about marriage for the resurrected. So does Luke chapter 20. Luke adds that the resurrected will no longer die and they are god's children. Luke also adds that to god, everyone is alive, which is interesting. If everyone is alive to god, what's the resurrection for?
In Luke 14:13-14, Jesus says, "when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." Did Jesus appeal to empathy and say that all people need to eat and that it's good to feed those less fortunate, because if they were in that situation, the listeners would need food also. No, he did not. Instead, he appealed to their selfishness. They would get a reward from god...eventually.
We are now at John chapter 5. Here we get new resurrection information. Jesus tells the Jews who are persecuting him that he is the son of god the father. Verses 21-22 say, "Just as the father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the son." In Revelation 20:11 is unclear about who s sitting on the throne of judgment. It says things like "he who is seated on the throne." Revelation 22 calls it the throne of god and the lamb, as though the two are melded together.
John 5:24-29 goes on to say, "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (Sounds a bit metaphorical there.) ...a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the son of god and those who hear will live....Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." Wait, no baptism requirement?
More to come.
Thursday, November 8, 2018
Heaven part nine
We are still in Matthew. Matthew 22:1-14 is another parable about the kingdom of heaven. There is a king (god) who prepared a wedding banquet for his son (Jesus?). He sent out servants (prophets) to tell those who had been invited (Jews?) to come. They refused to come and treated the kings servants horribly. The king was furious. He destroyed the city (Jerusalem?) and decided to invite anyone who would come. However, he threw out the people who weren't properly attired in wedding clothes (Baptized?). Even though the king invited everyone, not everyone was chosen to remain at the banquet (heaven?). This was merely for not wearing the proper attire, not for poor behavior.
Matthew 22:30 tells us that "at the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage, they will be like the angels in heaven." Presumably, angels are sexless? Verse 23:22 says, "he who swears by heaven swears by god's throne and by the one who sits on it." Verse 24:36 tells us that not even the angels in heaven know when the end of the age is.
Matthew 25 gives us two more parables about the kingdom of heaven. One is about being ready for the coming of the bridegroom (Jesus?). Another is about giving the master (god) a good return for his investment in you. In Matthew 26:64, Jesus tells the disciples that in the future they will see "the son of man" (Jesus?) sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming on the clouds of heaven. In 28:2, an angel of the lord came down from heaven and rolled the stone away from Jesus's tomb.
Let's move on to Mark, which repeats a lot we've already covered. The spirit comes from heaven in the shape of a dove at Jesus's baptism. Jesus looks up to heaven while praying. The Pharisees ask for a sign from heaven, but there is no snarky answer this time. The kingdom of heaven belongs to child like people. In the afterlife, people will be like the angels in heaven. Not even the angels in heaven know the time of the end of the age. The disciples will see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven. Last, Jesus was taken up into heaven, Mark 16:19, which is an addition. There are very few parables about the kingdom of heaven in Mark.
Next is Luke. There are many of the same uses of heaven as in Matthew and Mark, so I will only cover new ones. In Luke 2:15, angels go to heaven after speaking to shepherds about Jesus's birth. In 6:23, Jesus tells the disciples their reward in heaven will be great if they are mistreated. In 9:54, James and John offer to call fire down from heaven onto a Samaritan town for Jesus. (This is another thing I don't remember reading before.) In 10:20, Jesus tells the disciples not to rejoice because spirits submit to them, but to rejoice that their names are written in heaven. In 15:7, Jesus says there will be more rejoicing in heaven over the sinner who repents than over the 99 who do not need to repent. It pays to be bad so you can reap the benefits of repentance.
In Luke chapter 15 is the story of the prodigal son who is said to have sinned against heaven. Though how you can sin against the sky is a mystery to me. In 21:10, we learn that the end times will include great signs from heaven. In 21:26 one of the signs is the heavenly bodies will be shaken. In 22:43, an angel from heaven appeared to Jesus while he was praying, to give him strength. In 24:51, Jesus was taken up into heaven.
There certainly are a lot of angels in the New Testament. That's enough for today. Next time.
Matthew 22:30 tells us that "at the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage, they will be like the angels in heaven." Presumably, angels are sexless? Verse 23:22 says, "he who swears by heaven swears by god's throne and by the one who sits on it." Verse 24:36 tells us that not even the angels in heaven know when the end of the age is.
Matthew 25 gives us two more parables about the kingdom of heaven. One is about being ready for the coming of the bridegroom (Jesus?). Another is about giving the master (god) a good return for his investment in you. In Matthew 26:64, Jesus tells the disciples that in the future they will see "the son of man" (Jesus?) sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming on the clouds of heaven. In 28:2, an angel of the lord came down from heaven and rolled the stone away from Jesus's tomb.
Let's move on to Mark, which repeats a lot we've already covered. The spirit comes from heaven in the shape of a dove at Jesus's baptism. Jesus looks up to heaven while praying. The Pharisees ask for a sign from heaven, but there is no snarky answer this time. The kingdom of heaven belongs to child like people. In the afterlife, people will be like the angels in heaven. Not even the angels in heaven know the time of the end of the age. The disciples will see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven. Last, Jesus was taken up into heaven, Mark 16:19, which is an addition. There are very few parables about the kingdom of heaven in Mark.
Next is Luke. There are many of the same uses of heaven as in Matthew and Mark, so I will only cover new ones. In Luke 2:15, angels go to heaven after speaking to shepherds about Jesus's birth. In 6:23, Jesus tells the disciples their reward in heaven will be great if they are mistreated. In 9:54, James and John offer to call fire down from heaven onto a Samaritan town for Jesus. (This is another thing I don't remember reading before.) In 10:20, Jesus tells the disciples not to rejoice because spirits submit to them, but to rejoice that their names are written in heaven. In 15:7, Jesus says there will be more rejoicing in heaven over the sinner who repents than over the 99 who do not need to repent. It pays to be bad so you can reap the benefits of repentance.
In Luke chapter 15 is the story of the prodigal son who is said to have sinned against heaven. Though how you can sin against the sky is a mystery to me. In 21:10, we learn that the end times will include great signs from heaven. In 21:26 one of the signs is the heavenly bodies will be shaken. In 22:43, an angel from heaven appeared to Jesus while he was praying, to give him strength. In 24:51, Jesus was taken up into heaven.
