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 Matthew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matthew. 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.
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?
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Mark part three
We are still in chapter one at verse 35. In this book, we don't know how long after Jesus was baptized that he started preaching, or how old he was, but it was after John was put in prison. The last few events have been depicted as happening in rapid succession. The appearance in the synagogue, the healings at Simon's house, and now we are told that "early in the morning, while it was still dark" Jesus got up, left the house, and went out to pray alone. His other companions went to find him because everyone was looking for him. He wanted to leave that place and travel around to teach and drive out demons.
In chapter two, a man with leprosy begged to be healed. Jesus healed him then told him not to tell anyone but to go to the priest and make the required sacrifices. Naturally the man told everyone and Jesus was mobbed by people, even though he tried to hide. "A few days later" Jesus went back to Capernaum. I'm assuming he stayed at Simon's house again. The house he was in was also mobbed by people, so that there was no room for any more. A hole was dug in the roof (probably made of mud and straw) so a paralyzed man could be lowered in to Jesus. Jesus was impressed by his faith and told the man his sins were forgiven. Some teachers of the law were thinking to themselves that this was blasphemy because only god could forgive sins. If course Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked them which was easier, to tell a paralyzed man his sins were forgiven or to tell him to get up and walk.
Then he tells the man to get up and walk, and he did, in full view of everyone. They were amazed and praised god, saying, "we have never seen anything like this!" Well, now, that must have been a true miracle, right? Let me ask you some questions. Has anyone ever been fooled by fake faith healers? Has anyone ever exaggerated faith healing claims? Has anyone ever manufactured faith healing experiences? If your answer is yes, what makes you think there couldn't have been fake faith healers in the first century? How do you know this account is accurate? How do you even know it actually happened? And if it did, how do you know whether or not the "paralyzed" man was faking his condition? The author of the book of Mark is telling a story about Jesus, he does not claim to have seen any of this. He either got it second or third hand, or it was an urban legend, or someone told him a tall tale, or he is telling a tall tale himself. There are many possibilities more likely than that a paralyzed man was instantly healed by faith.
Mark tells us that this event happened so that "you may know the son of man has the authority to forgive sins." It is assumed that the "son of man" refers to Jesus himself. This may be a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, where Daniel has a vision of a person who looked like a "son of man" This person was given authority by god and was worshipped by all nations and given an everlasting kingdom. The phrase son of man literally means a human male. It is also important to remember that the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel and is most likely a work of fiction. Did Jesus know that?
In Chapter 2:13, at some undetermined future time, Jesus was again beside the lake (the sea of Galilee) teaching large crowds of people. As he walked along, he saw Levi (later known as Matthew) sitting in a tax collectors booth. (There were tax collector booths by the lake? ) My study bible says this may have been like a toll booth on a main road. Jesus told Levi to follow him and he did. Disciple #5.
More to come.
In chapter two, a man with leprosy begged to be healed. Jesus healed him then told him not to tell anyone but to go to the priest and make the required sacrifices. Naturally the man told everyone and Jesus was mobbed by people, even though he tried to hide. "A few days later" Jesus went back to Capernaum. I'm assuming he stayed at Simon's house again. The house he was in was also mobbed by people, so that there was no room for any more. A hole was dug in the roof (probably made of mud and straw) so a paralyzed man could be lowered in to Jesus. Jesus was impressed by his faith and told the man his sins were forgiven. Some teachers of the law were thinking to themselves that this was blasphemy because only god could forgive sins. If course Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked them which was easier, to tell a paralyzed man his sins were forgiven or to tell him to get up and walk.
Then he tells the man to get up and walk, and he did, in full view of everyone. They were amazed and praised god, saying, "we have never seen anything like this!" Well, now, that must have been a true miracle, right? Let me ask you some questions. Has anyone ever been fooled by fake faith healers? Has anyone ever exaggerated faith healing claims? Has anyone ever manufactured faith healing experiences? If your answer is yes, what makes you think there couldn't have been fake faith healers in the first century? How do you know this account is accurate? How do you even know it actually happened? And if it did, how do you know whether or not the "paralyzed" man was faking his condition? The author of the book of Mark is telling a story about Jesus, he does not claim to have seen any of this. He either got it second or third hand, or it was an urban legend, or someone told him a tall tale, or he is telling a tall tale himself. There are many possibilities more likely than that a paralyzed man was instantly healed by faith.
