2 Peter, introduction

Hello, time to move on to the 2nd bible book attributed to Peter. Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it here. There appears to be very little doubt that this letter is a fake, written between 100-150 CE, by an unknown author who was familiar with Paul's epistles and the so called book of Jude. In fact, it seems to rely heavily in the content of Jude, which we have studied before. This should be interesting.

The letter begins with the author introducing himself as Simon Peter, not just Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. It is addressed to a nonspecific group of believers.

The author opens by saying that Jesus's divine power has given them everything they need for life and godliness through their knowledge of him. (Then why do they need this letter from Peter?) Through Jesus's divine power, he gave them "great and precious promises" (what were they?)so that they could participate in the divine nature (what is that?) and "escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." So, does this boil down to " Jesus has the power to take away your evil desires?"

In spite of Jesus's awesome power in their lives, the readers must still make an effort to have faith, goodness, self control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. (What does the divine power do?) If the readers have these qualities in increasing measure, it will keep them from being ineffective and unproductive in their knowledge of christ. (Again, then what does the divine power actually do that a person can't do for himself?) if anyone does not have the aforementioned qualities, the author says they are nearsighted, blind, and have forgotten they were cleansed from their sins. I guess he's implying that they owe Jesus their good behavior and good attitudes in repayment for the invisible nullification of their sins.

So, a claim is made that Jesus did something for them that they can not see, and gave something to them that they may never experience. Now it's up to them to be sure they act like they deserve it. And if they do, they will "receive a rich welcome into the eternal (invisible) kingdom of Jesus Christ." After they are dead.

Till next time.

1 Peter wrap up

What did we learn when we read 1 Peter? The author identifies himself as Peter at the beginning and mentions two traditional companions of Peter at the end, Silas and Mark. However, he never mentions anything Peter did or said in the gospel stories, Acts, or Paul's writings. He only says he was a witness to Christ's suffering. It is unclear to me if that is supposed to be literal or metaphorical.

No other New Testament people are mentioned, except Jesus. The author does not claim to be writing the words of god or to be inspired. At the end, it is implied that Silas did the actual physical writing and Peter dictated. The letter claims to be written to Believers in the region of Anatolia/ modern Turkey. This letter actually calls believers christians, which no other other New Testament writer did, except the author of Acts.  A phrase at the end of the letter implies it is coming from Rome, but does not directly say that. No other New Testament places are mentioned.

There are no New Testament events mentioned except the crucifixion of Christ. The only Old Testament event mentioned is the story of Noah's flood. Besides Noah, only Abraham and Sarah are mentioned. Several Old Testament scriptures are quoted, sometimes differently than what is found in my Old Testament, and often out of context, as usual.

The author does not seem to be promoting any departure or separation from Judaism. It is clear that he assumes his readers are familiar with Jewish scriptures, which makes them exiled Jews or Gentile followers of Yahweh. It could be a combination of both.

There are no deeds, words, or teachings, of Jesus recorded in this letter. I find that particularly strange from someone who was supposedly his constant companion for one to three years. There are no mentions of any Christian rituals besides baptism, which many people forget was a Jewish ritual before it became a christian one. Angels and the Devil are mentioned. Heaven is waiting.

Unique to this book is the teaching that after Jesus was crucified, he went to the realm of the dead and preached the gospel to the souls that had been imprisoned there since the flood. It has supposedly already happened, not something that will happen in the future as some groups teach. In this book, Jesus is not the high priest of the heavenly temple, but simultaneously its cornerstone and capstone. He is also a stumbling block to nonbelievers. Believers are living stones in this spiritual house, and a holy priesthood. Biblical authors do not have any qualms about mixing metaphors. Jesus is also called the lamb of god, without blemish, chosen before the creation of the world.

To be fair, positive things like hospitality and love are also taught. Malice, deceit, hypocrisy, and slander are not acceptable. These Christians are urged not to repay evil with evil or insult with insult.

The theme of the book appears to be salvation through submission and obedience to all authority, the ultimate authority being god, of course. The reward for obedience is a "crown of glory that will never fade away."  The reader is told to expect and rejoice in suffering as a christian, especially if it is for doing good. All this suffering is supposed to be for a short time because "the end of all things is near."

Next, we will look at 2 Peter.

1 Peter introduction.

I think we will tackle 1st and 2nd Peter next. It should be interesting. Lets read what Wikipedia has to say about 1 Peter here.

Notice that there is a lot of controversy surrounding the authorship of this letter. The most pertinent objection to Peter having written it is that it is just too well written to be composed by a first century fisherman. Let's see if we can uncover any other objections.

The book starts off with the author introducing himself as the apostle Peter, presumably the same Peter we read about in other New Testament books.  It is written "to god's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." These areas were all provinces in Asia Minor/Anatolia, in or around modern Turkey. The letter addresses those "who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of god the father, through the sanctifying work of the spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood." There is a lot of theology in that greeting. Notice the mention of the trinity and the role of each part. Notice Jesus's blood is sprinkled, like Moses did with the blood of the covenant, as we discussed in our Hebrews study. Of course it's figurative sprinkling of figurative blood, because Jesus's actual blood was never sprinkled on any actual person or thing. Who are god's elect going to be in this letter, exiled Jews, gentiles, or both? They are obviously believers in Jesus, but we also already have some reference to Jewish symbolism.

The letter continues on praising god for giving them "new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil, or fade-- kept in heaven" for them. All supernatural, invisible stuff that they have to wait till they are dead to see. Maybe.  The readers' faith is supposed to create a shield of god's power for them , "until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time." This means it hasn't been revealed to them yet. Guess what, two thousand years later, still no reveal.

Peter informs the readers that they rejoice in this coming salvation, even though they've bee through some rough times for a little while: "grief and all kinds of trials." No specifics though. The trials have a purpose, to refine their faith, the same way fire refines gold, even though faith is worth a lot more than gold. This is called an analogy:  Trials are to faith as fire is to gold. Trials supposedly prove whether or not faith is genuine. They are a test of a true christian. When they haven't  seen Jesus, yet they still love him and believe in him, they are "filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy" because they are receiving the salvation of their souls.