There certainly are a lot of angels in the New Testament. That's enough for today. Next time.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
Sermon on the mount, part eleven
We will take a quick look at the sermon in Luke (6:20-49) that is similar to Matthew's sermon on the mount. The location of the sermon is quite similar, yet worded differently. As in Matthew, Luke's sermon begins with some "blessed are" phrases. Again, they are similar, but worded differently. They are different enough to actually have different meanings. Luke goes on to parallel his blessings with curses, in "woe unto" statements. These do not appear in Matthew.
Luke's sermon is significantly shorter than the one in Matthew. All the remaining passages of Luke's sermon, after the blessings and woes, are found in Matthew. These include the sections on loving enemies, not judging, bearing good fruit, and the wise man built his house upon a rock. The order of the passages and the order of the phrases in the passages are not exactly the same in all details, but close enough. Both Matthew's and Luke's sermons end with the parable of the wise and foolish men.
Much of the extra material in Matthew's sermon is found in other random parts of Luke, some is not. Matthew's sermon appears to be well structured and logical in sequence. Jesus goes into detail about how to be more righteous than the pharisees by going one step further. Luke's beatitudes have a unique structure, but also appear well thought out. The rest of Luke's sermon is quite condensed, with no sense that Jesus is trying to preserve the law of Moses. In Luke, Jesus gives only one "do not." Luke's author seems more concerned with how the disciples actually treat other people than with what they are thinking. In his sermon, Matthew addresses religious acts of praying, giving, and fasting. Luke only addresses giving in his version.
After the sermon in the mount, both books have Jesus encounter a centurion with a sick servant. It seems clear to me that Matthew's and Luke's timetables are the same. So, why the discrepancies in the two accounts? Which one came first? Obviously, they were written by two different people. Neither author is known to history. Matthew's book might appeal more to a Jewish audience, since he focuses on the law and the prophets and Luke doesn't. If we were to take the sermon as the core of Jesus's message, would we get the same impressions from each? Suppose I had only one story, and someone else had the other, would we have the same religion? If I were to take the stories literally, how could I justify the discrepancies?
I was going back over both sermons to see if I missed anything, and I noticed something about how Jesus referred to himself. In Matthew's sermon, Jesus says, "blessed are you when people (insult, persecute, and slander) you because of Me. Luke's sermon has has Jesus saying, "blessed are you when men (hate, exclude, insult) you because of the Son of Man.
In Matthew, Jesus says he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. He does not say so in Luke. In Matthew, Jesus gives examples of things that were said to "the people long ago." He follows each example with "but I tell you," setting himself up as an authority greater than the traditions of the Israelites. He does not do that in Luke's version. In Matthew, Jesus also says "I tell you the truth" multiple times, implying either that other people did not tell the listeners the truth or that some have called Jesus a liar. Luke's version does not include this phrase.
In Matthew, Jesus says, "not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven." He then implies that people will perform miracles in his name. "Lord" here is kyrie in the greek, which has the root kurios, and means master. It is a title of respect and authority. Matthew uses passive future tense language in this passage, but Luke is more direct and present tense. His version says, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?" Christianity often presents this statement as something god will say to all humans in the judgment. Luke presents it as a rhetorical question Jesus said to the disciples that day.
That ends my look at the sermon on the mount. Over the next few posts, I will tell you about my journey through and out of religion.
Luke's sermon is significantly shorter than the one in Matthew. All the remaining passages of Luke's sermon, after the blessings and woes, are found in Matthew. These include the sections on loving enemies, not judging, bearing good fruit, and the wise man built his house upon a rock. The order of the passages and the order of the phrases in the passages are not exactly the same in all details, but close enough. Both Matthew's and Luke's sermons end with the parable of the wise and foolish men.
Much of the extra material in Matthew's sermon is found in other random parts of Luke, some is not. Matthew's sermon appears to be well structured and logical in sequence. Jesus goes into detail about how to be more righteous than the pharisees by going one step further. Luke's beatitudes have a unique structure, but also appear well thought out. The rest of Luke's sermon is quite condensed, with no sense that Jesus is trying to preserve the law of Moses. In Luke, Jesus gives only one "do not." Luke's author seems more concerned with how the disciples actually treat other people than with what they are thinking. In his sermon, Matthew addresses religious acts of praying, giving, and fasting. Luke only addresses giving in his version.
After the sermon in the mount, both books have Jesus encounter a centurion with a sick servant. It seems clear to me that Matthew's and Luke's timetables are the same. So, why the discrepancies in the two accounts? Which one came first? Obviously, they were written by two different people. Neither author is known to history. Matthew's book might appeal more to a Jewish audience, since he focuses on the law and the prophets and Luke doesn't. If we were to take the sermon as the core of Jesus's message, would we get the same impressions from each? Suppose I had only one story, and someone else had the other, would we have the same religion? If I were to take the stories literally, how could I justify the discrepancies?
I was going back over both sermons to see if I missed anything, and I noticed something about how Jesus referred to himself. In Matthew's sermon, Jesus says, "blessed are you when people (insult, persecute, and slander) you because of Me. Luke's sermon has has Jesus saying, "blessed are you when men (hate, exclude, insult) you because of the Son of Man.
In Matthew, Jesus says he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. He does not say so in Luke. In Matthew, Jesus gives examples of things that were said to "the people long ago." He follows each example with "but I tell you," setting himself up as an authority greater than the traditions of the Israelites. He does not do that in Luke's version. In Matthew, Jesus also says "I tell you the truth" multiple times, implying either that other people did not tell the listeners the truth or that some have called Jesus a liar. Luke's version does not include this phrase.
In Matthew, Jesus says, "not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven." He then implies that people will perform miracles in his name. "Lord" here is kyrie in the greek, which has the root kurios, and means master. It is a title of respect and authority. Matthew uses passive future tense language in this passage, but Luke is more direct and present tense. His version says, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?" Christianity often presents this statement as something god will say to all humans in the judgment. Luke presents it as a rhetorical question Jesus said to the disciples that day.
