2 Thessalonians claims to be a letter from Paul, Silas, and Timothy to the church in Thessaloniki. Scholars are divided on the question of authenticity. The date of writing is unknown with the earliest extrabiblical attestation around the turn of the first century. The letter does not claim to be the word of god or divinely inspired. There does not seem to be much point to this letter but to affirm the Thessalonians faith and encourage them to keep on obeying Paul's instructions, in spite of unspecified trials, persecutions, and suffering.
There is absolutely no mention of Old Testament people, events, places, or quotes in this letter. There is no mention of New Testament people, places, or events except Paul, Silas, Timothy, the Thessalonians, and Jesus. There is no mention of Jesus's birth, baptism, teachings, miracles, trial, crucifixion, death on the cross, burial, or resurrection.
One day "The lord Jesus (will be) revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know god and who do not obey the gospel of our lord Jesus." We are not told specifically what that gospel is. There is a rumor going around that Jesus already came. That's a lie. He won't come "until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed." The man of lawlessness "will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called god or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in gods temple, proclaiming himself to be god." When the lawless one is revealed "Jesus will overthrow (him) with the breath of his mouth." Satan will be around at that time tricking those who are deluded into believing lies about counterfeit miracles signs and wonders. The man of lawlessness is not mentioned anywhere else in the NT.
The Thessalonians are to stand firm in Paul's teachings and commands. (Not god's or Jesus's) Paul prays that they will be delivered from wicked and evil men, because not everyone has faith. The Thessalonians are not to be idle, but work for their daily bread, like Paul did when he was there. "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." Anyone who ignores Paul's rule is to be lovingly shunned, so he will feel ashamed.
The letter ends with supposed Paul writing, "I Paul write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write." This makes this letter suspect because it is much more explanatory than is common, and seems to be purposefully trying to authenticate the writing.
Showing posts with label Old Testament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Old Testament. Show all posts
Saturday, August 10, 2019
Friday, July 19, 2019
1 John wrap up.
We have finished the supposed first epistle of John. What have I learned? This letter was written by an anonymous person, at an unknown date, probably sometime at the end of the first century, to an unknown group of christ believers. It may or may not be the same author that wrote the gospel book of John and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John. There are arguments on both sides. The author does not claim this letter is the word of god or is inspired by god or the holy spirit.
There are no Old Testament characters, places, or events mentioned in this letter, except for Cain and Abel. There is no Jewish theology on display, except for the concept of obeying god's commands, sin is breaking the law, and one admonition to stay away from idols, tacked on to the end. There are no Old Testament quotes. There are no New Testament characters, places, or events mentioned in this letter, except for Jesus. There is no mention of Jesus's birth, life, miracles, and almost no mention of his teachings. (We'll get to what is mentioned) The believers are just told to walk as Jesus did. The words crucifixion, resurrection, baptism, heaven, angels, and hell, do not occur in this letter. The terms devil, the evil one, and anti christs, make appearances. The prize for belief and obedience is a vaguely worded concept of eternal life. In fact it's all pretty vague and abstract. It's not even clear what obedience entails.
In this letter, Jesus is called the Word of life, the christ, and the son of god. God loved believers and sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for believers' sins. Jesus is righteous and speaks to god in the defense of believers. He appeared to destroy the devil's work, and lay down his life for believers. God sent him to be the savior of the world. He also "came by water and by blood." (This is not explained) Jesus is never specifically quoted as saying anything, but the author mentions "a message heard from the beginning: We should love one another." This is an echo of Jesus in the Gospel of John.
There is a lot of talk of love in this letter. It sounds really good in small bites. God is love. Don't hate your brother. Love your brother and you love god. To love god you must love your brother. Don't be like Cain and Abel. Everybody sins. Just "walk in the light" and your sins will be forgiven. But who are the brothers in this letter? The children of god. Who are the children of god? Those who believe that Jesus is the son of god. Everyone else is not a child of god. They are children of the devil. (Yes it says that.) Those who deny that Jesus is the son of god are antichrists. If you take the letter as a whole, it seems to be an attempt to create an us and them mentality. The other guys are the bad guys, even if they say they love god, cause they really don't.
How can you know who is telling the truth? "Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from god." All believers have the spirit of god, and the spirit of god tells the truth. "God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of god." Which leads me to say, I've never come across so many circular arguments in one place as I have while reading the book of 1st John. Seriously, you should try reading it if you like torturing yourself with that kind of stuff.
Why would someone need to write a letter like this? It would be my guess that there were enough people going around saying that Jesus never existed to be concerning to true christ believers. This letter appears to be damage control by creating a fire wall. It also appears to have worked for a while.
There are no Old Testament characters, places, or events mentioned in this letter, except for Cain and Abel. There is no Jewish theology on display, except for the concept of obeying god's commands, sin is breaking the law, and one admonition to stay away from idols, tacked on to the end. There are no Old Testament quotes. There are no New Testament characters, places, or events mentioned in this letter, except for Jesus. There is no mention of Jesus's birth, life, miracles, and almost no mention of his teachings. (We'll get to what is mentioned) The believers are just told to walk as Jesus did. The words crucifixion, resurrection, baptism, heaven, angels, and hell, do not occur in this letter. The terms devil, the evil one, and anti christs, make appearances. The prize for belief and obedience is a vaguely worded concept of eternal life. In fact it's all pretty vague and abstract. It's not even clear what obedience entails.
In this letter, Jesus is called the Word of life, the christ, and the son of god. God loved believers and sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for believers' sins. Jesus is righteous and speaks to god in the defense of believers. He appeared to destroy the devil's work, and lay down his life for believers. God sent him to be the savior of the world. He also "came by water and by blood." (This is not explained) Jesus is never specifically quoted as saying anything, but the author mentions "a message heard from the beginning: We should love one another." This is an echo of Jesus in the Gospel of John.
There is a lot of talk of love in this letter. It sounds really good in small bites. God is love. Don't hate your brother. Love your brother and you love god. To love god you must love your brother. Don't be like Cain and Abel. Everybody sins. Just "walk in the light" and your sins will be forgiven. But who are the brothers in this letter? The children of god. Who are the children of god? Those who believe that Jesus is the son of god. Everyone else is not a child of god. They are children of the devil. (Yes it says that.) Those who deny that Jesus is the son of god are antichrists. If you take the letter as a whole, it seems to be an attempt to create an us and them mentality. The other guys are the bad guys, even if they say they love god, cause they really don't.
How can you know who is telling the truth? "Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from god." All believers have the spirit of god, and the spirit of god tells the truth. "God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of god." Which leads me to say, I've never come across so many circular arguments in one place as I have while reading the book of 1st John. Seriously, you should try reading it if you like torturing yourself with that kind of stuff.
Why would someone need to write a letter like this? It would be my guess that there were enough people going around saying that Jesus never existed to be concerning to true christ believers. This letter appears to be damage control by creating a fire wall. It also appears to have worked for a while.
Friday, June 28, 2019
2 Peter wrap up
Time for a review of what we learned from 2nd Peter. It claims to be written by Peter to an unidentified group of believers. It does not claim to be inspired or the word of god. Except by fundamentalists, it is generally considered pseudepigrapha, which is another word for FAKE. (Seriously, folks, call a spade a spade.)
This letter is unique among other NewTestament letters in that the author is obviously familiar with a number of other New Testament writings: At least one of the gospels--he quotes Matthew's version of god's words to those present at Jesus's transfiguration on a mountain; a number of letters attributed to Paul, which he calls scripture; the book of Jude, which he plagiarizes. 2Peter 2:1-3:3 contains most of Jude 4-18 paraphrased and interspersed throughout the text.
The author is familiar with Jewish scriptures. He quotes Proverbs. He speaks of the prophets, and makes excuses for the fact that their interpretation of their own prophecies didn't literally come true. It was because they were not understood properly, being words from god, not man. The author also mentions Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot (who he calls a righteous man), and Balaam and the donkey. He speaks of angels sinning and being sent to Tartarus, which is not part of the Old Testament or New. It appears to be extrabiblical legend that was used to explain parts of the Old Testament.
Technically, there is no gospel preached in this letter. Jesus's righteousness saves people through faith, not his death. The initial message is "Do these things (like kindness, perseverance, and love) and you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ." The author also claims that the stories of Jesus are not "cleverly invented." One sentence about god saying Jesus is his son, on the mount of transfiguration, is all we are told about the life of Jesus. The author claims to have been present at this event. There is no birth story, no miracles, no teachings, no commands, no crucifixion, no resurrection. There is also no mention of any Christian religious rituals, no mention of any New Testament characters but Paul, no mention of any other New Testament places or events. There are two cryptic mentions of a sacred command but we are not told what it is.
The bulk of the text is about false teachers and their destruction. There are many warnings against destructive heresies, denial of Jesus, made up stories (irony alert), slander of celestial beings, blasphemy, scoffing, etc. The false teachers are thoroughly reviled in as many ways possible, being called all manner of foulness appropriate to the times. Examples are given of types of destruction that god meted out to the ungodly in the past. The readers are assured that all heretics will similarly be paid back. They are told that those who once knew the truth and turned their backs on it would be worse off in the end than if they had never known Jesus. This is clearly cult language.
There is also considerable effort made to assure the reader that "the day of the lord" will come, just not when they expect it. God works in his own time frame. It's taking a while because he wants to save all the people, except the ungodly, who will be burnt up with the heavens and the earth on the day of judgment. But the author and the readers will get to live in a new heaven and new earth, if they make every effort to be found spotless and blameless, and are not seduced by the dark side.
This letter is unique among other NewTestament letters in that the author is obviously familiar with a number of other New Testament writings: At least one of the gospels--he quotes Matthew's version of god's words to those present at Jesus's transfiguration on a mountain; a number of letters attributed to Paul, which he calls scripture; the book of Jude, which he plagiarizes. 2Peter 2:1-3:3 contains most of Jude 4-18 paraphrased and interspersed throughout the text.
The author is familiar with Jewish scriptures. He quotes Proverbs. He speaks of the prophets, and makes excuses for the fact that their interpretation of their own prophecies didn't literally come true. It was because they were not understood properly, being words from god, not man. The author also mentions Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot (who he calls a righteous man), and Balaam and the donkey. He speaks of angels sinning and being sent to Tartarus, which is not part of the Old Testament or New. It appears to be extrabiblical legend that was used to explain parts of the Old Testament.
