We are at 1 Peter 3:19. We have last read that the christ was put to death in the body but made alive by the spirit. Now the author is saying that through that spirit (whatever that is) the christ "went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when god waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."
Let's unpack that. The author is referring to the Genesis flood story. It appears that he believes god was patient with the supposedly disobedient people who died in the flood. He gave them time to be obedient while Noah was building the ark. We all know what happened. In the Noah story, the people did not change their wicked ways and they were all drowned, except Noah and his family. The author refers to these drowned people as spirits in prison. What does he mean? It is likely that he is referring to Sheol or Hades, the shadowy underworld place where all the dead go in the ancient Jewish and Greek mythologies. In the Old Testament, death is synonymous with Sheol. It is a place from which there is no escape, a prison if you will. The author of 1 Peter is telling us Jesus went and preached to the dead, after he died. So, he went to Sheol just like everyone else, but there is a difference that the author will reveal to us eventually.
We go on to read about Noah and the ark and how only eight people were saved through water. (And supposedly the rest of the people on earth died through the same water) Now, this water that saved those few people (though technically it was a boat that saved them) symbolizes baptism that now saves them, the readers. Again, generic water, which once floated a boat and drowned everything else in an ancient story, now symbolizes baptism which saves believers. Saves them from what? Why from the wrath of god that gets dispensed on the disobedient, of course! Though the author doesn't tell us that specifically, it is easy to infer, just by the nature of the story.
Now the author wants the reader to know that baptism isn't the literal washing of dirt from the body, "but the pledge of a good conscience toward god. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus." So the symbolic power of baptism exists because Jesus was resurrected. He didn't stay in the land of the dead. We are not told if this is a resurrection of the body or just the spirit. We are told that Jesus "has gone into heaven and is at god's right hand-- with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him."
This whole story of Jesus dying and going to preach to the "spirits in prison" is part of the christian doctrine of the harrowing of Hell. Not all christian groups teach this. Not all christian groups teach that believers are saved by baptism. Some latch on to the word "symbolic" and say it is not the act of baptism that matters but the previously mentioned "pledge of a good conscience toward god." These seem to be important teachings, if they pertain to salvation. Why don't all christians agree?
On to chapter four. Since christ suffered in his body, the reader is to have the same attitude. What attitude is that, the attitude of suffering? Apparently, "one who has sufferred in his body is done with sin. As a result, he does not live the rest of his life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of god." I'm not so sure about that. Plenty of suffering people do evil things and have human desires, sometimes because they are suffering. It is also in direct contradiction of buddhist teaching which says that suffering is caused in part by human desires. Suffering is supposedly alleviated by ritual practices of the mind and body that have the side efect of helping us to live more comfortably with our humanity. I don't know how well it works, but it at least sounds more appealing.
Till next time.
Showing posts with label baptism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label baptism. Show all posts
Saturday, June 8, 2019
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Mark part one
Let us begin reading Mark. Right away I notice there is no virgin birth story. There is no mother Mary and father Joseph. No divine conception of Jesus by the holy spirit. So, if Mark stood alone, we would have to assume Jesus was conceieved and birthed in the normal human way. The first chapter begins by telling us that the gospel of Jesus Christ began in Isaiah with a prophecy about a messenger who will prepare the way for the lord. And that messenger was John the baptizer. Did Mark not know of the supposed prophecy of a virgin giving birth? Wouldn't that have been a pertinent part of Jesus's back story? If Mark was the first gospel writer, did Matthew and Luke each make up their Jesus origin stories? Both of their stories are very different after all.
Beginning in verse 4, John the baptist is described as a man dressed in camel hair clothing who preached out in the desert. He was telling the Jews who came to him that they needed to be baptized with a baptism of repentance for the remission of their sins. Basically that means they were given a ceremonial bath to show that they were cleansing themselves from past sins. They may not have actually done anything that we would consider wrong, like theft or murder. "Sins" are committed whenever god's laws are broken. They could have included any number of innocuous things, like cooking on the Sabbath or not tithing properly. Who knows what these people were repenting of.