That ends my look at the sermon on the mount. Over the next few posts, I will tell you about my journey through and out of religion.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
Sermon on the mount, part ten
The next section of Matthew's version of the sermon is 7:15-21. There Matthew tells the disciples to watch out for false prophets. Then he gives multiple metaphors that boil down to "By their fruit you will recognize them." That's not very specific is it? Jesus does not explain how to tell the the difference between bad fruit and good fruit. However, since this passage was written decades after Jesus's death, and there were probably already a few versions of Christianity put out by other prophets, I'm guessing the author has something in mind. This sentiment is also found in Luke's version of the sermon, 6:43-45
Verses 21-23 tell us not everyone will get into the kingdom of heaven, even some of those who prophesy, drive out demons, and perform miracles in Jesus's name. Then who will, pray tell. Verses 24-27 tell us that it is everyone who hears these words of Jesus (in the sermon) and puts them into practice. That person will be like the wise man who built his house upon a rock. Do you know the song? The wise man is also found in Luke's version, 6:46-49
That is the end of Matthew's version of the sermon on the mount. So what are the concrete, specific things that Jesus said in Matthew's version of the sermon that could actually be put into practice?
*Rejoice when being persecuted because of Jesus. Verse 5:12
*Be more righteous than the pharisees, by....
Not insulting your brother
Reconciling differences before making offerings
Settle matters quickly with those who are suing you
Do not lust after women
Do not divorce except for marital unfaithfulness
Do not swear oaths (make cross your heart hope to die promises, oops we skipped that)
Turn the other cheek
Do not resist an evil person
Give to anyone who asks
Love your enemies
Pray for those who persecute you
Be perfect (whoa!)
Give in secret
Pray in private
Keep your prayers short and to the point
Do not advertise your fasting
Do not store up treasures on earth
Do not worry about food, drink, or clothing
Do not worry about tomorrow
Do not judge
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
The people who do these things are the ones Jesus was talking about. They are the ones who will get into that kingdom of heaven by the small gate and the narrow road. They are building their houses on rock, not sand. How many Christians do you know that do ALL these things? Forget all, how many do you know that are perfect? How many do you think will get into the kingdom of heaven?
How many of those things are actually of practical use for day to day living, if there is no god? Maybe six. The most practical, of course, is do unto others as you would have others do unto you, or the so called golden rule. But Jesus wasn't the only person in history to give us a version of that principle.
Verses 21-23 tell us not everyone will get into the kingdom of heaven, even some of those who prophesy, drive out demons, and perform miracles in Jesus's name. Then who will, pray tell. Verses 24-27 tell us that it is everyone who hears these words of Jesus (in the sermon) and puts them into practice. That person will be like the wise man who built his house upon a rock. Do you know the song? The wise man is also found in Luke's version, 6:46-49
That is the end of Matthew's version of the sermon on the mount. So what are the concrete, specific things that Jesus said in Matthew's version of the sermon that could actually be put into practice?
*Rejoice when being persecuted because of Jesus. Verse 5:12
*Be more righteous than the pharisees, by....
Not insulting your brother
Reconciling differences before making offerings
Settle matters quickly with those who are suing you
Do not lust after women
Do not divorce except for marital unfaithfulness
Do not swear oaths (make cross your heart hope to die promises, oops we skipped that)
Turn the other cheek
Do not resist an evil person
Give to anyone who asks
Love your enemies
Pray for those who persecute you
Be perfect (whoa!)
Give in secret
Pray in private
Keep your prayers short and to the point
Do not advertise your fasting
Do not store up treasures on earth
Do not worry about food, drink, or clothing
Do not worry about tomorrow
Do not judge
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
The people who do these things are the ones Jesus was talking about. They are the ones who will get into that kingdom of heaven by the small gate and the narrow road. They are building their houses on rock, not sand. How many Christians do you know that do ALL these things? Forget all, how many do you know that are perfect? How many do you think will get into the kingdom of heaven?
How many of those things are actually of practical use for day to day living, if there is no god? Maybe six. The most practical, of course, is do unto others as you would have others do unto you, or the so called golden rule. But Jesus wasn't the only person in history to give us a version of that principle.
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Sermon on the mount, part nine
Continuing on with the "do nots" in Matthew's version of the sermon:
Matt. 7:1-5, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged..." Seems pretty clear. The passage continues on to talk metaphorically about how hypocritical it is to judge when you also have issues. "First take the plank out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
This passage is repeated in Luke's version sermon (Luke 6:37-42) but with modifications and additions. After saying do not judge, Jesus goes on to say "Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." This actually sounds quite lovely, a kind of divine karma, the root of the prosperity gospel. Too bad it doesn't always work. Very often, people don't get good for good. I don't think that means we shouldn't do good and give to those in need. We just shouldn't expect to reap a windfall from our charitable deeds. Be good for goodness sake. Collective goodness makes the world a more pleasant place.
Matt. 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls before pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." (This is not found in Luke) What in the world does Jesus mean here? My study bible commentary says that it is connected to the "do not judge" because you can judge whether a person is a "dog" or not by their character. You just can't be hypocritical about it. Personally, I think Jesus's "brother" in the judge not passage is a fellow Jew. In my opinion, dogs and pigs are metaphorically representative of Samaritans and gentiles. Later, in Chapter 15, Matthew recounts a story of a Canaanite woman who asked Jesus for help. He basically called her a dog, but he ended up helping her because he liked her sassy reply. Actually, this "do not" passage, with the dogs and pigs, does not seem to fit the rest of the sermon's theme and style.
Matt. 7:7-12, there are no more "do nots." Now Jesus tells his disciples to "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." Wow! That's quite a promise. And it doesn't appear to come with any caveats. In fact Jesus goes on to say that god will give good gifts to those who ask him. That is the reason given for doing to others what you would have them do unto you. God does it, so should you. Again, prosperity gospel preaching. No conditions given.
This passage is repeated in Luke 11:9-13. (Not in the sermon) However, it is at the end of a parable about a man who needs something from a friend but the friend is in bed and his door is locked. The man is bold and persistent and gets what he needs. This is shown to be a metaphor for how a person should ask god for things. It makes a lot more sense in Luke's context.
Matt. 7:13-14, gives us the wide gate and broad road to destruction, and a small gate for the narrow road that leads to life. Only a few will find it. This comes after telling us how generous god is. Apparently he is not generous enough to keep all of humanity from destruction. In Luke 13:24, Jesus speaks of a narrow door into the house of salvation. There is also an interesting passage in Isaiah 35:8-10 that talks of a "highway of holiness." Maybe Matthew got the idea from that.