This is delusional and sick, in my opinion, if anyone actually feels joy from having grief or trials. Seriously, the joy stuff is pure propaganda. In my experience very few Christians experience joy when going through tough times. They are human beings after all. Most people do whatever it takes to get by, avoiding hardships and pain whenever possible, or using coping mechanisms when they can't. The author's manufactured joy isn't even pleasant. Who wants it?

Till next time.

Mark part twenty seven

We are at Mark 14:66. Jesus has been condemned to death by the leaders of the Jews, for blasphemy. While Jesus's "trial" is going on, Peter is hanging around in the courtyard. A servant girl sees him and recognizes him as a follower of Jesus. Peter told her he didn't know what she was talking about and moved to another spot. The girl saw him again and told the other people standing around her suspicions. Peter denied it again. Later, some more people standing around could somehow tell he was a Galilean and again suggested he must be one of Jesus's followers. A third time, Peter swore he did not know Jesus. (There's that number three again) Immediately the rooster crowed a second time. (We were never told when the first crow was.) That reminded Peter of Jesus's prophecy about these very events. He began to weep.

We are now at chapter 15. All this stuff has been happening in the night, on Passover, if the story is happening in real linear time and not skipping days.. Nobody has had any sleep, as far as I can tell. Very early in the morning, still Passover, all the Jewish leaders decide to hand Jesus over to Pontius Pilate. Pilate asks Jesus if he is the king of the Jews. Jesus says yes he is. Why would Pilate ask Jesus that? Could it be that the messiah was supposed to be a Jewish king? Why does Jesus say yes?

 It should be noted that there was no  "king of the Jews" at that time. After Herod the great died in 4BCE, the kingdom was split among his three sons, who were called tetrarchs. The tetrarch of Judea, Archelaeus, was ousted by the Romans in 6CE and Judea became a province of Rome with an appointed governor. Pilate was governor of Judea from 26-36 CE. I imagine Jesus's claim would have either angered or amused him. Pilate tells Jesus to answer the many charges against himself, but he does not reply.

The text tells us it was the custom to release a prisoner at the request of the people, during the feast (passover). A crowd had gathered to make this request. Pilate asked if they wanted Jesus (the king of the Jews) released to them, but the chief priests influenced the crowd to release a man named Barabbas. Barabbas had been in prison with some insurrectionists who had committed murder in an uprising. We do not know which uprising this was, because there were many. Some were caused by the actions of Pontius Pilate himself, who set up Roman standards on the temple grounds and used temple money, naturally angering many Jews. It should also be noted that Barabbas means "son of the father." He could have been another contender for the son of god title.

The crowd asked for Barabbas to be released and shouted for Jesus to be crucified, in spite of Pilate's weak attempt to figure out why they wanted him dead. So Pilate had Jesus beaten (surely not necessary)  and handed him over to be crucified. The soldiers took Jesus to the praetorium, gave him a purple robe, and a crown of thorns. They mocked him, pretending he was a king, struck him on the head with a staff, and spit on him. Then they took off the robe, put his clothes back on and led him out to be crucified. So, how does the narrator know this? It was not done in public. Only the soldiers who participated would have known about it. This is another case of omniscient narrator. The same could be said of Jesus's passover night trial by the Sanhedrin. Where did the author of Mark get his information?

Notice that the crowd Pilate spoke to also rejected Jesus three times. In spite of what I have heard preached many times, there is no reason to believe the same people who sang his praises when he rode in to town on a donkey are the same people who yelled, "crucify him!"

Mark part twenty six

We are now in Mark 14:39. Jesus has gone off to pray twice; and he has gone back to rebuke Peter, James, and John, twice, for sleeping while they waited for him. Now he does the same sequence a third time.I have been impressed by the number of times three has cropped up in this story. We have three disciples dozing while waiting for Jesus. Three times Jesus prays. Three times he goes back to the three disciples to rebuke them. What are the odds more threes will occur in this story?

The third time Jesus rebukes the three, he also announces his betrayer is coming. So, somewhere in between the twelve arriving at the garden and this moment, Judas must have left. Judas now appears with what can be described as a mob, sent by the chief priests, teachers of the law, and the elders. (Three authority figures) These people  are not said to be Roman soldiers. Remember, this is the night of Passover, a religious holy day. This should not have been happening. Back in 14:2, the chief priests said they didn't want to arrest Jesus during the Feast  for fear of a riot. The feast of unleavened bread lasted a whole week. In the context of the story, it appears to be only the second day of the feast, Jewish time.

Judas had arranged a signal to show the armed crowd who to capture. He went to Jesus, called him rabbi, and gave him a kiss. He was immediately arrested. Someone standing nearby cut off the ear of the chief priest's servant with a sword. The text does not name that person. It also does not say Jesus stuck the ear back on and miraculously healed it. Jesus verbally protests the necessity of the arrest, but says "the scripture must be fulfilled." Everyone deserted Jesus and ran away. Jesus was only with three other people at the time, unless all the other disciples decided to come see what the commotion was.

Next, an odd incident is included in the story, telling us that a young man, basically only dressed in his underwear or night clothes, tried to run off but was grabbed by the flimsy garment. He escaped by leaving the garment behind, in other words, buck naked. Since this seems such a non-sequitur, many bible readers through the ages have decided the purpose for including this story must be because the young man was the author, AKA Mark. There is no actual reason to believe this other than speculation.

They crowd took Jesus to the Jewish authority figures who had gathered, on Passover night. Peter followed them at a distance, to the high priest's courtyard, and sat with the guards (not said to be Roman) by the fire. The whole Sanhedrin was there, on Passover night. They had a religious trial, in the middle of the night. Unbelievable. They needed two or more witnesses who could agree and give evidence to any religious crimes Jesus had supposedly committed that would justify putting him to death. They didn't get what they needed. Some testified that Jesus said he "would destroy this manmade temple and in three days build another, not made by man." However, no two testimonies agreeed. (Many Christians believe the Temple referred to was a metaphor for Jesus's body.) Jesus refused to answer the charges against himself, instead remaining silent.

