Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians part four and wrap up.

We are now at chapter 20 of Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians. Ignatius tells them that he will write again telling them a story about the "new man Jesus" if they are good little girls and boys and obey their bishop. I suspect that "new man" is a reference to a symbolic new Adam, rebooting creation so that humanity no longer has to die because of Adam's sin. It just *looks* like they are still dying, but really they aren't. Ignatius is going to tell the Ephesians about Jesus's dispensation, his faith, love, suffering and resurrection. Unfortunately, he doesn't say much of anything about those things in this letter.

How do the Ephesians  get immortality? Besides obeying the church leadership with unity of mind, they must together take the medicine of immortality, the bread. This bread is most likely referring to the communion bread, but it could also be a metaphor for Jesus who supposedly called himself the bread of life. Ignatius calls this bread  the "antidote to death."

The letter ends with Ignatius saying that he is writing from Smyrna and is bound for Rome. He is from the church in Syria. He says he is "the last of the faithful there." It is unclear to me whether "there" is Syria or Rome.  Ignatius is grateful for the people the Ephesians sent to him, and he loves Polycarp, who was the bishop of Smyrna.

--------------------------------

Now, what did we find out about Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians? In common with many of the New Testament epistles, Ignatius stressed faith, unity, and obedience to church authority, specifically bishops. Bishops are Jesus's representatives on earth. Ignatius himself was bishop of Antioch (before 155 CE) on his way to Rome to be imprisoned for some unspecified crime. While in Smyrna, on his way to Rome, the leaders of the Ephesian church visited him and he sings their praises. Ignatius appears to be familiar with a few of Paul's letters, using similar language multiple times, but not referring to the source.

In this letter, the Jews and the Jewish scriptures are not mentioned at all, except for saying that Jesus was of the "seed of David according to the flesh." This appears to me to be a reference to his ethnicity/nationality, not a claim to Judaic kingship. The new testament places mentioned are Antioch, Syria, Smyrna, Ephesus, and Rome. He mentions Satan but not angels, demons or a judgement day. Purveyors and listeners of false doctrine  are going to be thrown into a lake of fire instead of recieving eternal life. There is no mention of where they will go or what they will be doing for eternity.

The only New Testament person mentioned, besides Jesus, is Mary as Jesus's virgin mother. Ignatius's Jesus is literally god in  human form, born of a virgin, by the holy spirit. His presence in the world and his death were two of the three mysteries "wrought in silence" by god, to hide them from "the prince of this world." His mother's virginity was the first mystery. The  sign of Jesus's "manifestation" was a super bright stellar event. Jesus was born, baptized, annointed, suffered, was crucified, died, and was resurrected. There is no mention of his childhood, teachings, travels, miracles, or trial. There are no statements that anchor Jesus in time.

Ignatius tells the Ephesians that in order to thwart Satan, they must meet together frequently in the same location. They must be of one mind with their bishop, and they must eat the bread that is the "medicine of immortality" and the "antidote to death." There are no commands to preach or teach the gospel, or to be baptised.

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.)

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.

Mark wrap up

Well, we have finally finished the book of Mark. Let's recap what we have learned. Mark is probably the first of the four gospel accounts. It was written by an unknown author sometime in the first century, probably between 50 and 80 CE. There are some "prophecies" that indicate it may have been written after the fall of Jerusalem.

The book is conspicuously lacking many events and details of Jesus's life that are included in other gospel accounts. There is no account of Jesus's supposedly divine origins or events in his childhood. Jesus's earthly father is not mentioned. There is no turning water into wine, no Samaritan woman at the well, no woman caught in adultery, no story of nets miraculously full of fish, no raising of Lazarus,  no story of the good Samaritan, no story of Judas's fate, and no doubting Thomas.

In this account, Jesus deliberately reduces the publicity of his ministry by telling people and demons to be quiet or refrain from mentioning any miracles he has done. He does miracles in deserts, on the other side of the Jordan, among gentiles, in private rooms, and out in the countryside, rarely does he act publicly in cities or areas more populated with Jews. Many of his miracles don't seem to have much of a miraculous quality.

Many of Jesus's teachings are given in private to the twelve disciples alone. Many of the things he says and does are not witnessed by the disciples or anyone else, yet somehow they appear in the account. The author writes in the omniscient point of view, when it is almost impossible for one person to know all the events and dialog included in the book of Mark. Even Jesus receiving the holy spirit at his baptism was witnessed by him alone.

Last of all, the original account ends cryptically with a message from an unknown person to two women who tell no one. Some future person clearly did not like that ending, so they embellished it with claims about supposed commands that Jesus gave the disciples when he appeared to them after being resurrected.

This book does not claim to be inspired or the word of god.

Ecclesiastes wrap up

It seems clear to me that Ecclesiastes is not the cohesive writing of one person. It appears to be much like proverbs, with a variety of adages, saws, and sayings, some in poetic form, cobbled together with a poor attempt to create a unifying theme. Perhaps, at one time its core was simpler and made more topical sense. Then, some person, or persons, stuck in what they considered to be relevant at the time.