Technically, there is no gospel preached in this letter. Jesus's righteousness saves people through faith, not his death. The initial message is "Do these things (like kindness, perseverance, and love) and you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ." The author also claims that the stories of Jesus are not "cleverly invented." One sentence about god saying Jesus is his son, on the mount of transfiguration, is all we are told about the life of Jesus. The author claims to have been present at this event. There is no birth story, no miracles, no teachings, no commands, no crucifixion, no resurrection. There is also no mention of any Christian religious rituals, no mention of any New Testament characters but Paul, no mention of any other New Testament places or events. There are two cryptic mentions of a sacred command but we are not told what it is.
The bulk of the text is about false teachers and their destruction. There are many warnings against destructive heresies, denial of Jesus, made up stories (irony alert), slander of celestial beings, blasphemy, scoffing, etc. The false teachers are thoroughly reviled in as many ways possible, being called all manner of foulness appropriate to the times. Examples are given of types of destruction that god meted out to the ungodly in the past. The readers are assured that all heretics will similarly be paid back. They are told that those who once knew the truth and turned their backs on it would be worse off in the end than if they had never known Jesus. This is clearly cult language.
There is also considerable effort made to assure the reader that "the day of the lord" will come, just not when they expect it. God works in his own time frame. It's taking a while because he wants to save all the people, except the ungodly, who will be burnt up with the heavens and the earth on the day of judgment. But the author and the readers will get to live in a new heaven and new earth, if they make every effort to be found spotless and blameless, and are not seduced by the dark side.
Sunday, June 16, 2019
1 Peter wrap up
What did we learn when we read 1 Peter? The author identifies himself as Peter at the beginning and mentions two traditional companions of Peter at the end, Silas and Mark. However, he never mentions anything Peter did or said in the gospel stories, Acts, or Paul's writings. He only says he was a witness to Christ's suffering. It is unclear to me if that is supposed to be literal or metaphorical.
No other New Testament people are mentioned, except Jesus. The author does not claim to be writing the words of god or to be inspired. At the end, it is implied that Silas did the actual physical writing and Peter dictated. The letter claims to be written to Believers in the region of Anatolia/ modern Turkey. This letter actually calls believers christians, which no other other New Testament writer did, except the author of Acts. A phrase at the end of the letter implies it is coming from Rome, but does not directly say that. No other New Testament places are mentioned.
There are no New Testament events mentioned except the crucifixion of Christ. The only Old Testament event mentioned is the story of Noah's flood. Besides Noah, only Abraham and Sarah are mentioned. Several Old Testament scriptures are quoted, sometimes differently than what is found in my Old Testament, and often out of context, as usual.
The author does not seem to be promoting any departure or separation from Judaism. It is clear that he assumes his readers are familiar with Jewish scriptures, which makes them exiled Jews or Gentile followers of Yahweh. It could be a combination of both.
There are no deeds, words, or teachings, of Jesus recorded in this letter. I find that particularly strange from someone who was supposedly his constant companion for one to three years. There are no mentions of any Christian rituals besides baptism, which many people forget was a Jewish ritual before it became a christian one. Angels and the Devil are mentioned. Heaven is waiting.
Unique to this book is the teaching that after Jesus was crucified, he went to the realm of the dead and preached the gospel to the souls that had been imprisoned there since the flood. It has supposedly already happened, not something that will happen in the future as some groups teach. In this book, Jesus is not the high priest of the heavenly temple, but simultaneously its cornerstone and capstone. He is also a stumbling block to nonbelievers. Believers are living stones in this spiritual house, and a holy priesthood. Biblical authors do not have any qualms about mixing metaphors. Jesus is also called the lamb of god, without blemish, chosen before the creation of the world.
To be fair, positive things like hospitality and love are also taught. Malice, deceit, hypocrisy, and slander are not acceptable. These Christians are urged not to repay evil with evil or insult with insult.
The theme of the book appears to be salvation through submission and obedience to all authority, the ultimate authority being god, of course. The reward for obedience is a "crown of glory that will never fade away." The reader is told to expect and rejoice in suffering as a christian, especially if it is for doing good. All this suffering is supposed to be for a short time because "the end of all things is near."
Next, we will look at 2 Peter.
No other New Testament people are mentioned, except Jesus. The author does not claim to be writing the words of god or to be inspired. At the end, it is implied that Silas did the actual physical writing and Peter dictated. The letter claims to be written to Believers in the region of Anatolia/ modern Turkey. This letter actually calls believers christians, which no other other New Testament writer did, except the author of Acts. A phrase at the end of the letter implies it is coming from Rome, but does not directly say that. No other New Testament places are mentioned.
There are no New Testament events mentioned except the crucifixion of Christ. The only Old Testament event mentioned is the story of Noah's flood. Besides Noah, only Abraham and Sarah are mentioned. Several Old Testament scriptures are quoted, sometimes differently than what is found in my Old Testament, and often out of context, as usual.
The author does not seem to be promoting any departure or separation from Judaism. It is clear that he assumes his readers are familiar with Jewish scriptures, which makes them exiled Jews or Gentile followers of Yahweh. It could be a combination of both.
There are no deeds, words, or teachings, of Jesus recorded in this letter. I find that particularly strange from someone who was supposedly his constant companion for one to three years. There are no mentions of any Christian rituals besides baptism, which many people forget was a Jewish ritual before it became a christian one. Angels and the Devil are mentioned. Heaven is waiting.
Unique to this book is the teaching that after Jesus was crucified, he went to the realm of the dead and preached the gospel to the souls that had been imprisoned there since the flood. It has supposedly already happened, not something that will happen in the future as some groups teach. In this book, Jesus is not the high priest of the heavenly temple, but simultaneously its cornerstone and capstone. He is also a stumbling block to nonbelievers. Believers are living stones in this spiritual house, and a holy priesthood. Biblical authors do not have any qualms about mixing metaphors. Jesus is also called the lamb of god, without blemish, chosen before the creation of the world.
To be fair, positive things like hospitality and love are also taught. Malice, deceit, hypocrisy, and slander are not acceptable. These Christians are urged not to repay evil with evil or insult with insult.
The theme of the book appears to be salvation through submission and obedience to all authority, the ultimate authority being god, of course. The reward for obedience is a "crown of glory that will never fade away." The reader is told to expect and rejoice in suffering as a christian, especially if it is for doing good. All this suffering is supposed to be for a short time because "the end of all things is near."
Next, we will look at 2 Peter.
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Hebrews part seventeen
We are at Hebrews 12:14. My bible has an added heading for the coming passage, "Warning against refusing god." Uh oh. It starts by telling the reader to "Make every effort to live in peace with all men." Nothing wrong with that. The author adds, "and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the lord." A command and a threat. But what exactly is holiness? How do I know if I don't have it? The reader is also to take care not to "miss the grace of god." What exactly is the grace of god? How do I miss it? The reader is also not permitted to allow a "bitter root" to grow up and cause trouble. Um, you guessed it, what in the world is he talking about? My guess is the author expects the reader to understand because they have a similar knowledge and experience that I don't have. It's 2000 year old insider language.
In verse 16, we are given more specifics. No one is allowed to be sexually immoral, probably as defined in the Old Testament. I don't think Jesus actually said a word about sex in the gospels. Also, no one is permitted to be "godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son." That is an example of godlessness? What about his brother, who took advantage of a hungry man for personal gain? Victim blaming at its finest. Even worse, according to the author, Esau tearfully begged for his blessing back. Shame on him. Heathen.
The author goes on to tell the reader that they are so fortunate that they don't have to approach a physical burning mountain, covered with stormy dark clouds, with a loud and threatening voice issuing from it, like Moses did. That was terrifying. No, instead, they get to come to the "heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living god." (Isn't it the same terrifying god that was on Moses's mountain?) The reader also gets to come to "thousands upon thousands of heavenly angels in joyful assembly." And that's not terrifying?
The reader also comes to the "church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven." I don't think the author means literal first born children here, but metaphorical first born "children of god." They also have come to "god, the judge of all men and the spirits of righteous men made perfect." Not women. They are not made perfect. (Sarcasm) They also come to "Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood (eww) that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." What is the reality behind all this metaphor, anyway?
You know Jesus's speaking blood? The author says it better not be disobeyed. Those of the past, who were warned on earth, did not escape when they were disobedient. (See the story of Moses and the people at the mountain.) Does the reader think he will escape a warning from heaven? Gasp! There were only earthquakes at that mountain of old. God has promised that, "once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens." This is sort of a piece of a quote from Haggai 2:6. It's context is the building of the second temple, greater than the first, a purely physical building, not some heavenly temple. The author goes on to say that the words "once more" in the Haggai quote "indicate the removing of what can be shaken--that is created things--so that what cannot be shaken may remain." How in the world did he come to that conclusion?
Chapter twelve ends by telling the readers they need to be thankful because they are getting a kingdom that can't be shaken. "So, worship god acceptably with reverence and awe, for our god is a consuming fire." Is that a physical fire or a metaphorical fire?
Till next time.
In verse 16, we are given more specifics. No one is allowed to be sexually immoral, probably as defined in the Old Testament. I don't think Jesus actually said a word about sex in the gospels. Also, no one is permitted to be "godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son." That is an example of godlessness? What about his brother, who took advantage of a hungry man for personal gain? Victim blaming at its finest. Even worse, according to the author, Esau tearfully begged for his blessing back. Shame on him. Heathen.
The author goes on to tell the reader that they are so fortunate that they don't have to approach a physical burning mountain, covered with stormy dark clouds, with a loud and threatening voice issuing from it, like Moses did. That was terrifying. No, instead, they get to come to the "heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living god." (Isn't it the same terrifying god that was on Moses's mountain?) The reader also gets to come to "thousands upon thousands of heavenly angels in joyful assembly." And that's not terrifying?
The reader also comes to the "church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven." I don't think the author means literal first born children here, but metaphorical first born "children of god." They also have come to "god, the judge of all men and the spirits of righteous men made perfect." Not women. They are not made perfect. (Sarcasm) They also come to "Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood (eww) that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." What is the reality behind all this metaphor, anyway?
You know Jesus's speaking blood? The author says it better not be disobeyed. Those of the past, who were warned on earth, did not escape when they were disobedient. (See the story of Moses and the people at the mountain.) Does the reader think he will escape a warning from heaven? Gasp! There were only earthquakes at that mountain of old. God has promised that, "once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens." This is sort of a piece of a quote from Haggai 2:6. It's context is the building of the second temple, greater than the first, a purely physical building, not some heavenly temple. The author goes on to say that the words "once more" in the Haggai quote "indicate the removing of what can be shaken--that is created things--so that what cannot be shaken may remain." How in the world did he come to that conclusion?
Chapter twelve ends by telling the readers they need to be thankful because they are getting a kingdom that can't be shaken. "So, worship god acceptably with reverence and awe, for our god is a consuming fire." Is that a physical fire or a metaphorical fire?