Then the high priest asked Jesus if he was the christ, the son of the blessed one. Jesus replied, "I am." In the old testament "I am" is what god calls himself, this would mean Jesus was making himself Equal to god. If that wasn't enough, he goes on to imply that he will sit at the right hand of god and appear with him in the clouds when he comes. This was clearly blasphemy, punishable by death. Jesus was condemned to die, spat upon, blindfolded, and beaten.

Mark part twenty

We are at Mark 11:18. We are told that after Jesus upset the temple businesses, the chief priests and the teachers of the law began to look for a way to kill him "because they feared him." I find this patently ridiculous. They have all the power and privilege. They could have arrested him for what he did, or at least have thrown him out. I would guess that he was more of an annoyance than a fear. If they did fear him, maybe it was because they thought him mentally unstable. Besides that, Jesus has not spent any time in the Jerusalem area, until now, in the book of Mark. He cannot have been that well known. Not only that, the failed triumphal entry and the following days' events may be proof that he was totally unfamiliar with the temple and its practices.

At evening, the disciples went out of the city, unmolested by the authorities. As they were walking along the next morning, they saw the fig tree Jesus had cursed and it was "withered from the roots." Let me tell you about fig trees. I have one in my back yard. At the  time Jesus and his disciples were walking along, it was supposedly early spring, before passover. In early spring, fig plants are beginning to leaf out. They don't produce ripe fruit til the end of summer, which is why the plant had no fruit and Jesus "cursed" it. Early spring can be an unstable weather period. Hard frosts might still occur. If a hard frost happens after a fig has leafed out, it will die back. However, the great thing about figs is the  roots do stay alive. The plant will start growing back as soon as the temperatures get warm again. The person who wrote this book obviously did not know this about figs, or it didn't occur to him to question the legend.

In the story, Peter makes a big deal about the fig tree withering after Jesus cursed it. Jesus uses this event to tell the disciples to have faith that "whatever you  ask for in prayer, if you believe that you have received it....it will be yours."  He says that anyone who does not doubt in his heart, but believes what he says, could even tell a mountain to throw itself into the sea and it would be done. That is pretty specific. The fact that it's never been done must mean there has never been someone with enough faith. This also lays the blame for unanswered prayers squarely at the feet of the one who prayed. You didn't get what you prayed for? Tsk, tsk.

The disciples are heading back into Jerusalem. Bethany must have been their home base. This is the third day they went into the city from Bethany. The first was the "triumphal" entry that fell flat. The second was the fracas in the temple. Now, on the third day, Jesus is back at the temple. The chief priests, teachers of the law, and elders ask Jesus "By what authority are you doing these things?" What things is Jesus doing now to get that question? Why didn't they confront him the day before? Jesus then says if they answer his question, he will answer theirs. And they take that impertinence from him, a nobody? Are these men or mice?

Then Jesus asks them if John's baptism was from men or god, a trick question which makes the leaders look bad no matter how they answer, because everyone thought John was a prophet, except them. Frankly, John the baptist was probably more well known than Jesus. In fact, his life is better attested to in Josephus's writings than Jesus is anywhere outside the bible. This whole gospel of Mark seems to hang on the existence of John, and Jesus's revelation of the holy spirit while being baptized by him. No John, no Jesus. John is dead, so he cannot testify to Jesus's veracity, plus Jesus's ministry did not begin till after John's death, according to the book of Mark.

Now that Jesus's authority is being questioned, he deflects attention to the question of John's authority. The leaders won't answer his question, so Jesus says he won't answer theirs. Now we also do not know from where he gets his authority. More mystery.

Mark part eighteen

We are at Mark 10:10, still in the divorce passage. Back at the house, the disciples ask Jesus to clarify his position on divorce. He says, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." I just got this thought: what if all the in private explanations were not in the original story. What if they were added later by someone who wanted to provide more details to supplement anything Jesus said that was cryptic or unclear. There is no way to know but it would make sense. This part of the passage is used by christians to say that god is not only against divorce, but remarriage as well. According to my bible's commentary, the whole passage may have been a reference to the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias. Remember, John the baptist was beheaded for expressing his opinion on their divorce/remarriage situation.

Next, people are bringing children to Jesus to touch, presumably because they believed he had magic powers. The disciples tried to stop it, but Jesus told them to let the children come. Again, he says "the kingdom of god belongs to such as these....anyone who will not receive the kingdom of god like a little child will never enter it." He blessed them, which means he said magical words that have no power but probably sounded good.

As Jesus was travelling, a rich young man ran up to Jesus fell on his knees, called Jesus "good teacher", and asked how to inherit eternal life. Then Jesus told the man not to call him good because only god is good. This is fascinating. Isn't Jesus supposed to be god in the flesh? Is Jesus actually saying he himself was not good? Is he a separate being from god? If Jesus was not good, then he couldn't have been a perfect sacrifice, could he?

Jesus tells the young man he needs to keep the commandments. The young man already does that. Then Jesus told him to sell everything he had and give to the poor, then follow him (I'm guessing that meant literally follow him around like the disciples.) The young man was sad, he didn't want eternal life bad enough to give up his earthly security. Jesus astonished the disciples by telling them it was practically impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of god, which was probably against everything they had grown up believing. They wondered who could be saved if the rich couldn't. Jesus then tells them all things are possible with god.

Peter reminds Jesus that the disciples left everything to follow Jesus. (They have become itinerant religious beggars. What became of their families and their homes?)Jesus tells them that everyone who has left home and family for the gospel will receive a hundred times what they left, plus persecutions,(oh goody) "and in the age to come, eternal life." Their poor neglected families. Shame on Jesus. Funny thing, in the relatives-to-leave list, wives are not included. I guess that would be kind of odd since he just got through saying what God has joined, let not man separate. Didn't god also join families together? Why is Jesus separating them? But, someone says, it must be a figurative leaving, not literal. Oh, yeah? Read it again.

Jesus and the disciples are now on their way to Jerusalem. Jesus tells them, "The son of man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will hand him over to the gentiles who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later, he will rise." Jesus has a plan.