Is life meaningless or hopeful? Who lives longer, the wise man or the wicked? Does it even matter if you are wise or wicked? Who is better off, the living or the dead? Is our labor for nothing, or should we find satisfaction in it? It seems to depend on what verse you are reading.

As for doctrine, we find no heaven or hell, no reference to angels or demons or Satan, no miracles, and no prophecy of a messiah. The book does not claim to be inspired or the words of a god. It also does not mention any Old Testament people, places, or events. There was one reference to the Genesis creation of man, at the end of the book. The god spoken of in Ecclesiastes is not called Yahweh, but Elohim, the collective singular "the gods." This leads me to wonder if it is older tan the yahweh texts. At the end we do get a reference to judgment, but it was obviously added on and the form judgment takes is unclear.

There seem to be a battle in the text between the ideas that 1) There is nothing new under the sun,every single thing is meaningless, all effort is for nothing in the end, even trying to be wise, and 2) you can be happy in this life if you are god-fearing and get joy in  eating, drinking, and finding satisfaction in your work. Are they mutually exclusive? The god-fearing appears unnecessary to me, but number two gives us a more pleasant approach to life, even though I think happiness is a bit more complicated than that.

The "grave" mentioned in verse 9:10 is actually Sheol, which we have covered before. If you are new to the blog, click on the word sheol in the labels of this post to see more on that.

I found the book mostly boring and redundant, with a few interesting bits, especially the poetic description of old age.

What shall we do next?

As a reminder: I use the NIV for most scripture references, except when noted. The readings are generally taken at face value as much as possible, which is called a "plain reading." This is in the protestant tradition which teaches that each believer can study for themselves and understand what god wants them to know, without the necessity of an intermediary interpreting it for them. The church is supposed to be a priesthood of believers. Each person is supposedly given discernment by the holy spirit. This does not keep any or all from giving their own interpretation of what they read to others, and insisting that theirs is the correct one. I'm not doing anything different, I just don't believe any of it.

I also occasionally look at how a plain reading in modern language compares with original meanings found in Strong's concordance and interlinear scripture translations, found in the biblehub website. In addition,    I use Wikipedia as a general reference. It is good enough for general purposes. If I need to go in more depth, I try to find reliable sources by experts in their field. All opinions are my own and the words are original to me unless I reference someone else. However, I may have been influenced by those whose works I have read or listened to.

Titus part six and Wrap up

Paul ends the letter with personal info. As soon as he sends Artemas and Tychicus to Titus, Titus is to go to Paul at Nicopolis, where he will be spending the winter. I guess Titus better hurry up with his appointing elders and teaching in every town in Crete. He is also to help Zenas the lawyer and Appollos leave Crete well supplied. Presumably, they will be given what they need by the Christians in Crete because the next sentence says "our people (christians) must learn to devote themselves to doing good that they may provide for daily necessities and not live unproductive lives." The author ends with greetings from those with him and greetings to "those who love us in the faith." To me this looks like a dig at those who do not agree with Paul's version of the faith. Either you are with him, or against him.

Now for the wrap up. The letter to Titus contains no people, places, or events from the Old Testament. The only references to Judaism are snide remarks about Jewish myths, the circumcision group, genealogies, and arguments about the law. There are no scripture references, but there is a reference to a Cretan's poem about the eternal nature of Zeus. It would almost seem that this was written by someone who had never been a Jew.

There are no references to Jesus's birth, life, teachings, miracles, trial, death, burial, and resurrection. There are no words or commands of Jesus mentioned. Jesus is called the savior but not the son of god. God is said to have brought salvation by the "washing of rebirth and renewal by the holy spirit" poured out through Jesus Christ. It doesn't say how this was accomplished.

There is no mention of demons, Satan, or hell. There is no mention of angels or miracles, and no direct mention of heaven, just eternal life. The author does not claim his words are inspired or are the "word of god."

The main body of the letter told Titus who could be appointed elders and what to teach the various genders and age groups about how to behave, so they wouldn't bring disgrace to the community of believers. These included instructions to slaves but not to masters. There were also instructions on how to handle those who opposed Paul's version of religion. This was basically to rebuke them, then have nothing to do with them if they wouldn't listen.

Up next: Ecclesiastes.

Philemon part 2 And wrap up.

We continue in verse 12, where Paul gets down to the point. He is sending Onesimus back to his master Philemon. He says that he would have liked to keep Onesimus with him. Onesimus could have taken Philemon's place, helping Paul while he was imprisoned. Here Paul is guilt tripping Philemon again. He is reminding Philemon of the fact that he is not there helping Paul, but Onesimus is. Then Paul says he wouldn't want to do anything (like keep Onesimus with him)  without Philemon's consent, because he wants any favors that Philemon does for him to be "spontaneous and not forced." Hint, hint.

In verse 15, Paul suggests there was a higher purpose for Onesims's defection from Philemon. That purpose might be so that Philemon could have Onesimus back "as no longer a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother." It is unclear if Paul is actually suggesting that Philemon give Onesimus his freedom. He could just be asking him to treat Onesimus well.

