Showing posts with label Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul. Show all posts
Thursday, August 15, 2019
Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians part two.
After reading the Wikipedia article on Ignatius and reading some of his letter to the Ephesians, I have a lot of questions about how anyone could know if he was real or fiction. As far as I know there are no originals of Ignatius's letters. He would have been writing on or about the first century mark, if his letters are genuine. Why was he imprisoned? We are not told. Yet it can't have been just for being a a Christian or preaching christianity, because others were doing that freely. He was even supposedly permitted to fraternize with christians while he was in chains. Why was he being taken to Rome? The authorities could have dealt with him right where he lived. Why did he expect to be martyred? That early on, martyrdom didn't necessarily mean death.
We are now at the 8th chapter of Ignatius's letter. Let's see what else he has to say. Ignatius appears to be buttering up the Ephesians , telling them they are living according to god's will, being faithful, spiritual, and doing all things in Jesus. They don't listen to false teachers, no siree. They are the cream of the crop, the tippety top, when it comes to loving god and obeying the commandments of Jesus. We aren't told what those commandments are.
The Ephesians are to pray for the poor deluded souls who are not followers of the lord. They are to be meek and humble in the face of insults, boasting, and cruelties. After all, no people are more unjustly treated than the followers of the lord. The Ephesians are to stay holy and not let the devil plant any false ideas in their minds.
Next, the author says they are in the "last times." Sound familiar? It's been the last times for a long time. In spite of the fact that Ignatius thinks the Ephesians are already the greatest, he feels it is necessary to tell them how to live, as if they didn't know. They must do one of two things: "Either stand in awe of of the wrath to come or or show regard for the grace which is at present displayed." When the end comes, he wants to be on the same team as the Ephesians.
Ignatius is a condemned man, but the Ephesians live in safety and appear to be a refuge for refugees of the gospel. They were mentioned by Paul "in all his epistles." (That isn't actually true.) They were initiated into the mysteries of the gospel with "Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy." Ignatius wants to find himself at the feet of Paul when he dies. At the writing of this letter, Paul should not have been dead more than about 50 years, yet he is being venerated as something of a saint.
The Ephesians are to meet regularly in the same place. That destroys the power of Satan. (Wouldn't they have already been doing that?) None of the things in this letter are hid from them if they perfectly possess faith and love. (If these things are not hidden and the Ephesians are as wonderful as Ignatius says, why does he need to tell them all this stuff. Isn't he preaching to the choir?) A person who makes a declaration of faith does not sin. A person who loves does not hate. How the Ephesians behave matters, not just "mere profession." They must be faithful to the end. I hope they had good lives, in spite of never getting to see the end they were hoping for.
More next time.
Saturday, August 10, 2019
2 Thessalonians wrap up
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.
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.
Friday, August 9, 2019
2 Thessalonians part four
We are now at chapter three. The author asks for the Thessalonians' prayers that "the message of the lord be spread quickly and honored," just as it was with them. They were also to pray that Paul and his cohorts be "delivered from wicked and evil men, for not everyone has faith." The clear implication is that those without faith are wicked and evil. The author has confidence that the Thessalonians are doing and will continue to do the things he commanded. Woah. The things he commanded, not the things god or Jesus commanded?
Wondering what was commanded? Here is an example: "Keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us." When Paul was there, he worked day and night, and he paid for any food he ate. This was his way of setting a good example for the Thessalonians to follow. His rule was, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." It's not a horrible rule, unless someone is unable to work or the work load is not divided fairly.
The author claims to have heard that some of the Thessalonians are not busy, just busybodies. They are told to "settle down and earn the bread they eat." Anyone who doesn't follow these instructions is to be shamed by shunning, without being regarded as an enemy. It's done with brotherly love. Shunning is despicable. But I don't know how you would deal with someone who was deliberately sponging off others. I certainly don't think it is right to starve anyone, even those who refuse to work. I'll have to think about it some more.
The letter ends with a wish for peace for the Thessalonians. Then it says "I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write." That's kind of an odd thing to say in a second letter to people who presumably already know what his written greetings look like. If this author is not Paul, he may be trying to establish his credentials with this statement.
Well that's it for this short letter. Next time is the wrap up.
Wondering what was commanded? Here is an example: "Keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us." When Paul was there, he worked day and night, and he paid for any food he ate. This was his way of setting a good example for the Thessalonians to follow. His rule was, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." It's not a horrible rule, unless someone is unable to work or the work load is not divided fairly.
The author claims to have heard that some of the Thessalonians are not busy, just busybodies. They are told to "settle down and earn the bread they eat." Anyone who doesn't follow these instructions is to be shamed by shunning, without being regarded as an enemy. It's done with brotherly love. Shunning is despicable. But I don't know how you would deal with someone who was deliberately sponging off others. I certainly don't think it is right to starve anyone, even those who refuse to work. I'll have to think about it some more.
The letter ends with a wish for peace for the Thessalonians. Then it says "I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write." That's kind of an odd thing to say in a second letter to people who presumably already know what his written greetings look like. If this author is not Paul, he may be trying to establish his credentials with this statement.
Well that's it for this short letter. Next time is the wrap up.
Thursday, August 8, 2019
2 Thessalonians part three
We are in chapter two looking at the passages that speak of the "man of lawlessness" who must come before the day of the lord. What I find interesting is that Jesus himself, as depicted in the gospels, was very similar to this man of lawlessness. Was he doomed to destruction? Yes. Did he oppose and exalt himself over everything that was called god and worshipped. Yes. Did he set himself up in god's temple? Not in reality, but he is said to be in god's heavenly temple. Did he proclaim to be god? Kind of, yes, depending which bible authors you read.
The author asks the Thessalonians to remember the stuff he told them about the man of lawlessness, when he was with them. However, he is not mentioned at all in the first letter to the Thessalonians. The man of lawlessness is currently being held back (by whom?) so that "he may be revealed at the proper time." There is a "secret power of lawlessness already at work." Someone is holding it back. Who? Whoever it is will eventually be taken out of the way. That sounds ominous. After that "the lawless one will be revealed." When? Hasn't happened yet.
The lawless one will be overthrown and the splendor of his coming destroyed by the breath of Jesus's mouth. Too funny. The jokes could write themselves. "The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders." Still sounds like the Jesus of the gospels. This lawless guy will deceive those who are perishing because they refuse to love the truth and be saved. God sends the perishing people a powerful delusion they will believe the lie. Nice god. What exactly is "the lie" that they are believing ? The proclamation by this guy that he is god? Oops. Wasn't that Jesus's lie also? Anyway, everyone who hasn't believed "the truth" as defined by the author will be condemned.
The author will always be thankful for the Thessalonians, because god chose them "to be saved through the sanctifying work of the spirit, and through belief in the truth." I'm skeptical about how much sanctifying work a spirit can do and how much of anything a spirit can do. The Thessalonians are said to have been called so they can share in the glory of the lord Jesus. Who called? Did anyone actually hear anyone calling? Probably not. In christianity a calling is usually determined by merely having a strong feeling about something. The spirit must be at work in such cases. That's christian logic.
The Thessalonians are urged to stand firm in their faith and hold on to the teachings the authors passed on, by word of mouth or letter. (If they didn't, it would make the authors look bad.) this letter doesn't actually seemed to have accomplished anything, as far as I can tell. The central teaching is about the man of lawlessness coming before the christians get to meet Jesus in glory. This was not even hinted about in the first letter, where it seemed Jesus was expected within a short time frame.
Till next time.
The author asks the Thessalonians to remember the stuff he told them about the man of lawlessness, when he was with them. However, he is not mentioned at all in the first letter to the Thessalonians. The man of lawlessness is currently being held back (by whom?) so that "he may be revealed at the proper time." There is a "secret power of lawlessness already at work." Someone is holding it back. Who? Whoever it is will eventually be taken out of the way. That sounds ominous. After that "the lawless one will be revealed." When? Hasn't happened yet.
The lawless one will be overthrown and the splendor of his coming destroyed by the breath of Jesus's mouth. Too funny. The jokes could write themselves. "The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders." Still sounds like the Jesus of the gospels. This lawless guy will deceive those who are perishing because they refuse to love the truth and be saved. God sends the perishing people a powerful delusion they will believe the lie. Nice god. What exactly is "the lie" that they are believing ? The proclamation by this guy that he is god? Oops. Wasn't that Jesus's lie also? Anyway, everyone who hasn't believed "the truth" as defined by the author will be condemned.
The author will always be thankful for the Thessalonians, because god chose them "to be saved through the sanctifying work of the spirit, and through belief in the truth." I'm skeptical about how much sanctifying work a spirit can do and how much of anything a spirit can do. The Thessalonians are said to have been called so they can share in the glory of the lord Jesus. Who called? Did anyone actually hear anyone calling? Probably not. In christianity a calling is usually determined by merely having a strong feeling about something. The spirit must be at work in such cases. That's christian logic.