Mark tells us that this event happened so that "you may know the son of man has the authority to forgive sins." It is assumed that the "son of man" refers to Jesus himself. This may be a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, where Daniel has a vision of a person who looked like a "son of man" This person was given authority by god and was worshipped by all nations and given an everlasting kingdom. The phrase son of man literally means a human male. It is also important to remember that the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel and is most likely a work of fiction. Did Jesus know that?
In Chapter 2:13, at some undetermined future time, Jesus was again beside the lake (the sea of Galilee) teaching large crowds of people. As he walked along, he saw Levi (later known as Matthew) sitting in a tax collectors booth. (There were tax collector booths by the lake? ) My study bible says this may have been like a toll booth on a main road. Jesus told Levi to follow him and he did. Disciple #5.
More to come.
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.
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Heaven part thirteen and wrap up.
We have reached the end of the references to heaven (singular) in Strong's concordance. There a few more under heavens (plural). In Acts 2:29-34, we are told that David died and was buried, and remains in his tomb, he did not ascend to the heavens. I feel this brings up an important point. In christianity, many believers tend to think their love ones ascend to heaven immediately after death. This negates many of the New Testament teachings about a resurrection of the dead and a final judgment, especially what we find in Revelation 20. You can't have it both ways.
In 2 Corinthians 5:1, the author says, "If the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from god, an eternal house in the heavens, not built by human hands." Okay. So, this house in the heavens, is it in the new Jerusalem that's going to come down from the heavens after the judgment? Do any of the letters attributed to Paul speak of a Holy City or new Jerusalem? I ran those phrases through the search on Bible Gateway. A new Jerusalem is not mentioned anywhere but Revelation. Of all the New Testament books, the phrase holy city is only in Matthew and Revelation. Matthew is referring to the city of Jerusalem that existed in the first century.
Did Paul not know about the new heaven and new earth? I looked up those phrases as well. They are only mentioned in Revelation and in 2 Peter. 2 Peter chapter three has a description of the end times that is not couched in symbolism like that of Revelation, but it coincides with events mentioned. In verse 7, the author says, "the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." In verse 10, the author says, "the heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire , and earth and everything in it will be laid bare." Verses 12-13 go on to say,"That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness." Paul's letters do not mention those phrases at all.
In reality, the earthly and heavenly dwellings mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians are referring to supposedly earthly and heavenly personal bodies. Paul was big on talking about how believers would get new indestructible bodies. He doesn't seem to have mentioned much else about the afterlife and the actual place those bodies will reside.
Let's see if we can find anything else new and interesting in the New Testament under the word "heavenly." 1 Corinthians chapter 15 discusses the resurrection, but even though the author rambles on about it, he doesn't say much that is concrete or substantial. Like I said before it is mostly about the difference between earthly bodies and heavenly bodies, the resurrection of physical bodies, and their transformation into spiritual, imperishable ones. This will all happen "in a flash, in the tinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet." Nothing about heaven, the holy city, or what will go on in the afterlife.
In 2 Timothy 4:18, Paul says, "The lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom." Is this the same kingdom that will be the New Jerusalem coming down out of the heavens after the judgment?
Hebrews 11:16 says that a heavenly country and city are prepared by god for the faithful. In Hebrews chapter 12, the author speaks of the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living god. Again the writer of Hebrews tells us that earthly things are just representations of the heavenly reality. In verses 26-28, we are told that the earthly or created things will be removed so that what cannot be shaken, god's kingdom, remains.
Does any of this coincide with what you have learned about heaven? It certainly isn't what I was taught and what I continue to hear from Christians around me.
In 2 Corinthians 5:1, the author says, "If the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from god, an eternal house in the heavens, not built by human hands." Okay. So, this house in the heavens, is it in the new Jerusalem that's going to come down from the heavens after the judgment? Do any of the letters attributed to Paul speak of a Holy City or new Jerusalem? I ran those phrases through the search on Bible Gateway. A new Jerusalem is not mentioned anywhere but Revelation. Of all the New Testament books, the phrase holy city is only in Matthew and Revelation. Matthew is referring to the city of Jerusalem that existed in the first century.