From verse 17-21, Paul lays on the guilt and obligation with a trowel. He tells Philemon, "If you consider me a partner (guilt trip #1), welcome him as you would welcome me (gt #2). If he has done anything wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me (gt#3). I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand (ooooh). I will pay it back to you----not to mention that you owe me your very self (Major Guilt Trip). I do wish brother that I may have some benefit from you in the lord (gt#5). Confident of your obedience (gt#6), I write to you, knowing that you will do Even More than I ask. (Ouch).

As if Paul has not got Philemon's attention yet, he adds, "One more thing, prepare a guest room for me, I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers." In other words, Paul is letting Philemon know he intends to check up on him, eventually. I wonder if Philemon actually was praying for Paul's release from prison.

The letter ends with greetings from many of the same people mentioned in the letter to the Colossians.

To wrap up: Paul never claims this letter is scripture or the words of God or Jesus. He only mentions god and Jesus in the greeting and closing of the letter. This letter does not contain any actual theological teachings, content from the old testament, or content from Jesus's life and teachings. It does not mention heaven, hell, angels, demons, Satan, or miracles. It is purely personal, using their relationship as "brothers in christ" for leverage in Philemon's relationship to, and treatment of, Onesimus.

I'm okay with Paul trying to guarantee Onesimus is not abused. However, I think it would have been much more impressive if Paul had said slavery is wrong and god abhors it. But he couldn't do that, because Paul considers himself a slave to god. Paul preaches obedience of slaves to masters. Instead, Paul kind of pulls rank on Onesimus, making him feel obligated to him.

What shall we look at next?

Colossians part 9 and wrap up.

We are in chapter 4 verse 10 and nearing the end of the letter. Paul sends greetings from various persons: Aristarchus, Mark  the cousin of Barnabas, Jesus who is called Justus, Epaphrus who is also a Colossian, Luke the Doctor, and Demas. The first three are the only Jews with Paul. All of them, except Jesus/Justus are mentioned at the end of The letter to Philemon. All of them except Jesus/Justus and Demas are mentioned in the book of Acts. There are people named Justus in Acts, but this seems not to be either one. One was a gentile, not a Jew. Demas is mentioned in 2 Timothy as having deserted Paul. Mark is supposedly the writer of the Gospel of Mark.

Paul asks for his greetings to be given to the church in Laodicea and to Nympha, whose house is where the church meets. He requests that this letter be also read in Laodicea and the letter to the Laodiceans be read in Colossi. You would think the letter to the Laodiceans would be important to Christians,  having been written by Paul. However, it is lost to history.

Finally, there is a personal exhortation for Archippus, who is also mentioned in Philemon. Paul says he writes  his final greeting himself, which means someone else probably wrote the body of the letter for him, by his dictation.

Now for the wrap up. This letter may very well be authentic. However, it does not claim to be the word of god, and Paul never uses words that would indicate he is transmitting a message directly from god or Jesus. In fact, Paul never quotes Jesus anywhere. This letter does not say anything about Jesus's birth, childhood, and life. He says nothing about Jesus's teachings or miracles. He only mentions Jesus's suffering, death on the cross, and resurrection from the dead. Paul mentions none of the disciples/apostles or events from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

In Fact, Paul does not mention a single person or event from the old testament. He does mention generic religious festivals, circumcision, and written codes. There are no specific Old Testament laws mentioned. He does not even mention Abraham or Moses. There is no mention of angels, demons, Satan, or hell, just the "dominion of darkness." Paul does mention heaven.

As far as theology goes, Paul tells the Colossians that Jesus is the image (icon) of god. His death on the cross reconciled all people to god. The mystery of christ in everyone has been revealed, that's Paul's purpose in life. Paul tells the Corinthians there is no need for circumcision or following other religious traditions and regulations. Those were nailed to the cross. People are metaphorically circumcised by putting off the sinful nature in baptism, which is also characterized as a kind of death, burial, and resurrection.

According to Paul, there are no distinctions of race, background, and cultural differences, in Christ. Since they have "died" to sin, they should be living a new, virtuous life, bound together in unity by love. They should be doing everything in the name of Jesus. Wives should submit to their husbands. Husbands should love their wives. Children should obey their parents. Slaves should obey their masters. Masters should be fair. Why? Because every believer is a slave/servant to the master Jesus, including Paul and his cohorts.

Next we look at the letter to Philemon, because it has a close connection with this letter. Plus, it is short.

Edited for grammar.

3 John, part three And wrap up.

In the last post, I made some major errors when recording verse numbers. They have hopefully been fixed.

We continue on with verse 12. There, the author speaks of a Demetrius who is "spoken well of everyone-- and even by the truth itself." How does "the truth" speak? It speaks when the author speaks. The next sentence is "We also speak well of him, and you know that our testimony is true." This Demetrius is an obvious contrast to the evil Diotrephes. The only other Demetrius mentioned in the bible is a silversmith who opposed the christians in Acts 19.

Last, the author says he's got a lot to tell the recipient, but he wants to do it in person, not in a letter. Then he sends greetings to unnamed friends.