Matt. 7:1-5, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged..." Seems pretty clear. The passage continues on to talk metaphorically about how hypocritical it is to judge when you also have issues. "First take the plank out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
This passage is repeated in Luke's version sermon (Luke 6:37-42) but with modifications and additions. After saying do not judge, Jesus goes on to say "Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." This actually sounds quite lovely, a kind of divine karma, the root of the prosperity gospel. Too bad it doesn't always work. Very often, people don't get good for good. I don't think that means we shouldn't do good and give to those in need. We just shouldn't expect to reap a windfall from our charitable deeds. Be good for goodness sake. Collective goodness makes the world a more pleasant place.
Matt. 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls before pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." (This is not found in Luke) What in the world does Jesus mean here? My study bible commentary says that it is connected to the "do not judge" because you can judge whether a person is a "dog" or not by their character. You just can't be hypocritical about it. Personally, I think Jesus's "brother" in the judge not passage is a fellow Jew. In my opinion, dogs and pigs are metaphorically representative of Samaritans and gentiles. Later, in Chapter 15, Matthew recounts a story of a Canaanite woman who asked Jesus for help. He basically called her a dog, but he ended up helping her because he liked her sassy reply. Actually, this "do not" passage, with the dogs and pigs, does not seem to fit the rest of the sermon's theme and style.
Matt. 7:7-12, there are no more "do nots." Now Jesus tells his disciples to "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." Wow! That's quite a promise. And it doesn't appear to come with any caveats. In fact Jesus goes on to say that god will give good gifts to those who ask him. That is the reason given for doing to others what you would have them do unto you. God does it, so should you. Again, prosperity gospel preaching. No conditions given.
This passage is repeated in Luke 11:9-13. (Not in the sermon) However, it is at the end of a parable about a man who needs something from a friend but the friend is in bed and his door is locked. The man is bold and persistent and gets what he needs. This is shown to be a metaphor for how a person should ask god for things. It makes a lot more sense in Luke's context.
Matt. 7:13-14, gives us the wide gate and broad road to destruction, and a small gate for the narrow road that leads to life. Only a few will find it. This comes after telling us how generous god is. Apparently he is not generous enough to keep all of humanity from destruction. In Luke 13:24, Jesus speaks of a narrow door into the house of salvation. There is also an interesting passage in Isaiah 35:8-10 that talks of a "highway of holiness." Maybe Matthew got the idea from that.
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Sermon on the mount, part eight
Continuing on with the "do nots" in the book of Matthew:
*6:25-33 Do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or what you will wear. God knows what you need. If you seek his kingdom first, he will take care of you. "These things will be given to you." This is horrible advice. First of all because it is not true. There is no invisible being in the sky making sure you have everything you need. Things like food and clothing don't just happen. Plenty of religious people live without adequate food and clothing, including children, who are dependant on adults. Food and clothing are the result of someone's labor. Money represents human hours of labor. If you don't think about how you can either make or pay for the things you need, you won't have them, unless you steal or live off the generosity of others. If you do that on purpose, you are a sponger. Many evangelists, missionaries, and monks, are professional spongers. (Not all)
Part of Jesus's reasoning is that birds don't need to worry about their food and flowers don't need to worry about what they will wear. God takes care of them. No he doesn't. Birds and flowers are a natural part of earth's interconnected evolved ecosystem. Humans have developed ways to transcend and exploit the ecosystem. Birds and flowers die daily from disease, drought, and being eaten. Have you ever watched a bird feeding its young, or seen one that was angry or frightened? Birds are not carefree. Of course flowers are worry free. They have no consciousness! Every conscious being concerns itself over its next meal. That's how they stay alive.
This passage is repeated in Luke 12:22-31, which is not part of Luke's similar sermon.
*Matt. 6:34 "Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." This ends the above passage about clothing and food. It too is a bad idea, especially in the modern world. We need to think and plan for the future, unless we want to be homeless. Some translations have anxious in place of worry, which gives the passage a different connotation. Anxiety is often unproductive. However, caring what happens to you is not the same as debilitating anxiety. It motivates you to accomplish things.
Luke ends the similar passage differently. (12:32-34) He says, "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted..." If you want to sell your possessions and give to the poor, fine. Just don't make yourself become someone that other people must support. There won't be any treasures in any afterlife. Besides, what would you do with treasure in heaven? If it is physical, you won't need it. If it is "spiritual" what will you do with it? Maybe the treasure is heaven itself? In that case, I would need to be convinced that such a place exists and that I would want to be there.
I find it interesting that my study bible claims Jesus is only talking about undue anxiety, not a legitimate concern to provide for one's daily needs. This is something I hear echoed in church. However, Jesus did not say, "It's totally okay to be a little concerned about your daily needs, just not a lot." Did he? How much concern is too much? Also, Paul, who wrote his letters earlier than Matthew and Luke were written , was concerned when people were not willing to work for their subsistence. (2Thessalonians 3:6-12) It's also interesting that Paul doesn't seem to have been aware of most of Jesus's teachings.
*6:25-33 Do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or what you will wear. God knows what you need. If you seek his kingdom first, he will take care of you. "These things will be given to you." This is horrible advice. First of all because it is not true. There is no invisible being in the sky making sure you have everything you need. Things like food and clothing don't just happen. Plenty of religious people live without adequate food and clothing, including children, who are dependant on adults. Food and clothing are the result of someone's labor. Money represents human hours of labor. If you don't think about how you can either make or pay for the things you need, you won't have them, unless you steal or live off the generosity of others. If you do that on purpose, you are a sponger. Many evangelists, missionaries, and monks, are professional spongers. (Not all)
Part of Jesus's reasoning is that birds don't need to worry about their food and flowers don't need to worry about what they will wear. God takes care of them. No he doesn't. Birds and flowers are a natural part of earth's interconnected evolved ecosystem. Humans have developed ways to transcend and exploit the ecosystem. Birds and flowers die daily from disease, drought, and being eaten. Have you ever watched a bird feeding its young, or seen one that was angry or frightened? Birds are not carefree. Of course flowers are worry free. They have no consciousness! Every conscious being concerns itself over its next meal. That's how they stay alive.
This passage is repeated in Luke 12:22-31, which is not part of Luke's similar sermon.