Till next time.
Saturday, May 11, 2019
Hebrews part sixteen
We are currently at Hebrews 11:32. The author does some name dropping here. He says Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jepthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets, all did amazing things because of faith. We are told about some of those recorded events. Go back to the old testament and read about each of those people. They also did some horrendous things, according to the stories. In fact a couple of them were pretty horrible people. The author also clearly alludes to Daniel but does not mention his name. But none of that matters, does it, because there is no reason to believe any of it actually happened. Yet again, if any of it did happen, it clearly was not because of faith in Jesus and a far distant resurrection.
Verses 35-38 describe tortures, persecutions, mistreatments, and trials, endured for the gain of a better resurrection. Better than what? "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised." What exactly was promised anyway? According to the author, "God planned something better for us (the Hebrews) so that only together with us would they be made perfect." Great. It took hundreds of years and immeasurable death, pain, and suffering, but God's had a plan that's coming together perfectly right now, as in 2,000 years ago. Maybe.
We are now in chapter twelve. I managed to escape faith in god. What about you? The author continues on by claiming all the aforementioned characters as witnesses to god's plan. That should be enough, he says, to make the readers throw off whatever is holding them back and run the race with perseverance. The goal: Jesus, "the author and perfecter of our faith." He was so looking forward to the pleasure of perfecting their faith that he endured the shame and pain of the cross. What's six hours in trade for an eternity at the right hand of god? When the reader gets tired and loses heart, he can think about Jesus, who also endured opposition from sinful men. So waht if their pain lasts years instead of hours.
Now the Hebrews writer gets deadly serious. The readers haven't yet laid their blood on the line for Jesus. What's up with that? They've also forgotten Proverbs 3:11-12, which addresses them as sons (them as in the readers, or the Hebrews of all time?). It says, " My son, do not make light of the lord's discipline and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the lord disciplines those he loves." Oh, but the author of Hebrews does not stop there. He adds one more bit that isn't in the Psalm, as though it is actually part of it. "And he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." My study bible states that the word punish here means "to whip." This is corporal punishment, from god, and is evidence that the Hebrew writer made stuff up to influence his readers into believing that hardships endured were a direct proof of god's love for them. He is prepping them for martyrdom.
The author continues on in this vein, declaring that god is treating them as his sons by disciplining them, because aren't all sons disciplined. Obviously the Hebrew writer must have been, because, according to him, discipline makes you a true son, not an illegitimate one. (We all know illegitimate children never get disciplined). What?! The author says we respect our human fathers for disciplining us. Maybe he did, but it is clear that is not universal. Nevertheless, to the author, that is proof we should obey "the father of our spirits" even more "and live!" (The implication being that we won't get eternal life if we don't.) Supposedly, just like our fathers, god disciplines us because he thinks it is for our own good. (I think a father's harsh discipline is usually for the father's own good.) We think discipline is painful when it is happening, but the author wants us to see the long term benefits. "It produces a harvest of righteousness and peace." For whom?
Verse twelve calls the readers weaklings with feeble arms and weak knees who need to walk on straight paths so they will be healed. This makes no sense in the surrounding context. However it appears to partly be a reference to Isaiah 35:3, which is part of an admonition to "be strong, do not fear; your god will come...with vengeance, with divine retribution...to save you." Now that makes more sense. Why didn't the author quote the whole passage? Maybe he didn't want to give them false hope. Instead he combined a small bit of it with another small bit from Proverbs 4:26 and made nonsense. Till next time.
Till next time
Verses 35-38 describe tortures, persecutions, mistreatments, and trials, endured for the gain of a better resurrection. Better than what? "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised." What exactly was promised anyway? According to the author, "God planned something better for us (the Hebrews) so that only together with us would they be made perfect." Great. It took hundreds of years and immeasurable death, pain, and suffering, but God's had a plan that's coming together perfectly right now, as in 2,000 years ago. Maybe.
We are now in chapter twelve. I managed to escape faith in god. What about you? The author continues on by claiming all the aforementioned characters as witnesses to god's plan. That should be enough, he says, to make the readers throw off whatever is holding them back and run the race with perseverance. The goal: Jesus, "the author and perfecter of our faith." He was so looking forward to the pleasure of perfecting their faith that he endured the shame and pain of the cross. What's six hours in trade for an eternity at the right hand of god? When the reader gets tired and loses heart, he can think about Jesus, who also endured opposition from sinful men. So waht if their pain lasts years instead of hours.
Now the Hebrews writer gets deadly serious. The readers haven't yet laid their blood on the line for Jesus. What's up with that? They've also forgotten Proverbs 3:11-12, which addresses them as sons (them as in the readers, or the Hebrews of all time?). It says, " My son, do not make light of the lord's discipline and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the lord disciplines those he loves." Oh, but the author of Hebrews does not stop there. He adds one more bit that isn't in the Psalm, as though it is actually part of it. "And he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." My study bible states that the word punish here means "to whip." This is corporal punishment, from god, and is evidence that the Hebrew writer made stuff up to influence his readers into believing that hardships endured were a direct proof of god's love for them. He is prepping them for martyrdom.
The author continues on in this vein, declaring that god is treating them as his sons by disciplining them, because aren't all sons disciplined. Obviously the Hebrew writer must have been, because, according to him, discipline makes you a true son, not an illegitimate one. (We all know illegitimate children never get disciplined). What?! The author says we respect our human fathers for disciplining us. Maybe he did, but it is clear that is not universal. Nevertheless, to the author, that is proof we should obey "the father of our spirits" even more "and live!" (The implication being that we won't get eternal life if we don't.) Supposedly, just like our fathers, god disciplines us because he thinks it is for our own good. (I think a father's harsh discipline is usually for the father's own good.) We think discipline is painful when it is happening, but the author wants us to see the long term benefits. "It produces a harvest of righteousness and peace." For whom?
Verse twelve calls the readers weaklings with feeble arms and weak knees who need to walk on straight paths so they will be healed. This makes no sense in the surrounding context. However it appears to partly be a reference to Isaiah 35:3, which is part of an admonition to "be strong, do not fear; your god will come...with vengeance, with divine retribution...to save you." Now that makes more sense. Why didn't the author quote the whole passage? Maybe he didn't want to give them false hope. Instead he combined a small bit of it with another small bit from Proverbs 4:26 and made nonsense. Till next time.
Till next time
Thursday, February 14, 2019
Mark part twenty-one
We are now at Mark chapter twelve. Jesus is speaking to the religious authorities in the temple. He tells a parable about a man who planted a vineyard, rented it out, and then went away on a journey. This man obviously represents god. The tenants represent the Israelites. When harvest time comes, the man sends servants to collect some of the produce. (It was common for tenant farmers to have to give a percentage of their crop to the landowner, just as the Israelites had been commanded to tithe.) As we have seen in other parts of the bible the servants represent the prophets of yahweh. The servants in the parable were treated very badly by the farmers, even killed like John the Baptist. Eventually, the landowner sent his beloved son (aka Jesus), thinking they would respect him. Of course they did not, they killed him and threw him out of the vineyard.
Remember, Mark was written at least a couple of decades after the death of Jesus. So, the author already knows what has happened, if in fact Jesus did exist. Mark also very well could be putting words in Jesus's mouth as a literary tool, foreshadowing what was to come in the story. This book is written very much like a work of fiction. We go from one tall tale to the next, with very little sense of time.
Next Mark has Jesus saying that the owner of the metaphoric vineyard will come back, kill the tenants, and give the vineyard to others. If this is a literary foreshadowing of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, then this book was written after 70 CE. I assume it would be a retroactive prophecy, because I do not accept the existence of true foreknowledge. Then Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22-24 to the religious authorities. It says "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone (or cornerstone)." It appears that Jesus believes the passage is referring to himself being rejected but becoming foundational in some way.
The religious leaders assumed Jesus's parable referred to them. The text says they wanted to have him arrested but were afraid of the crowd. Later (How much later?), they sent some Pharisees and Herodians to try to trap Jesus into saying something which would condemn himself. They asked him if they should pay taxes to Caesar. If he said no, they could sic the Romans on him. If he said yes, the Jewish people might take offense and he would lose his following. Jesus was too clever for them. He asked them to give him a Roman coin and tell him whose picture was on it. They said Caesar's. Jesus then replied, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to god what is god's."
Next, came the Sadducees, who did not believe in a resurrection of the dead. They were justified in that non-belief, in my opinion, considering the Hebrew scriptures say next to nothing about resurrection. We know Jesus must believe in a resurrection. He has said the son of man will rise again after he is killed. The Sadducees reminded Jesus of the Old Testament teaching that if a woman became a widow and had no children, her husband's brother must marry her and produce an heir for his dead brother. They then tell a story of a widow who ended up marrying seven consecutive brothers without producing an heir for any of them. Then the woman died. The question asked of Jesus was, "At the resurrection, whose wife will she be?"
Jesus told them they were in error because they did not know the scriptures. "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." However, this concept is not even found in the canon of Old testament scriptures. A similar idea can be found in 1 Corinthians 15, leading to the possibility that Mark wrote his book after Paul had spread this teaching about resurrected bodies.
A very interesting note: My study bible ignores the fact that the idea of the woman with seven husbands most likely came from the book of Tobit.
Remember, Mark was written at least a couple of decades after the death of Jesus. So, the author already knows what has happened, if in fact Jesus did exist. Mark also very well could be putting words in Jesus's mouth as a literary tool, foreshadowing what was to come in the story. This book is written very much like a work of fiction. We go from one tall tale to the next, with very little sense of time.
Next Mark has Jesus saying that the owner of the metaphoric vineyard will come back, kill the tenants, and give the vineyard to others. If this is a literary foreshadowing of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, then this book was written after 70 CE. I assume it would be a retroactive prophecy, because I do not accept the existence of true foreknowledge. Then Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22-24 to the religious authorities. It says "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone (or cornerstone)." It appears that Jesus believes the passage is referring to himself being rejected but becoming foundational in some way.
The religious leaders assumed Jesus's parable referred to them. The text says they wanted to have him arrested but were afraid of the crowd. Later (How much later?), they sent some Pharisees and Herodians to try to trap Jesus into saying something which would condemn himself. They asked him if they should pay taxes to Caesar. If he said no, they could sic the Romans on him. If he said yes, the Jewish people might take offense and he would lose his following. Jesus was too clever for them. He asked them to give him a Roman coin and tell him whose picture was on it. They said Caesar's. Jesus then replied, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to god what is god's."