The Thessalonians are urged to stand firm in their faith and hold on to the teachings the authors passed on, by word of mouth or letter. (If they didn't, it would make the authors look bad.) this letter doesn't actually seemed to have accomplished anything, as far as I can tell. The central teaching is about the man of lawlessness coming before the christians get to meet Jesus in glory. This was not even hinted about in the first letter, where it seemed Jesus was expected within a short time frame.
Till next time.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
2 Thessalonians part two
We are at chapter two. Things get a little wierd now. The author tells the Thessalonians not to pay any attention to prophecies, reports, or letters, saying "The day of the lord has already come." In other words, people might try to get them to believe Jesus came and they missed it. Did this actually happen? Were people saying those kinds of things? Isn't that kind of what the gospels were saying? The christ already came and he was not recognized for who he was. After all Paul is not using the word return. In fact, I just looked up the words "return" and "returned" in Strong's concordance. It doesn't occur in reference to Jesus in any of the New Testament epistles.
" The New Testament talks of Jesus, the lord, or the christ, coming out of heaven at the end of times. Nowhere in any of the non gospel books can I find the words return or returning when referring to "the day of the lord." There is also no phrase "second coming" referring to Jesus, as is often used in Christianity. It seems strange to me. If he was coming back to the earth he left, wouldn't the language reflect that?
In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus says the Son of Man is going to come In his kingdom, but he doesn't say that is himself. He also says that will happen before some of the people he is talking to die.
The book of John, the latest gospel, written later than most of the rest of the NT, is the only one that specifically has Jesus saying he will come back, to the apostles. That is in chapter 14, where he also says, "Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me.....On that day you will realize I am in my father and you are in me, and I am in you....He who loves me will be loved by my father, and I too will love him and show myself to him...If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. my father will love him and come to him and make our home with him...the holy spirit, whom the father will send in my name will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said."
This doesn't sound anything like a literal return to me. By the time this was written, the christian community had to have given up hope in any kind of "day of the lord" coming soon and created an alternate scenario of Jesus privately revealing himself to believers." (I also posted the portion in quotes in the Roll to Disbelieve comments.)
Anyway, the Thessalonians are told the lord hasn't come yet. "That day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. (Who is that man?) He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called god or worshipped, so that he sets himself up in god's temple, proclaiming himself to be god." The emperor Caligula tried to do exactly that, about the year 40CE, according to Philo of Alexandria. Read what Philo wrote here: (XLIII).
Caligula's statue appears to have never made it into the temple, and Caligula was killed. This letter to the Thessalonians was written at least a decade after Caligula died. If it is referring to him, it is a retroactive prophecy. If this author is not actually Paul, and he wrote much later, he appears to have his timeline messed up. I can't find any other indication that a statue of a "god" was ever set up in the Jewish temple. That doesn't mean there wasn't plans by some other emperor to do that. However, the temple is gone. If this man of lawlessness was supposed to set himself up as a god in the temple, it would have happened almost two thousand years ago. What does could this possibly have to do with us today?
" The New Testament talks of Jesus, the lord, or the christ, coming out of heaven at the end of times. Nowhere in any of the non gospel books can I find the words return or returning when referring to "the day of the lord." There is also no phrase "second coming" referring to Jesus, as is often used in Christianity. It seems strange to me. If he was coming back to the earth he left, wouldn't the language reflect that?
In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus says the Son of Man is going to come In his kingdom, but he doesn't say that is himself. He also says that will happen before some of the people he is talking to die.
The book of John, the latest gospel, written later than most of the rest of the NT, is the only one that specifically has Jesus saying he will come back, to the apostles. That is in chapter 14, where he also says, "Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me.....On that day you will realize I am in my father and you are in me, and I am in you....He who loves me will be loved by my father, and I too will love him and show myself to him...If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. my father will love him and come to him and make our home with him...the holy spirit, whom the father will send in my name will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said."
This doesn't sound anything like a literal return to me. By the time this was written, the christian community had to have given up hope in any kind of "day of the lord" coming soon and created an alternate scenario of Jesus privately revealing himself to believers." (I also posted the portion in quotes in the Roll to Disbelieve comments.)
Anyway, the Thessalonians are told the lord hasn't come yet. "That day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. (Who is that man?) He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called god or worshipped, so that he sets himself up in god's temple, proclaiming himself to be god." The emperor Caligula tried to do exactly that, about the year 40CE, according to Philo of Alexandria. Read what Philo wrote here: (XLIII).
Caligula's statue appears to have never made it into the temple, and Caligula was killed. This letter to the Thessalonians was written at least a decade after Caligula died. If it is referring to him, it is a retroactive prophecy. If this author is not actually Paul, and he wrote much later, he appears to have his timeline messed up. I can't find any other indication that a statue of a "god" was ever set up in the Jewish temple. That doesn't mean there wasn't plans by some other emperor to do that. However, the temple is gone. If this man of lawlessness was supposed to set himself up as a god in the temple, it would have happened almost two thousand years ago. What does could this possibly have to do with us today?
Friday, August 2, 2019
2 Thessalonians, introduction
We are going to follow 1 Thessalonians with 2 Thessalonians. The opinions of whether this letter is genuine are split. There are many reasons to question its authenticity. Some of those reasons have to do with a comparison of the teachings in 2 Thessalonians to those in the first letter to the Thessalonians. We will take that in mind as we read.
The letter begins with a standard greeting from Paul, Silas, and Timothy, just as the first did. The first paragraph is thanking god for the Thessalonians. It mentions their love, faith, and endurance, also as the first did. The author says he boasts to other churches about the Thessalonians' faith under persecution.
According to the author, this proves god's judgment is right and the Thessalonians "will be counted worthy of the kingdom of god" for which they are suffering. Not to worry, god will pay back the persecutors and relieve the Thessalonians' troubles "when the lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels." Jesus was supposed to punish those who didn't know god and who didn't obey the gospel. The persecutors were supposed to be condemned to "everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the lord." The Thessalonians would get to marvel at Jesus because they believed Paul's testimony. Too bad that day never came. The Thessalonians suffered for nothing.
We are not yet told what defines the gospel in this letter. Nor are we told what constitutes persecution. Paul and cohorts continue to pray for the Thessalonians, so they will behave the way he thinks the faithful believers should. That way the name of Jesus will be glorified in them.
More next time.
The letter begins with a standard greeting from Paul, Silas, and Timothy, just as the first did. The first paragraph is thanking god for the Thessalonians. It mentions their love, faith, and endurance, also as the first did. The author says he boasts to other churches about the Thessalonians' faith under persecution.
According to the author, this proves god's judgment is right and the Thessalonians "will be counted worthy of the kingdom of god" for which they are suffering. Not to worry, god will pay back the persecutors and relieve the Thessalonians' troubles "when the lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels." Jesus was supposed to punish those who didn't know god and who didn't obey the gospel. The persecutors were supposed to be condemned to "everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the lord." The Thessalonians would get to marvel at Jesus because they believed Paul's testimony. Too bad that day never came. The Thessalonians suffered for nothing.
We are not yet told what defines the gospel in this letter. Nor are we told what constitutes persecution. Paul and cohorts continue to pray for the Thessalonians, so they will behave the way he thinks the faithful believers should. That way the name of Jesus will be glorified in them.
More next time.
Sunday, July 28, 2019
1 Thessalonians wrap up
What did we learn? 1 Thessalonians is probably the oldest book of the New Testament and the first available letter of Paul. There is not much scholarly dispute that it is written by Paul, possibly in the early 50's CE. It is written to the church in Thessaloniki, Greece, which apparently was started by Paul, Silas, and Timothy. They had left the area and Paul was not able to go back for some time. He became anxious about whether the church was keeping the faith, and sent Timothy to check up on them. Timothy came back to Paul with a positive report. In spite of persecution, they were still active believers. It is said that they originally started out as idol worshippers, which would make them gentiles. Paul considered their success his crown of glory.
The author does not claim this letter is inspired or the word of god. There is no mention of specific Old Testament people, places, or events, in this letter. There are no Old Testament quotes. The only New testament people mentioned are Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Jesus. The New Testament places mentioned are Judea, Macedonia, Achaia, and Philippi. There are no New Testament events mentioned except travel and/or persecution in the mentioned areas. The specific persecutions mentioned were being insulted, forbidden from preaching the gospel to gentiles, and being run out of town.
There is no mention of Jesus's birth, life, miracles, or teachings. There is no mention of his trial, crucifixion or burial. He is in heaven, having been raised from the dead. He will come back to earth. Satan is mentioned as stopping Paul from doing what he wants. He is also called the tempter who might have led the Thessalonians astray.