Did Paul not know about the new heaven and new earth? I looked up those phrases as well. They are only mentioned in Revelation and in 2 Peter. 2 Peter chapter three has a description of the end times that is not couched in symbolism like that of Revelation, but it coincides with events mentioned. In verse 7, the author says, "the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." In verse 10, the author says, "the heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire , and earth and everything in it will be laid bare." Verses 12-13 go on to say,"That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness." Paul's letters do not mention those phrases at all.
In reality, the earthly and heavenly dwellings mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians are referring to supposedly earthly and heavenly personal bodies. Paul was big on talking about how believers would get new indestructible bodies. He doesn't seem to have mentioned much else about the afterlife and the actual place those bodies will reside.
Let's see if we can find anything else new and interesting in the New Testament under the word "heavenly." 1 Corinthians chapter 15 discusses the resurrection, but even though the author rambles on about it, he doesn't say much that is concrete or substantial. Like I said before it is mostly about the difference between earthly bodies and heavenly bodies, the resurrection of physical bodies, and their transformation into spiritual, imperishable ones. This will all happen "in a flash, in the tinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet." Nothing about heaven, the holy city, or what will go on in the afterlife.
In 2 Timothy 4:18, Paul says, "The lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom." Is this the same kingdom that will be the New Jerusalem coming down out of the heavens after the judgment?
Hebrews 11:16 says that a heavenly country and city are prepared by god for the faithful. In Hebrews chapter 12, the author speaks of the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living god. Again the writer of Hebrews tells us that earthly things are just representations of the heavenly reality. In verses 26-28, we are told that the earthly or created things will be removed so that what cannot be shaken, god's kingdom, remains.
Does any of this coincide with what you have learned about heaven? It certainly isn't what I was taught and what I continue to hear from Christians around me.
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, November 6, 2018
Heaven part eight
Continuing on with heaven in the New Testament:
In Matthew 18:18, Jesus tells all the disciples the same exact thing he told Peter in 16:19, that whatever he bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. But what does the binding and loosing mean? Your guess is as good as mine. However it does show that binding and loosing is not specific to Peter.
Verses18:23-35 are another parable about the kingdom of heaven. (In the churches I've attended, parables were called earthly stories with a heavenly meaning.) This time the kingdom of heaven is like a king (obviously representing god) who wanted the servants (Jews, or everybody?) in debt to him to pay up. One man owed him a ton of money, so the king ordered that his whole family and all his possessions be sold. The servant begged for time to pay the debt. The king cancelled the debt. That servant went out and had another servant thrown in prison for owing him money that he couldn't pay. The king heard about it and scolded the servant for not showing the same mercy that was shown to him. The king had the servant thrown in jail and tortured (representing hell?)until he could pay back the original debt. "This is how my heavenly father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."
There is so much wrong with this parable. First, we don't owe an invisible god in the sky any huge debt that we need to be forgiven of. Next, we do not need to fear what that god will do to us if we do not repay that nonexistent debt. Also, people have plenty of other reasons to forgive without threats of torture if they don't. Last, should we forgive everyone everything? Really? Or is it limited to debts owed? Certainly we should not be like Ebenezer Scrooge, but must we completely wipe out all debts when petitioned?
In Matthew 19:14, Jesus repeats that the kingdom of heaven belongs to people who are like children. In 19:21, Jesus tells a young man to sell his possessions and give to the poor to get treasure in heaven. What does one do with treasure in heaven? Verses 19:23-24 tells us it is incredibly hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Heaven is to be made up of the poor?)
Matthew 20:1-16 is another parable. It says the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner (god again) who hired men (representing people, just males?) to work in his vineyard one day. He hired different people at different times of the day but at the end of the day they all received the same pay (representing their heavenly reward). The men who worked longer hours grumbled at the fact that the people hired later got the same pay. The landowner then claims the right to pay everyone exactly what he wants, it's his money to begin with. Should they be envious because he is generous? In the kingdom of heaven, the last will be first and the first will be last, whatever that means. One interpretation might be that the gentiles who were Yahweh fearers for much less time than the Jews would receive the same heavenly reward, and the Jews shouldn't grumble about it. There is so much ambiguous language in the bible, so many deepities, so much word salad. You could make it mean whatever you want.