Next, came the Sadducees, who did not believe in a resurrection of the dead. They were justified in that non-belief, in my opinion, considering the Hebrew scriptures say next to nothing about resurrection. We know Jesus must believe in a resurrection. He has said the son of man will rise again after he is killed. The Sadducees reminded Jesus of the Old Testament teaching that if a woman became a widow and had no children, her husband's brother must marry her and produce an heir for his dead brother. They then tell a story of a widow who ended up marrying seven consecutive brothers without producing an heir for any of them. Then the woman died. The question asked of Jesus was, "At the resurrection, whose wife will she be?"
Jesus told them they were in error because they did not know the scriptures. "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." However, this concept is not even found in the canon of Old testament scriptures. A similar idea can be found in 1 Corinthians 15, leading to the possibility that Mark wrote his book after Paul had spread this teaching about resurrected bodies.
A very interesting note: My study bible ignores the fact that the idea of the woman with seven husbands most likely came from the book of Tobit.
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.
Sunday, July 8, 2018
Who wrote the bible? Old Testament.
Before we move on to 3rd John, I thought I would do some posts about the authors of the bible. Christianity never really addresses a major issue with the bible texts. That is that most of the authors of the 66 books of the bible are actually unknown. Lets take a look at the Old Testament.
Genesis: attributed to Moses, author/authors actually unknown.
Exodus: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown.
Leviticus: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown.
Numbers: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown.
Deuteronomy: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown
Joshua: sometimes attributed to Joshua, author(s) actually unknown
Judges: author(s) unknown.
Ruth: sometimes attributed to Samuel, authors(s) actually unknown.
1 & 2 Samuel: Sometimes attributed to Samuel, Gad, and Nathan, author(s) actually unknown.
1 &2 Kings: sometimes attributed to Jeremiah, author(s) actually unknown.
1 & 2 Chronicles: sometimes attributed to Ezra, author(s) actually unknown.
Ezra: attributed to Ezra, disputed because it appears highly edited
Nehemiah: originally attached to the book of Ezra, sometimes attributed to Ezra and/or Nehemiah, author(s)actually unknown.
Esther: sometimes attributed to Mordecai, author(s) actually unknown.
Job: sometimes attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown.
Psalms: generally attributed to David (disputed), multiple Psalms reference other authors as well.
Proverbs: generally attributed to Solomon (disputed), references other authors, an anthology.
Ecclesiastes: attributed to Solomon, disputed
Song of Songs: attributed to Solomon, author(s) actually unknown.
Isaiah: attributed to Isaiah, a portion possibly authentic, appears to have more than one author.
Jeremiah: attributed to Jeremiah, portions possibly authentic but highly edited.
Lamentations:attributed to Jeremiah, author(s) actually unknown.
Ezekiel: attributed to Ezekiel, portions possibly authentic but highly edited.
Daniel: attributed to Daniel, very highly disputed, possible fake.
Hosea: attributed to Hosea, possibly authentic?
Joel: attributed to Joel, portions possibly authentic, but highly edited and borrowed from others
Amos: attributed to Amos, portions possibly authentic but highly edited and borrowed from others.
Obadiah: attributed to Obadiah, possibly authentic but unconfirmed
Jonah: sometimes attributed to Jonah, author(s) actually unknown.
Micah: attributed to Micah, portions possibly authentic but highly edited and borrowed from others.
Nahum: attributed to Nahum, possibly authentic, though almost nothing is known about Nahum.
Habakuk: attributed to Habakkuk, possibly authentic, almost nothing is known about Habakkuk.
Zephaniah: attributed to Zephaniah who is not mentioned anywhere else, in the bible or history.
Haggai:attributed to Haggai, possibly authentic?
Zechariah: attributed to Zechariah but appears to have more than one author.
Malachi: attributed to Malachi which may not even be the name of an individual, disputed, unknown.
*"Borrowed from others" means there are phrases that are direct quotes of, or allusions to, passages in other bible books, or extrabiblical writings. The information here is what I could glean from the Wikipedia article on each book. You can examine other sources if you wish.
Not one of these books is known for sure to actually be the unedited writing of the author that it is attributed to. At least 17 out of 39 of the books' authors are absolutely unaccounted for. In my opinion that should be 39/39 but I'm being generous. Is this a book you want to trust with your life? Do you have reason to believe it is the inspired word of a god when the authors can't even be vouched for?
Genesis: attributed to Moses, author/authors actually unknown.
Exodus: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown.
Leviticus: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown.
Numbers: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown.
Deuteronomy: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown
Joshua: sometimes attributed to Joshua, author(s) actually unknown
Judges: author(s) unknown.
Ruth: sometimes attributed to Samuel, authors(s) actually unknown.
1 & 2 Samuel: Sometimes attributed to Samuel, Gad, and Nathan, author(s) actually unknown.
1 &2 Kings: sometimes attributed to Jeremiah, author(s) actually unknown.
1 & 2 Chronicles: sometimes attributed to Ezra, author(s) actually unknown.
Ezra: attributed to Ezra, disputed because it appears highly edited
Nehemiah: originally attached to the book of Ezra, sometimes attributed to Ezra and/or Nehemiah, author(s)actually unknown.
Esther: sometimes attributed to Mordecai, author(s) actually unknown.
Job: sometimes attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown.
Psalms: generally attributed to David (disputed), multiple Psalms reference other authors as well.
Proverbs: generally attributed to Solomon (disputed), references other authors, an anthology.
Ecclesiastes: attributed to Solomon, disputed
Song of Songs: attributed to Solomon, author(s) actually unknown.
Isaiah: attributed to Isaiah, a portion possibly authentic, appears to have more than one author.
Jeremiah: attributed to Jeremiah, portions possibly authentic but highly edited.
Lamentations:attributed to Jeremiah, author(s) actually unknown.
Ezekiel: attributed to Ezekiel, portions possibly authentic but highly edited.
Daniel: attributed to Daniel, very highly disputed, possible fake.
Hosea: attributed to Hosea, possibly authentic?
Joel: attributed to Joel, portions possibly authentic, but highly edited and borrowed from others
Amos: attributed to Amos, portions possibly authentic but highly edited and borrowed from others.
Obadiah: attributed to Obadiah, possibly authentic but unconfirmed
Jonah: sometimes attributed to Jonah, author(s) actually unknown.
Micah: attributed to Micah, portions possibly authentic but highly edited and borrowed from others.
Nahum: attributed to Nahum, possibly authentic, though almost nothing is known about Nahum.
Habakuk: attributed to Habakkuk, possibly authentic, almost nothing is known about Habakkuk.
Zephaniah: attributed to Zephaniah who is not mentioned anywhere else, in the bible or history.
Haggai:attributed to Haggai, possibly authentic?
Zechariah: attributed to Zechariah but appears to have more than one author.
Malachi: attributed to Malachi which may not even be the name of an individual, disputed, unknown.
*"Borrowed from others" means there are phrases that are direct quotes of, or allusions to, passages in other bible books, or extrabiblical writings. The information here is what I could glean from the Wikipedia article on each book. You can examine other sources if you wish.
Not one of these books is known for sure to actually be the unedited writing of the author that it is attributed to. At least 17 out of 39 of the books' authors are absolutely unaccounted for. In my opinion that should be 39/39 but I'm being generous. Is this a book you want to trust with your life? Do you have reason to believe it is the inspired word of a god when the authors can't even be vouched for?
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Malachi, wrap up
After reading Malachi, we can see that it is a very general book admonishing the Israelites to keep the law of Moses and to not slack off when it comes to sacrifices and offerings. It seems to encourage them to think of themselves as specially loved by Yahweh, above the other people groups in the area. They are also told to be faithful to him. Those who get the message, will be favored in the future, when the Lord comes. Those who don't are doomed to destruction. The day of the lord's coming will be foretold by Elijah. Elijah should have been long dead at this time, so his name must be symbolic.
This book does not specifically mention heaven, hell, angels, Satan, or demons. It does not anchor itself in time by mentioning any kings or other historic figures living at the time of the writing. It also does not mention any secular historic events. In 1:10, temple doors are mentioned, so it was most likely written after the construction of the second temple. It claims to be a message or oracle from Yahweh, yet often shifts between the first and third person points of view.
A book like this would have been applicable as a sermon across many hundreds of years, to pull the Israelites back into compliance whenever they began to look upon their neighbors, and their neighbor's gods, as not so bad. It would also give the priests leverage when the people would loosen the standards of their sacrifices and offerings. After all, the priests relied on those for their livelihood. The oracle is telling the people to shape up.
Malachi mentions the Old testament names Jacob and Esau, Israel, Moses, Judah, Levi, and Elijah, that's it. No specific Old Testament events are mentioned except the giving of the law to Moses. However, verse 2:11, which says Judah has desecrated the sanctuary by marrying the daughter of a foreign god, is an oblique symbolic reference to Genesis 38. There, the original Judah, son of Jacob, and who the Jews are named after, married a Canaanite woman. Malachi suggests that such a man will be excommunicated by Yahweh, even if he brings offerings to the lord.
The past portion of Malachi, verses 4:5-6, are viewed by some Christians as prophetic of John the Baptist (symbolized by Elijah) and Jesus (representing Yahweh). It is my contention that you only get there if you already believe Jesus is god in the flesh. Otherwise, it really doesn't make sense, especially since the Israelites had just been told in the verses just before to remember the laws and decrees of Moses. Elijah is there because he was the prophet who supposedly didn't die, but rode a fiery chariot up to heaven. The other prophets are probably all dead by the time of this writing. This author apparently thought a new word from Yahweh was needed to keep the Jews in the proper traditional mindset.
This book does not specifically mention heaven, hell, angels, Satan, or demons. It does not anchor itself in time by mentioning any kings or other historic figures living at the time of the writing. It also does not mention any secular historic events. In 1:10, temple doors are mentioned, so it was most likely written after the construction of the second temple. It claims to be a message or oracle from Yahweh, yet often shifts between the first and third person points of view.
A book like this would have been applicable as a sermon across many hundreds of years, to pull the Israelites back into compliance whenever they began to look upon their neighbors, and their neighbor's gods, as not so bad. It would also give the priests leverage when the people would loosen the standards of their sacrifices and offerings. After all, the priests relied on those for their livelihood. The oracle is telling the people to shape up.
Malachi mentions the Old testament names Jacob and Esau, Israel, Moses, Judah, Levi, and Elijah, that's it. No specific Old Testament events are mentioned except the giving of the law to Moses. However, verse 2:11, which says Judah has desecrated the sanctuary by marrying the daughter of a foreign god, is an oblique symbolic reference to Genesis 38. There, the original Judah, son of Jacob, and who the Jews are named after, married a Canaanite woman. Malachi suggests that such a man will be excommunicated by Yahweh, even if he brings offerings to the lord.