In this letter, the author accuses the Jews of killing Jesus, just as they killed the prophets. In the gospels we see that the Romans were the actual executioners of Jesus. The only way we see Jews killing anyone in the New Testament is by stoning. They never seemed to get in trouble with the authorities for that. Which makes me wonder, if they could do that, why didn't they stone Jesus? Also, it is very difficult to find any prophets who were killed by the Jews anywhere in the bible. In the New Testament, John the baptist might count, maybe Stephen also. In 1 Kings 19:10, Elijah tells god that his (unnamed) prophets have been put to death with the sword. That's the only mention I could find in the Old Testament.
Paul also mentions that he gave the Thessalonians instructions, by the authority of Jesus, on how to live as children of god. These instructions included avoiding certain sexual behaviors which sound like he could be obliquely referring to homosexuality. He does encourage self control and not taking advantage of others, which I guess is good in this oddly worded passage. They are also told to mind their own business and work with their hands. Significantly, in my mind, they aren't told to spread the gospel. How often are any people in the NT, besides the apostles, told to spread the gospel? I'm having trouble thinking of any.
Faithfulness and obedience to Paul's message is stressed in this letter. The message is one of eternal life for believers, when Jesus comes back. On a surprise date, the archangel will announce Jesus and god's trumpet will sound. The dead in christ will literally rise up into the air, then the living believers will follow and meet them in the clouds. Believers should be expecting this to happen in their lifetime so they will be ready. Unbelievers will be caught unaware. Believers don't need to grieve the death of other beloved believers, they will see them again. Not like non believers, they have no hope. (Erg.)
The author does not claim this letter is inspired or the word of god. There is no mention of specific Old Testament people, places, or events, in this letter. There are no Old Testament quotes. The only New testament people mentioned are Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Jesus. The New Testament places mentioned are Judea, Macedonia, Achaia, and Philippi. There are no New Testament events mentioned except travel and/or persecution in the mentioned areas. The specific persecutions mentioned were being insulted, forbidden from preaching the gospel to gentiles, and being run out of town.
There is no mention of Jesus's birth, life, miracles, or teachings. There is no mention of his trial, crucifixion or burial. He is in heaven, having been raised from the dead. He will come back to earth. Satan is mentioned as stopping Paul from doing what he wants. He is also called the tempter who might have led the Thessalonians astray.
In this letter, the author accuses the Jews of killing Jesus, just as they killed the prophets. In the gospels we see that the Romans were the actual executioners of Jesus. The only way we see Jews killing anyone in the New Testament is by stoning. They never seemed to get in trouble with the authorities for that. Which makes me wonder, if they could do that, why didn't they stone Jesus? Also, it is very difficult to find any prophets who were killed by the Jews anywhere in the bible. In the New Testament, John the baptist might count, maybe Stephen also. In 1 Kings 19:10, Elijah tells god that his (unnamed) prophets have been put to death with the sword. That's the only mention I could find in the Old Testament.
Paul also mentions that he gave the Thessalonians instructions, by the authority of Jesus, on how to live as children of god. These instructions included avoiding certain sexual behaviors which sound like he could be obliquely referring to homosexuality. He does encourage self control and not taking advantage of others, which I guess is good in this oddly worded passage. They are also told to mind their own business and work with their hands. Significantly, in my mind, they aren't told to spread the gospel. How often are any people in the NT, besides the apostles, told to spread the gospel? I'm having trouble thinking of any.
Faithfulness and obedience to Paul's message is stressed in this letter. The message is one of eternal life for believers, when Jesus comes back. On a surprise date, the archangel will announce Jesus and god's trumpet will sound. The dead in christ will literally rise up into the air, then the living believers will follow and meet them in the clouds. Believers should be expecting this to happen in their lifetime so they will be ready. Unbelievers will be caught unaware. Believers don't need to grieve the death of other beloved believers, they will see them again. Not like non believers, they have no hope. (Erg.)
Saturday, July 27, 2019
1 Thessalonians part four
We are at chapter four verse 13. Paul is telling the Thessalonians about people who have "fallen asleep" which a euphemism for died. He doesn't want the Thessalonians to grieve about those people who have died "like the rest of men who have no hope." (Is false hope a good thing?) Paul believes "that Jesus died and rose again" and that one day he will bring the dead back with him. Well, not all the dead. Just the ones who "fell asleep in him." In other words, only Jesus believers. So, should the Thessalonians grieve for those who died and didn't believe?
By the way, grieving is normal and very human. It also occurs in the animal kingdom. Pretending that people don't actually die, but live on, prevents people from learning valuable coping skills. Tragedies happen. Death happens every day. We will all die. Everyone we love will die, some before us. We need to talk about how to deal with it in non harmful ways.
Next Paul tells the Thessalonians that the dead in christ will rise before the living, at the command of the archangel and the trumpet call of god. When he says rise, he literally means rise up into the air. After the dead begin to rise, the living believers..."we who are alive and left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the lord in the air. And we will be with the lord forever." Very dramatic. What happens to the rest of the people, the dead and the living? Anyway, it never happened, did it?
Paul can not tell the Thessalonian when this will happen because god wants it to be a surprise. He wants to catch people off guard, when they think they are safe. Then boom! Destruction. No escape. Nice god. No worries, the Thessalonians won't be caught off guard, like those who sleep peacefully at night and don't expect intruders. No, the Thessalonians are like fully awake people in the day time, alert and self controlled.
The Thessalonians will be ready for Jesus's coming by "putting on faith and love as a breastplate and the hope of salvation as a helmet." There's a war coming. They need armor. God did not "appoint them to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through Jesus." He died for the believers, the dead and the living ones. They will all get to live together with him. Good for them. I'll pass.
Next Paul tells them how to police each other. They were to respect the hard workers who are over them in the lord. These are not everyday hard workers but ones who have been given authority over the church in Thessaloniki. This passage is talking about church work, not everyday living work. The respect has not necessarily been earned. They are also to "warn the idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, and be patient with everyone." This is in the context of the church. It is god's will that they are always joyful, thankful, and prayerful, no matter what.
Finally the Thessalonians are told not to put out the spirit's fire, not to treat prophecies with contempt, test everything, and avoid every kind of evil. The letter ends with a kind of blessing. May god grant the Thessalonians sanctification and blamelessness of spirit, soul, and body, and he can do it. (What is the difference between a spirit and a soul?) Paul asks the Thessalonians to pray for his entourage and to greet all the bothers with a holy kiss. The letter is to be read aloud.
Next the wrap up.
By the way, grieving is normal and very human. It also occurs in the animal kingdom. Pretending that people don't actually die, but live on, prevents people from learning valuable coping skills. Tragedies happen. Death happens every day. We will all die. Everyone we love will die, some before us. We need to talk about how to deal with it in non harmful ways.
Next Paul tells the Thessalonians that the dead in christ will rise before the living, at the command of the archangel and the trumpet call of god. When he says rise, he literally means rise up into the air. After the dead begin to rise, the living believers..."we who are alive and left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the lord in the air. And we will be with the lord forever." Very dramatic. What happens to the rest of the people, the dead and the living? Anyway, it never happened, did it?
Paul can not tell the Thessalonian when this will happen because god wants it to be a surprise. He wants to catch people off guard, when they think they are safe. Then boom! Destruction. No escape. Nice god. No worries, the Thessalonians won't be caught off guard, like those who sleep peacefully at night and don't expect intruders. No, the Thessalonians are like fully awake people in the day time, alert and self controlled.
The Thessalonians will be ready for Jesus's coming by "putting on faith and love as a breastplate and the hope of salvation as a helmet." There's a war coming. They need armor. God did not "appoint them to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through Jesus." He died for the believers, the dead and the living ones. They will all get to live together with him. Good for them. I'll pass.
Next Paul tells them how to police each other. They were to respect the hard workers who are over them in the lord. These are not everyday hard workers but ones who have been given authority over the church in Thessaloniki. This passage is talking about church work, not everyday living work. The respect has not necessarily been earned. They are also to "warn the idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, and be patient with everyone." This is in the context of the church. It is god's will that they are always joyful, thankful, and prayerful, no matter what.
Finally the Thessalonians are told not to put out the spirit's fire, not to treat prophecies with contempt, test everything, and avoid every kind of evil. The letter ends with a kind of blessing. May god grant the Thessalonians sanctification and blamelessness of spirit, soul, and body, and he can do it. (What is the difference between a spirit and a soul?) Paul asks the Thessalonians to pray for his entourage and to greet all the bothers with a holy kiss. The letter is to be read aloud.
Next the wrap up.
Thursday, July 25, 2019
1 Thessalonians part three
We are at chapter two verse 17. Paul, Silas, and Timothy, had to leave the Thessalonians. They wanted to go back very badly but Satan stopped them. Hmm. How do they know it was Satan and not humans? They are truly sad about that because the Thessalonians are the glorious crown they will wear in the presence of Jesus, when he comes. They make Paul and company look good. Too bad Jesus never came.
