First, I want to apologize to regular readers for being a little late with content. I've been having my kitchen remodelled and it's been hard to find time to dedicate to the blog.
We are at Mark 15:21. Jesus has been condemned to crucifixion. He has been mocked and abused by Roman soldiers for claiming he was king of the Jews, which he appears to actually believe. Now the soldiers are leading him outside to be crucified. We are told that Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, (as if we should know who they are), was forced to carry Jesus's cross. Alexander is never mentioned again in the NT. A Rufus is mentioned only once, in Romans 16:13.
Jesus was taken to a place called Golgotha, or the place of the skull. No one actually knows the original location of this spot. I think that is rather odd. Wouldn't it have been of great significance to the early christians? There, the soldiers offered Jesus wine mixed with myrrh, but he didn't take it. This concoction may have been offered as an analgesic. Remember, Jesus had said he would not drink wine again till he drank it in the kingdom of god. Perhaps that is why the author says he refused it.
Jesus was then crucified and the soldiers cast lots to see who would get his clothing. This is supposed to have happened at "the third hour" of the day. (There is the number three again.) By the Jewish tradition of time reckoning, the third hour was half way between dawn and noon, 9 O'clock-ish. There was a written notice of the charge against Jesus that read "the king of the Jews." Two robbers were crucified on either side of him. (Three people in a row.) Jesus was mocked and insulted by people who said that he had claimed he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. Back in Mark 14:58, the text says this was a false testimony. Jesus didn't actually make that claim about the temple. But the text of Mark does have him claiming to be killed and rising again after three days.
The people mocking him dared Jesus to come down from the cross and save himself. He saved others (referring to the supposed miraculous events and healings?) but he couldn't save himself. Some messiah, some king of Israel, he couldn't even save himself. They have a point. Not only that, I just realized that Jesus performed NO miracles in Jerusalem. Zip. Nada. The other people being crucified also heaped insults on Jesus. Ouch.
At the sixth hour (three hours from the initial crucifixion and also high noon) darkness came over the whole land and lasted til the ninth hour, three hours later. What was this darkness? Who knows. It can't have been an eclipse. A lunar eclipse can take a few hours to complete but doesn't happen in the day time. A solar eclipse only lasts about seven minutes. Plus there is absolutely no extrabiblical historic record of such a three hour darkness occurring around that time. That is something someone would have definitely noticed.
At the ninth hour, Jesus had been on the cross about six hours. He cried out in Aramaic, "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" Would he say this if he was god? How can he forsake himself? In the language that Jesus spoke, apparently he was mistakenly thought to have been calling out to Elijah. A man offered Jesus a drink from a sponge filled with wine vinegar, then told the people watching to see if Elijah would come down to take him.Surely he was being facetious. (Did the wine vinegar count as wine? Did Jesus drink it?)
With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.
Showing posts with label Romans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romans. Show all posts
Thursday, March 14, 2019
Saturday, December 8, 2018
Resurrection part three
We are still in the books of Acts. In chapter 23, Paul is in Jerusalem and has been taken into custody by some Roman soldiers because some Jews are supposed to have caused a riot in objection to Paul's presence in the temple. The Roman commander doesn't understand why there is such animosity towards Paul. (He's been preaching about Jesus.) So, the commander takes Paul to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling body. Paul plays off the fact that there are both Pharisees and Sadducees in the Sanhedrin. Pharisees believe in a resurrection, Sadducees do not. Paul shouts out that he is a Pharisee and is on trial because of his belief in a resurrection. Of course that is part of the truth, but not the whole truth. The Pharisees and Sadducees present get into a violent argument. Paul has to be removed from there by the commander.
In Acts chapter 24, Paul has been brought before the governor. The high priest of the Jews has charged him with being a troublemaker, inciting riots, being a ringleader of "the Nazarene sect," and trying to desecrate the temple. Paul denies any wrong doing and says he was in compliance with the religious laws and no one can prove otherwise. He admits to being a member of the sect called "the way" and again says that it he has hope of a resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that he was there. Paul had been teaching about the resurrection of Jesus.
We move on to the book of Romans, which was written before the book of Acts. Paul is telling the Romans about baptism and metaphorically comparing it to burial. Just as Jesus was buried and was raised again, believers are united with Jesus in the burial of baptism, so they are also united with him in his resurrection. After they are raised out of the waters of baptism, their "bodies of sin" are gone and they may live new lives. There is a definite blurring of the lines between reality and metaphor in this teaching of Paul's. Nothing actually happens to a person when they are baptized, besides getting wet. In spite of what Paul says, a baptized person still dies and still "sins." Any difference is all in their heads.