At that time, the Romans had control over Israel, and many Jews were very concerned about this state of things. Just like today, there would have been religious people blaming the undesirable conditions on a state of moral laxity and religious decay. A call to repent is ubiquitous throughout religious history.
While John was out in the desert baptizing, he told people someone more powerful than him was coming, someone who would baptize the people with the holy spirit instead of water. Hmm, it sounds like John was saying holy spirit baptism is superior to water baptism. That's not what I was taught.
Then along comes Jesus from Nazareth. He was baptized by John in the Jordan river. When he came up out of the water, "he saw heaven being torn open and the spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." Look at that. The text does not say that John knew who Jesus was when he came to be baptized. It also does not say anyone else but Jesus himself was witness to this miraculous voice. Oh my nonexistent god! Jesus here is having an experience like Paul claims to have had on the road to Damascus. There are no other witnesses claimed for this event. Wouldn't it have been important for Mark to include witnesses, if there were any?
Note that there is no mention of Bethlehem, wise men following stars, Herod killing children, censuses, or genealogical descent from David. In fact, so far, this story is not anchored in time.
My previous series on the nativity begins here.(link)
More to come.
Beginning in verse 4, John the baptist is described as a man dressed in camel hair clothing who preached out in the desert. He was telling the Jews who came to him that they needed to be baptized with a baptism of repentance for the remission of their sins. Basically that means they were given a ceremonial bath to show that they were cleansing themselves from past sins. They may not have actually done anything that we would consider wrong, like theft or murder. "Sins" are committed whenever god's laws are broken. They could have included any number of innocuous things, like cooking on the Sabbath or not tithing properly. Who knows what these people were repenting of.
At that time, the Romans had control over Israel, and many Jews were very concerned about this state of things. Just like today, there would have been religious people blaming the undesirable conditions on a state of moral laxity and religious decay. A call to repent is ubiquitous throughout religious history.
While John was out in the desert baptizing, he told people someone more powerful than him was coming, someone who would baptize the people with the holy spirit instead of water. Hmm, it sounds like John was saying holy spirit baptism is superior to water baptism. That's not what I was taught.
Then along comes Jesus from Nazareth. He was baptized by John in the Jordan river. When he came up out of the water, "he saw heaven being torn open and the spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." Look at that. The text does not say that John knew who Jesus was when he came to be baptized. It also does not say anyone else but Jesus himself was witness to this miraculous voice. Oh my nonexistent god! Jesus here is having an experience like Paul claims to have had on the road to Damascus. There are no other witnesses claimed for this event. Wouldn't it have been important for Mark to include witnesses, if there were any?
Note that there is no mention of Bethlehem, wise men following stars, Herod killing children, censuses, or genealogical descent from David. In fact, so far, this story is not anchored in time.
My previous series on the nativity begins here.(link)
More to come.
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.
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Colossians part 4
We continue on in chapter two verse 6. The Colossians are told that since they accepted Jesus as lord, they are to continue living in him, as they were taught. What does it mean to live in Christ? Paul has not yet covered that in this letter. So far, all it encompasses is faith.
Verse 8 contains another warning about people who could take the Colossians "captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy." But not Paul. He wouldn't do that. Paul's philosophy is based on christ. Again, what does that mean in practical terms? It seems to mean rejecting "human tradition and the basic principles of this world."
In verse 9, we are given another theology lesson about christ. All the fullness of the deity lives in him in bodily form. Notice the present tense. Paul worships a living christ. Jesus's physical body contains the deity, and not on earth. How does that work? The Colossians have "been given fullness in christ." Whatever that means. Christ "is the head over every power and authority." Even over those that have never heard of him or don't believe? Even over yahweh?