Paul got impatient (What, he didn't trust god's timing?) and sent Timothy back to Thessaloniki without him. Timothy was to bolster their faith, so they wouldn't be unsettled by the persecution they were going through. It was inevitable that they would be treated that way, as they had been told the first time Paul visited them. We are not told exactly what these persecutions entailed, physical, economic, or social harm, or a combination. Paul knew beforehand that it would happen, probably because he had seen the same results of his teaching elsewhere. He was worried that the Thessalonians would lose faith in what he taught them. Then his efforts would have been in vain. Their trials were blamed on "the tempter" tempting them.
Timothy returned back to Paul with a good report. The Thessalonians still like Paul and would like to see him again. Whew! They haven't given up their faith. Praise the lord! Paul and company are going to keep earnestly praying for the Thessalonians. One day they will get back and "supply what is lacking" in the Thessalonians' faith. What does that mean? What are they lacking? Paul is hoping god clears the way for another visit. In the meantime, he wants god to make their love increase and strengthen their hearts, so they will be ready when Jesus comes. Too bad he never came.
We are now at chapter four. Paul says he instructed the Thessalonians on how to live to please god, and they are doing it. But they've got to do it more. After all their instructions came by the authority of the lord Jesus. That's how we can know that their instructions were crap. Paul, Silas, and Timothy, never met Jesus, except in visions. Their authority is purely on their say so. The Thessalonians fell for it, hook line, and sinker. They get to tell the Thessalonians what god's will is and how are the Thessalonians to disagree? They never had any personal revelation of Jesus.
What did Paul say was god's will? Avoiding sexual immorality, controlling their bodies and not indulging in passionate lust "like the heathen who do not know god." The Thessalonian should not wrong his brother or take advantage of his brother, regarding this matter. Is Paul talking of same sex relations? It's hard to tell. It's obviously about some kind of sexual purity standards. Those who don't follow the standards have been warned that the lord will punish them.
Paul says he doesn't need to preach to the Thessalonians about brotherly love, because god seems to have already taught them how to love all the brothers throughout Macedonia. The brothers are clearly other christ believers. If god could teach them brotherly love without Paul's help, couldn't he have taught them other things as well. Why does god need Paul to spread his message?
Next, Paul tells the Thessalonians to "lead a quiet life, mind your own business, and work with your hands." That way they will earn the respect of outsiders and not be dependant on anyone. Wait. They are not to preach the gospel to their neighbors? It just occurred to me, most of the New Testament letters don't even encourage the readers to spread the gospel. The readers are just passive and obedient recipients of the message, a message that needs reinforcing and policing by Paul and his cohorts.
Till next time.
Paul got impatient (What, he didn't trust god's timing?) and sent Timothy back to Thessaloniki without him. Timothy was to bolster their faith, so they wouldn't be unsettled by the persecution they were going through. It was inevitable that they would be treated that way, as they had been told the first time Paul visited them. We are not told exactly what these persecutions entailed, physical, economic, or social harm, or a combination. Paul knew beforehand that it would happen, probably because he had seen the same results of his teaching elsewhere. He was worried that the Thessalonians would lose faith in what he taught them. Then his efforts would have been in vain. Their trials were blamed on "the tempter" tempting them.
Timothy returned back to Paul with a good report. The Thessalonians still like Paul and would like to see him again. Whew! They haven't given up their faith. Praise the lord! Paul and company are going to keep earnestly praying for the Thessalonians. One day they will get back and "supply what is lacking" in the Thessalonians' faith. What does that mean? What are they lacking? Paul is hoping god clears the way for another visit. In the meantime, he wants god to make their love increase and strengthen their hearts, so they will be ready when Jesus comes. Too bad he never came.
We are now at chapter four. Paul says he instructed the Thessalonians on how to live to please god, and they are doing it. But they've got to do it more. After all their instructions came by the authority of the lord Jesus. That's how we can know that their instructions were crap. Paul, Silas, and Timothy, never met Jesus, except in visions. Their authority is purely on their say so. The Thessalonians fell for it, hook line, and sinker. They get to tell the Thessalonians what god's will is and how are the Thessalonians to disagree? They never had any personal revelation of Jesus.
What did Paul say was god's will? Avoiding sexual immorality, controlling their bodies and not indulging in passionate lust "like the heathen who do not know god." The Thessalonian should not wrong his brother or take advantage of his brother, regarding this matter. Is Paul talking of same sex relations? It's hard to tell. It's obviously about some kind of sexual purity standards. Those who don't follow the standards have been warned that the lord will punish them.
Paul says he doesn't need to preach to the Thessalonians about brotherly love, because god seems to have already taught them how to love all the brothers throughout Macedonia. The brothers are clearly other christ believers. If god could teach them brotherly love without Paul's help, couldn't he have taught them other things as well. Why does god need Paul to spread his message?
Next, Paul tells the Thessalonians to "lead a quiet life, mind your own business, and work with your hands." That way they will earn the respect of outsiders and not be dependant on anyone. Wait. They are not to preach the gospel to their neighbors? It just occurred to me, most of the New Testament letters don't even encourage the readers to spread the gospel. The readers are just passive and obedient recipients of the message, a message that needs reinforcing and policing by Paul and his cohorts.
Till next time.
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
1 Thessalonians part two
We are at chapter two verse one. Paul, Silas, and Timothy had previously visited Thessaloniki. They thought their visit was a success, not like in Philippi, where they experienced non specific suffering and had been insulted. With god's help they dared to share the gospel with the Thessalonians, in spite of strong opposition. They weren't trying to trick the Thessalonians and their motives were pure, according to them. They spoke "as men approved by god," according to them. And everyone had to take their word for it. They claim to be trying to please god not men, but how in the world could anyone know for sure if they were telling the truth? Plus, why did god need them to spread the message? Why didn't he just tell the people himself? Why does god rely on an imperfect delivery system to get his word out? Think of all the people in the world who never heard the gospel. Are they all doomed? If they are not, then why does the message need spreading?
The author goes on to say they didn't use flattery, cover up greed, or look for praise. God is their witness. Some witness, he's mute. The three of them worked hard for their own support and did not expect anything from the Thessalonians. They shared what they had, as well as preached the gospel. The sharing part is commendable. The Thessalonians (and the mute god) were witnesses of how holy, righteous and blameless the three were among the believers. Are they supposed to be tooting their own horn? Also, we don't have the Thessalonians' side of the story. Plus, how did they treat nonbelievers?
The three treated the Thessalonians like a father treats his own children. Since they were actually adults, I wonder how they felt about that. They urged the Thessalonians to live lives worthy of god, whose spokesmen they were. What proof did the Thessalonians have besides their say so? The three were so pleased when their message was received as the word of god and not the word of men. Of course they were. The believers in Thessaloniki then became imitators of the christ believing churches in Judea. Then the believers in Thessaloniki began to experience the same persecution from their own countrymen that the believers in Judea received from the Jews. How bad was this persecution? Did they hurt them, or just ridicule them? We are not told.
Those Jews who treated believers in Judea badly are said to be the people who "killed the lord Jesus and the prophets" and also drove the three of them out. This is confusing to me, because weren't those believers also Jews? And what do the prophets have to do with it? Weren't the prophets also Jews? Also, this unfortunate passage has been used to support antisemitism throughout the ages, and it's not done being ugly. The author says these same Jews "displease god and are hostile to all men." They deliberately try to keep Paul, Timothy and Silas from speaking to the gentiles so they can be saved. In other words, those Jews don't want salvation for the non Jews. "In this way they heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of god has come upon them at last." Wow. So kind, loving, and christ like of Paul.
The Thessalonians had to take the author's word for all this, without proof. What Judean Jews were going to travel across the Mediterranean to Greece to set the record straight? They could basically spin any story they wanted, who would be the wiser?
Till next time.
The author goes on to say they didn't use flattery, cover up greed, or look for praise. God is their witness. Some witness, he's mute. The three of them worked hard for their own support and did not expect anything from the Thessalonians. They shared what they had, as well as preached the gospel. The sharing part is commendable. The Thessalonians (and the mute god) were witnesses of how holy, righteous and blameless the three were among the believers. Are they supposed to be tooting their own horn? Also, we don't have the Thessalonians' side of the story. Plus, how did they treat nonbelievers?
The three treated the Thessalonians like a father treats his own children. Since they were actually adults, I wonder how they felt about that. They urged the Thessalonians to live lives worthy of god, whose spokesmen they were. What proof did the Thessalonians have besides their say so? The three were so pleased when their message was received as the word of god and not the word of men. Of course they were. The believers in Thessaloniki then became imitators of the christ believing churches in Judea. Then the believers in Thessaloniki began to experience the same persecution from their own countrymen that the believers in Judea received from the Jews. How bad was this persecution? Did they hurt them, or just ridicule them? We are not told.