Next James and John, the sons of Zebedee ask Jesus a favor. They want to sit on his right and left hand in his glory. So, after being told multiple times that the least and last will be first and greatest, they are still jockeying for position. They want to be Jesus's top men. Jesus tells them they don't know what they are asking. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" He has just told them what will happen to "the son of man" maybe they don't understand that he was talking about himself. They think they can take on whatever comes his way.
Jesus tells them they will,(a prophecy?) but he can't give James and John the positions they want. Those spots have been prepared for others. Who?

Mark part fifteen

We are now at Mark 9:2. The text tells us that six days (Luke 9:28 says eight days) after Jesus predicted his own death, Jesus, Peter, James, and John, went up a high mountain, in an unspecified location. They were all alone. There were no other witnesses. Jesus was "transfigured" before the others. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than the whitest white. (Maybe Jesus put a lantern in his robe.) They also saw Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus. How did they know what Moses and Elijah looked like?

Peter, being frightened, said the first thing that came into his head. He thought it might be a good idea to set up three altars, one each for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Then a cloud surrounded them and obscured their vision. They heard a voice in the cloud say, "This is my son whom I love, listen to him!" The presumption is that this was the voice of god. If you were on a foggy mountainside and heard a voice speaking from the fog, would that necessarily mean it was a god speaking? It very well could have been Jesus himself, for that matter, if it happened.

After the voice, Peter, James, and John,  couldn't see Elijah and Moses any more. They all went back down the mountain and Jesus told the other three not to tell anyone what they had seen until after the son of man (presumably referring to himself) had risen from the dead. The rising from the dead thing puzzled them. Plus, there Jesus goes being secretive again. He's also hedging his bets. If he never rose from the dead, these disciples would never tell the story, maybe.

The three disciples asked why the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first. First in relation to what? And why did the teachers of the law say that? It Is from Malachi 4:5-6,  " See I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers ; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse." Jesus then tells the three that Elijah has already come and they (who?) have already done to him everything they wished, just as it was written. Elijah is assumed to be a metaphor for John the baptist, though it doesn't actually say that. Plus, there never was anything written concerning how this "Elijah" would be treated.

My study bible has an interesting note suggesting that John the baptist's life  mirrored Elijah's in that he dealt with a weak king (Ahab/ Herod Antipas) and his wicked Queen (Jezebel/ Herodias). However, John the baptist was imprisoned and beheaded. Elijah rode a chariot of fire up to heaven in a whirlwind.

Now, in verse 14, they are back with the other disciples who were arguing with the teachers of the law. Jesus wanted to know the nature of the argument. A man in the crowd said his son was possessed by a spirit which made him mute and gave him seizures. The disciples hadn't been able to drive out the spirit. (Maybe because it wasn't a spirit?) This news made Jesus exclaim that he was frustrated with that "unbelieving generation." I wonder what he would think of this generation.

The child was brought to Jesus and when "the spirit" saw him, it threw the boy on the ground in a fit. The father informed Jesus that the spirit had been in his son for quite a while and had tried to kill him by throwing him in the fire or in water. Poor kid. If he existed, it is probable that he had a neurological condition like epilepsy. Jesus tells the father, who wants his son cured that every thing is possible for him who believes. (Spoiler:no it's not.) The father says something heart-wrenching, "I do believe, help me overcome my unbelief." To me this shows the father had serious doubts and was trying to overcome them by sheer willpower.

Jesus commanded the evil spirit to come out of the boy and it left with a shriek and violent convulsion. In other words, the boy shrieked and convulsed. Then he lay as still as a corpse and people thought he was dead. (He either passed out or the seizure passed and he was exhausted.) Then Jesus pulled him up to stand. The text never actually  says the child was fully cured or able to speak.
Helping someone up after a seizure does not amount to a cure.

Mark part fourteen

We are now at Mark 8:14. After Jesus has told the Pharisees that he won't give them a sign from heaven, he and the disciples get in the ever present boat and cross the lake again. The disciples forgot about bringing food and had only one loaf of bread. To which Jesus says, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and that of Herod." Since we have just encountered Pharisees looking for a sign, I'm assuming Jesus is chiding them for not trusting him to provide for them, which he sees as the influence of the Pharisees. This is further born out in his discussion of the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand,  after which he says, "Do you still not understand?" It seems that the disciples had not seen those events as miraculous, and they were there.

Next they were in Bethsaida. Jesus healed a blind man with his spit, but for some reason it took two tries. Not only that, Jesus took the man out of the village to heal him, and after he was healed, he told him not to go back to the village. Doesn't that sound odd? Years later, if anyone asked the people of Bethsaida if Jesus had healed anyone there, they would say no. Then a follower could say that's because it happened outside the village.

Next Jesus and the disciples went to the villages "around" Caesarea Philippi. (No specifics to pin anything down.) On the way there, Jesus went fishing, metaphorically speaking. He asked the disciples what people thought of him. They replied that some people thought he was (the resurrected) John the Baptist. Others thought he was Elijah or one of the other old testament prophets. Then Jesus asked the disciples who they thought he was. Peter said he was the Christ. Note that this does not mean Peter thought Jesus was a literal son of god, but rather the "anointed one" or ruler/leader/messiah that the Jews had come to expect from their interpretation of their scriptures. Of course, Jesus warned his disciples not to tell anyone about him. Makes you wonder how the author was able to find any sources for this book. Plus, Jesus didn't actually tell Peter that he was correct.

Next, Jesus told the disciples that "the son of man" must suffer many things, be rejected by all the important Jews, be killed, and rise again after three days. Presumably he was referring to himself. Peter thought so and  took Jesus aside to rebuke him for saying those things. Jesus then Said, "Get behind me, Satan." Which is not a very nice thing to say to someone who is concerned for your welfare.

Then Jesus tells everyone around him that if they want to follow him, they have to deny themselves and take up their cross. This would have made no sense to people who had no idea what a cross would eventually mean to christians, unless they understood it as a call to willing martyrdom. Then Jesus says, "Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it." This seems to be a clear call for voluntary martyrdom. Not only that, it elevates those who choose that path, which is sick. What is this gospel Jesus wants people to die for? So far, the book of Mark (1:14,15) has only told us that the gospel/good news is the message that the kingdom of god is near. That's it.