So, to wrap up. This letter was written by an unknown person in an unknown location to a person named Gaius, also in an unknown location at an unknown time. There is no claim of inspiration. There is no mention of heaven, hell, angels, demons, Satan, or miracles. There is no mention of Jesus, his birth, life, teachings, death, or resurrection. This brings doubt to the claim that it is a christian letter, in my mind. There is no mention of any old or new testament events, places, or people. There is no glimpse into the author's theology other than words like brother, church, truth, the name, and god. Nothing ties those particular words definitively  to the early christian church. They could be applied to Jews and perhaps even Greeks. The word god (Theos) in this letter does not specify which god, it is a generic Greek word for god.

Because of the ambiguous wording that could have been used by Christians or Jews, or anyone literate in Greek. I suggested a couple possibilities for the provenance of the letter. 1. A Jewish sect, early christian or other, vying for place in the Jewish community. 2. A christian sect vying for dominance among other christian groups. Who knows? I could be wrong on those. However, my point is that there really is no way to know for sure.

One thing is for sure, it does not add anything vital to the Christian scriptures.

2 John, part 5 And wrap up.

Today is the third anniversary of this blog! A great big thanks to all my readers. I don't know who you are, but you keep me going. More people from more countries visit the blog each week.

We are continuing on from verse 8. "Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully." What have they worked for, and what will the reward be? We aren't told.

Verse 9: "Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have god; whoever continues in the teaching has both the father and the son." The running ahead appears to mean going beyond, or leaving the teaching behind. Once you have been in the cult, if you leave you are doomed.

Verses 10-11: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." There you go. All nonbelievers are not welcome in christian homes and are deemed wicked. Is that Love? Is that Agape? My bible commentary says "This does not prohibit greeting or inviting a person in for conversation." According to the commentary, the injunction was only against feeding and lodging. But that's not what it says, is it? That sounds like the attempt to find a loophole in the command. What should a christian do about nonchristian family members who want to come for a visit?

Verses 12-13 just express the author's desire to visit the unknown readers. Then he closes with "The children of your chosen sister send their greetings." This could mean a christian woman or a church congregation.

There you have it. This letter does not mention: heaven, hell, angels, demons, Satan, miracles, life after death, Jesus's birth, life experiences, teachings, death, or resurrection. It does not mention the names of any bible books, places, events in history, or people, except for Jesus and god. It does not mention the Jews, the gentiles, or the word "church."

It boils down to: God is the father. Jesus is the son. God commanded the readers to love one another and obey his commands. Jesus came in the flesh. Anyone who does not acknowledge that is an antichrist. Do not let an antichrist into your home. This letter is extraordinarily generic and pretty pointless. Is the author trolling? (Trying to stir up trouble in the community)

It is interesting to note that the term antichrist appears nowhere else but in the epistles called 1st and 2nd John.  In 1 John 2:22, it is defined as the one who denies the father and the son.

Malachi, wrap up

After reading Malachi, we can see that it is a very general book admonishing the Israelites to keep the law of Moses and to not slack off when it comes to sacrifices and offerings. It seems to encourage them to think of themselves as specially loved by Yahweh, above the other people groups in the area. They are also told to be faithful to him. Those who get the message, will be favored in the future, when the Lord comes. Those who don't are doomed to destruction. The day of the lord's coming will be foretold by Elijah. Elijah should have been long dead at this time, so  his name must be symbolic.

This book does not specifically mention heaven, hell, angels, Satan, or demons. It does not anchor itself in time by mentioning any kings or other historic figures living at the time of the writing. It also does not mention any secular historic events. In 1:10, temple doors are mentioned, so it was most likely written after the construction of the second temple. It claims to be a message or oracle from Yahweh, yet often shifts between the first and third person points of view.

A book like this would have been applicable as a sermon across many hundreds of years, to pull the Israelites back into compliance whenever they began to look upon their neighbors, and their neighbor's gods,  as not so bad. It would also give the priests leverage when the people would loosen the standards of their sacrifices and offerings. After all, the priests relied on those for their livelihood. The oracle is telling the people to shape up.

Malachi mentions the Old testament names Jacob and Esau, Israel,  Moses, Judah, Levi, and Elijah, that's it. No specific Old Testament events are mentioned except the giving of the law to Moses. However, verse 2:11, which says Judah has desecrated the sanctuary by marrying the daughter of a foreign god, is an oblique symbolic reference to Genesis 38. There, the original Judah, son of Jacob, and who the Jews are named after, married a Canaanite woman. Malachi suggests that such a man will be excommunicated by Yahweh, even if he brings offerings to the lord.

The past portion of Malachi, verses 4:5-6, are viewed by some Christians as prophetic of John the Baptist (symbolized by Elijah) and Jesus (representing Yahweh). It is my contention that you only get there if you already believe Jesus is god in the flesh. Otherwise, it really doesn't make sense, especially since the Israelites had just been told in the verses just before to remember the laws and decrees of Moses. Elijah is there because he was the prophet who supposedly didn't die, but rode a fiery chariot up to heaven. The other prophets are probably all dead by the time of this writing. This author apparently thought a new word from Yahweh was needed to keep the Jews in the proper traditional mindset.