Those Jews who treated believers in Judea badly are said to be the people who "killed the lord Jesus and the prophets" and also drove the three of them out. This is confusing to me, because weren't those believers also Jews? And what do the prophets have to do with it? Weren't the prophets also Jews? Also, this unfortunate passage has been used to support antisemitism throughout the ages, and it's not done being ugly. The author says these same Jews "displease god and are hostile to all men." They deliberately try to keep Paul, Timothy and Silas from speaking to the gentiles so they can be saved. In other words, those Jews don't want salvation for the non Jews. "In this way they heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of god has come upon them at last." Wow. So kind, loving, and christ like of Paul.
The Thessalonians had to take the author's word for all this, without proof. What Judean Jews were going to travel across the Mediterranean to Greece to set the record straight? They could basically spin any story they wanted, who would be the wiser?
Till next time.
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
1 Thessalonians, introduction
You can read about the 1st letter to the Thessalonians at the embedded link. This is generally considered to be a genuine Pauline letter, except for a couple of passages that appear to have been added. It is possibly Paul's first letter, maybe making it the oldest and first book of the New Testament, circa 52 CE.
The letter opens with a greeting from Paul, Silas, and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians. The church would have been in the city of Thessaloniki, currently the capital of Greek Macedonia. There is the usual prayers and flattery in the greeting. The author knows the church there was chosen by god because the gospel came to them with power and deep conviction. They felt the holy spirit, it had to be true.
Paul, Silas, and Timothy had live with the Thessalonian church, who learned to imitate them, "in spite of severe suffering." This very early days of the church what kind of suffering were they experiencing? It doesn't say yet. Nevertheless, the Thessalonians welcomed the message with joy and "became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia." Their faith in god became known everywhere and others tell the story of how the Thessalonians "turned from idols to serve the one true god and to wait for his son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead-- Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath." I'm guessing the suffering may have been a direct economic consequence of the Thessalonians giving up idol worship.
So, the Thessalonians were waiting for Jesus to come back and save them. I don't think that worked out for them.
Till next time.
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.
Thursday, June 27, 2019
2 Peter part four.
We are in chapter three, verse ten. We recently read that, even though it seems like god hasn't kept his promise to send Jesus back, we can't assume that he won't because our time and god's time are not on the same scale. God's not being slow, he's being patient, because he doesn't want anyone to perish.. Yeah, right.
That's why, in the very next passage, the reader is told that the day the world ends will be a surprise, in which everything will be burnt to ashes. Since everything will be destroyed, the readers ought to live holy and godly lives as they "look forward to the day of god and speed its coming." Plus, this end won't just be hot, it will melt the very elements in the heavens. But, no worries, the reader can look forward to a new heaven and new earth. All this is reason for the reader to make every effort to be practically perfect in every way. And remember, the longer it takes for Jesus to return, the more people will be saved. Why it might even take over two thousand years.
The author goes on to say Paul wrote about this stuff too. I think this is the only book of the bible not attributed to Paul, besides Acts, which mentions Paul by name. Not only that, it mentions that Paul wrote multiple letters, and that the letters contain "some things that are hard to understand, Which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction." Implication: don't try too hard to understand what Paul wrote, because if you get it wrong, Poof! You're toast.
So, be careful, who you listen too. You are in a precarious situation and could very easily fall "from your secure position" if you follow the wrong person. Just grow in grace (what's grace?) and knowledge and you should be fine. (I hope.) to Jesus be the glory (what's glory?) forever. Amen.
Comforting?
We have finished with 2nd Peter. Next time we will wrap up with our usual summary. Till then.
That's why, in the very next passage, the reader is told that the day the world ends will be a surprise, in which everything will be burnt to ashes. Since everything will be destroyed, the readers ought to live holy and godly lives as they "look forward to the day of god and speed its coming." Plus, this end won't just be hot, it will melt the very elements in the heavens. But, no worries, the reader can look forward to a new heaven and new earth. All this is reason for the reader to make every effort to be practically perfect in every way. And remember, the longer it takes for Jesus to return, the more people will be saved. Why it might even take over two thousand years.
The author goes on to say Paul wrote about this stuff too. I think this is the only book of the bible not attributed to Paul, besides Acts, which mentions Paul by name. Not only that, it mentions that Paul wrote multiple letters, and that the letters contain "some things that are hard to understand, Which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction." Implication: don't try too hard to understand what Paul wrote, because if you get it wrong, Poof! You're toast.
So, be careful, who you listen too. You are in a precarious situation and could very easily fall "from your secure position" if you follow the wrong person. Just grow in grace (what's grace?) and knowledge and you should be fine. (I hope.) to Jesus be the glory (what's glory?) forever. Amen.
Comforting?
We have finished with 2nd Peter. Next time we will wrap up with our usual summary. Till then.
Saturday, May 18, 2019
Hebrews wrap up
The book of Hebrews, as its name implies, is written exclusively for Hebrew believers in Jesus. It was written at an unknown time, around the first two centuries of the christian era, by an unknown author, who does not claim to be inspired or to be writing the word of god. Hebrews defines the gospel as the teaching that there is still "god's sabbath rest", or an afterlife to come, for the believing Jews. In the old covenant, god's rest had to do with rest or freedom from from dealing with their enemies in the land God gave the Hebrews. When this book was written, there probably was still no rest from dealing with enemies in the land of the Hebrews, even after centuries of living under the old covenant. A new interpretation is being made of "god's rest," along with everything else associated with the old covenant.
This book can not have been written by Paul, who was convinced that the gospel message was the salvation of the gentiles as well as Jews. Some writings attributed to Paul even make gentile believers the chosen ones. There are no gentiles saved in this book. "The people" frequently referred to are the Hebrews or Jews. This is a Jewish letter to Jewish christians. For gentile christians to believe it applies to them is misguided. Gentiles aren't even mentioned.
The book is a jumble of bad metaphors and false equivalences. Jesus =son of god = son of man = speaker of old testament words once attributed to god and others = great high priest. God's rest = the seventh day of creation = an afterlife for believers. We are also treated to multiple instances of bad logic and circular reasoning, especially in the convoluted explanation about how Jesus is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
Also, elements of physical worship in the old covenant are claimed to be shadows of more perfect spiritual elements in heaven. Jesus is a more perfect, heavenly high priest with a more perfect, heavenly sacrifice presented to god in the more perfect, heavenly tabernacle. Jesus's high priesthood is of the "order of Melchizedek," which, using convoluted logic, is somehow superior to the levitical priesthood. Jesus's sacrifice not only makes him the heavenly high priest and god's right hand man, but also a living curtain through which believers go to get to god in the holy place.
The author of Hebrews uses multiple reference quotes from the old testament to prove his points. The problem is they are often pulled randomly from passages that have nothing to do with what he is claiming. They are not even the words of the personages he is claiming, namely god, Jesus, or the holy spirit. The author repeats many of the old testament quotes multiple times. He also repeats his reasons for using those quotes. He sometimes adds words and phrases that weren't in the original passages.
The only reality based things we are told about Jesus's life in the book of Hebrews are that he was a human, he prayed a lot, he was crucified, and died. This very similar to what Paul tells us about Jesus. We are, however, given extensive passages on the imaginary high priesthood of Jesus. No birth story, no teachings, or miracles of Jesus are mentioned. There is no genealogy, but It is assumed Jesus is a descendant of David, possibly David reincarnated. I say that because passages once attributed to David are attributed to Jesus by the Hebrew author.
No New Testament characters or events are mentioned, except Jesus and his death. No secular figures or events that could place this writing in time are named. Besides Melchizedek, quite a few Old Testament characters are mentioned as examples of faith. Angels and the devil are mentioned. Baptism is kind of mentioned, communion is not. Faith is the focus. A Hebrew who believes that Jesus is now the great high priest who presented himself as a perfect sacrifice to god will get to enter god's sabbath rest, if he stops sinning. Hell is not mentioned by name, but there will be burning of sinners and the unfaithful.
I previously posted portions of this on the Roll to Disbelieve comments.
This book can not have been written by Paul, who was convinced that the gospel message was the salvation of the gentiles as well as Jews. Some writings attributed to Paul even make gentile believers the chosen ones. There are no gentiles saved in this book. "The people" frequently referred to are the Hebrews or Jews. This is a Jewish letter to Jewish christians. For gentile christians to believe it applies to them is misguided. Gentiles aren't even mentioned.
The book is a jumble of bad metaphors and false equivalences. Jesus =son of god = son of man = speaker of old testament words once attributed to god and others = great high priest. God's rest = the seventh day of creation = an afterlife for believers. We are also treated to multiple instances of bad logic and circular reasoning, especially in the convoluted explanation about how Jesus is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
Also, elements of physical worship in the old covenant are claimed to be shadows of more perfect spiritual elements in heaven. Jesus is a more perfect, heavenly high priest with a more perfect, heavenly sacrifice presented to god in the more perfect, heavenly tabernacle. Jesus's high priesthood is of the "order of Melchizedek," which, using convoluted logic, is somehow superior to the levitical priesthood. Jesus's sacrifice not only makes him the heavenly high priest and god's right hand man, but also a living curtain through which believers go to get to god in the holy place.