The past portion of Malachi, verses 4:5-6, are viewed by some Christians as prophetic of John the Baptist (symbolized by Elijah) and Jesus (representing Yahweh). It is my contention that you only get there if you already believe Jesus is god in the flesh. Otherwise, it really doesn't make sense, especially since the Israelites had just been told in the verses just before to remember the laws and decrees of Moses. Elijah is there because he was the prophet who supposedly didn't die, but rode a fiery chariot up to heaven. The other prophets are probably all dead by the time of this writing. This author apparently thought a new word from Yahweh was needed to keep the Jews in the proper traditional mindset.
Saturday, May 5, 2018
Malachi, introduction
Recently, I mentioned that James and Jude were generic New Testament letters that seemed to be addressed to people who were more Jewish than Christian. Then I discovered that the book of Malachi also seems to be a generic Jewish book, of the Old Testament. Read about the book of Malachi here and the prophet Malachi here. Note that no one actually knows who Malachi was and if he actually existed. The book had to have been written after the completion of the second temple (about 515 BCE) and before the second century. That's a span of three hundred years possibility.
The title of the book, and the supposed author's name, means messenger of Yahweh. It does not seem coincidental that the the book itself purports to be a message from god. Remember the entire bible has a pattern of using names for people and places that do double duty in meaning. These names are not necessarily the actual names attached to individuals who actually existed. The double entendre names are there to give greater substance and authority to the texts, to imbue them with symbolism, metaphor, and a poetic sense of divine inspiration. "Bob has a message for you from god" doesn't sound half as impressive as "(The man whose name is messenger from god) has received a word from the lord."
Interestingly, some early Christians believed Malachi was an angel. This is because an angel was a messenger of god and the word angel was used in the greek text (Septuagint) for the word messenger. The text is called "an oracle" in verse 1. The book is claiming to be the word of the lord. This is the first time on this blog that we have seen a bible book make this claim for its whole text.
Do you think we will find anything new and exciting in this book? We will see. Till next time.
The title of the book, and the supposed author's name, means messenger of Yahweh. It does not seem coincidental that the the book itself purports to be a message from god. Remember the entire bible has a pattern of using names for people and places that do double duty in meaning. These names are not necessarily the actual names attached to individuals who actually existed. The double entendre names are there to give greater substance and authority to the texts, to imbue them with symbolism, metaphor, and a poetic sense of divine inspiration. "Bob has a message for you from god" doesn't sound half as impressive as "(The man whose name is messenger from god) has received a word from the lord."
Interestingly, some early Christians believed Malachi was an angel. This is because an angel was a messenger of god and the word angel was used in the greek text (Septuagint) for the word messenger. The text is called "an oracle" in verse 1. The book is claiming to be the word of the lord. This is the first time on this blog that we have seen a bible book make this claim for its whole text.
Do you think we will find anything new and exciting in this book? We will see. Till next time.
Saturday, April 7, 2018
Jude, part 4 and wrap up
We continue with verses 17-19. "...remember what the apostles of our lord (Jesus Christ) foretold. They said to you, 'In the last days there will be scoffers ("mockers" in some translations) who will follow their own ungodly desires.' These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the spirit." I put Jesus Christ in parentheses to show that it could be taken out and the passage could very well have been written by a Jewish non Christian. None of the ideas in this passage, or in the whole of Jude, have been distinctly Christian.
The term apostle was not new with christianity, it had the generic greek meaning of messenger or one who was sent on behalf of another. Both the old and new testaments speak of scoffers or mockers and last days. The quote Jude mentions does not occur in either the old or new testament. There were issues of divisions in Judaism in the first century, even besides the introduction of Christianity. Jude's letter could very well have been a polemic against the Hellenization of Judaism.
Verses 20-21: ".... build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the holy spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our lord (Jesus Christ) to bring you to eternal life." Again, nothing here is specific to Christianity and could be referring to Judaism. I put Jesus Christ in parentheses to show that it is not necessary to the passage.
Verses 22-23: "Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy mixed with fear--hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh." Snatching from fire is found in Amos 4:11 and Zechariah 3:2. The Zachariah verse is found in the context of the high priest Joshua (Jesus figure) that I mentioned in a previous post. After Joshua was said to have been snatched from the fire. Zechariah 3:4 says he was dressed in filthy clothes, equated with sin. The angel of the lord had them removed and clean clothes were put on him. Coincidentally, this passage in Jude mentions clothing stained by corrupted (sinful) flesh. Actually, I don't think it was a coincidence. Jude seems to have anchored part of his letter on the first verses in Zechariah 3.
Jude's letter ends with "To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy (like Joshua in Zechariah 3)--to the one and only god our savior be the glory, majesty, power, and authority, (through Jesus Christ) our lord ( ,) before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen." I put the words "through Jesus Christ" and the comma in parentheses to show how the meaning and flow of the sentence is changed without them. There were no comma's in the early manuscripts. Also if you read the interlinear text, the word order of this passage differs from the NIV. The translators are the ones responsible for that. I don't blame those christians who get suspicious of certain translations. Liberties do seem to be taken in many cases. Perhaps doctrinal agendas are at play in some instances.
I urge you to go back and read quickly through the book of Jude, leaving out all references to Jesus Christ. When I do that, I see a Jewish document, not a Christian one. There is no mention of any of Jesus's life or unique teachings. No, birth, baptism, sermons, miracles, death, burial, or resurrection. None of the disciples/apostles are mentioned by name. No specific churches are mentioned. No uniquely christian doctrines are discussed. On the contrary, Jude mentions a number of specifically Jewish teachings and writings, biblical (old testament) and extrabiblical.
This book does not claim to be inspired or the word of god. I think some enterprising christian may have co-opted a first century Jew's sermon or essay and inserted a few generic references to Jesus. Maybe it was stolen or confiscated. Maybe this writing was referring to those of the new christian sect as the bad guys. Anyway, It seems obvious: Jude=Jew. I don't wonder that it was disputed by the early church.
The term apostle was not new with christianity, it had the generic greek meaning of messenger or one who was sent on behalf of another. Both the old and new testaments speak of scoffers or mockers and last days. The quote Jude mentions does not occur in either the old or new testament. There were issues of divisions in Judaism in the first century, even besides the introduction of Christianity. Jude's letter could very well have been a polemic against the Hellenization of Judaism.
Verses 20-21: ".... build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the holy spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our lord (Jesus Christ) to bring you to eternal life." Again, nothing here is specific to Christianity and could be referring to Judaism. I put Jesus Christ in parentheses to show that it is not necessary to the passage.
Verses 22-23: "Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy mixed with fear--hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh." Snatching from fire is found in Amos 4:11 and Zechariah 3:2. The Zachariah verse is found in the context of the high priest Joshua (Jesus figure) that I mentioned in a previous post. After Joshua was said to have been snatched from the fire. Zechariah 3:4 says he was dressed in filthy clothes, equated with sin. The angel of the lord had them removed and clean clothes were put on him. Coincidentally, this passage in Jude mentions clothing stained by corrupted (sinful) flesh. Actually, I don't think it was a coincidence. Jude seems to have anchored part of his letter on the first verses in Zechariah 3.
Jude's letter ends with "To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy (like Joshua in Zechariah 3)--to the one and only god our savior be the glory, majesty, power, and authority, (through Jesus Christ) our lord ( ,) before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen." I put the words "through Jesus Christ" and the comma in parentheses to show how the meaning and flow of the sentence is changed without them. There were no comma's in the early manuscripts. Also if you read the interlinear text, the word order of this passage differs from the NIV. The translators are the ones responsible for that. I don't blame those christians who get suspicious of certain translations. Liberties do seem to be taken in many cases. Perhaps doctrinal agendas are at play in some instances.
I urge you to go back and read quickly through the book of Jude, leaving out all references to Jesus Christ. When I do that, I see a Jewish document, not a Christian one. There is no mention of any of Jesus's life or unique teachings. No, birth, baptism, sermons, miracles, death, burial, or resurrection. None of the disciples/apostles are mentioned by name. No specific churches are mentioned. No uniquely christian doctrines are discussed. On the contrary, Jude mentions a number of specifically Jewish teachings and writings, biblical (old testament) and extrabiblical.
This book does not claim to be inspired or the word of god. I think some enterprising christian may have co-opted a first century Jew's sermon or essay and inserted a few generic references to Jesus. Maybe it was stolen or confiscated. Maybe this writing was referring to those of the new christian sect as the bad guys. Anyway, It seems obvious: Jude=Jew. I don't wonder that it was disputed by the early church.
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
Sermon on the mount, part six
We continue on with Jesus outlining how to be more righteous than the pharisees, in the sermon on the mount.
In Matthew 5:38, Jesus refers to the Exodus 21:23-25 command from Moses, god's proxy, to take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, when injury occurs from fighting, basically instating and permitting blood feud. However, Jesus says not to resist an evil person. "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Is Jesus saying the law was wrong? His suggestion here is diametrically opposed to what is seen in Exodus, not just an extension of its principles. My personal opinion is that this teaching was contrived to keep its listeners/readers out of trouble with their Roman overseers or their slave masters. He is advocating non-resistance, as is seen in the next couple of statements which tell his followers to give up their possessions to those who ask for them with or without implied force. It is basically a survival strategy. Also, this teaching of Jesus's advocates complete non-resistance and "going the extra mile" or giving more than what is asked of you. Make no mistake, this is not the passive resistance or civil disobedience of Ghandi and MLK. Are most Christians today practicing this kind of nonresistance?
In 5:43, Jesus goes on to discuss a saying of "love your neighbor and hate your enemy." This combination is not actually found in the Old Testament scriptures. There is absolutely no command to "hate your enemy." However, many times in the OT scriptures, the Israelites were encouraged to do horrible things to the so called enemies of god, who became their enemies as well. Leviticus 19:18 does say, "Love your neighbor as yourself." However, in that context the neighbor appears to be a fellow Israelite. In Mark 12:31, Jesus says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the second greatest commandment. In Luke 10:27-28, Jesus agrees with a man who says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is one of the things you must do to inherit eternal life, even though eternal life is not mentioned as a reward in the Old Testament.
In 5:44-47, Jesus continues, saying that not only must you not hate your enemies, you must also love them and pray for them. It is not anything special to only love those who love you. This sentiment, along with turning the other cheek and giving more than asked for, is echoed in the Luke sermon (6:27-36) However, Luke puts everything in a different order and adds, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Matthew ends the how to be more righteous passages with Jesus saying, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect." Luke ends the one similar passage with Jesus saying, if you do these things "You will be sons of the most high, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful as your father is merciful." But is that true? Is the god of the bible perfect? Is he kind to the ungrateful and wicked? Is he merciful? Since when?