Jude, part 4 and wrap up

We continue with verses 17-19. "...remember what the apostles of our lord (Jesus Christ) foretold. They said to you, 'In the last days there will be scoffers ("mockers" in some translations) who will follow their own ungodly desires.' These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the spirit." I put Jesus Christ in parentheses to show that it could be taken out and the passage could very well have been written by a Jewish non Christian. None of the ideas in this passage, or in the whole of Jude, have been distinctly Christian.

The term apostle was not new with christianity, it had the generic greek meaning of messenger or one who was sent on behalf of another. Both the old and new testaments speak of scoffers or mockers and last days. The quote Jude mentions does not occur in either the old or new testament. There were issues of divisions in Judaism in the first century, even besides the introduction of Christianity. Jude's letter could very well have been a polemic against the Hellenization of Judaism.

Verses 20-21: ".... build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the holy spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our lord (Jesus Christ) to bring you to eternal life." Again, nothing here is specific to Christianity and could be referring to Judaism. I put Jesus Christ in parentheses to show that it is not necessary to the passage.

Verses 22-23: "Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy mixed with fear--hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh." Snatching from fire is found in Amos 4:11 and Zechariah 3:2. The Zachariah verse is found in the context of the high priest Joshua (Jesus figure) that I mentioned in a previous post. After Joshua was said to have been snatched from the fire. Zechariah 3:4 says he was dressed in filthy clothes, equated with sin.  The angel of the lord had them removed and clean clothes were put on him. Coincidentally, this passage in Jude mentions clothing stained by corrupted (sinful) flesh. Actually, I don't think it was a coincidence. Jude seems to have anchored part of his letter on the first verses in Zechariah 3.

Jude's letter ends with "To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy (like Joshua in Zechariah 3)--to the one and only god our savior be the glory, majesty, power, and authority, (through Jesus Christ) our lord ( ,) before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen." I put the words "through Jesus Christ" and the comma in parentheses to show how the meaning and flow of the sentence is changed without them. There were no comma's in the early manuscripts. Also if you read the interlinear text, the word order of this passage differs from the NIV. The translators are the ones responsible for that. I don't blame those christians who get suspicious of certain translations. Liberties do seem to be taken in many cases. Perhaps doctrinal agendas are at play in some instances.

I urge you to go back and read quickly through the book of Jude, leaving out all references to Jesus Christ. When I do that, I see a Jewish document, not a Christian one. There is no mention of any of Jesus's life or unique teachings. No, birth, baptism, sermons, miracles, death, burial, or resurrection. None of the disciples/apostles are mentioned by name. No specific churches are mentioned. No uniquely christian doctrines are discussed. On the contrary, Jude mentions a number of specifically Jewish teachings and writings, biblical (old testament) and extrabiblical.

This book does not claim to be inspired or the word of god.  I think some enterprising christian may have co-opted a first century  Jew's sermon or essay and inserted a few generic references to Jesus. Maybe it was stolen or confiscated. Maybe this writing was referring to those of the new christian sect as the bad guys. Anyway, It seems obvious: Jude=Jew. I don't wonder that it was disputed by the early church.

Ephesians 6 wrap up

After reading Ephesians, I have noticed that, as I mentioned before, it contains very little information that is concrete. It mentions "spiritual" blessings but not material ones. It talks of faith in Jesus, but gives us little to no information about Jesus, his life, and his teachings. It talks of how the gentiles and the jews are no longer separated, but are now fellow citizens of god's household, sharing in the promise of christ.  This was supposedly once a great mystery that has now been revealed through Paul. It is also a direct contradiction of Paul's statements concerning the Jews in the letter to the Galatians, chapter 4.

Saints are mentioned and are presumably referring to believers. Unity of all believers is stressed in a kind of creedal statement."There is one body, and one spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called, one lord, one god and father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

Another famous passage is found in 6:10-18, referring to the "armor of god." This invisible armor is to be used to fight against an invisible enemy.

There is mention of the devil/Satan, but not hell or specifics about any punishments for disobedience. There are vague references to heaven as the place where Jesus and god live, but no specifics. Forces of evil are also said to reside in the heavenly realms. (6:12) I don't remember any mention of angels.
A day of evil is coming (6:13), but again no specifics. There is no mention of any old testament characters, places,  or events, not even Moses or Abraham, just the phrase "men in other generations." (3:5) The law with its commandments and regulations is said to have been abolished. (2:15)

The submission/obedience of women to husbands and slaves to masters is actively promoted and encouraged.

There are two old testament passages supposedly quoted, but when we look back at the Old Testa,ent, the passages read differently and mean something else in their particular context. The first is Eph. 4:8- "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men." This is different in Psalm 68:18, which reads-"When you ascended on high, you led captives in your train and you recieved gifts from men." The second is found in Eph. 5:14- "Wake up o sleeper, rise from the dead, and christ will shine on you." The closest scripture to that is found in Isaiah 60:1-"Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the lord rises upon you." These are obviously not the same, but no other passage is either. Theses passages don't appear to actually have anything to do with Jesus.