*Matt. 6:34 "Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." This ends the above passage about clothing and food. It too is a bad idea, especially in the modern world. We need to think and plan for the future, unless we want to be homeless. Some translations have anxious in place of worry, which gives the passage a different connotation. Anxiety is often unproductive. However, caring what happens to you is not the same as debilitating anxiety. It motivates you to accomplish things.
Luke ends the similar passage differently. (12:32-34) He says, "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted..." If you want to sell your possessions and give to the poor, fine. Just don't make yourself become someone that other people must support. There won't be any treasures in any afterlife. Besides, what would you do with treasure in heaven? If it is physical, you won't need it. If it is "spiritual" what will you do with it? Maybe the treasure is heaven itself? In that case, I would need to be convinced that such a place exists and that I would want to be there.
I find it interesting that my study bible claims Jesus is only talking about undue anxiety, not a legitimate concern to provide for one's daily needs. This is something I hear echoed in church. However, Jesus did not say, "It's totally okay to be a little concerned about your daily needs, just not a lot." Did he? How much concern is too much? Also, Paul, who wrote his letters earlier than Matthew and Luke were written , was concerned when people were not willing to work for their subsistence. (2Thessalonians 3:6-12) It's also interesting that Paul doesn't seem to have been aware of most of Jesus's teachings.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Sermon on the mount, part seven
Next in Matthew's sermon on the mount, Jesus gives his followers a list of "do nots."
6:1- Do not do acts of righteousness publicly, in order to be noticed. You get NO rewards from god if you do that. This encompasses a few of the following do nots as well.
6:2-4 Do not publicly announce your charitable acts, so you can be honored. Don't make a show of helping the needy. Give in secret. Then god who sees what is done in secret will reward you. How many Christians follow this command? This is not found in Luke.
6:5-6 Do not pray publicly, to be seen. Go into a room and pray to god who is unseen. The god who sees what is done in secret will reward you. This command of Jesus is broken daily by Christians all over the world. This is not found in Luke, or anywhere else.
6:7-15 Do not babble on and on when you pray. Make it short and sweet. (We all know this one is often ignored.) God already knows what you need. Then Jesus gives them an example prayer which has become known as "The Lord's prayer." The prayer is also found in Luke 11:2-4, in a totally different context. It is also worded differently. It does not say "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." It also does not say "deliver us from the evil one." Prayer is useless. There is no virtue in praying.
6:16-18 Do not act like a gloomy Gus when you are fasting. Act normal. No one needs to know. God who sees what is done in secret will reward you. (Listen closely all you public observers of Lent.) This is not found in Luke. Fasting is unnecessary, unless it is for medical reasons. It Is not a virtue.
6:19-24 Do not accumulate wealth or possessions. Those things don't last. Store up everlasting treasures in heaven. "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also....You cannot serve both god and money." Part of this is echoed in Luke 16:13, in a totally different context. "No servant can serve two masters...You cannot serve both god and money." Does Joel Osteen know? Seriously, there are so many popular preachers who are wealthy that it's ridiculous. Some tele-preacher guy asked his congregation to give him money to buy an airplane! So he can serve the lord, of course.
It is interesting to note that my study bible has a foot note on this passage that says the New Testament is full of verses about the dangers of being wealthy. Then it gives a list of them. After that, it says "Nowhere are they (riches) condemned in and of themselves. What Jesus condemns here is greed and hoarding of money." This is what I have heard preached so many times. It's not the money that's the problem it's the "heart." You can be rich, just don't be greedy. Those bible editors know which side their bread is buttered on. But is that what Jesus actually teaches? Where does he say, "Don't get me wrong, it's totally okay to be wealthy, if you've got the right attitude?" In Luke's sermon on the mount, (6:24) Jesus says, "woe unto you who are rich." Luke 18 and Mark 10 both tell the same story of a wealthy man who Jesus told to give all his wealth to the poor. This made the man sad. Then Jesus said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. However, he later adds that what is impossible with men is possible with god. This is the part that Christians grab hold of. See! It's not impossible, just hard. God can get us to heaven, even if we are wealthy. How much wealth is too much?
As an atheist, I am conflicted about these teachings. Clearly most Christians are hypocrites when it comes to following Jesus's teachings here, but how useful are the teachings in real life? I don't think virtue comes from poverty or wealth. I think how you treat others says more about you than what you believe, and wealth can be used to help a lot of people. It also sets a good example when others see you giving freely, or lavishly as many celebrities do. Sure, they often get publicity and honors, but they also give a lot of people pleasure from their acts of generosity. I find myself unwilling to cast judgment on people like Oprah and Bill Gates. What would I do in their shoes? I don't know. What I do know is that, no matter what, any benefits, rewards, or punishments, I get will be here on earth, not in a nonexistent afterlife.
6:1- Do not do acts of righteousness publicly, in order to be noticed. You get NO rewards from god if you do that. This encompasses a few of the following do nots as well.
6:2-4 Do not publicly announce your charitable acts, so you can be honored. Don't make a show of helping the needy. Give in secret. Then god who sees what is done in secret will reward you. How many Christians follow this command? This is not found in Luke.
6:5-6 Do not pray publicly, to be seen. Go into a room and pray to god who is unseen. The god who sees what is done in secret will reward you. This command of Jesus is broken daily by Christians all over the world. This is not found in Luke, or anywhere else.
6:7-15 Do not babble on and on when you pray. Make it short and sweet. (We all know this one is often ignored.) God already knows what you need. Then Jesus gives them an example prayer which has become known as "The Lord's prayer." The prayer is also found in Luke 11:2-4, in a totally different context. It is also worded differently. It does not say "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." It also does not say "deliver us from the evil one." Prayer is useless. There is no virtue in praying.
6:16-18 Do not act like a gloomy Gus when you are fasting. Act normal. No one needs to know. God who sees what is done in secret will reward you. (Listen closely all you public observers of Lent.) This is not found in Luke. Fasting is unnecessary, unless it is for medical reasons. It Is not a virtue.
6:19-24 Do not accumulate wealth or possessions. Those things don't last. Store up everlasting treasures in heaven. "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also....You cannot serve both god and money." Part of this is echoed in Luke 16:13, in a totally different context. "No servant can serve two masters...You cannot serve both god and money." Does Joel Osteen know? Seriously, there are so many popular preachers who are wealthy that it's ridiculous. Some tele-preacher guy asked his congregation to give him money to buy an airplane! So he can serve the lord, of course.