In verse 11, things get weird again. Paul tells the Colossians that in Jesus, they are circumcised. Not with real circumcision, but imaginary circumcision done by christ. Why? Remember Paul is a Jew. Circumcision was declared to be an everlasting covenant in the Hebrew scriptures. If you aren't circumcised, you don't belong to yahweh. Solution: metaphorical circumcision. When does this metaphorical circumcision take place? At baptism.
Verse 12 gives us the theology of baptism. A person who was metaphorically dead in their sins is literally buried in the water and metaphorically raised from the dead. The person's sinful nature was then considered circumcised ( cut off?). The person was no longer metaphorically dead, now they were metaphorically, and literally, alive with Christ. Christ forgave all their sins. He cancelled the written code with its regulations. You heard it here folks. Paul basically says the law of Moses is null and void for a baptised person. Jesus took it away and nailed it to the cross. Metaphorically speaking, of course. What I'm wondering is if the old law is gone, why the circumcision language? Wouldn't any kind of circumcision, even metaphorical, be unnecessary?
Verse 15 says Jesus "disarmed the powers and authorities, and made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." That's not the way the story is told in the gospel books, is it. There, Jesus is meek and submissive, dying pretty quietly and quickly. Where is the public spectacle made of the authorities? Where is the triumph over them? Where is the disarming of authorities? Or is this a metaphorical spectacle and disarming? My how the metaphors are flying fast and thick. You would almost think none of this stuff is real.
More to come.
Verse 8 contains another warning about people who could take the Colossians "captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy." But not Paul. He wouldn't do that. Paul's philosophy is based on christ. Again, what does that mean in practical terms? It seems to mean rejecting "human tradition and the basic principles of this world."
In verse 9, we are given another theology lesson about christ. All the fullness of the deity lives in him in bodily form. Notice the present tense. Paul worships a living christ. Jesus's physical body contains the deity, and not on earth. How does that work? The Colossians have "been given fullness in christ." Whatever that means. Christ "is the head over every power and authority." Even over those that have never heard of him or don't believe? Even over yahweh?
In verse 11, things get weird again. Paul tells the Colossians that in Jesus, they are circumcised. Not with real circumcision, but imaginary circumcision done by christ. Why? Remember Paul is a Jew. Circumcision was declared to be an everlasting covenant in the Hebrew scriptures. If you aren't circumcised, you don't belong to yahweh. Solution: metaphorical circumcision. When does this metaphorical circumcision take place? At baptism.
Verse 12 gives us the theology of baptism. A person who was metaphorically dead in their sins is literally buried in the water and metaphorically raised from the dead. The person's sinful nature was then considered circumcised ( cut off?). The person was no longer metaphorically dead, now they were metaphorically, and literally, alive with Christ. Christ forgave all their sins. He cancelled the written code with its regulations. You heard it here folks. Paul basically says the law of Moses is null and void for a baptised person. Jesus took it away and nailed it to the cross. Metaphorically speaking, of course. What I'm wondering is if the old law is gone, why the circumcision language? Wouldn't any kind of circumcision, even metaphorical, be unnecessary?
Verse 15 says Jesus "disarmed the powers and authorities, and made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." That's not the way the story is told in the gospel books, is it. There, Jesus is meek and submissive, dying pretty quietly and quickly. Where is the public spectacle made of the authorities? Where is the triumph over them? Where is the disarming of authorities? Or is this a metaphorical spectacle and disarming? My how the metaphors are flying fast and thick. You would almost think none of this stuff is real.
More to come.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Ephesians chapter 1, part 2
Starting at verse 15:
*Paul tells the recipients of the letter that he gives thanks for them continually because of the faith he heard they have. If this is a chain letter, how does he know what churches will be reading it and what their faith level is? Why does he say he "heard" about their faith, when he is supposed to have lived in Ephesus?
*Let's look at the scriptures that mention Paul in Ephesus (in Turkey). First, Acts 18: There Paul is said to have arrived in Ephesus with Pricilla and Aquila. He went to a Jewish synagogue to reason (argue?) with the Jews. He was asked to stay but left, saying he would be back, if it was God's will. He sailed back to Caesarea, which is in Israel, then travelled from there to Antioch, Galatia and Phrygia, and made his way back to Ephesus. It appeared to be in God's (Paul's ) will after all.