In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, starting in verse12, Paul again speaks of resurrection. Apparently, some Corinthians may have been teaching that there was no resurrection of the dead. Paul says,"if there is no resurrection, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Ain't that the truth. Also that would make the preachers liars. Yep. And all those who died in Christ are lost. No, just dead.
Paul goes on to say that Christ HAS been raised from the dead. He is the first fruits of those who have "fallen asleep" or dies. Paul is claiming here that Christ was the first to be resurrected. He obviously hasn't read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Probably because he wrote all his material before those books were written. He also obviously never heard of the times Jesus resurrected people from the dead, or the dead that rose right after Jesus died. Paul says that "in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."
According to Paul, Christ was first and when he comes back those who belong to him will rise. Then comes the interesting part, which is a bit different from what Revelation 20 says: "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to god the father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Paul goes on to say this destruction Jesus is doing obviously doesn't include destroying god. After all this stuff happens, the son will be be made subject to god so that god may be all in all. I don't understand why god needs Jesus to do all that, or anything else.Can't he just speak stuff into happening?
More to come.
In Acts chapter 24, Paul has been brought before the governor. The high priest of the Jews has charged him with being a troublemaker, inciting riots, being a ringleader of "the Nazarene sect," and trying to desecrate the temple. Paul denies any wrong doing and says he was in compliance with the religious laws and no one can prove otherwise. He admits to being a member of the sect called "the way" and again says that it he has hope of a resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that he was there. Paul had been teaching about the resurrection of Jesus.
We move on to the book of Romans, which was written before the book of Acts. Paul is telling the Romans about baptism and metaphorically comparing it to burial. Just as Jesus was buried and was raised again, believers are united with Jesus in the burial of baptism, so they are also united with him in his resurrection. After they are raised out of the waters of baptism, their "bodies of sin" are gone and they may live new lives. There is a definite blurring of the lines between reality and metaphor in this teaching of Paul's. Nothing actually happens to a person when they are baptized, besides getting wet. In spite of what Paul says, a baptized person still dies and still "sins." Any difference is all in their heads.
In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, starting in verse12, Paul again speaks of resurrection. Apparently, some Corinthians may have been teaching that there was no resurrection of the dead. Paul says,"if there is no resurrection, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Ain't that the truth. Also that would make the preachers liars. Yep. And all those who died in Christ are lost. No, just dead.
Paul goes on to say that Christ HAS been raised from the dead. He is the first fruits of those who have "fallen asleep" or dies. Paul is claiming here that Christ was the first to be resurrected. He obviously hasn't read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Probably because he wrote all his material before those books were written. He also obviously never heard of the times Jesus resurrected people from the dead, or the dead that rose right after Jesus died. Paul says that "in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."
According to Paul, Christ was first and when he comes back those who belong to him will rise. Then comes the interesting part, which is a bit different from what Revelation 20 says: "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to god the father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Paul goes on to say this destruction Jesus is doing obviously doesn't include destroying god. After all this stuff happens, the son will be be made subject to god so that god may be all in all. I don't understand why god needs Jesus to do all that, or anything else.Can't he just speak stuff into happening?
More to come.
Friday, June 29, 2018
2 John part 2
We continue on with verse 5 which says "and now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another." This is a deceptively simple command, until you question from what beginning, what is love, and who are the one another. Are the "one another" fellow Christians, fellow Jewish Christians, or all people everywhere?
The word love here is derived from the Greek root verb agapao. You may have heard of the related noun agape, which, for Christians, represents a special self-sacrificial, divine, Yahweh love. The noun form, agape, appears to have been first used in the greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It was apparently derived from the verb. The verb forms, as in this passage, were common in secular ancient Greek writings. The ancient Greeks used it to simply mean having affection or preference for someone or something. Most Christians that I am acquainted with do not differentiate between the religious noun and the common verb. It's all the same to them.
This verse is one of a list of verses that my study bible says correlates to verses in 1 John and the gospel of John, which supposedly proves they have the same author. Lets see how they match up.
1 John 2:7- "Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard." This passage does not come right out and state what the command is. It is only implied, up until 1 John 3:11. A quick scan of 1st John shows me that the love one another in that book is being applied to fellow Christians or "brothers."
John 13:34-35- "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know you are my disciples if you love one another." These are supposed to be the words of Jesus. 1 John and 2 John appear to be referring back to this passage. They seem saying the command is not new, because it was supposed to be new when Jesus gave it. That is possibly the "beginning" referred to in the other two verses.
As I was writing this, a question came to mind about whether Paul ever preached "love one another" as a command of Jesus. The only place in Paul's writing in which I found the specific phrase "love one another" is Romans 13:8. It says "let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law." Here Paul seems to be saying that to love one another is a universal obligation for all humanity which also fulfills the law of Moses. (The Old Testament makes it clear that the love that fulfilled the law was directed at fellow
Jews and was not necessarily universal.) Paul never mentions love one another being a separate command given by Jesus to his disciples. For Paul the beginning of the command was the law. Other Pauline letters do stress the importance of love, but do not present it as a direct command of Jesus, as far as I can tell.