It is interesting to note that my study bible has a foot note on this passage that says the New Testament is full of verses about the dangers of being wealthy. Then it gives a list of them. After that, it says "Nowhere are they (riches) condemned in and of themselves. What Jesus condemns here is greed and hoarding of money." This is what I have heard preached so many times. It's not the money that's the problem it's the "heart." You can be rich, just don't be greedy. Those bible editors know which side their bread is buttered on. But is that what Jesus actually teaches? Where does he say, "Don't get me wrong, it's totally okay to be wealthy, if you've got the right attitude?" In Luke's sermon on the mount, (6:24) Jesus says, "woe unto you who are rich." Luke 18 and Mark 10 both tell the same story of a wealthy man who Jesus told to give all his wealth to the poor. This made the man sad. Then Jesus said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. However, he later adds that what is impossible with men is possible with god. This is the part that Christians grab hold of. See! It's not impossible, just hard. God can get us to heaven, even if we are wealthy. How much wealth is too much?
As an atheist, I am conflicted about these teachings. Clearly most Christians are hypocrites when it comes to following Jesus's teachings here, but how useful are the teachings in real life? I don't think virtue comes from poverty or wealth. I think how you treat others says more about you than what you believe, and wealth can be used to help a lot of people. It also sets a good example when others see you giving freely, or lavishly as many celebrities do. Sure, they often get publicity and honors, but they also give a lot of people pleasure from their acts of generosity. I find myself unwilling to cast judgment on people like Oprah and Bill Gates. What would I do in their shoes? I don't know. What I do know is that, no matter what, any benefits, rewards, or punishments, I get will be here on earth, not in a nonexistent afterlife.
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
Sermon on the mount, part six
We continue on with Jesus outlining how to be more righteous than the pharisees, in the sermon on the mount.
In Matthew 5:38, Jesus refers to the Exodus 21:23-25 command from Moses, god's proxy, to take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, when injury occurs from fighting, basically instating and permitting blood feud. However, Jesus says not to resist an evil person. "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Is Jesus saying the law was wrong? His suggestion here is diametrically opposed to what is seen in Exodus, not just an extension of its principles. My personal opinion is that this teaching was contrived to keep its listeners/readers out of trouble with their Roman overseers or their slave masters. He is advocating non-resistance, as is seen in the next couple of statements which tell his followers to give up their possessions to those who ask for them with or without implied force. It is basically a survival strategy. Also, this teaching of Jesus's advocates complete non-resistance and "going the extra mile" or giving more than what is asked of you. Make no mistake, this is not the passive resistance or civil disobedience of Ghandi and MLK. Are most Christians today practicing this kind of nonresistance?
In 5:43, Jesus goes on to discuss a saying of "love your neighbor and hate your enemy." This combination is not actually found in the Old Testament scriptures. There is absolutely no command to "hate your enemy." However, many times in the OT scriptures, the Israelites were encouraged to do horrible things to the so called enemies of god, who became their enemies as well. Leviticus 19:18 does say, "Love your neighbor as yourself." However, in that context the neighbor appears to be a fellow Israelite. In Mark 12:31, Jesus says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the second greatest commandment. In Luke 10:27-28, Jesus agrees with a man who says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is one of the things you must do to inherit eternal life, even though eternal life is not mentioned as a reward in the Old Testament.
In 5:44-47, Jesus continues, saying that not only must you not hate your enemies, you must also love them and pray for them. It is not anything special to only love those who love you. This sentiment, along with turning the other cheek and giving more than asked for, is echoed in the Luke sermon (6:27-36) However, Luke puts everything in a different order and adds, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Matthew ends the how to be more righteous passages with Jesus saying, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect." Luke ends the one similar passage with Jesus saying, if you do these things "You will be sons of the most high, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful as your father is merciful." But is that true? Is the god of the bible perfect? Is he kind to the ungrateful and wicked? Is he merciful? Since when?
Let's do a thought experiment. As a general rule, what do you think would happen to you and your life if you gave over every single thing that was asked of you, and more, without question or resistance, without expectation of repayment? Do you actually know anyone who does this? The only example I can think of is the sister of Corrie Ten Boom in The Hiding Place. She ended up in a Nazi gas chamber.
In Matthew 5:38, Jesus refers to the Exodus 21:23-25 command from Moses, god's proxy, to take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, when injury occurs from fighting, basically instating and permitting blood feud. However, Jesus says not to resist an evil person. "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Is Jesus saying the law was wrong? His suggestion here is diametrically opposed to what is seen in Exodus, not just an extension of its principles. My personal opinion is that this teaching was contrived to keep its listeners/readers out of trouble with their Roman overseers or their slave masters. He is advocating non-resistance, as is seen in the next couple of statements which tell his followers to give up their possessions to those who ask for them with or without implied force. It is basically a survival strategy. Also, this teaching of Jesus's advocates complete non-resistance and "going the extra mile" or giving more than what is asked of you. Make no mistake, this is not the passive resistance or civil disobedience of Ghandi and MLK. Are most Christians today practicing this kind of nonresistance?
In 5:43, Jesus goes on to discuss a saying of "love your neighbor and hate your enemy." This combination is not actually found in the Old Testament scriptures. There is absolutely no command to "hate your enemy." However, many times in the OT scriptures, the Israelites were encouraged to do horrible things to the so called enemies of god, who became their enemies as well. Leviticus 19:18 does say, "Love your neighbor as yourself." However, in that context the neighbor appears to be a fellow Israelite. In Mark 12:31, Jesus says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the second greatest commandment. In Luke 10:27-28, Jesus agrees with a man who says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is one of the things you must do to inherit eternal life, even though eternal life is not mentioned as a reward in the Old Testament.
In 5:44-47, Jesus continues, saying that not only must you not hate your enemies, you must also love them and pray for them. It is not anything special to only love those who love you. This sentiment, along with turning the other cheek and giving more than asked for, is echoed in the Luke sermon (6:27-36) However, Luke puts everything in a different order and adds, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Matthew ends the how to be more righteous passages with Jesus saying, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect." Luke ends the one similar passage with Jesus saying, if you do these things "You will be sons of the most high, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful as your father is merciful." But is that true? Is the god of the bible perfect? Is he kind to the ungrateful and wicked? Is he merciful? Since when?