Let's do a thought experiment. As a general rule, what do you think would happen to you and your life if you gave over every single thing that was asked of you, and more, without question or resistance, without expectation of repayment? Do you actually know anyone who does this? The only example I can think of is the sister of Corrie Ten Boom in The Hiding Place. She ended up in a Nazi gas chamber.
In Matthew 5:38, Jesus refers to the Exodus 21:23-25 command from Moses, god's proxy, to take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, when injury occurs from fighting, basically instating and permitting blood feud. However, Jesus says not to resist an evil person. "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Is Jesus saying the law was wrong? His suggestion here is diametrically opposed to what is seen in Exodus, not just an extension of its principles. My personal opinion is that this teaching was contrived to keep its listeners/readers out of trouble with their Roman overseers or their slave masters. He is advocating non-resistance, as is seen in the next couple of statements which tell his followers to give up their possessions to those who ask for them with or without implied force. It is basically a survival strategy. Also, this teaching of Jesus's advocates complete non-resistance and "going the extra mile" or giving more than what is asked of you. Make no mistake, this is not the passive resistance or civil disobedience of Ghandi and MLK. Are most Christians today practicing this kind of nonresistance?
In 5:43, Jesus goes on to discuss a saying of "love your neighbor and hate your enemy." This combination is not actually found in the Old Testament scriptures. There is absolutely no command to "hate your enemy." However, many times in the OT scriptures, the Israelites were encouraged to do horrible things to the so called enemies of god, who became their enemies as well. Leviticus 19:18 does say, "Love your neighbor as yourself." However, in that context the neighbor appears to be a fellow Israelite. In Mark 12:31, Jesus says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the second greatest commandment. In Luke 10:27-28, Jesus agrees with a man who says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is one of the things you must do to inherit eternal life, even though eternal life is not mentioned as a reward in the Old Testament.
In 5:44-47, Jesus continues, saying that not only must you not hate your enemies, you must also love them and pray for them. It is not anything special to only love those who love you. This sentiment, along with turning the other cheek and giving more than asked for, is echoed in the Luke sermon (6:27-36) However, Luke puts everything in a different order and adds, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Matthew ends the how to be more righteous passages with Jesus saying, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect." Luke ends the one similar passage with Jesus saying, if you do these things "You will be sons of the most high, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful as your father is merciful." But is that true? Is the god of the bible perfect? Is he kind to the ungrateful and wicked? Is he merciful? Since when?
Let's do a thought experiment. As a general rule, what do you think would happen to you and your life if you gave over every single thing that was asked of you, and more, without question or resistance, without expectation of repayment? Do you actually know anyone who does this? The only example I can think of is the sister of Corrie Ten Boom in The Hiding Place. She ended up in a Nazi gas chamber.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Hell part 3
As we have seen, the Old Testament hell is actually sheol, which is not the same as the hell taught in christianity. It is the realm of the dead, the grave. It is underground or some nebulous place in the depths, "down below." It is often associated with a pit. The word pit associated with the grave or death in the Old Testament often comes from the Hebrew word "bowr." This word appears to have meanings associated with a hole in the ground that is a well or cistern, or a dungeon. The word pit associated with death and the grave in the KJV is also sometimes translated from the Hebrew word "shachath." This word has connotations of a ditch or a trap. Notice that these are all words associated with under the ground or holes in the earth.
Sometimes the word destruction is associated with sheol. Then, it is often from the word abaddon. They are often seen together as in "death and destruction." (Sheol and Abaddon) Abaddon appears to be a distinct part of hell, perhaps a bottomless pit. There is that word pit again.
Besides Sheol, the Old Testament does have a few descriptions of a punishment after death at some "end time," but it is not named as a particular place. Some christians claim these are descrptions of hell. Let's look at some of them.
First let's look at Daniel chapter 12: 1-2. "....at that time your people-everyone whose name is found written in the book-will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel is an apocalyptic/prophetic book, written anonymously, about 200 years before Jesus, according to many scholars. My NIV study bible says its writers think Daniel was written around the time period of its events, about 560 BC, at least partly by Daniel. I have not studied the book of Daniel in depth, but this passage does appear to refer to an afterlife. The phrase "your people" obviously refers to jews. Why do christians think it speaks to them? The book of Daniel was written by Jews for Jews. Also, in practical terms, what does it mean to awaken to everlasting shame and contempt?
The study bible references lead me from Daniel to another supposedly prophetic book, Isaiah. Again, this book was written by Jews, for Jews. In chapter 26, a future day of judgement is being sung about. In verse 11, Isaiah begs Yahweh to let the fire reserved for his enemies consume them. In verse fourteen we see Isaiah say that God's enemies are dead "they live no more." Yahweh "punished them and brought them to ruin." He wiped out all memory of them. This doesn't sound like a literal hell. In fact, from there the study bible leads me to Psalm 9:5 where the worse thing that can happen to the wicked is that they are utterly destroyed, their names blotted out, and the memory of them perishes. Really? Okay, being destroyed is totally the pits. We have only one life. But once you are gone, so what if noone remembers you. You won't know.
Let us remember that Daniel, Isaiah, and Psalms are written in poetic and metaphoric language. They are trash talking about the enemies of the Israelites. I don't think these passages were meant to be doctrinal statements about what happens to nonbelievers in christianity.
Sometimes the word destruction is associated with sheol. Then, it is often from the word abaddon. They are often seen together as in "death and destruction." (Sheol and Abaddon) Abaddon appears to be a distinct part of hell, perhaps a bottomless pit. There is that word pit again.
Besides Sheol, the Old Testament does have a few descriptions of a punishment after death at some "end time," but it is not named as a particular place. Some christians claim these are descrptions of hell. Let's look at some of them.
First let's look at Daniel chapter 12: 1-2. "....at that time your people-everyone whose name is found written in the book-will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel is an apocalyptic/prophetic book, written anonymously, about 200 years before Jesus, according to many scholars. My NIV study bible says its writers think Daniel was written around the time period of its events, about 560 BC, at least partly by Daniel. I have not studied the book of Daniel in depth, but this passage does appear to refer to an afterlife. The phrase "your people" obviously refers to jews. Why do christians think it speaks to them? The book of Daniel was written by Jews for Jews. Also, in practical terms, what does it mean to awaken to everlasting shame and contempt?
The study bible references lead me from Daniel to another supposedly prophetic book, Isaiah. Again, this book was written by Jews, for Jews. In chapter 26, a future day of judgement is being sung about. In verse 11, Isaiah begs Yahweh to let the fire reserved for his enemies consume them. In verse fourteen we see Isaiah say that God's enemies are dead "they live no more." Yahweh "punished them and brought them to ruin." He wiped out all memory of them. This doesn't sound like a literal hell. In fact, from there the study bible leads me to Psalm 9:5 where the worse thing that can happen to the wicked is that they are utterly destroyed, their names blotted out, and the memory of them perishes. Really? Okay, being destroyed is totally the pits. We have only one life. But once you are gone, so what if noone remembers you. You won't know.
Let us remember that Daniel, Isaiah, and Psalms are written in poetic and metaphoric language. They are trash talking about the enemies of the Israelites. I don't think these passages were meant to be doctrinal statements about what happens to nonbelievers in christianity.
Monday, December 4, 2017
Hell part 2
We are going to look at the Old Testament passages where Sheol is translated into "hell" in the King James version. We are doing that because Strong's concordance was created based on the King James. We will compare that to how the NIV scholars translated those passages. My NIV study bible has no references for hell in the Old Testament in its concordance. The words "death" or "grave" in the NIV replace the word hell from the KJV. The Hebrew is sheol for each of these.
1- Deut. 32:22, sheol is translated to "realm of death below" in the NIV. There is a fire from god's wrath.
2- 2 Sam. 22:6 talks of the cords of the grave.
3- Job 11:8 says the mysteries of god are deeper than the depths of the grave
4- Job 26:6 "death is naked before god"
5- Psalm 9:17 "the wicked return to the grave"
6- Psalm 16:10 "you will not abandon me to the grave"
7- Psalm 18:5 "the cords of the grave entangled me" This is very similar to the verse in 2 Samuel.
8- Psalm 55:15 "let them go down alive to the grave"
9- Psalm 86:13 "you have delivered me from the depths of the grave"
10- Psalm 116:3 "anguish of the grave came upon me"
11-Psalm139:8 "if I make my bed in the depths (sheol) you are there" this is talking about god.
12- Prov. 5:5 "her feet go down to death" talking about the "adulterous woman."
13- Prov. 7:27 "her house is a highway to the grave"
14- Prov 9:18 "her guests are in the depths of the grave"
15- Prov. 15:11 "death and destruction lie open before the lord"
16- Prov. 15:24 "The path of life leads upward.....to keep him from going down to the grave."
17- Prov. 23:14 "punish him with the rod and save his soul from death"
18- Prov. 27:20 "death and destruction are never satisfied."
19- Is. 14:15 "you are brought down to the realm of the dead to the depths of the pit"
20- Is. 28:15 "with the realm of the dead we have made an agreement"
21- Is. 28:18 "your agreement with the realm of the dead will not stand"
22- Is. 57:9 "you descended to the very realm of the dead"
23- Eze. 31:16 "I brought it down to the realm of the dead"
24- Eze. 31:17 "they too had gone down to the realm of the dead"
25- Eze. 32:21 "from within the realm of the dead, the mighty leaders will say"
26- Eze. 32:27 "who went down to the realm of the dead"
27- Amos 9:2 "though they dig down to the depths below"
28-Jonah 2:2 "from deep in the realm of the dead"
29- Hab. 2:5 "he is as greedy as the grave"
Again, these are all the NIV versions of the passages where sheol is translated into "hell" in the KJV Old Testament. We see from these that NIV scholars determined they should be translated as death, the grave, the depths, and the realm of the dead.
I also looked up "death" in the Strong's concordance and found no instances where the KJV translators used death for sheol.The Hebrew word translated as death was an entirely different word. However, when I looked up "grave" in the Strong's concordance, I found 30 instances where sheol had been translated as "the grave" instead of hell. So, even the KJV scholars were not consistly translating sheol into hell. I also found 3 instances where sheol had been translated into "the pit" in the KJV. As far as I could tell grave, hell, and pit are the only English words that the KJV uses for sheol.