The author of Hebrews uses multiple reference quotes from the old testament to prove his points. The problem is they are often pulled randomly from passages that have nothing to do with what he is claiming. They are not even the words of the personages he is claiming, namely god, Jesus, or the holy spirit. The author repeats many of the old testament quotes multiple times. He also repeats his reasons for using those quotes. He sometimes adds words and phrases that weren't in the original passages.
The only reality based things we are told about Jesus's life in the book of Hebrews are that he was a human, he prayed a lot, he was crucified, and died. This very similar to what Paul tells us about Jesus. We are, however, given extensive passages on the imaginary high priesthood of Jesus. No birth story, no teachings, or miracles of Jesus are mentioned. There is no genealogy, but It is assumed Jesus is a descendant of David, possibly David reincarnated. I say that because passages once attributed to David are attributed to Jesus by the Hebrew author.
No New Testament characters or events are mentioned, except Jesus and his death. No secular figures or events that could place this writing in time are named. Besides Melchizedek, quite a few Old Testament characters are mentioned as examples of faith. Angels and the devil are mentioned. Baptism is kind of mentioned, communion is not. Faith is the focus. A Hebrew who believes that Jesus is now the great high priest who presented himself as a perfect sacrifice to god will get to enter god's sabbath rest, if he stops sinning. Hell is not mentioned by name, but there will be burning of sinners and the unfaithful.
I previously posted portions of this on the Roll to Disbelieve comments.
Hebrews part nineteen
Today we finish up the last chapter of Hebrews starting at verse 15. We've been told that there are no more blood sacrifices because Jesus was the last most perfect sacrifice. But wait. What is this? The author is now telling his readers there are sacrifices they need to make: "a sacrifice of praise-- the fruit of lips that confess his name, doing good, and sharing with others." God likes those sacrifices. Notice that praising god comes first in that list and "doing good" is not defined. The only useful specific thing god seems to want is sharing with others.
There is more. The author tells the readers to obey their leaders and "submit to their authority." This is the classic definition of authoritarianism. Why must they obey? So that the leader's work "will be a joy and not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." Do you see the implied threat? It's all about the leaders.
The letter ends with a paulinesque wrap up. The author asks for prayers for a clear conscience and desire to live honorably. This makes hims sound good. He also asks them to pray for him to be restored to the readers soon. Remember we have no idea who the author is or who this supposed letter is written to. How do we know if they wanted him back?
Next the author says a kind of prayer for the reader, which is actually a doctrinal statement and sermon in disguise. "May the god of peace , who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen." Whew!
You would think that's where the letter should end, but it does not. This next part actually looks like something tacked on later. The writer tells the reader to bear with his word of exhortation, after all it's only a short letter. Actually, it's quite long for a letter. Consider that all that makes up the thirteen chapters we have read was written out by hand on papyrus or some other such handmade paper. The text alone takes up about eleven whole pages of my standard sized bible with relatively small typeface.
Verse 23 tells the reader "Timothy has been released" from some unknown place, presumably having been imprisoned. The author, however, dies not appear to be imprisoned because he says, if Timothy comes to him soon, they will both travel to see the readers, wherever they are. This sentence looks like name dropping to me, in an attempt to influence the reader's belief that the letter was written by Paul.
Last, the unknown readers are told to greet their unknown leaders and all god's people. Wouldn't the leaders be the ones to receive this letter? Considering the contents of this "letter," all god's people must be Jews in exile somewhere. Then we read that "those in Italy send you their greetings. Grace be with you all." Again, unknown people, in an undisclosed location in Italy, send their greetings. It looks like another attempt to tie this writing to Paul.
Well that's the end of the book of Hebrews. Next time we do a wrap up. Till then.
There is more. The author tells the readers to obey their leaders and "submit to their authority." This is the classic definition of authoritarianism. Why must they obey? So that the leader's work "will be a joy and not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." Do you see the implied threat? It's all about the leaders.
The letter ends with a paulinesque wrap up. The author asks for prayers for a clear conscience and desire to live honorably. This makes hims sound good. He also asks them to pray for him to be restored to the readers soon. Remember we have no idea who the author is or who this supposed letter is written to. How do we know if they wanted him back?
Next the author says a kind of prayer for the reader, which is actually a doctrinal statement and sermon in disguise. "May the god of peace , who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen." Whew!
You would think that's where the letter should end, but it does not. This next part actually looks like something tacked on later. The writer tells the reader to bear with his word of exhortation, after all it's only a short letter. Actually, it's quite long for a letter. Consider that all that makes up the thirteen chapters we have read was written out by hand on papyrus or some other such handmade paper. The text alone takes up about eleven whole pages of my standard sized bible with relatively small typeface.
Verse 23 tells the reader "Timothy has been released" from some unknown place, presumably having been imprisoned. The author, however, dies not appear to be imprisoned because he says, if Timothy comes to him soon, they will both travel to see the readers, wherever they are. This sentence looks like name dropping to me, in an attempt to influence the reader's belief that the letter was written by Paul.
Last, the unknown readers are told to greet their unknown leaders and all god's people. Wouldn't the leaders be the ones to receive this letter? Considering the contents of this "letter," all god's people must be Jews in exile somewhere. Then we read that "those in Italy send you their greetings. Grace be with you all." Again, unknown people, in an undisclosed location in Italy, send their greetings. It looks like another attempt to tie this writing to Paul.
Well that's the end of the book of Hebrews. Next time we do a wrap up. Till then.
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Hebrews part eight.
We continue at Hebrews 6:9-12. The author appeals to the readers to continue to be be diligent and faithful to the end, imitating those faithful who have already inherited the promised salvation by their faith and patience.
In verse 13, the author invokes Abraham, the original Hebrew patriarch. God swore on himself to Abraham a promise to bless him with many descendants. Abraham waited patiently and got what he was promised! After he was dead. Of course this promise is referring to the Hebrews to whom the author is writing.
Next the author goes on to use biblical logic to explain how god's oath was so special because god cannot lie; and it should be clear to the heirs of the promise that the nature of his purpose is unchanging. Next, is an interesting sentence: "We who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged." Whoah. "We who have fled?" The author is including himself among a group of Jews who has fled from somewhere? Why does no one ever talk about that?
Is that hope the hope of an afterlife/sabbath rest that was spoken of previously? I think it is. The author continues to tell the reader that the hope is an anchor for the soul. "It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus who went before us, has entered on our behalf." This is obviously a metaphor. The inner sanctuary represents the presence of god. The physical inner sanctuary was in the physical temple. Jesus never actually entered the temple sanctuary. Only the high priest entered the inner sanctuary of the physical temple. Since Jesus is called a high priest in the order of Melchizedek, he has entered the presence of god. Or since Jesus has entered the presence of God, he must be a high priest. Either way works for the author's purpose.
We are now in chapter seven. The author continues to talk of Melchizedek. He says that Melchizedek was priest of god most high. His name means "king of righteousness." Being the king of Salem, he was also the "king of peace", because Salem means peace. Then the author tells us Melchizedek had no mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning of days or end of life, like the son of god he remains a priest forever.
Let us remember that there was no punctuation in the original greek manuscripts. Just suppose I put a period after "like the son of god." What happens then? The son of god has no, mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning of days or end of life! Who is this son of god? Is he the same person we read about in Matthew and Luke? I don't think the author of Hebrews has read those "gospel" accounts. I don't think Paul did either. Not to mention Timothy, James, Peter, Jude, or Mark. Was he even an actual factual person?
In verse four, the author of Hebrews goes on to talk about how great Melchizedek was. Even Abraham gave him one tenth of some plunder. The law of Moses required the Jews to give 1/10 of everything to the levitical priests who were also descendants of Abraham. Melchizedek was not a descendant of Abraham, but he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him. Blessings are given by greater people to lesser. (More bible logic) The Levite priests are men who die, but Melchizedek is declared to be living. Really? Where? I think he means in Psalms when someone wrote Melchizedek is a priest forever. That seems to be interpreted as having eternal life.
Next is some of the weirdest bible logic I've ever read: "One might even say that Levi (in the form of the levitical priests), who collects the tenth (from the Jews), paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor." That is one convoluted messed up way to prove that the Jews retroactively paid a tenth to Melchizedek and were blessed by him.
More next time.
In verse 13, the author invokes Abraham, the original Hebrew patriarch. God swore on himself to Abraham a promise to bless him with many descendants. Abraham waited patiently and got what he was promised! After he was dead. Of course this promise is referring to the Hebrews to whom the author is writing.