More to come.
In Matthew 18:18, Jesus tells all the disciples the same exact thing he told Peter in 16:19, that whatever he bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. But what does the binding and loosing mean? Your guess is as good as mine. However it does show that binding and loosing is not specific to Peter.
Verses18:23-35 are another parable about the kingdom of heaven. (In the churches I've attended, parables were called earthly stories with a heavenly meaning.) This time the kingdom of heaven is like a king (obviously representing god) who wanted the servants (Jews, or everybody?) in debt to him to pay up. One man owed him a ton of money, so the king ordered that his whole family and all his possessions be sold. The servant begged for time to pay the debt. The king cancelled the debt. That servant went out and had another servant thrown in prison for owing him money that he couldn't pay. The king heard about it and scolded the servant for not showing the same mercy that was shown to him. The king had the servant thrown in jail and tortured (representing hell?)until he could pay back the original debt. "This is how my heavenly father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."
There is so much wrong with this parable. First, we don't owe an invisible god in the sky any huge debt that we need to be forgiven of. Next, we do not need to fear what that god will do to us if we do not repay that nonexistent debt. Also, people have plenty of other reasons to forgive without threats of torture if they don't. Last, should we forgive everyone everything? Really? Or is it limited to debts owed? Certainly we should not be like Ebenezer Scrooge, but must we completely wipe out all debts when petitioned?
In Matthew 19:14, Jesus repeats that the kingdom of heaven belongs to people who are like children. In 19:21, Jesus tells a young man to sell his possessions and give to the poor to get treasure in heaven. What does one do with treasure in heaven? Verses 19:23-24 tells us it is incredibly hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Heaven is to be made up of the poor?)
Matthew 20:1-16 is another parable. It says the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner (god again) who hired men (representing people, just males?) to work in his vineyard one day. He hired different people at different times of the day but at the end of the day they all received the same pay (representing their heavenly reward). The men who worked longer hours grumbled at the fact that the people hired later got the same pay. The landowner then claims the right to pay everyone exactly what he wants, it's his money to begin with. Should they be envious because he is generous? In the kingdom of heaven, the last will be first and the first will be last, whatever that means. One interpretation might be that the gentiles who were Yahweh fearers for much less time than the Jews would receive the same heavenly reward, and the Jews shouldn't grumble about it. There is so much ambiguous language in the bible, so many deepities, so much word salad. You could make it mean whatever you want.
More to come.
Friday, November 2, 2018
Heaven part seven.
We continue on trying to learn about heaven in the New Testament. I'm skipping passages that repeat what we've already covered. When we get to Matthew 11:11, we see that Jesus says he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the baptist. "From the days of John the baptist, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing and forceful men lay hold of it." Whatever that means.
In Matthew 11:23 of some translations, Jesus tells Capernaeum it will not be exalted unto heaven but will brought down to Hades or Hell. Can a whole city go to hell? My NIV study bible says "lifted up to the skies" instead of exalted unto heaven and "go down to the depths" instead of brought down to Hades. The Greek words are actually the ones for heaven and hades.
In Matthew 13:11, Jesus tells his disciples that the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been given to them but not to other people. Jesus deliberately speaks to the people in parables to fulfill a prophecy in Isaiah that talks about people not understanding. The parables are about the kingdom (of heaven). "When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart." Seems kind of a dirty low down trick on Jesus's part.
In 13:24, Jesus tells a parable about the kingdom of heaven being like a man who sowed good seed in his field. Weeds planted by the enemy also grew there. They were left till harvest, then pulled up and burned. Presumably the man is god, the good plants are the good people, the weeds are the bad people. Guess who the enemy is.
In chapter 13, Jesus tells more parables about the kingdom of heaven. It is like a mustard seed that starts out tiny and grows to be the largest of garden plants, like a tree. (Except no mustard grows like that at all) The kingdom is like a a treasure hidden in a field that many are willing to sell everything to get. The kingdom is also like a net that catches all kinds of fish. The good will be kept and the bad thrown away. Jesus also says that "every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of the house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old." The implication seems to be that there are new teachings to add to the old.