There is also no mention of any other New Testament characters, places, and events, except Jesus's death and resurrection. One exception is the mention of Tychicus at the closing of the letter. Tychicus is mentioned in almost exactly similar wording at the closing of Colossians. His name is also found in Titus 3:12 and Acts 20:4.

All in all, this is an extraordinarily ambiguous and generic letter. It could have been written to anyone at any time in the first century church. It is assumed to be written near the end of Paul's life when he was supposedly in prison. This is assumed from the passages where the author calls himself an "ambassador in chains" (6:20) and a "prisoner for the lord" (4:1), a "prisoner for Jesus christ" (3:1). However, these could all be metaphors, because they do not come right out and say he is actually imprisoned.

Ruth wrap up

The book of Ruth has no known author and no definitely known date. It must have been written after the establishment of the Davidic monarchy because one of its purposes seems to be to establish David's lineage from Judah. Another purpose could be to show that Yahweh can approve of marriages with women from other nations, and even bless them and the Israelites through them, in spite of his previous adamant commands against them. Plus, descendants of Moabites are not supposed to be allowed to enter the assembly of  Yahweh for 10 generations. (Deuteronomy 23:3) Jewish commentaries get around that by saying the nationality of the father is what mattered, not the mother.

 The book does not claim to be the word of Yahweh or to be inspired by Yahweh or his Holy Spirit. There is no mention of angels, demons, or other supernatural beings besides Yahweh. There is no heaven, hell, or messaiah mentioned. There are no descriptions of religious rituals or commands, in spite of the fact that the story must have taken place from the time of passover to Pentecost, because those dates are tied to the harvesting of grain. The only hint of religion is the kinsman-redeemer tradition depicted, and that is more cultural. There is no mention of the ark of the covenant, Shiloh, priests, or sacrifices.

There is a conspicuous lack of violence and  prejudice against other people groups. Ruth, a Moabite, is given the highest praise. She is said to be better than seven sons to Naomi, high praise indeed. Everyone else behaves admirably as well. I have an atheist friend who says this is her favorite story in the bible.

A hint that the story may have been fabricated is found in the names of people in the story. Naomi means "pleasant" but she asks to be called Mara which means "bitter." Ruth means "friendship." Ruth's dead husband Mahlon's name means "weakling" and Boaz's name means "strength." Coincidence?

Job will be our next book, because its events also seem to take place before there was a monarchy. Then we will continue on to 1 Samuel. 

Judges wrap up

What have we learned from our reading of the book of Judges?

Yahweh is all about war. His spirit manifests itself in different people, called judges, in different ways, sometimes in their hair. It is very helpful for killing enemies. In spite of that, sometimes people need to cast lots or consult priests to figure out what Yahweh wants them to do. They still offer him food, even though he can't eat.  Physical death is still the standard punishment for infractions of his will. Spiritual death is unheard of. Rewards and punishments in an afterlife are absent. There is no mention of Heaven or Hell.

There is no Satan, no demons, Devils, or unclean spirits. One angel with an unspeakable name appears in the form of a man to Samson's parents. There is no mention of a personal savior or messaiah.

Strangely, in spite of injunctions against personal altars in the previous books, Judges has many examples of people constructing and using sacrificial altars in places other than Shiloh. One person even has a personal priest and idols that represent Yahweh. Nothing bad happens to him, except that his priest and idols were stolen. Very little is mentioned about the actual religious practices of Israel until the last few chapters, and they feel like add ons. Someone appears to have tried to temper the weirdness of the stories with the phrase "These things happened before there was a king in Israel, when everyone did what was right in their own eyes."

The author(s) of the book is unknown. He does not claim the book of Judges is the infallible word of Yahweh or that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. It was clearly written and/or edited after the establishment of a monarchy. The last few chapters were confusing stories that had to have taken place before the rest of the book, or not at all. The writing was sloppy and disjointed and required careful rereading for me to figure out the supposed sequence of events. I can understand why some bible scholars think different authors meshed different versions of the same stories into one tale. Very few of the events can be historically verified, if any. Many place names can, but many can not.

The amount of gratuitous bloodshed, if true, was horrendous. Thousands died in wars, thousands more innocent women and children were needlessly slaughtered. Women, excluding Deborah and Jael, were portrayed as the mere  property of men, for the purpose of carrying on the family line. They could be sacrificed, given away, used, abused, and stolen. What they wanted did not matter.

Do you ever wonder what happened to all the bodies from the wars? They would be a terrible health hazard.  Were they just left on the battlefields? We are never told.  Remember the laws given by Moses, um Yahweh, about dead bodies? The people were considered unclean if they touched one and had to go through ceremonial cleansings. Did that apply to soldiers that had fought and killed?

Edited.

Deuteronomy wrap up

*Now that we are finished with Deuteronomy, we can see that it is very unlikely that the book was written by Moses, unless he wrote about himself in the third person, telling how wonderful he was. It seems to have been written by a person or persons, far in the future of Moses, who knew that the Israelites had prophets and that they were conquered and taken into captivity. This makes its authorship either during the captivity or after their return to the promised land. We are also not told that the book is the word of God.