Next the author goes on to use biblical logic to explain how god's oath was so special because god cannot lie; and it should be clear to the heirs of the promise that the nature of his purpose is unchanging. Next, is an interesting sentence: "We who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged." Whoah. "We who have fled?" The author is including himself among a group of Jews who has fled from somewhere? Why does no one ever talk about that?
Is that hope the hope of an afterlife/sabbath rest that was spoken of previously? I think it is. The author continues to tell the reader that the hope is an anchor for the soul. "It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus who went before us, has entered on our behalf." This is obviously a metaphor. The inner sanctuary represents the presence of god. The physical inner sanctuary was in the physical temple. Jesus never actually entered the temple sanctuary. Only the high priest entered the inner sanctuary of the physical temple. Since Jesus is called a high priest in the order of Melchizedek, he has entered the presence of god. Or since Jesus has entered the presence of God, he must be a high priest. Either way works for the author's purpose.
We are now in chapter seven. The author continues to talk of Melchizedek. He says that Melchizedek was priest of god most high. His name means "king of righteousness." Being the king of Salem, he was also the "king of peace", because Salem means peace. Then the author tells us Melchizedek had no mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning of days or end of life, like the son of god he remains a priest forever.
Let us remember that there was no punctuation in the original greek manuscripts. Just suppose I put a period after "like the son of god." What happens then? The son of god has no, mother, no father, no genealogy, no beginning of days or end of life! Who is this son of god? Is he the same person we read about in Matthew and Luke? I don't think the author of Hebrews has read those "gospel" accounts. I don't think Paul did either. Not to mention Timothy, James, Peter, Jude, or Mark. Was he even an actual factual person?
In verse four, the author of Hebrews goes on to talk about how great Melchizedek was. Even Abraham gave him one tenth of some plunder. The law of Moses required the Jews to give 1/10 of everything to the levitical priests who were also descendants of Abraham. Melchizedek was not a descendant of Abraham, but he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him. Blessings are given by greater people to lesser. (More bible logic) The Levite priests are men who die, but Melchizedek is declared to be living. Really? Where? I think he means in Psalms when someone wrote Melchizedek is a priest forever. That seems to be interpreted as having eternal life.
Next is some of the weirdest bible logic I've ever read: "One might even say that Levi (in the form of the levitical priests), who collects the tenth (from the Jews), paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor." That is one convoluted messed up way to prove that the Jews retroactively paid a tenth to Melchizedek and were blessed by him.
More next time.
Friday, January 4, 2019
The apostles part four
8)*Matthew: Matthew 9:9, Matthew 10:3, Mark3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
The book of Matthew never uses the name Levi. However, the apostle Matthew is called the tax collector. John and Paul do not mention Matthew.
*Levi: Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27, 29
Levi is called a tax collector in Mark and Luke. However, he is not associated with Matthew in those books and Matthew is not called a tax collector in those books. Matthew, John, and Paul do not talk of a disciple named Levi. The Old Testament Levi is also mentioned in a few places in the New Testament.
Read about Matthew here.
9) *James the son of Alphaeus: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
There is not much to say about James the son of Alphaeus. He only appears in the lists of apostles. John and Paul do not mention him. In Mark 2:14, Levi is also called the son of Alphaeus.
*James the less, brother of Joses and Salome, son of Mary: Mark 15:40
Here's where things get complicated. Was James the less the same James as the son of Alphaeus? Then who was Mary his mother? Wouldn't she have been the wife of Alphaeus? Was it the Mary mentioned as being Jesus's mother, as well as the mother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon, in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3? Which Mary was the mother of James and Joses mentioned in Matthew 27:56? What about the Mary, mother of Joses, who went to the tomb of Jesus with Mary Magdalene? Are all these Marys, Jameses, and Joseses the same people? Some people think so. I haven't a clue. Plus, I don't think it's possible to know for sure who is who. Isn't possible that Joseph the carpenter died and Jesus's mother Mary remarried a man named Alphaeus?
Read more about James the son of Alphaeus.
10)* Simon the Zealot (NIV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 Acts 1:13
*Simon the Canaanite ((KJV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18
*Simon Zelotes (KJV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
John and Paul do not mention this Simon.
Read more about Simon the Zealot.
More to come.
The book of Matthew never uses the name Levi. However, the apostle Matthew is called the tax collector. John and Paul do not mention Matthew.
*Levi: Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27, 29
Levi is called a tax collector in Mark and Luke. However, he is not associated with Matthew in those books and Matthew is not called a tax collector in those books. Matthew, John, and Paul do not talk of a disciple named Levi. The Old Testament Levi is also mentioned in a few places in the New Testament.
Read about Matthew here.
9) *James the son of Alphaeus: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
There is not much to say about James the son of Alphaeus. He only appears in the lists of apostles. John and Paul do not mention him. In Mark 2:14, Levi is also called the son of Alphaeus.
*James the less, brother of Joses and Salome, son of Mary: Mark 15:40
Here's where things get complicated. Was James the less the same James as the son of Alphaeus? Then who was Mary his mother? Wouldn't she have been the wife of Alphaeus? Was it the Mary mentioned as being Jesus's mother, as well as the mother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon, in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3? Which Mary was the mother of James and Joses mentioned in Matthew 27:56? What about the Mary, mother of Joses, who went to the tomb of Jesus with Mary Magdalene? Are all these Marys, Jameses, and Joseses the same people? Some people think so. I haven't a clue. Plus, I don't think it's possible to know for sure who is who. Isn't possible that Joseph the carpenter died and Jesus's mother Mary remarried a man named Alphaeus?
Read more about James the son of Alphaeus.
10)* Simon the Zealot (NIV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 Acts 1:13
*Simon the Canaanite ((KJV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18
*Simon Zelotes (KJV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
John and Paul do not mention this Simon.
Read more about Simon the Zealot.
More to come.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
The apostles part three
5)*Philip: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, John 1:43-46, 48, (from Bethsaida) John 6:5,7, John 12:21-22, John 14:8-9, Acts 1:3
Only John has the story of Philip becoming a disciple. The strange thing about that story is that it is just a lead in for the story of how a man named Nathanael became a disciple. The other gospels and Acts only list him in the roll call of apostles. John includes Philip in a few stories of direct interaction with Jesus. No Philip is mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Philip.
There is a Philip mentioned in Acts, who is commonly called Philip the evangelist. He is assumed to not be the same as Philip the apostle because he is listed as one of the first seven deacons listed who do the grunt work of the new church. These deacons are not part of the twelve.Scriptures that include that Philip are: Acts 6:5, Acts 8:5-6, 12-13,26,29-31,34-35,37-40, Acts 21:8
Read more about Philip the evangelist.
6)*Bartholomew: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13,
There is no mention of Bartholomew by John, Paul, or anywhere else in the New Testament.
Read more about Bartholomew.
*Nathanael: John 21:2 lists Nathanael of Cana, presumably the same Nathanael that Philip introduces to Jesus In John 1:45-49, as one of Jesus's disciples. Soon after that introduction, is the story of the wedding at Cana, which is only mentioned in John. Because Bartholomew's name is paired with Philip's in the book of Matthew, and because Nathanael is brought to Jesus by Philip in John, and because Nathanael is listed as a disciple in John, there is a traditional assumption that Nathanael and Bartholomew must be the same person. I hope you can see that is not necessarily so. They are never explicitly connected. The name Nathanael is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament but in the book of John. (Do you find this as fascinating as I do?)
Read more about Nathanael.
7)*Thomas: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, John 14:5, John 20:26-29, Acts 1:13
*Thomas called Didymus: John 11:16, John 20:24
The word Thomas and Didymus are said to both mean "twin." Thomas is only called Didymus in John. John is also the only book that includes any dialog or stories of Thomas. This is the same Thomas who is also commonly called "doubting Thomas" because of his skepticism about Jesus's resurrection. Thomas is not mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Thomas.
More to come.
Only John has the story of Philip becoming a disciple. The strange thing about that story is that it is just a lead in for the story of how a man named Nathanael became a disciple. The other gospels and Acts only list him in the roll call of apostles. John includes Philip in a few stories of direct interaction with Jesus. No Philip is mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Philip.
There is a Philip mentioned in Acts, who is commonly called Philip the evangelist. He is assumed to not be the same as Philip the apostle because he is listed as one of the first seven deacons listed who do the grunt work of the new church. These deacons are not part of the twelve.Scriptures that include that Philip are: Acts 6:5, Acts 8:5-6, 12-13,26,29-31,34-35,37-40, Acts 21:8
Read more about Philip the evangelist.
6)*Bartholomew: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13,
There is no mention of Bartholomew by John, Paul, or anywhere else in the New Testament.
Read more about Bartholomew.