I searched the text of the NIV for the word hell here: (link). As far as I can see, there is no hell in the Old Testament of the NIV, at all. Very interesting. In fact, the Old Testament scriptures of these translations also do not contain the word hell: ASV, RSV, ISV, NET, WEB, YLT, ISV, EST, NASB, The Easy To Read Version, and the Good News Bible. The ones that do contain hell in the Old Testament are the various versions of the KJV, and surprisingly enough, The Living Bible and The Message. That last one shocked me, considering it is often used by non-fundamentalist, progressive christians. I wonder if the word hell occurring in the KJV is one of the reasons that version is preferred by fundamentalists.
1- Deut. 32:22, sheol is translated to "realm of death below" in the NIV. There is a fire from god's wrath.
2- 2 Sam. 22:6 talks of the cords of the grave.
3- Job 11:8 says the mysteries of god are deeper than the depths of the grave
4- Job 26:6 "death is naked before god"
5- Psalm 9:17 "the wicked return to the grave"
6- Psalm 16:10 "you will not abandon me to the grave"
7- Psalm 18:5 "the cords of the grave entangled me" This is very similar to the verse in 2 Samuel.
8- Psalm 55:15 "let them go down alive to the grave"
9- Psalm 86:13 "you have delivered me from the depths of the grave"
10- Psalm 116:3 "anguish of the grave came upon me"
11-Psalm139:8 "if I make my bed in the depths (sheol) you are there" this is talking about god.
12- Prov. 5:5 "her feet go down to death" talking about the "adulterous woman."
13- Prov. 7:27 "her house is a highway to the grave"
14- Prov 9:18 "her guests are in the depths of the grave"
15- Prov. 15:11 "death and destruction lie open before the lord"
16- Prov. 15:24 "The path of life leads upward.....to keep him from going down to the grave."
17- Prov. 23:14 "punish him with the rod and save his soul from death"
18- Prov. 27:20 "death and destruction are never satisfied."
19- Is. 14:15 "you are brought down to the realm of the dead to the depths of the pit"
20- Is. 28:15 "with the realm of the dead we have made an agreement"
21- Is. 28:18 "your agreement with the realm of the dead will not stand"
22- Is. 57:9 "you descended to the very realm of the dead"
23- Eze. 31:16 "I brought it down to the realm of the dead"
24- Eze. 31:17 "they too had gone down to the realm of the dead"
25- Eze. 32:21 "from within the realm of the dead, the mighty leaders will say"
26- Eze. 32:27 "who went down to the realm of the dead"
27- Amos 9:2 "though they dig down to the depths below"
28-Jonah 2:2 "from deep in the realm of the dead"
29- Hab. 2:5 "he is as greedy as the grave"
Again, these are all the NIV versions of the passages where sheol is translated into "hell" in the KJV Old Testament. We see from these that NIV scholars determined they should be translated as death, the grave, the depths, and the realm of the dead.
I also looked up "death" in the Strong's concordance and found no instances where the KJV translators used death for sheol.The Hebrew word translated as death was an entirely different word. However, when I looked up "grave" in the Strong's concordance, I found 30 instances where sheol had been translated as "the grave" instead of hell. So, even the KJV scholars were not consistly translating sheol into hell. I also found 3 instances where sheol had been translated into "the pit" in the KJV. As far as I could tell grave, hell, and pit are the only English words that the KJV uses for sheol.
I searched the text of the NIV for the word hell here: (link). As far as I can see, there is no hell in the Old Testament of the NIV, at all. Very interesting. In fact, the Old Testament scriptures of these translations also do not contain the word hell: ASV, RSV, ISV, NET, WEB, YLT, ISV, EST, NASB, The Easy To Read Version, and the Good News Bible. The ones that do contain hell in the Old Testament are the various versions of the KJV, and surprisingly enough, The Living Bible and The Message. That last one shocked me, considering it is often used by non-fundamentalist, progressive christians. I wonder if the word hell occurring in the KJV is one of the reasons that version is preferred by fundamentalists.
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Hell, part 1
Over the next few weeks, I thought we could take a look at Heaven and Hell. My personal, in depth study of hell some years ago was one of the main factors in my deconversion. I looked through my old posts and could not find a comprehensive examination of those subjects, so that's what I want to do now. We will start with Hell, since that is a fear introduced to believers as the only alternative to Heaven, where everyone woul prefer to end up, of course.
The general, cultural idea of Hell, in Christian North America, is either a place of eternal torment with fire, pain, and anguish, or a dark void of eternal separation from god and all that is good. Does the Bible support either of these ideas? Is there reason to believe either version of Hell exists? Let's find out.
Today, we will start with the old testament. I looked up the word Hell in my Strong's concordance. For the old testament there appeared to be only one Hebrew word translated into the English word Hell: Sheol. Sheol is also translated into the English words "death" and "grave" in multiple scriptures. Read about Sheol here: (link)
Sheol of the old testament was not the hell of eternal punishment found christianity. It was an underground world where ALL the dead resided. It has its equivalent in the Greek Hades. Obviously, no such world actually exists. It is pure mythology.
However, it is important to recognize that Jews do not follow the doctrine of "sola scriptura" that many protestant christian groups do, including the church of christ, of which I was a member. Jews also have a long tradition of rabbinical writings which include laws, commentary and additional stories. These are found in the Talmud and other books. They are often given as much weight, or more, as what christians would call the old testament, which Jews call the bible.
We are not going to cover what Jewish extrabiblical writings say about hell, because I'm not all that concerned with them. Jews are not going around trying to convince anyone they will go to hell if they do not believe what is taught by Judaism. Many christians, however, are doing just that.
I will give you a few links with Jewish discussions of what they believe about hell and or an afterlife.
Here
Here
Here
Here
and
Here
As you can see there is great variation in the Jewish faith and tradition. Each of the above links shows a unique perspective, with some pertinent history. However, they all seem similar in that they do not take a stance of condemnation or eternal punishment/torture. They don't see a need to evangelize to save souls. Most do not think what you believe matters as much as what you do. If christianity had not happened, would the world have been a kinder gentler place? Who knows.
The general, cultural idea of Hell, in Christian North America, is either a place of eternal torment with fire, pain, and anguish, or a dark void of eternal separation from god and all that is good. Does the Bible support either of these ideas? Is there reason to believe either version of Hell exists? Let's find out.
Today, we will start with the old testament. I looked up the word Hell in my Strong's concordance. For the old testament there appeared to be only one Hebrew word translated into the English word Hell: Sheol. Sheol is also translated into the English words "death" and "grave" in multiple scriptures. Read about Sheol here: (link)
Sheol of the old testament was not the hell of eternal punishment found christianity. It was an underground world where ALL the dead resided. It has its equivalent in the Greek Hades. Obviously, no such world actually exists. It is pure mythology.
However, it is important to recognize that Jews do not follow the doctrine of "sola scriptura" that many protestant christian groups do, including the church of christ, of which I was a member. Jews also have a long tradition of rabbinical writings which include laws, commentary and additional stories. These are found in the Talmud and other books. They are often given as much weight, or more, as what christians would call the old testament, which Jews call the bible.
We are not going to cover what Jewish extrabiblical writings say about hell, because I'm not all that concerned with them. Jews are not going around trying to convince anyone they will go to hell if they do not believe what is taught by Judaism. Many christians, however, are doing just that.
I will give you a few links with Jewish discussions of what they believe about hell and or an afterlife.
Here
Here
Here
Here
and
Here
As you can see there is great variation in the Jewish faith and tradition. Each of the above links shows a unique perspective, with some pertinent history. However, they all seem similar in that they do not take a stance of condemnation or eternal punishment/torture. They don't see a need to evangelize to save souls. Most do not think what you believe matters as much as what you do. If christianity had not happened, would the world have been a kinder gentler place? Who knows.
Friday, August 11, 2017
Shepherds part 8
In paragraph 9 of Mr. Alcorn's article Shepherd's Status, we read "In the course of 400 years, the Egyptians prejudiced the Israelite's attitude toward shepherding." Again, there are no sources to back this up and no reasons to believe it is true.
In paragraph 10, we see a statement that shepherding in Palestine decreased after the Israelites occupied the land and settled down. Again, no sources to back this up. Not surprisingly, Mr. Alcorn seems unaware of the current scholarship, supported by archaeology, that shows the Israelites probably originated and developed from within the Canaanite people. They were Canaanites to begin with.
Mr. Alcorn continues to make statement after statement of dubious historicity, with no sources given. In paragraph 12, this claim is made: "In the days of the prophets, sheep herders symbolized judgement and social isolation. (Zephaniah 2:6)." I don't think Mr. Alcorn read the context of that passage in Zephaniah very well. The shepherds represented Yahweh's people, the remnant of the house of Judah. They were supposed to show god's loving care for his chosen ones.
We are given Dr. Joachim Jeremias as a source for the statement that shepherds were "despised in everyday life." We are not told in which of Dr. Jeremias's writings we would find this, or where he got his information.
Paragraph 13 says, "Shepherding had not just lost its widespread appeal; it eventually forfeited its social acceptability. Some shepherds earned their poor reputations, but others became victims of a cruel sterotype. (Sources ??) The religious leaders maligned the shepherd's good name; rabbis banned the pasturing of goats and sheep in Israel, except on desert plains." We will see there is a small kernel of truth in the last statement when we examine the Mishnah's statements about shepherds. But it is not the whole truth.
The article goes on to say, "The Mishnah, Judaism's written record of the oral laws, also reflects this prejudice, referring to shepherds in belittling terms. One passage describes them as 'incompetent'; another says no one should ever feel obligated to rescue a shepherd who has fallen into a pit. Mr Alcorn does not tell us where in the mishnah we can find these statements. My guess is he didn't actually check to see if they are there.
If you read the Wikipedia article on the Mishnah you will see that it is a collection of documents about oral traditions and laws, supposedly passed down from through the ages. They were written and edited by rabbis, combined with other documents written and edited by rabbis. Some of the documents are comentaries on the Mishnah. All together, the collection is called the Talmud, and there are two versions of that. Think of the whole thing as a kind of law library reference encyclopedia.
In the next post I will attempt to uncover just what we can find about shepherds in these documents.
Thursday, July 13, 2017
1Clement part three and wrap up
I finally finished reading chapter 55-to the end of the letter. There is not much more to tell. More Old Testament scriptures are quoted from Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. More Old Testament characters are invoked.
The Corinthians are told that as an example, throughout history many heathens have sacrificed themselves for others, kings and princes in battle, people who became slaves to pay other's debts, people who left their cities so that strife would be ended. Even godly women have performed "manly" dangerous heroic acts! Esther and Judth are given as examples. Judith's feat is found in the book of Judith. The book of Judith is now considered to be historical fiction, but apparently the author of this letter believed it to be actual history.