*Deuteronomy is extremely redundant with very little new material. There is a repetion of many laws, traditions, and admonitions. There is a constant harping on the need for complete obedience, or else dire consequences would ensue. Most of the new material is an expansion on old themes and an addition of details to material found in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.

*We find no references to Angels, demons, and Satan. There is no mention of a personal savior or messiah. Heaven is mentioned as the place Yahweh lives in the clouds. We find a hint of hell in one passage about sheol, but it is not said to be a place of eternal torture or a spiritual punishment. It is underground. All rewards and punishments appear to be earthly and physical.

*In this book, Yahweh is a jealous, angry, and strict God, expecting absolute obedience. He continues to communicate solely with Moses, often from the pillar of smoke over the tabernacle tent. He seems to forget that he killed off most of the original adult Israelites who left Egypt forty years ago during the exodus.  His commandments and covenants with Israel are said to be eternal and everlasting, which could  present a dilemma to christians.

*The book ends with the death of Moses and the institution of Joshua as the new leader. If we assume Bishop Ussher's date of creation at 4004 BCE, and do the math using the numbers gleaned from the Old Testament so far, and without adjustments based on New Testament input, it should now be around the year 1297 BCE. Just for the record, I realize this probably isn't going to work out later, but let's just go with it.

On to Joshua, which promises to be more interesting, and more bloody.

Edited.

Numbers wrap up

*In this book we learn nothing about heaven, hell,  Angels, demons, the devil,  life after death, or promise of a spiritual savior.

*We are told the Israelites wandered in the desert for forty years, but are almost told nothing about those intervening years, except the names of the camp sites. They supposedly moved an average of once a year. During that time, every adult who had been over twenty when the Israelites came out of Egypt died, except for Caleb and Joshua. Moses also hasn't died yet. Miriam and Aaron have.

*According to the numbers supposedly recorded, the number of fighting men in the group has only decreased by about a thousand over the forty years.The balance of the population of each tribe has shifted. The tribe of Levites remains small. The tribe of Judah Is the largest tribe. There are still well over a million Israelites travellling together, along with their substantial flocks and herds.

*The Levites are not required to fight. They have special duties and privileges that pretty much guarantee they are the wealthiest and best fed tribe in the group.

*There were a couple of protests and departures from absolute obedience to Yahweh that were dealt with swiftly and violently, usually by Yahweh or a priest.

*Speaking of herds of animals, apparently they were able to have enough water and food to maintain large flocks, in spite of claims that they themselves were starving and thirsty.

*Not one single event or individual mentioned in the Book of Numbers is corroborated in the current archaeological record. Many place names can be found, many more can not. To convict someone of murder you need the testimony of at least two eyewitnesses. To accept that the book of Numbers is the "word of God" you only need faith. The book does not say it was written by Moses or that it is the word of God.


We will move on to Deuteronomy after the 1st of January. Until then we will take a look at the birth of Jesus.

Edited.

Leviticus wrap up

First, what did we not see in Leviticus: Heaven, Hell, eternal punishment or reward, demons, devils, miracles, Satan, any mention or hint of a messaiah or son of God,

What did we learn about Yahweh:
-He favors the Israelites over all other people and the Levites over all other Israelites.
-He approves of slavery, unless it involves Israelites
-He is extraordinarily obsessed with ceremonial cleanness and the number seven.
-He is loves animal sacrifices, gifts of food that he will never eat, and money that he will never use.
-He is ruthless and unbending in his punishments for disobedience, not considering circumstances.
-He seems unaware of simple preventative measures for mold, how to keep land fertile, how to treat wounds, and other things an omniscient God should know.
-He places a lower value on females than males.
-He lives in an inner area of the tabernacle tent, hovering over the arc, between the cherubim's wings..
-He is only to be visited once a year, on the day of atonement,  by the high priest.
-All the info about him and his laws was supposedly given to Aaron and the people by Moses.

We also learned that there was unrest in the camp. Some people made their own sacrifices to other gods out in the fields. Some even blasphemed Yahweh. It was made quite clear that doing your own thing could have dire consequences, namely death or excommunication. Execution  included stoning and burning. Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, used the wrong kind of incense and were blasted out of existance by God.

All that aside, what we see is an extraordinary amount of control over the personal lives and possessions of others given to the priestly class. This is a true theocracy. Certainly no one today wants that.

One thing to remember is that these laws were supposedly  created over three thousand years ago for the Israelites as a nation, living in the "promised land." Nowhere do these passages imply that any other people living in any other place are expected to abide by them, least of all  in modern America. To expect otherwise is delusional.

Other legal codes predate this Mosaic law by several hundreds of years and use some of the same terminology, such as the code of Hammurabi. They are also better attested to in the archaeological record, being found on very ancient clay tablets and stones. The mosaic law can not be proven to be anywhere near as old as it claims to be.

There is no concrete evidence for any of the specific events in this book. It does not claim to be written by Moses or to be the word of God.