I want to add that this seems rather hypocritical of Paul, since not all the writings attributed to him show a universal love for all of humanity. He displays some marked instances of dislike for particular people and groups of people. It is interesting to note that the letters attributed to Paul were probably written well before any of the letters attributed to John and even before the gospel of John.
Beside all that, how easy do you think it is to have affection for all of humanity? Most people have a hierarchy of affection, starting with their immediate family and moving outward to friends, acquaintances, countrymen, etc. should we be obligated to have the same level of affectionate feeling for everyone? Is it possible? Christians often say that this agape has nothing to do with how you feel, but with how you treat others. I'm not convinced. I don't think that is what love is. That is altruism. It's not the same, in my opinion.
The word love here is derived from the Greek root verb agapao. You may have heard of the related noun agape, which, for Christians, represents a special self-sacrificial, divine, Yahweh love. The noun form, agape, appears to have been first used in the greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It was apparently derived from the verb. The verb forms, as in this passage, were common in secular ancient Greek writings. The ancient Greeks used it to simply mean having affection or preference for someone or something. Most Christians that I am acquainted with do not differentiate between the religious noun and the common verb. It's all the same to them.
This verse is one of a list of verses that my study bible says correlates to verses in 1 John and the gospel of John, which supposedly proves they have the same author. Lets see how they match up.
1 John 2:7- "Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard." This passage does not come right out and state what the command is. It is only implied, up until 1 John 3:11. A quick scan of 1st John shows me that the love one another in that book is being applied to fellow Christians or "brothers."
John 13:34-35- "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know you are my disciples if you love one another." These are supposed to be the words of Jesus. 1 John and 2 John appear to be referring back to this passage. They seem saying the command is not new, because it was supposed to be new when Jesus gave it. That is possibly the "beginning" referred to in the other two verses.
As I was writing this, a question came to mind about whether Paul ever preached "love one another" as a command of Jesus. The only place in Paul's writing in which I found the specific phrase "love one another" is Romans 13:8. It says "let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law." Here Paul seems to be saying that to love one another is a universal obligation for all humanity which also fulfills the law of Moses. (The Old Testament makes it clear that the love that fulfilled the law was directed at fellow
Jews and was not necessarily universal.) Paul never mentions love one another being a separate command given by Jesus to his disciples. For Paul the beginning of the command was the law. Other Pauline letters do stress the importance of love, but do not present it as a direct command of Jesus, as far as I can tell.
I want to add that this seems rather hypocritical of Paul, since not all the writings attributed to him show a universal love for all of humanity. He displays some marked instances of dislike for particular people and groups of people. It is interesting to note that the letters attributed to Paul were probably written well before any of the letters attributed to John and even before the gospel of John.
Beside all that, how easy do you think it is to have affection for all of humanity? Most people have a hierarchy of affection, starting with their immediate family and moving outward to friends, acquaintances, countrymen, etc. should we be obligated to have the same level of affectionate feeling for everyone? Is it possible? Christians often say that this agape has nothing to do with how you feel, but with how you treat others. I'm not convinced. I don't think that is what love is. That is altruism. It's not the same, in my opinion.
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Grace, part two
For your reading, I present the Wikipeda article on Grace in Christianity. The church of christ stance would be considered arminian.
In protestant christianity, grace is often defined as unmerited favor. You get something good from god that you did not earn. Even more than that, you get something good that you didn't deserve. The implication being that you actually deserved something bad, but you got something good instead. What do you deserve? Condemnation. Death and destruction. No ifs ands or buts.
God's gracious act to the human race was supposed to be sending Jesus to die in your place, even though he didn't deserve to die, you did. You filthy trash. Wait a minute, that's quite offensive. I wouldn't want to be called filthy trash even if it were true. Do unto others. Tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to spread a little of god's grace around and I'm not going to verbally condemn you, even if I believe you probably are going to hell. I'm going to be gracious because I feel sorry for you. There is no point in making you experience hell any sooner than necessary. We would be in the same sinking boat if I hadn't let Jesus save me. "But for the grace of god, there go I." These kinds of christians are often labelled "liberal."
There are some christians who don't want to be gracious. They want to call a spade a spade and an unsaved sinner an unsaved sinner. They want to prophetically call out the sins that the people are committing. They fear for your immortal soul. So they give you a little taste of coming fire and brimstone, hoping you will learn to fear for your own soul, so they won't have to. No pain no gain. These are the people that the gracious christians call "legalistic."