After encouraging people to die for him and his message, Jesus asks the crowd, "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world , yet forfeit his soul?" The implication is that if a person is on team Jesus, team die-for-the-gospel, they get to keep their soul forever. If they are not, sure they might have a long, happy life, full of good things. But when it's all over, bam!, bye bye soul. And this is supposed to be a reason to give up everything for Jesus. The crowd is also told that if anyone is ashamed of him and his words (He's looking at you, Peter), then the son of man will be ashamed of that person "when he comes in his father's glory with the holy angels." I find it hard to believe that anyone in that day and age could get away with saying something like that in public and not get stoned.

Last, Jesus says that some of those standing there would not taste death before they see the kingdom of god come. Well. They are all dead now, so what is the kingdom of god? Is it the one we read about in Revelation, the one up in the sky that comes down and settles on earth? That hasn't happened yet. It can't be it, can it? The churches of Christ say that the earthly church (true christians) is the kingdom that Jesus was talking about. However, it seems to me that this is a reference to that time when Jesus is supposed  to come back in his father's glory. That kingdom was what was supposed to be near. In that case, Jesus was a liar or a lunatic.

The apostles part five and wrap up.

11)* Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus: Matthew 10:3

No other book mentions any Lebbaeus

*Thaddaeus: Mark 3:18

Only Matthew and Mark mention Thaddaeus

*Judas son of James (NIV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
*Judas (or Jude) the Brother of James (KJV): Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13, Jude 1:1

Was it son or brother?!! Which James?!! Is this the same person as Thaddaeus? Christians assume it is, because otherwise there is something wrong with the different apostle lists. Jesus had brothers named Judas and James. (Matthew 13:55) Was this another brother of Jesus? This Judas of James is not mentioned by Mark or Matthew. John 14:22 speaks once of a Judas "not Iscariot." Paul doesn't mention this person. Jude and Judas are actually the same name. So, since the book of Jude begins with a greeting from Jude, the brother of James, it is assumed the book was written by the apostle aforementioned.

More about Thaddaeus

12)* Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus: Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:19, Matthew 26:25, Matthew 27:3, Luke 6:16, Luke 22:48, John 12:4, John 13:2, John 18:2,3, 5, Acts 1:16,25
*Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve: Matthew 26:14,16,47, Mark 14:10, 43, Luke 22:47, John 6:71,
*Judas Iscariot, son of Simon: John 6:71, John 12:4, John 13:2, 26, 29,

John is the only book that speaks of Judas as the son of Simon. The question is Simon who? Paul does not mention Judas. Kind of strange, don't you think?

More about Judas Iscariot

13)*Matthias, Judas's replacement: Acts 1:23,26

Matthias is not mentioned anywhere else. More about Matthias.

*How many of each of the twelve are specifically named in New Testament books, generously interpreted:
Matthew-12, Mark-12, Luke-12, John-7(Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel, Thomas,  Judas-not-Iscariot, Judas Iscariot) Acts-13, Galatians-2 (Cephas/Peter and John), 1st Corinthians-1 (Cephas/assumed to be Peter), 1st Peter-1 (Peter), Jude-1 (Jude/assumed to be Judas/ Thaddaeus), Revelation-1(John)

*Number of times the phrase "twelve apostles" or "Twelve disciples" or "the twelve" is specifically mentioned:
Matthew-8, Mark-10, Luke-8, John-4, Acts-1, 1 Corinthians-1, Revelation-1

I find it fascinating that the only two of the twelve that Paul mentioned by name are Peter and John. The James he mentions is considered to be Jesus's brother. Adding: I have caught a couple of mistakes and fixed them, mostly with chapter and verse numbers. So, I expect that I may not be precise with all my figuring, but I tried to be as accurate as possible.

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.

Mark part four

We are in the second half of Mark chapter two. Jesus now has five disciples, Simon, Andrew, James, John, and Levi. Levi is a tax collector. In verse 15, we find Jesus at Levi's house eating with many tax collectors and "sinners." Three times sinners are mentioned in this passage and all three times the word is put in quotation marks with no explanation for that. My study bible also says that these sinners were "notoriously evil people" like adulterers and robbers. It is also unclear how that conclusion was arrived at.

The pharisees apparently saw Jesus eating with these social outcasts and criticized it. How did they see that? Was everyone eating outside? Were the Pharisees looking in the windows? Jesus's defense against the pharisees charges was that he was not there to call the righteous, but the sinners.

Next, we are told that John's disciples and the pharisees were fasting, which probably made them cranky. The story doesn't say the occasion of the fast, but it was presumably religious. People wanted to know why Jesus and his disciples were not fasting. Jesus uses a metaphor to say they don't need to fast because he is with them, when he is gone then they will fast. He's special. Then Jesus makes another metaphor about old wine skins and new wine skins, which, to me, makes no sense at all in this context.

The next story takes place on a sabbath. Jesus and his disciples are walking through grain fields and the disciples begin picking heads of grain, presumably to eat. The pharisees, who must have been walking with them, tattle to Jesus, saying what the disciples are doing is unlawful on the sabbath. Jesus then gives an example of David breaking the mosaic law when he was hungry. He says "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." Yeah, right. That is why god gave a death penalty for breaking the Sabbath. The story of David breaking the law and getting away with it only proves that no one was willing to kill him for that transgression, if it actually happened. In fact, throughout history, Jews have been reluctant to carry out all the various death penalties mentioned in the law of Moses.

Chapter three tell us that "another time he went into the synagogue and a man with a shriveled hand was there." Jesus was watched carefully to see if he would heal the man on the sabbath. Of course, Jesus bucked convention and healed the man's hand with a great deal of show. Apparently these healings did not impress the pharisees, because they began to plot Jesus's death. I wonder how the pharisees would have told this story. Did they think Jesus was a charlatan? Or were they actually so mean hearted as to prefer Jesus's death over his miraculous healings?

In chapter 3, verses 7-12, Jesus is being followed by crowds of people from all over the region, because of the healings. Demon possessed people are falling down before him and calling him the son of god, but he is adamant that they should not tell anyone.  It does not say he exorcised all those demons. If he did, why would he have to tell them to shut up? Because of all the crowds, Jesus had a boat ready to take him away, at the sea of Galilee.