*While Paul was gone, a Jew named Apollos, from Alexandria (in Egypt), who knew only the baptism of John, arrived in Ephesus. He was very knowledgable in the scriptures and began to speak boldly in the synagogue. Pricilla and Aquila were still in Ephesus and took Apollos to their home to "teach him the way of God more adequately." I find it interesting that Apollos seems to have had no idea about Jesus, the crucifixion, or the resurrection, just John the baptist and his practice of baptism. This would be at least two decades (NT timeline) after the death of Jesus. Why hadn't Apollos heard "the good news" before?
*Apollos went to Corinth, which is in Greece. Meanwhile, Paul took the road through Turkey and arrived back in Ephesus. There he found some disciples. These disciples had not been there his first visit? Disciples of whom? These disciples had never heard of recieving the holy spirit and the had been baptised with John's baptism for repentence, not the baptism into the lord Jesus. Okay, what is the difference between one dunking in water and another? -Belief in Jesus and the magic words recited when it is performed. Plus, it helps if Paul puts his hands on you so you can get the elusive Holy Spirit along with the ability to speak in tongues. Twelve men recieved the spirit this way. Ooh. Do you suppose that the number twelve is significant here? There were twelve tribes of Israel after all.
*According to Acts, Paul spent three months in Ephesus speaking in the synogogue, arguing about the kingdom of god. Some of them (Jews) refused to believe him. Good for them. So, Paul left with his disciples and had daily discussions in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. "This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord." However, not one of them wrote a single word about Paul or the new teachings. There are no contemporaneous writings about this revolution in religious thought, from that time or region That seems a little odd to me.
*It is even more odd that there are no extrabiblical records, when Acts says that extraordinary miracles were performed through Paul. (Acts19:11-12). Some Jews tried to exorcise evil spirits by invoking the name of Jesus. The evil spirits knew the difference between them and Paul and beat the Jews up. Naturally, this caused some consternation among the inhabitants of Ephesus, not to mention terror. Believers came out of the woodwork and confessed their past associations with sorcery. Then there was a public scroll burning of extremely valuable magic texts. Too bad Paul didn't just simply tell them their magic books had no power to do anything, evil or good. But he couldn't do that, could he? He had set himself up as having powers greater than theirs.
To be continued.
*Paul tells the recipients of the letter that he gives thanks for them continually because of the faith he heard they have. If this is a chain letter, how does he know what churches will be reading it and what their faith level is? Why does he say he "heard" about their faith, when he is supposed to have lived in Ephesus?
*Let's look at the scriptures that mention Paul in Ephesus (in Turkey). First, Acts 18: There Paul is said to have arrived in Ephesus with Pricilla and Aquila. He went to a Jewish synagogue to reason (argue?) with the Jews. He was asked to stay but left, saying he would be back, if it was God's will. He sailed back to Caesarea, which is in Israel, then travelled from there to Antioch, Galatia and Phrygia, and made his way back to Ephesus. It appeared to be in God's (Paul's ) will after all.
*While Paul was gone, a Jew named Apollos, from Alexandria (in Egypt), who knew only the baptism of John, arrived in Ephesus. He was very knowledgable in the scriptures and began to speak boldly in the synagogue. Pricilla and Aquila were still in Ephesus and took Apollos to their home to "teach him the way of God more adequately." I find it interesting that Apollos seems to have had no idea about Jesus, the crucifixion, or the resurrection, just John the baptist and his practice of baptism. This would be at least two decades (NT timeline) after the death of Jesus. Why hadn't Apollos heard "the good news" before?