What does Jesus have to say about grace in the gospels? Nothing. Zip. Nada. I find that quite odd. However, the letters ascribed to Paul have a whopping 89 instances of the usage of the word grace.
The word grace occurs in the gospels four times. This is the same exact greek word that Paul uses.
*Luke 2:40- (speaking of the child Jesus) "he was filled with wisdom and the grace of god was upon him." This is confusing. Would a christian say even Jesus did not merit gods favor? Are there different kinds of god's grace?
*John 1:14 (speaking of Jesus) "The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only who came from the father, full of grace and truth." Does it make sense here to call grace unmerited favor? Clearly it means something else, but what? Does it mean grace is a quantity of unmerited favor that Jesus can dispense?
*John 1:16 &17(speaking of Jesus). "From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." But what is grace? If Jesus gave/gives grace, how come he never talked about grace in the only accounts of his words and life?
Here is my take on christian grace: The greek word used in the New Testament is charis. This is defined as a blessing, favor, or kindness. It is where we get our word charity from. There is no implication of being undeserving in the original word at all. In the Luke passage, we might just say god blessed Jesus. (Though what constitutes a blessing isn't exactly clear either) However, christianity has taken Paul's statements in his letters, that we don't work for or earn god's grace through merit, and extended them to mean that noone deserves god's grace, which they have equated with salvation and eternal life. They have equated merit with deserving. Therefore, since noone can do anything to merit god's favor, christianity says everyone who receives salvation is undeserving. In Romans 1:18-32 there are those who are even more undeserving than others. They don't get salvation. According to this passage, they merit death. If you don't fall on the list of the condemned, you qualify for salvation, but don't forget you didn't earn it.
It doesn't seem right to me that you can earn hell but not earn heaven.
In protestant christianity, grace is often defined as unmerited favor. You get something good from god that you did not earn. Even more than that, you get something good that you didn't deserve. The implication being that you actually deserved something bad, but you got something good instead. What do you deserve? Condemnation. Death and destruction. No ifs ands or buts.
God's gracious act to the human race was supposed to be sending Jesus to die in your place, even though he didn't deserve to die, you did. You filthy trash. Wait a minute, that's quite offensive. I wouldn't want to be called filthy trash even if it were true. Do unto others. Tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to spread a little of god's grace around and I'm not going to verbally condemn you, even if I believe you probably are going to hell. I'm going to be gracious because I feel sorry for you. There is no point in making you experience hell any sooner than necessary. We would be in the same sinking boat if I hadn't let Jesus save me. "But for the grace of god, there go I." These kinds of christians are often labelled "liberal."
There are some christians who don't want to be gracious. They want to call a spade a spade and an unsaved sinner an unsaved sinner. They want to prophetically call out the sins that the people are committing. They fear for your immortal soul. So they give you a little taste of coming fire and brimstone, hoping you will learn to fear for your own soul, so they won't have to. No pain no gain. These are the people that the gracious christians call "legalistic."
What does Jesus have to say about grace in the gospels? Nothing. Zip. Nada. I find that quite odd. However, the letters ascribed to Paul have a whopping 89 instances of the usage of the word grace.
The word grace occurs in the gospels four times. This is the same exact greek word that Paul uses.
*Luke 2:40- (speaking of the child Jesus) "he was filled with wisdom and the grace of god was upon him." This is confusing. Would a christian say even Jesus did not merit gods favor? Are there different kinds of god's grace?
*John 1:14 (speaking of Jesus) "The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only who came from the father, full of grace and truth." Does it make sense here to call grace unmerited favor? Clearly it means something else, but what? Does it mean grace is a quantity of unmerited favor that Jesus can dispense?
*John 1:16 &17(speaking of Jesus). "From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." But what is grace? If Jesus gave/gives grace, how come he never talked about grace in the only accounts of his words and life?
Here is my take on christian grace: The greek word used in the New Testament is charis. This is defined as a blessing, favor, or kindness. It is where we get our word charity from. There is no implication of being undeserving in the original word at all. In the Luke passage, we might just say god blessed Jesus. (Though what constitutes a blessing isn't exactly clear either) However, christianity has taken Paul's statements in his letters, that we don't work for or earn god's grace through merit, and extended them to mean that noone deserves god's grace, which they have equated with salvation and eternal life. They have equated merit with deserving. Therefore, since noone can do anything to merit god's favor, christianity says everyone who receives salvation is undeserving. In Romans 1:18-32 there are those who are even more undeserving than others. They don't get salvation. According to this passage, they merit death. If you don't fall on the list of the condemned, you qualify for salvation, but don't forget you didn't earn it.
It doesn't seem right to me that you can earn hell but not earn heaven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)