*Nathanael: John 21:2 lists Nathanael of Cana, presumably the same Nathanael that Philip introduces to Jesus In John 1:45-49, as one of Jesus's disciples. Soon after that introduction, is the story of the wedding at Cana, which is only mentioned in John. Because Bartholomew's name is paired with Philip's in the book of Matthew, and because Nathanael is brought to Jesus by Philip in John, and because Nathanael is listed as a disciple in John, there is a traditional assumption that Nathanael and Bartholomew must be the same person. I hope you can see that is not necessarily so. They are never explicitly connected. The name Nathanael is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament but in the book of John. (Do you find this as fascinating as I do?)
Read more about Nathanael.
7)*Thomas: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, John 14:5, John 20:26-29, Acts 1:13
*Thomas called Didymus: John 11:16, John 20:24
The word Thomas and Didymus are said to both mean "twin." Thomas is only called Didymus in John. John is also the only book that includes any dialog or stories of Thomas. This is the same Thomas who is also commonly called "doubting Thomas" because of his skepticism about Jesus's resurrection. Thomas is not mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Thomas.
More to come.
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
The apostles part two
3)*James the son of Zebedee: Matthew 4:21, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:19, 29, Mark 3:17, Mark 10:35, Luke 5:10,
*James the brother of John: Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37,
*James and John: Mark 9:2, Mark10:41, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:33, Luke 6:14, Luke 8:51, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:54, Acts 1:13, Acts 12:2 (James is put to death by the sword.)
This James is always mentioned in conjunction with John.
Read about James.
4)*John the son of Zebedee: See James the son of Zebedee.
*John the brother of James: See James the brother of John.
*James and John: See James and John above.
*John: Mark 9:38, Luke 9:49, Luke 22:8, Acts 3:1,3,4, 11, Acts 4:13, 19, Acts 8:14, Galatians 2:9, Revelation 1:1, 4,9, Revelation 21;2, Revelation 22:8
The John in Acts and Galatians is almost always paired with Peter. The John in Revelation is often assumed to be the same John, brother of James, author of all the books with John's name, but there is nothing that definitively identifies him as such.
Now the weird part. Neither John nor James are mentioned in the Book of John, which is traditionally supposed to have been written by this John. Instead there is a recurring cryptic phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved," assumed to be the John who is assumed to be the author of the book of John. Neither assumption has any basis in anything other than speculation and elimination. Why couldn't it have been James or some other unmentioned disciple? John's name has also been paired with the concept of altruistic love as the speculated author of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. Some similarity of style may mean the authors are the same person. However, at no time is any John actually identified as that person.
"The disciple Jesus loved" is found in John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:20. Most of these verses connect this disciple with Peter in some way, just as Acts often connects John with Peter. This may be one reason It is assumed to be John. The book of John also states that when Jesus was dying on the cross, he gave the care of his mother to the disciple he loved. It never says who that was. If John did write the book of John, what of James, John's brother? Would a truly loving person actually cut his close brother out of history?
The book of John ends by saying, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." Um. No. Hello. We don't even know who you are because you haven't actually told us. Why should we trust you?
Read about John
More to come.
*James the brother of John: Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37,
*James and John: Mark 9:2, Mark10:41, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:33, Luke 6:14, Luke 8:51, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:54, Acts 1:13, Acts 12:2 (James is put to death by the sword.)
This James is always mentioned in conjunction with John.
Read about James.
4)*John the son of Zebedee: See James the son of Zebedee.
*John the brother of James: See James the brother of John.
*James and John: See James and John above.
*John: Mark 9:38, Luke 9:49, Luke 22:8, Acts 3:1,3,4, 11, Acts 4:13, 19, Acts 8:14, Galatians 2:9, Revelation 1:1, 4,9, Revelation 21;2, Revelation 22:8
The John in Acts and Galatians is almost always paired with Peter. The John in Revelation is often assumed to be the same John, brother of James, author of all the books with John's name, but there is nothing that definitively identifies him as such.
Now the weird part. Neither John nor James are mentioned in the Book of John, which is traditionally supposed to have been written by this John. Instead there is a recurring cryptic phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved," assumed to be the John who is assumed to be the author of the book of John. Neither assumption has any basis in anything other than speculation and elimination. Why couldn't it have been James or some other unmentioned disciple? John's name has also been paired with the concept of altruistic love as the speculated author of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. Some similarity of style may mean the authors are the same person. However, at no time is any John actually identified as that person.
"The disciple Jesus loved" is found in John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:20. Most of these verses connect this disciple with Peter in some way, just as Acts often connects John with Peter. This may be one reason It is assumed to be John. The book of John also states that when Jesus was dying on the cross, he gave the care of his mother to the disciple he loved. It never says who that was. If John did write the book of John, what of James, John's brother? Would a truly loving person actually cut his close brother out of history?
The book of John ends by saying, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." Um. No. Hello. We don't even know who you are because you haven't actually told us. Why should we trust you?
Read about John
More to come.
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Mark part one
Let us begin reading Mark. Right away I notice there is no virgin birth story. There is no mother Mary and father Joseph. No divine conception of Jesus by the holy spirit. So, if Mark stood alone, we would have to assume Jesus was conceieved and birthed in the normal human way. The first chapter begins by telling us that the gospel of Jesus Christ began in Isaiah with a prophecy about a messenger who will prepare the way for the lord. And that messenger was John the baptizer. Did Mark not know of the supposed prophecy of a virgin giving birth? Wouldn't that have been a pertinent part of Jesus's back story? If Mark was the first gospel writer, did Matthew and Luke each make up their Jesus origin stories? Both of their stories are very different after all.
Beginning in verse 4, John the baptist is described as a man dressed in camel hair clothing who preached out in the desert. He was telling the Jews who came to him that they needed to be baptized with a baptism of repentance for the remission of their sins. Basically that means they were given a ceremonial bath to show that they were cleansing themselves from past sins. They may not have actually done anything that we would consider wrong, like theft or murder. "Sins" are committed whenever god's laws are broken. They could have included any number of innocuous things, like cooking on the Sabbath or not tithing properly. Who knows what these people were repenting of.
At that time, the Romans had control over Israel, and many Jews were very concerned about this state of things. Just like today, there would have been religious people blaming the undesirable conditions on a state of moral laxity and religious decay. A call to repent is ubiquitous throughout religious history.
While John was out in the desert baptizing, he told people someone more powerful than him was coming, someone who would baptize the people with the holy spirit instead of water. Hmm, it sounds like John was saying holy spirit baptism is superior to water baptism. That's not what I was taught.
Then along comes Jesus from Nazareth. He was baptized by John in the Jordan river. When he came up out of the water, "he saw heaven being torn open and the spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." Look at that. The text does not say that John knew who Jesus was when he came to be baptized. It also does not say anyone else but Jesus himself was witness to this miraculous voice. Oh my nonexistent god! Jesus here is having an experience like Paul claims to have had on the road to Damascus. There are no other witnesses claimed for this event. Wouldn't it have been important for Mark to include witnesses, if there were any?
Note that there is no mention of Bethlehem, wise men following stars, Herod killing children, censuses, or genealogical descent from David. In fact, so far, this story is not anchored in time.
My previous series on the nativity begins here.(link)
More to come.
Beginning in verse 4, John the baptist is described as a man dressed in camel hair clothing who preached out in the desert. He was telling the Jews who came to him that they needed to be baptized with a baptism of repentance for the remission of their sins. Basically that means they were given a ceremonial bath to show that they were cleansing themselves from past sins. They may not have actually done anything that we would consider wrong, like theft or murder. "Sins" are committed whenever god's laws are broken. They could have included any number of innocuous things, like cooking on the Sabbath or not tithing properly. Who knows what these people were repenting of.
At that time, the Romans had control over Israel, and many Jews were very concerned about this state of things. Just like today, there would have been religious people blaming the undesirable conditions on a state of moral laxity and religious decay. A call to repent is ubiquitous throughout religious history.
While John was out in the desert baptizing, he told people someone more powerful than him was coming, someone who would baptize the people with the holy spirit instead of water. Hmm, it sounds like John was saying holy spirit baptism is superior to water baptism. That's not what I was taught.
Then along comes Jesus from Nazareth. He was baptized by John in the Jordan river. When he came up out of the water, "he saw heaven being torn open and the spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." Look at that. The text does not say that John knew who Jesus was when he came to be baptized. It also does not say anyone else but Jesus himself was witness to this miraculous voice. Oh my nonexistent god! Jesus here is having an experience like Paul claims to have had on the road to Damascus. There are no other witnesses claimed for this event. Wouldn't it have been important for Mark to include witnesses, if there were any?
Note that there is no mention of Bethlehem, wise men following stars, Herod killing children, censuses, or genealogical descent from David. In fact, so far, this story is not anchored in time.
My previous series on the nativity begins here.(link)
More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)