In verse 13, Jesus decides to take a few select people with him up on a mountainside. There he selects his twelve apostles. We've only read of five up to now. The twelve are Simon, who we are told Jesus names Peter, which means "pebble." Does this say something about Peter's personality? There are also James and John, who Jesus calls "the sons of thunder." Then we have, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, another James, Thaddeus, another Simon, and Judas Iscariot, who is said to have betrayed Jesus. There is a little foreshadowing there.

More to come.

Mark part three

We are still in chapter one at verse 35. In this book, we don't know how long after Jesus was baptized that he started preaching, or how old he was, but it was after John was put in prison. The last few events have been depicted as happening in rapid succession. The appearance in the synagogue, the healings at Simon's  house, and now we are told that "early in the morning, while it was still dark" Jesus got up, left the house, and went out to pray alone. His other companions went to find him because everyone was looking for him. He wanted to leave that place and travel around to teach  and drive out demons.

In chapter two, a man with leprosy begged to be healed. Jesus healed him then told him not to tell anyone but to go to the priest and make the required sacrifices. Naturally the man told everyone and Jesus was mobbed by people, even though he tried to hide. "A few days later" Jesus went back to Capernaum. I'm assuming he stayed at Simon's house again. The house he was in was also mobbed by people, so that there was no room for any more. A hole was dug in the roof (probably made of mud and straw) so a paralyzed man could be lowered in to Jesus. Jesus was impressed by his faith and told the man his sins were forgiven. Some teachers of the law were thinking to themselves that this was blasphemy because only god could forgive sins. If course Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked them which was easier, to tell a paralyzed man  his sins were forgiven or to tell him to get up and walk.

Then he tells the man to get up and walk, and he did, in full view of everyone. They were amazed and praised god, saying, "we have never seen anything like this!" Well, now, that must have been a true miracle, right? Let me ask you some questions. Has anyone ever been fooled by fake faith healers? Has anyone ever exaggerated faith healing claims?  Has anyone ever manufactured faith healing experiences? If your answer is yes, what makes you think there couldn't have been fake faith healers in the first century? How do you know this account is accurate? How do you even know it actually happened? And if it did, how do you know whether or not the "paralyzed" man was faking his condition? The author of the book of Mark is telling a story about Jesus, he does not claim to have seen any of this. He either got it second or third hand, or it was an urban legend,  or someone told him a tall tale, or he is telling a tall tale himself. There are many possibilities more likely than that a paralyzed man was instantly healed by faith.

 Mark tells us that this event happened so that "you may know the son of man has the authority to forgive sins." It is assumed that the "son of man" refers to Jesus himself. This may be a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, where Daniel has a vision of a person who looked like a "son of man"  This person was given authority by god and was worshipped by all nations and given an everlasting kingdom. The phrase son of man literally means a human male. It is also important to remember that the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel and is most likely a work of fiction. Did Jesus know that?

In Chapter 2:13, at some undetermined future time, Jesus was again beside the lake (the sea of Galilee) teaching large crowds of people. As he walked along, he saw Levi (later known as Matthew) sitting in a tax collectors booth. (There were tax collector booths by the lake? ) My study bible says this may have been like a toll booth on a main road. Jesus told Levi to follow him and he did. Disciple #5.

More to come.

Mark part two

We are in Mark chapter one, at verse twelve. Jesus has just been baptized by John the baptist who was said to have been in a desert area. The spirit, which has descended on Jesus sends him "out into the desert," which must have been nearby. Jesus stayed in the desert forty days (magical number) being tempted by Satan.  Mark says he was with wild animals and angels attended him. This story is much shorter than the similar event recorded in other gospels. It includes very few details. Notice that no one else was with him as a witness. So, if this was Jesus's claim, everyone who heard it would have had to take his word that he was telling the truth. Can you think of any reason why he would lie?

From there, the text jumps  to John the baptist being in prison, after which Jesus went into Galilee telling people to repent because the kingdom of god was near, they were to believe the good news (aka gospel). Do you see that? Jesus didn't start preaching till AFTER John was out of the way. John could not publicly contradict Jesus's claims  if he wanted to. Also, the "good news" here was the approaching kingdom of god. It feels like there are so many different gospels in the new testament.

When Jesus was at the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a lake) he recruited Simon  (later called Peter) and his brother Andrew by telling the two fishermen that he would make them "fishers of men." How punny. Naturally, they dropped everything and followed him. In this same way, he also recruited James and John, who were just about to go out to fish in their father's boat. Now there are four disciples. Disciple just means student.

They all went to Capernaum. On the Sabbath (Saturday), Jesus taught in the synagogue. This is not anything special. I'm pretty sure any male Jew was allowed to get up and say something in turn. However, the text claims that what Jesus said impressed everyone, but it does not record his words on the occasion. While he was speaking, a man possessed by an evil spirit starts yelling at Jesus. He accuses Jesus of coming to destroy them and says he knows who Jesus is..."the holy one of god." (What if it was actually just some guy yelling, "Hey, I know who he is."  Then the story got stretched. It could have happened that way.) Jesus commands the spirit to be quiet and come out of the man, which it does with a shriek. Good cinema. In fact, if this actually happened, who's to say Jesus didn't plant the man in the audience. That kind of thing happens today.

The people were so gullible amazed that they began gossiping about this guy who taught like he knew what he was talking about and could exorcise demons. Naturally the news spread quickly. The five of them then went to the home of Simon and Andrew, where Jesus got rid of Peter's mother-in-law's fever. Then she began to wait on them, 'cause that's what women were expected to do after recovering from a fever and they needed someone to wait on them. Jesus did all this stuff on the Sabbath. The mother-in-law also waited on the men on the Sabbath. Was it just men who were not supposed to work on the Sabbath? Or was waiting on men not considered work?

After sunset, when it was no longer the Sabbath, people began to bring all their sick and demon possessed to Jesus to be healed. He apparently healed a lot of people with "various diseases" and exorcised many demons. (I wonder if had the same success rate modern faith healers have.) However, he didn't let any of the demons speak "because they knew who he was." Ha. That's kind of funny if you think about it. People who knew who Jesus was were not allowed to speak and were said to have demons. Hmm. There is definitely more than one way to look at that.