In Matthew 16:1, the Pharisees and Sadducees ask Jesus for a sign from heaven. Jesus proceeds to tell them about signs in the sky for fair or foul weather. What we do not see in English is that the word sky here is the the same root word of heaven. This must be a kind of joke or play on words.
In 16:19, Jesus tells Peter, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." This passage has been disputed by Christians the world over for more than a thousand years. I will not attempt to interpret it.
In 18:1 The disciples came to Jesus and asked who is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus replies, "unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greater in the kingdom of heaven." This is also a disputed passage. No one seems to be able to agree what it means to be like a little child. Jesus continues in 18:10 to say that the disciples are not to look down on children because "their angels in heaven always see the face of my father in heaven." This is very interesting. I've never heard this talked about before. It would appear that children have angels, does everyone?
More to come.
In Matthew 11:23 of some translations, Jesus tells Capernaeum it will not be exalted unto heaven but will brought down to Hades or Hell. Can a whole city go to hell? My NIV study bible says "lifted up to the skies" instead of exalted unto heaven and "go down to the depths" instead of brought down to Hades. The Greek words are actually the ones for heaven and hades.
In Matthew 13:11, Jesus tells his disciples that the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been given to them but not to other people. Jesus deliberately speaks to the people in parables to fulfill a prophecy in Isaiah that talks about people not understanding. The parables are about the kingdom (of heaven). "When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart." Seems kind of a dirty low down trick on Jesus's part.
In 13:24, Jesus tells a parable about the kingdom of heaven being like a man who sowed good seed in his field. Weeds planted by the enemy also grew there. They were left till harvest, then pulled up and burned. Presumably the man is god, the good plants are the good people, the weeds are the bad people. Guess who the enemy is.
In chapter 13, Jesus tells more parables about the kingdom of heaven. It is like a mustard seed that starts out tiny and grows to be the largest of garden plants, like a tree. (Except no mustard grows like that at all) The kingdom is like a a treasure hidden in a field that many are willing to sell everything to get. The kingdom is also like a net that catches all kinds of fish. The good will be kept and the bad thrown away. Jesus also says that "every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of the house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old." The implication seems to be that there are new teachings to add to the old.
In Matthew 16:1, the Pharisees and Sadducees ask Jesus for a sign from heaven. Jesus proceeds to tell them about signs in the sky for fair or foul weather. What we do not see in English is that the word sky here is the the same root word of heaven. This must be a kind of joke or play on words.
In 16:19, Jesus tells Peter, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." This passage has been disputed by Christians the world over for more than a thousand years. I will not attempt to interpret it.
In 18:1 The disciples came to Jesus and asked who is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus replies, "unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greater in the kingdom of heaven." This is also a disputed passage. No one seems to be able to agree what it means to be like a little child. Jesus continues in 18:10 to say that the disciples are not to look down on children because "their angels in heaven always see the face of my father in heaven." This is very interesting. I've never heard this talked about before. It would appear that children have angels, does everyone?
More to come.
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
Heaven part six
We will now look at Strong's concordance's list of words translated as heaven and see if we can learn anything else about this mysterious place. Will it be in the sky like it was in the Old Testament? Or will it be in some other dimension outside of space and time, as many Christians claim?
Looking at the concordance, it again appears that the vast majority of the instances of the word heaven in the New Testament are one word. This is the Greek word Ouranos, which is defined as the sky; by extension- heaven (the abode of god); by implication- happiness, power, eternity. Specific to Christianity- its usage is air, heaven, the sky. There are a very few times other Greek words are used as heaven we will address them when we get to them.
We start with the book of Matthew. In verse 3:2, John the baptist tells people to repent for the "kingdom of heaven" is at hand. I ask myself, what is this kingdom of heaven? Was it mentioned in the Old Testament? So, I did a Bible Gateway search for the phrase kingdom of heaven and looked at the results. In the Old Testament, only the book of Daniel refers to anything like a kingdom of heaven, but it doesn't use that exact phrase. What's very interesting is that in the whole New Testament, the whole bible actually, the exact phrase "kingdom of heaven" is used only in the book of Matthew. Mark, Luke, John, and the rest of the New Testament, uses "kingdom of god." Only in 2 Timothy is there mention of a "heavenly kingdom."