Let's do a thought experiment. As a general rule, what do you think would happen to you and your life if you gave over every single thing that was asked of you, and more, without question or resistance, without expectation of repayment? Do you actually know anyone who does this? The only example I can think of is the sister of Corrie Ten Boom in The Hiding Place. She ended up in a Nazi gas chamber.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
The sermon on the mount, part five
After telling his disciples to be more righteous than the pharisees, who make a point of obeying the law, Jesus explains how to do that by going one step further. He also covers some points of law that are not included in the ten commandments, but are found in the broader context of the many rules and regulations god supposedly gave to Moses, apart from the ones carved in stone. He starts with a point of law, then expands the requirements necessary to avoid hell/damnation.
*First (Matt. 5:21-22), is murder, found in the ten commandments. Not murdering anyone is not enough though. You also must not get angry with anyone (some manuscripts say without cause, a little loophole.) or face judgement. This is not found in Luke.
*Second, saying "raca" (Apparently a grievous insult that insinuates someone has nothing between their ears) to anyone can land you in front of the sanhedrin, the Jewish court. However, Jesus says even calling someone a fool, presumably a lesser offense, can land you in the fires of hell (gehenna). This is not found in Luke.
*Third, it's not enough to give a sacrificial gift to god, you must first go and make sure you correct any relationship issues first. Wise advice. After that, you won't even need to go make your sacrifice. Not found in Luke.
*Fourth is practical advice to settle monetary disputes out of court if you don't want to end up in jail. Not found in Luke.
*Fifth is adultery, found in the ten commandments. It is not enough to never commit adultery physically. A man must also never look at a woman (presumably one he is not married to) lustfully. This is deemed equivalent to the actual act of adultery. It occurs in the "heart" instead of the body. The body, however, seems to take the blame. A man would be better off without eyes than to look, lust, and land in hell. He would also be better off without his right hand, too. What's his hand got to do with it? Shall we read between the lines? Have you noticed yet that these these teachings are directed primarily at men? This is not found in Luke.
*Sixth is divorce. Jesus says "It has been said, anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce." The old testament law doesn't actually say that. It is what the Jews came up with from reading Deuteronomy 24:1-2. It says, "IF a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her (basically he thinks she was not a virgin Deut 22:12-14), let him write her a certificate of divorce, give it to her and sends her from his house, and after she leaves his house if she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband....writes a certificate of divorce...the first husband is not allowed to marry her again....That would be detestable in the eyes of the lord." There is no command to give certificates of divorce, unless you want to quibble with semantics, but there is an inference that certificates of divorce are the standard procedure.
Anyway, Jesus says in Matt. 5:31-32 that anyone who divorces his wife , except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This is echoed in Luke 16:18, but is not part of the comparable sermon. There, it is more of an afterthought stuck in between two parables. Matthew reapeats himself in 19:7 and Mark also chimes in with similar words in Mark 10:4. Those last two references are in a context of Jesus having a discussion about divorce. We will not go into a broad discussion of divorce here. The basic idea is any man is an adulterer if he marries a divorced woman, and a divorced woman is an adulterer no matter who she marries. There are no guidelines for a woman who wants to divorce her husband.
More to come.
*First (Matt. 5:21-22), is murder, found in the ten commandments. Not murdering anyone is not enough though. You also must not get angry with anyone (some manuscripts say without cause, a little loophole.) or face judgement. This is not found in Luke.
*Second, saying "raca" (Apparently a grievous insult that insinuates someone has nothing between their ears) to anyone can land you in front of the sanhedrin, the Jewish court. However, Jesus says even calling someone a fool, presumably a lesser offense, can land you in the fires of hell (gehenna). This is not found in Luke.
*Third, it's not enough to give a sacrificial gift to god, you must first go and make sure you correct any relationship issues first. Wise advice. After that, you won't even need to go make your sacrifice. Not found in Luke.
*Fourth is practical advice to settle monetary disputes out of court if you don't want to end up in jail. Not found in Luke.
*Fifth is adultery, found in the ten commandments. It is not enough to never commit adultery physically. A man must also never look at a woman (presumably one he is not married to) lustfully. This is deemed equivalent to the actual act of adultery. It occurs in the "heart" instead of the body. The body, however, seems to take the blame. A man would be better off without eyes than to look, lust, and land in hell. He would also be better off without his right hand, too. What's his hand got to do with it? Shall we read between the lines? Have you noticed yet that these these teachings are directed primarily at men? This is not found in Luke.
*Sixth is divorce. Jesus says "It has been said, anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce." The old testament law doesn't actually say that. It is what the Jews came up with from reading Deuteronomy 24:1-2. It says, "IF a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her (basically he thinks she was not a virgin Deut 22:12-14), let him write her a certificate of divorce, give it to her and sends her from his house, and after she leaves his house if she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband....writes a certificate of divorce...the first husband is not allowed to marry her again....That would be detestable in the eyes of the lord." There is no command to give certificates of divorce, unless you want to quibble with semantics, but there is an inference that certificates of divorce are the standard procedure.
Anyway, Jesus says in Matt. 5:31-32 that anyone who divorces his wife , except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This is echoed in Luke 16:18, but is not part of the comparable sermon. There, it is more of an afterthought stuck in between two parables. Matthew reapeats himself in 19:7 and Mark also chimes in with similar words in Mark 10:4. Those last two references are in a context of Jesus having a discussion about divorce. We will not go into a broad discussion of divorce here. The basic idea is any man is an adulterer if he marries a divorced woman, and a divorced woman is an adulterer no matter who she marries. There are no guidelines for a woman who wants to divorce her husband.
More to come.
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
The sermon on the mount, part four
The next section of the sermon on the mount is Matthew 5:17-20. Here, Jesus says he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. "Until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished." There are many disagreements in christendom as to what that means. Heaven and earth have not disappeared. Does that mean the law of moses is still in effect? Some would say yes. However, others would say Jesus accomplished everything/fulfilled the law when he died on the cross. Now there is a new law, the law of the heart. The old law is dead. What do you think is the true meaning of this passage?
Jesus goes on to say that anyone who breaks the commandments, or teaches someone else to break them, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. (But do they still get to be part of the kingdom?) "Whoever teaches and practices the commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven...I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the pharisees and teachers of the law, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (That answered my question.) It seems clear to me that Jesus wanted people to obey the law of Moses. Was that teaching just for those people there on the mountainside, or for everyone, for all time?