More to come.

Mark, introduction

After some debate with myself, I decided the next thing we would study is the book of Mark. I have not gone completely through any of the so-called gospels yet on this blog. According to Wikipedia, most scholars now consider Mark to be the first of the four gospel books. It may have been written just before the fall of Jerusalem. Its authorship has traditionally been attributed to John Mark who is said to have been influenced by Peter. In reality no one actually knows who wrote the book of Mark. It was originally considered inferior to the other gospels as a summary or abridgment because it is more concise.

A few years ago, a claim was made that a 1st century manuscript of Mark had been found. That claim has since been revised to late 2nd, early 3rd. Here is what Bart Ehrman has to say about it. This is one of the earliest existing pieces of the book. Just as with all the rest of the bible books, there is no original.

I will now make my regular disclaimer that I am not a professional Bible scholar. I will be reading through the text and making personal comments and observations based on easily available resources and my personal experiences as a former fundamentalist Christian. I usually use the NIV translation of the bible,  web sites such as Bible Hub and Bible Gateway, plus Strong's concordance, and a Greek interlinear New Testament.

Till next time.

Resurrection part two

We are still in the book of John. In chapter 11, Jesus' friend Lazarus has died. His sister Martha is distraught. She is convinced that if Jesus had come sooner, Lazarus would not have died. In verse 23, Jesus tells Martha Lazarus will rise again. Martha says, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus replies, " I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." Jesus asks Martha if she believes this and she says she does. Martha goes and tells her sister Mary  that Jesus has arrived. Mary runs and tells Jesus the same thing Martha had, that Lazarus would still be alive if Jesus had come sooner. This time however, Jesus does not give his resurrection spiel. He responds to Mary's distress in a more emotional way. He weeps. Why? Presumably he knows he's going to raise Lazarus from the dead. Even if he waits till judgment day, Lazarus is guaranteed to live again, right? Unsurprisingly, that is no consolation to the living. It rarely is.

So, As we all know, Jesus ends up raising Lazarus from the dead. We are told from the passage that Lazarus was not just merely dead but really most sincerely dead.  There are so many questions I have about this event. Is this considered a resurrection? It also took place before Jesus was resurrected. Did Lazarus get a new fully human body? How did Lazarus feel about it? After all, he would presumably have to die and be resurrected again some day. Will Lazarus have to go through the final judgment?

Lets move on to the book of Acts. In chapter 1, verse 22, the  disciples/apostles, decide to choose someone to replace Judas. It must be someone who was with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry. This person is to become a co-witness of Jesus' resurrection, not to mention make the disciples twelve again. Eleven is not quite as magical. Matthias is chosen and we never hear about him again.

In Acts 2:31, Peter tells a crowd of Jews that "David died and was buried and his tomb is here to this day." (Funny thing that. No one actually knows where David's tomb is, if there was one. There are some doubts as to whether David actually existed. The only extrabiblical evidence of him is found in a couple of unclear stone inscriptions. ) Peter says David was a prophet who predicted Jesus and his resurrection. He goes on to say, "god has raised this Jesus to life and we (the disciples) are all witnesses of the fact." According to Peter, David didn't go up to heaven, but Jesus did. The Jesus that the Jews crucified was now both lord and Christ. This is one of the bible passages often used to justify anti-semitism.

In Acts 4:2, the Sadducees are disturbed because Peter and John were preaching in Jesus about the resurrection of the dead. They got a lot of people to believe them. In 4:32-36, the believers begin to pool all their funds and resources in a kind of cooperative socialism, and the apostles continue to preach about the resurrection of Jesus. (Isn't it funny that so many fundamentalist christians today think any and all socialism or social welfare is evil.)

In Acts 17:18-34, Paul is preaching in Athens about Jesus and the resurrection, to some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. He tells them that the god who created everything and everyone "has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." Many of them called Paul a babbler and sneered at him when he mentioned resurrection. Others are said to have believed. One thing: How is the resurrection of one man proof that there is going to be a resurrection of all and a final judgment? It doesn't necessarily follow. It seems to be typical of biblical logic to make such leaps.

More to come.

Heaven part seven.

We continue on trying to learn about heaven in the New Testament. I'm skipping passages that repeat what we've already covered. When we get to Matthew 11:11, we see that Jesus says he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the baptist. "From the days of John the baptist, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing and forceful men lay hold of it." Whatever that means.

In Matthew 11:23 of some translations, Jesus tells Capernaeum  it will not be exalted unto heaven but will brought down to Hades or Hell. Can a whole city go to hell? My NIV study bible says "lifted up to the skies"  instead of exalted unto heaven and "go down to the depths" instead of brought down to Hades. The Greek words are actually the ones for heaven and hades.

In Matthew 13:11, Jesus tells his disciples that the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been given to them but not to other people. Jesus deliberately speaks to the people in parables to  fulfill a prophecy in Isaiah that talks about people not understanding. The parables are about the kingdom (of heaven). "When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart." Seems kind of a dirty low down trick on Jesus's part.

In 13:24, Jesus tells a parable about the kingdom of heaven being like a man who sowed good seed in his field. Weeds planted by the enemy also grew there. They were left till harvest, then pulled up and burned. Presumably the man is god, the good plants are the good people, the weeds are the bad people. Guess who the enemy is.

In chapter 13, Jesus tells more parables about the kingdom of heaven. It is like a mustard seed that starts out tiny and grows to be the largest of garden plants, like a tree. (Except no mustard grows like that at all) The kingdom is like a a treasure hidden in a field that many are willing to sell everything to get. The kingdom is also like a net that catches all kinds of fish. The good will be kept and the bad thrown away. Jesus also says that "every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of the house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old." The implication seems to be that there are new teachings to add to the old.

In Matthew 16:1, the Pharisees and Sadducees ask Jesus for a sign from heaven. Jesus proceeds to tell them about signs in the sky for fair or foul weather. What we do not see in English is that the word sky here is the the same root word of heaven. This must be a kind of joke or play on words.

In 16:19, Jesus tells Peter, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." This passage has been disputed by Christians the world over for more than a thousand years. I will not attempt to interpret it.