In Matthew 3:17, at Jesus's baptism, a voice from heaven says, "This is my son whom I love, in him I am well pleased." In 4:17, Jesus begins preaching, "repent for the kingdom of heaven is near." In 5:3, the poor in spirit have the kingdom of heaven. So do the persecuted, in verse 5:10. In 5:16 god, called "the father", is in heaven.
Matthew 5:19 tells us, "Anyone who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." What commandments is the author speaking of? Verse 5:18 tells that it is Law (of Moses). Jesus himself says in that verse that "until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest stroke a pen will by any means disappear from the Law. This is sooo NOT what most of Christianity teaches. But there it is. Not only that, Jesus goes on to say in verse 20 that unless a person's righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, they will not enter the kingdom of heaven. This kingdom of heaven is exclusive and works based.
In Matthew 5:34, heaven is god's throne. In 6:19 we are told to store up treasures in heaven instead of on earth. Though how we do that is a mystery. In verse 7:21, we learn that not everyone who says "lord, lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, "but only he who does the will of my father who is in heaven." Jesus is speaking, calling god his father.
In Matthew 8:11 Jesus tells a Roman centurion that, "many will come from the east and the west (from outside Israel), and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom (Jews) will be thrown outside into the darkness..." Is this literal or figurative? Did Matthew believe that the Old Testament patriarchs are actually feasting in heaven? Is there food in heaven? Are there any women in heaven?
More to come.
Looking at the concordance, it again appears that the vast majority of the instances of the word heaven in the New Testament are one word. This is the Greek word Ouranos, which is defined as the sky; by extension- heaven (the abode of god); by implication- happiness, power, eternity. Specific to Christianity- its usage is air, heaven, the sky. There are a very few times other Greek words are used as heaven we will address them when we get to them.
We start with the book of Matthew. In verse 3:2, John the baptist tells people to repent for the "kingdom of heaven" is at hand. I ask myself, what is this kingdom of heaven? Was it mentioned in the Old Testament? So, I did a Bible Gateway search for the phrase kingdom of heaven and looked at the results. In the Old Testament, only the book of Daniel refers to anything like a kingdom of heaven, but it doesn't use that exact phrase. What's very interesting is that in the whole New Testament, the whole bible actually, the exact phrase "kingdom of heaven" is used only in the book of Matthew. Mark, Luke, John, and the rest of the New Testament, uses "kingdom of god." Only in 2 Timothy is there mention of a "heavenly kingdom."
In Matthew 3:17, at Jesus's baptism, a voice from heaven says, "This is my son whom I love, in him I am well pleased." In 4:17, Jesus begins preaching, "repent for the kingdom of heaven is near." In 5:3, the poor in spirit have the kingdom of heaven. So do the persecuted, in verse 5:10. In 5:16 god, called "the father", is in heaven.
Matthew 5:19 tells us, "Anyone who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." What commandments is the author speaking of? Verse 5:18 tells that it is Law (of Moses). Jesus himself says in that verse that "until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest stroke a pen will by any means disappear from the Law. This is sooo NOT what most of Christianity teaches. But there it is. Not only that, Jesus goes on to say in verse 20 that unless a person's righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, they will not enter the kingdom of heaven. This kingdom of heaven is exclusive and works based.
In Matthew 5:34, heaven is god's throne. In 6:19 we are told to store up treasures in heaven instead of on earth. Though how we do that is a mystery. In verse 7:21, we learn that not everyone who says "lord, lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, "but only he who does the will of my father who is in heaven." Jesus is speaking, calling god his father.
In Matthew 8:11 Jesus tells a Roman centurion that, "many will come from the east and the west (from outside Israel), and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom (Jews) will be thrown outside into the darkness..." Is this literal or figurative? Did Matthew believe that the Old Testament patriarchs are actually feasting in heaven? Is there food in heaven? Are there any women in heaven?
More to come.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)