What about those pharisees and teachers of the law? My study bible says that they were excessively legalistic, following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Frankly, I question the existance of a spirit of the law. It is not evident in the Old Testament. The phrase "spirit of the law" does not exist in the whole bible. Plus, isn't it even more legalistic for Jesus to insist that his followers become more righteous than even the Pharisees are? How is it less legalistic? He says you won't get into the kingdom of heaven otherwise! I wonder what those faith vs. works people think of this passage.
Luke slightly echoes this in 16:16-17, which is not part of the comparable sermon. It says, "The law and the prophets were proclaimed until John (the baptist). Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of god is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. (??? What does that mean? How can someone force their way into the kingdom?) It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the law." This statement comes after Jesus has berated some pharisees, telling them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but god knows your hearts." Again, he has raised the standard. It is not enough to do right, you must think right as well.
As far as I can tell, this is not in Mark or John.
Jesus goes on to say that anyone who breaks the commandments, or teaches someone else to break them, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. (But do they still get to be part of the kingdom?) "Whoever teaches and practices the commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven...I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the pharisees and teachers of the law, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (That answered my question.) It seems clear to me that Jesus wanted people to obey the law of Moses. Was that teaching just for those people there on the mountainside, or for everyone, for all time?
What about those pharisees and teachers of the law? My study bible says that they were excessively legalistic, following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Frankly, I question the existance of a spirit of the law. It is not evident in the Old Testament. The phrase "spirit of the law" does not exist in the whole bible. Plus, isn't it even more legalistic for Jesus to insist that his followers become more righteous than even the Pharisees are? How is it less legalistic? He says you won't get into the kingdom of heaven otherwise! I wonder what those faith vs. works people think of this passage.
Luke slightly echoes this in 16:16-17, which is not part of the comparable sermon. It says, "The law and the prophets were proclaimed until John (the baptist). Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of god is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. (??? What does that mean? How can someone force their way into the kingdom?) It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the law." This statement comes after Jesus has berated some pharisees, telling them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but god knows your hearts." Again, he has raised the standard. It is not enough to do right, you must think right as well.
As far as I can tell, this is not in Mark or John.
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
The sermon on the mount, part three
Many people don't realize it, but the so called sermon on the mount, or Luke's sermon on the plain, contains more than just the so called beatitudes. Jesus is not done sermonizing. We will continue to compare the sermons in Matthew and Luke.
*Matthew 5:13 calls the disciples (or the jews?) the "salt of the earth." But if salt loses its saltiness, it isn't good for anything and needs to be thrown out and trampled by men.
*Luke does not say this in his comparable sermon. However, he does say something very similar much later, in Luke 14:34-35. There, it is in the context of the cost of being disciple of Jesus. The author says, "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil, nor the manure pile; it is thrown out."
*Mark 9:50 also says something very similar in a very different context. After talking about it being better to remove body parts than to be cast into hell where the fire is not quenched, the author says, "Everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with each other."
Can salt lose its saltiness? Well, yes and no. Answer in link. Does this metaphor make any sense in its various contexts? To me, it seems to make the most sense in the Matthew context. The other two instances seem very random and disconnected to the context. Also, salt has never been good for soil. Does Luke not know that? What does it mean to be salted with fire? I think Mark was mixing his metaphors. The only other mention of salt in the New Testament is Colossians 4:6 where Paul says, "Let your speech be gracious and seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." This actually makes sense, because salt is a flavor enhancer. Matthew's salty verse seems to be referring to that as well.
*Next in the sermon as recorded in Matthew 5:14-16 is a continuation of Matthew's theme of the disciples being an enhancement to the world. He tells them they are the "light of the world." They need to let their light shine before men that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven. "Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl, instead they put it on a stand and it gives light to everyone in the house."
*Luke 8:16 has a similar verse, but it is not in the comparable sermon. It comes after the parable of the sower and says, "No one lights a lamp and hides it under a jar, or puts its under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open." we can see that the reason for the lamp is very different in Luke's passage. The concept of divine hiddenness is given by Jesus earlier in the chapter, when he tells the disciples secrets of the kingdom are given to them, but he talks about the kingdom to everyone else in parables to keep them in the dark, so to speak. "Though seeing, they may not see; though hearing they may not understand." That doesn't seem quite sporting of Jesus.
More to come.
*Matthew 5:13 calls the disciples (or the jews?) the "salt of the earth." But if salt loses its saltiness, it isn't good for anything and needs to be thrown out and trampled by men.
*Luke does not say this in his comparable sermon. However, he does say something very similar much later, in Luke 14:34-35. There, it is in the context of the cost of being disciple of Jesus. The author says, "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil, nor the manure pile; it is thrown out."
*Mark 9:50 also says something very similar in a very different context. After talking about it being better to remove body parts than to be cast into hell where the fire is not quenched, the author says, "Everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with each other."
Can salt lose its saltiness? Well, yes and no. Answer in link. Does this metaphor make any sense in its various contexts? To me, it seems to make the most sense in the Matthew context. The other two instances seem very random and disconnected to the context. Also, salt has never been good for soil. Does Luke not know that? What does it mean to be salted with fire? I think Mark was mixing his metaphors. The only other mention of salt in the New Testament is Colossians 4:6 where Paul says, "Let your speech be gracious and seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." This actually makes sense, because salt is a flavor enhancer. Matthew's salty verse seems to be referring to that as well.
*Next in the sermon as recorded in Matthew 5:14-16 is a continuation of Matthew's theme of the disciples being an enhancement to the world. He tells them they are the "light of the world." They need to let their light shine before men that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven. "Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl, instead they put it on a stand and it gives light to everyone in the house."
*Luke 8:16 has a similar verse, but it is not in the comparable sermon. It comes after the parable of the sower and says, "No one lights a lamp and hides it under a jar, or puts its under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open." we can see that the reason for the lamp is very different in Luke's passage. The concept of divine hiddenness is given by Jesus earlier in the chapter, when he tells the disciples secrets of the kingdom are given to them, but he talks about the kingdom to everyone else in parables to keep them in the dark, so to speak. "Though seeing, they may not see; though hearing they may not understand." That doesn't seem quite sporting of Jesus.
More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)