In 18:1 The disciples came to Jesus and asked who is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus replies, "unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greater in the kingdom of heaven." This is also a disputed passage. No one seems to be able to agree what it means to be like a little child. Jesus continues in 18:10 to say that the disciples are not to look down on children because "their angels in heaven always see the face of my father in heaven." This is very interesting. I've never heard this talked about before. It would appear that children have angels, does everyone?

More to come.

Hell part 5

Next we will look at the Greek word Hades as translated into hell in the New Testament, in KJV English Bibles. It occurs twice in Matthew, twice in Luke, three times in Acts, and four times in Revelation. Even though Hades and Gehenna are both translated into hell, they are not the same place. In fact, Hades started out as the Greek god of the underworld, the place all people go when they die. When the ancients translated the Hebrew bible (What is now called the Old Testament) into The Greek bible called the Septuagint, they translated the Hebrew word Sheol into the Greek word Hades. Interestingly, the NIV retains the Greek word Hades and also uses "realm of the dead." It does not change the word to hell like it does Gehenna.  Other versions change the word to death or the grave instead. Read about the Christian views of Hades here. (Link)

As you can see from the above link, the different versions of christianity hold many differing beliefs about hell or hades. I can tell you that the church of christ denomination which I have attended for over forty years, teaches very little about hell. It has no sophisticated theology or doctrine of hell or hades. Basically, people are taught that if you do not believe the gospel and get baptized (essential) you go to hell, what they view as eternal damnation/separation from god, when you die. No ifs ands or buts. The beliefs about hell of most people in the pews is very simplistic.

Lets look at the verses with the Greek hades translated into the English hell in the KJV:
*Matt 11:23- here the city of Capernaum is being told it will go to hell (hades in the NIV)because it didn't repent after Jesus performed miracles there.
*Matt 16:18- this is the famous passage where Jesus tells Peter "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." (NIV-gates of hades will not overcome it.)
*Luke 10:15-This passage repeats the sentiment in Matthew 11:23 that Capernaum will go to hell.
*Luke 16:19-29 contains the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar. In it a poor man dies and finds comfort "in the bosom of Abraham." A rich man, who apparently never helped the poor man, dies and finds himself in hell being tormented and burnt by flames. The rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to give him water to cool his tongue, Abraham says the gulf between the two places is too great. The rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers to warn them of hell. Abraham says they already have the law and the prophets. If they don't believe them, they won't believe someone back from the dead. Hell here is hades in the NIV. Also, let us remember this is a parable not a story about a supposed actual event.
*Acts 2:25-36 contains part of Peter's sermon to a crowd, on the day of Pentecost, after Jesus was taken up into heaven. In it Peter quotes Psalm 16:10- "For thou will not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt though suffer thine holy one to see corruption." Peter claims that since David died and was buried he can't have been talking about himself, so he must have been prophesying about Jesus. Jesus supposedly did not remain in the land of the dead and his body did not rot. The NIV calls this hell Hades in Acts and Sheol in Psalms. I think it is also important to note that the word "holy" in both Acts and Psalms does not mean divine. It means righteous or pious.

In the next post, we will look at hell/hades in the book of Revelation.

1 Clement part one

I am about halfway through the letter to the Corinthians attributed to Clement and will share a few observations.

*Like many books of the bible, the letter does not mention Clement or say that he is the author. It says that it is from the church in Rome. I'm not sure how  it has been established that Clement actually wrote this letter. It does not give a clear indication of the date of the writing but would have to have happened after the deaths of Peter and Paul, whom he mentions.  Like the books of the bible, the original of the letter no longer exists.

*The letter is a rambling treatise that seems to have a general theme of "get right church." It does not go into detail about the nature of the issues the Corinthians are experiencing except to repeatedly use words like strife, sedition, and emulation. The word emulation has me puzzled. Is he talking about oneupmanship?

*Between the exhortations to shape up, the letter is a jumbled mash-up of paraphrased old testament stories and scriptural quotes, with no particular order or literary structure. There has been mention of Abraham, Moses, Cain and Abel, Noah, Lot, Joshua, Rahab, and David. Old Testament scriptural quotes have come from Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Job, and Jeremiah. These quotes are often worded slightly differently than how they occur in my NIV, which is not surprising. Also, a few quotes are pieced together from mutiple books, or don't actually exist in modern bibles.

*So far, very few quoted scriptures appear to come from the New Testament writings. Some that could also have parallels in the Old Testament. Others seem more clearly to have come from the books of 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James. (Unless those authors borrowed from this letter, which seems unlikely.) There is one passage quoting Jesus that appears to have come from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. There is also a quote from the apocryphal book of Wisdom of Solomon.

*There are repeated mentions of the resurrection of the christ and the hope of future resurrection for believers. Jesus is called the first fruit of resurrection. Of great interest to me was the legendary story of the phoenix (chapter xxv), told as if true and given as proof of God's power and ability to perform resurrections. Yes, really. The author assures us that nothing is impossible with god but to lie.

*We are given very few details of Jesus's life, or the lives of Paul and Peter, who are said to have worked hard for the church and were martyred. Jesus is said to have descended from Abraham, which is basically another way to say he was a Jew. So far, I've seen very little mention of the actual practices of the church in Rome or Corinth, other than the mention of "presbyters."

To be continued.

Clement of Rome

Today I started looking at the "apostolic father" called Clement of Rome. You can read about him here and here.

Clement is thought to have lived between 35 CE and 99 or 101 CE. He is recorded by ancient historians to have been the 1st, 2nd, Or 3rd Bishop of Rome, after Peter. In other words, nobody is sure which number bishop he was. He is assumed to have known the apostle Paul and maybe John. The Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3 is thought by some to be this Clement, but there is no surety.

One epistle to Corinth, called 1 Clement, is attributed to him as the true author. Other writings deemed falsely ascribed to him are 2Clement or 2 epistles on virginity. (?)

Legend/tradition has Clement imprisoned under Emperor Trajan and executed by being tied to an anchor and thrown into the Black Sea. This was supposedly done because he had miraculously produced water for thirsty prisoners, causing them to convert to christianity.

Clement's letter to the Corinthians begins here.