Edited 10/25/15

Wrapping up Exodus

*In this book, we find no information about Satan, demons, heaven, hell, or an afterlife. People still lived an unusual length of time, into their 130's. Rewards and punishments are earthly. Death and excommunication are common forms of punishment.

* Angels rarely appear. Sometimes they are called Angels of the lord and speak to Moses. One was around the burning bush. One is called the destroyer, and kills the Egyptian first born. The one that will go ahead of the Israelites and pester the people in the promised land is called God's  terror and the hornet.  Angels no longer appear in human like bodies.

*There is no concrete extra- biblical evidence for any of the events or main characters. The Pharoahs of Exodus are not named and it is impossible to know who they might have been. The archaeology of the relevant time periods give no indication of any event similar to the exodus. There is no evidence of a series of plagues or the sudden departure of over a million people. There is no evidence that Moses ever existed. There is no physical evidence that over a million people and their flocks, wandered around in the desert at that time. If nothing else, there should be numerous piles of quail bones.

*The events surrounding the Exodus would have caused a major economic collapse for the Egyptians. There is no evidence of such a collapse. Over a million people (The population of Austin, Texas.) living, camping, and traveling together in the desert is a practical impossibility.

*The book speaks of Moses and the events in Exodus in third person,  and displays knowledge of events beyond the lifetime of Moses. It can not have been written by Moses. If it was, it would not have been written in Hebrew. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Israelites originated in Canaan and did not spend any significant time in Egypt. Also, the book does not claim to be the word of God.

*The Israelites are said to be hungry and are given manna from heaven, yet they have animals enough for a significant number of sacrifices. They also have flour for unleavened bread.

*The tabernacle and religious paraphernalia is very similar to those things used by other ancient religions. The verses claimed to be the Ten Commandments do not appear to be anything like the traditional commandments we have come to know. Three yearly feasts and the observance of the Sabbath have been instituted and an elite priesthood has been established.

Note: I  thank you if you have been reading along. Please feel free to share this site with others you think might be interested. Next up- Leviticus. That promises to be interesting. As with Genesis and Exodus, I will try to read it as though I am encountering it with fresh eyes. We will keep looking  at how it measures up to reality.

Edited to add an interesting video that I've watched recently: Matt Dilihunty in Atheist Debates- Patterns of Evidence: Exodus. 

Genesis wrap up

What have we learned from the book of Genesis?

*We don't know who wrote this book or exactly when. Historians place its origin long after Moses would have lived. Nowhere does the book of Genesis claim it is God's word, or is inspired by God. Nor does it claim to be the words of Moses. The Hebrew language  in which Genesis is written comes from approximately the 6th  century B.C.E., about a thousand years after the last events recorded in the book. There are few place name anachronisms.

*We are not told anything about an afterlife, Hell, Satan, or demons. Everybody died and stayed dead, except Enoch.

*The God of Genesis is very powerful but not  omnicient or omnipresent. He is able to do human activities like walking, talking, seeing, smelling, wrestling, and eating. He comes down to earth from some unknown place in the sky where he lives with some unknown others and angels. He likes dead animals, and the smell of roasting meat. He doesn't like grain sacrifices, tall towers, or clueless Pharoah's and kings. He doesn't seem to mind deceit, slavery, or the mistreatment of women. He needs to be reminded of his promises. His powers seem to be limited to being able to manipulate people and nature. He can be overpowered by a man. (Jacob) After God wrestles with Jacob, he no longer appears in physical form as a man. For the rest of the book, he is only seen in visions.

*Nothing derogatory is said about other gods. There are no prohibitions against worshiping other gods. Yahweh ( the lord) is said to be "Abraham's God, " not the only God.

*Angels look and act like regular people. They have a few powers. Sometimes they speak for God. We aren't told why he can't speak for himself.

*Circumcision is an everlasting covenant with all of Abraham's descendants who want to be part of the family and in on the promise of owning the land of Canaan. I underlined everlasting because about 2,000 years in the future a person named Paul will claim it is no longer necessary, and that it was actually just a metaphor. There is no indication in Genesis that circumcision is a metaphor for a spiritual state. It is an act of obedience, pure and simple.

*Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all enriched, with God's support, at the expense of others, by deceit.

*We are given the supposed names of dozens of rulers of petty Canaanite kingdoms, who lack any proof of their existence.  We are not given any of the names of the at least three Pharoah's of Egypt mentioned in Genesis. This is in spite of the fact that Hebrew writing would not have existed in the time frame of Genesis and that Egypt is a rich source of recorded ancient history.

*The first few chapters are obviously mythological, containing completely unrealistic and magical creation events.

*There are no concrete extra biblical evidences for any of the main characters in the stories contained in Genesis. Many of the place names and people groups are also unknown to history, with a few notable exceptions. The events themselves are also impossible to verify. In fact, it is very reasonable to accept Genesis as an etiological story, written as folk lore for a people (Israelites) trying to forge an identity and explain how their world came to be the way it was at the time of the story's writing. Other people groups had their own explanations of the world and humanity. Today, we know that the history of humanity didn't really revolve around the Middle East. It just happened to have very effective propaganda.