Lastly, the Corinthians are told that their sinners are being prayed for that they might submit to the will of god, which happens to coincide with the will of the author. Namely, that those causing the sedition should submit to the discipline and correction of the church authorities because god is good, therefore he corrects us. Who is god here?
The letter ends with an admonishment to send back the messengers with the good news that harmony has been restored.
What have I learned from this letter? Not much. There is very little original content, most of it is scriptural quotes or references to famous bible characters. It was very tedious and repetitive to read.
The message could be boiled down to: There are people there causing trouble and disregarding established authorities. It is bad for the church's image. Deal with it by expelling the trouble makers if you have to." Also, the author appears to believe extrabiblical legendary accounts of oracles, the phoenix, and the story of Judith.
There isn't much detail about the actual practices and beliefs of the early church, other than presbyters as authorities and a belief in resurrection because of Jesus. The Old Testament appears to have been revered to a degree that would be extraordinary in protestant churches today. There is no mention of Jesus's special birth or miracles he performed during his lifetime. We get glimpses of teachings attributed to him in the sermon on the mount. Peter, Paul, John, and (I think) James, are the only New Testament characters mentioned. I don't remember seeing any doctrine of hell or eternal punishment.
The Corinthians are told that as an example, throughout history many heathens have sacrificed themselves for others, kings and princes in battle, people who became slaves to pay other's debts, people who left their cities so that strife would be ended. Even godly women have performed "manly" dangerous heroic acts! Esther and Judth are given as examples. Judith's feat is found in the book of Judith. The book of Judith is now considered to be historical fiction, but apparently the author of this letter believed it to be actual history.
Lastly, the Corinthians are told that their sinners are being prayed for that they might submit to the will of god, which happens to coincide with the will of the author. Namely, that those causing the sedition should submit to the discipline and correction of the church authorities because god is good, therefore he corrects us. Who is god here?
The letter ends with an admonishment to send back the messengers with the good news that harmony has been restored.
What have I learned from this letter? Not much. There is very little original content, most of it is scriptural quotes or references to famous bible characters. It was very tedious and repetitive to read.
The message could be boiled down to: There are people there causing trouble and disregarding established authorities. It is bad for the church's image. Deal with it by expelling the trouble makers if you have to." Also, the author appears to believe extrabiblical legendary accounts of oracles, the phoenix, and the story of Judith.
There isn't much detail about the actual practices and beliefs of the early church, other than presbyters as authorities and a belief in resurrection because of Jesus. The Old Testament appears to have been revered to a degree that would be extraordinary in protestant churches today. There is no mention of Jesus's special birth or miracles he performed during his lifetime. We get glimpses of teachings attributed to him in the sermon on the mount. Peter, Paul, John, and (I think) James, are the only New Testament characters mentioned. I don't remember seeing any doctrine of hell or eternal punishment.
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
1 Clement part two
Continuing on from chapter 37- 55. The chapters in 1 Clement are very short, sometimes just a paragraph. They also seem rather arbitrary in their divisions.
*In this part there are references to Paul's former letter to the Corinthians. The author calls the church there "the ancient church of Corinth." He says the former letter was written at the beginning of the era of gospel preaching and concerned warring parties and factions, just as those happening at the writing of 1 Clement. It appears the church was not unified, even from the beginning. Phrases from 1 Corinthians are quoted in spots.
*The author gets more specific about the issues in Corinth, saying that long time respected leaders of that church had been removed from office. The author says this is not right and only the wicked would do such a thing. The perpetrators of the current strife are urged to confess they are wrong and even volunteer to leave, for the good of the church.
* The letter continues to tell snippets of paraphrased Old Testament stories and again makes multiple quotes, also mostly from the Old Testament. Again, there are a couple of quotes claimed to be from scripture and not found in any existing copies of the scriptures. There is a reference to a quote from Jesus, found in Matthew and Luke, about those who are stumbling blocks needing to have millstones tied around thier necks. This is a not too subtle hint to troublemakers.
*Oddly, chapters 40 and 41 advocate following the law, appropriate times for temple offerings, and a place for priests/Levites in worship. If this is not metaphorical, it would mean the letter was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. It would also show that Christianity was still tied to Judaism at that time. The footnotes in the text try to convince us this passage was just referring to an "ideal Jerusalem," but give no justification for that notion. If this letter is that early, Matthew and/or Luke may also have been written that early... Or specific Jesus quotes were going around by word of mouth and used regularly
*One thing that I have noticed, while reading this and looking up quoted scriptures, is how much of the New Testament is cribbed from the Old. Seriously, It's as if someone took scissors and snipped out a variety of passages from the Old Testament, mixed them up, then made a story out of them.
To be continued.
*In this part there are references to Paul's former letter to the Corinthians. The author calls the church there "the ancient church of Corinth." He says the former letter was written at the beginning of the era of gospel preaching and concerned warring parties and factions, just as those happening at the writing of 1 Clement. It appears the church was not unified, even from the beginning. Phrases from 1 Corinthians are quoted in spots.
*The author gets more specific about the issues in Corinth, saying that long time respected leaders of that church had been removed from office. The author says this is not right and only the wicked would do such a thing. The perpetrators of the current strife are urged to confess they are wrong and even volunteer to leave, for the good of the church.
* The letter continues to tell snippets of paraphrased Old Testament stories and again makes multiple quotes, also mostly from the Old Testament. Again, there are a couple of quotes claimed to be from scripture and not found in any existing copies of the scriptures. There is a reference to a quote from Jesus, found in Matthew and Luke, about those who are stumbling blocks needing to have millstones tied around thier necks. This is a not too subtle hint to troublemakers.
*Oddly, chapters 40 and 41 advocate following the law, appropriate times for temple offerings, and a place for priests/Levites in worship. If this is not metaphorical, it would mean the letter was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. It would also show that Christianity was still tied to Judaism at that time. The footnotes in the text try to convince us this passage was just referring to an "ideal Jerusalem," but give no justification for that notion. If this letter is that early, Matthew and/or Luke may also have been written that early... Or specific Jesus quotes were going around by word of mouth and used regularly
*One thing that I have noticed, while reading this and looking up quoted scriptures, is how much of the New Testament is cribbed from the Old. Seriously, It's as if someone took scissors and snipped out a variety of passages from the Old Testament, mixed them up, then made a story out of them.
To be continued.
Saturday, July 1, 2017
1 Clement part one
I am about halfway through the letter to the Corinthians attributed to Clement and will share a few observations.
*Like many books of the bible, the letter does not mention Clement or say that he is the author. It says that it is from the church in Rome. I'm not sure how it has been established that Clement actually wrote this letter. It does not give a clear indication of the date of the writing but would have to have happened after the deaths of Peter and Paul, whom he mentions. Like the books of the bible, the original of the letter no longer exists.
*The letter is a rambling treatise that seems to have a general theme of "get right church." It does not go into detail about the nature of the issues the Corinthians are experiencing except to repeatedly use words like strife, sedition, and emulation. The word emulation has me puzzled. Is he talking about oneupmanship?
*Between the exhortations to shape up, the letter is a jumbled mash-up of paraphrased old testament stories and scriptural quotes, with no particular order or literary structure. There has been mention of Abraham, Moses, Cain and Abel, Noah, Lot, Joshua, Rahab, and David. Old Testament scriptural quotes have come from Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Job, and Jeremiah. These quotes are often worded slightly differently than how they occur in my NIV, which is not surprising. Also, a few quotes are pieced together from mutiple books, or don't actually exist in modern bibles.
*So far, very few quoted scriptures appear to come from the New Testament writings. Some that could also have parallels in the Old Testament. Others seem more clearly to have come from the books of 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James. (Unless those authors borrowed from this letter, which seems unlikely.) There is one passage quoting Jesus that appears to have come from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. There is also a quote from the apocryphal book of Wisdom of Solomon.
*There are repeated mentions of the resurrection of the christ and the hope of future resurrection for believers. Jesus is called the first fruit of resurrection. Of great interest to me was the legendary story of the phoenix (chapter xxv), told as if true and given as proof of God's power and ability to perform resurrections. Yes, really. The author assures us that nothing is impossible with god but to lie.
*We are given very few details of Jesus's life, or the lives of Paul and Peter, who are said to have worked hard for the church and were martyred. Jesus is said to have descended from Abraham, which is basically another way to say he was a Jew. So far, I've seen very little mention of the actual practices of the church in Rome or Corinth, other than the mention of "presbyters."
To be continued.
*Like many books of the bible, the letter does not mention Clement or say that he is the author. It says that it is from the church in Rome. I'm not sure how it has been established that Clement actually wrote this letter. It does not give a clear indication of the date of the writing but would have to have happened after the deaths of Peter and Paul, whom he mentions. Like the books of the bible, the original of the letter no longer exists.
*The letter is a rambling treatise that seems to have a general theme of "get right church." It does not go into detail about the nature of the issues the Corinthians are experiencing except to repeatedly use words like strife, sedition, and emulation. The word emulation has me puzzled. Is he talking about oneupmanship?
*Between the exhortations to shape up, the letter is a jumbled mash-up of paraphrased old testament stories and scriptural quotes, with no particular order or literary structure. There has been mention of Abraham, Moses, Cain and Abel, Noah, Lot, Joshua, Rahab, and David. Old Testament scriptural quotes have come from Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Job, and Jeremiah. These quotes are often worded slightly differently than how they occur in my NIV, which is not surprising. Also, a few quotes are pieced together from mutiple books, or don't actually exist in modern bibles.
*So far, very few quoted scriptures appear to come from the New Testament writings. Some that could also have parallels in the Old Testament. Others seem more clearly to have come from the books of 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James. (Unless those authors borrowed from this letter, which seems unlikely.) There is one passage quoting Jesus that appears to have come from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. There is also a quote from the apocryphal book of Wisdom of Solomon.
*There are repeated mentions of the resurrection of the christ and the hope of future resurrection for believers. Jesus is called the first fruit of resurrection. Of great interest to me was the legendary story of the phoenix (chapter xxv), told as if true and given as proof of God's power and ability to perform resurrections. Yes, really. The author assures us that nothing is impossible with god but to lie.
*We are given very few details of Jesus's life, or the lives of Paul and Peter, who are said to have worked hard for the church and were martyred. Jesus is said to have descended from Abraham, which is basically another way to say he was a Jew. So far, I've seen very little mention of the actual practices of the church in Rome or Corinth, other than the mention of "presbyters."
To be continued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)