*Apollos went to Corinth, which is in Greece. Meanwhile, Paul took the road through Turkey and arrived back in Ephesus. There he found some disciples. These disciples had not been there his first visit? Disciples of whom? These disciples had never heard of recieving the holy spirit and the had been baptised with John's baptism for repentence, not the baptism into the lord Jesus. Okay, what is the difference between one dunking in water and another? -Belief in Jesus and the magic words recited when it is performed. Plus, it helps if Paul puts his hands on you so you can get the elusive Holy Spirit along with the ability to speak in tongues. Twelve men recieved the spirit this way. Ooh. Do you suppose that the number twelve is significant here? There were twelve tribes of Israel after all.
*According to Acts, Paul spent three months in Ephesus speaking in the synogogue, arguing about the kingdom of god. Some of them (Jews) refused to believe him. Good for them. So, Paul left with his disciples and had daily discussions in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. "This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord." However, not one of them wrote a single word about Paul or the new teachings. There are no contemporaneous writings about this revolution in religious thought, from that time or region That seems a little odd to me.
*It is even more odd that there are no extrabiblical records, when Acts says that extraordinary miracles were performed through Paul. (Acts19:11-12). Some Jews tried to exorcise evil spirits by invoking the name of Jesus. The evil spirits knew the difference between them and Paul and beat the Jews up. Naturally, this caused some consternation among the inhabitants of Ephesus, not to mention terror. Believers came out of the woodwork and confessed their past associations with sorcery. Then there was a public scroll burning of extremely valuable magic texts. Too bad Paul didn't just simply tell them their magic books had no power to do anything, evil or good. But he couldn't do that, could he? He had set himself up as having powers greater than theirs.
To be continued.
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
What happened on Sunday morning part 3
What final messages did Jesus give to the disciples after his resurrection?
*Mark: (not in earliest manuscripts) when he appeared to the eleven as they were eating (in Jerusalem)-" Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." In Jesus's name they would drive out demons, speak in new tongues, pick up snakes, drink poison, and heal sick people.
*Matthew: (on the mountain in galilee?) Jesus said "go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. Surely I am with you to the very end of the age."
*Luke: (in Jerusalem) Jesus said "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations...I am going to send you what my father has promised but stay in the city intil you have been clothed with power from on high." (No baptism mentioned.)
*John:(by the sea of Tiberias after eating a breakfast of fish) Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep then prophesizes about Peter's future. Then he says "follow me!" Nothing about preaching to all nations, miracles, or baptism. He also implies that he will return from an unspecified location.
What was the last sight of Jesus?
*Mark: After the final message, Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat at the right hand of god. How does the author know this? Does god have hands?
*Matthew: No mention of anything at all happening to Jesus after his final message.
*Luke: Jesus led the disciples from Jerusalem to the vicinity of Bethany and was taken up into heaven.
*John: No mention of anything happening to Jesus after his final message.
Acts, supposedly a continuation of Luke, has Jesus sticking around for forty days before he is taken up and hidden by a cloud. Then two men in white, presumably angels, tell the disciples Jesus is in heaven, but he will come back. Matthew, Mark and Luke do not speak of a return. Other New Testament books speak of Jesus being raised from the dead but give no details. Many passages in the gospels show that the authors believed in resurrection of the dead and have Jesus talking about the resurrection of the righteous, but they also show there were factions of Jews who did not believe this.
What does an empty tomb mean? Only one thing: there is no body there. It doesn't tell you how, when, where, or why. The story in John actually gives the most likely explanation, if a man Jesus actually died and was laid in a tomb. "They took his body and didn't tell us." Christians like to say nobody else's tomb is empty, but that's not true at all. Plenty of tombs are empty for various reasons, usually becuse the body was moved. As simple as that.
Things to remember about these stories: They do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses or to be inspired by god. We don't know who wrote them. There is no knowledge or indication of the year this happened, so it can't be pinned down in history. The stories are written in the third person, told as if these things happened to other people. They have a limited omnicient perspective, being able to show the actions words and feelings of separate people in separate places, but they don't know exactly when or how Jesus was "raised from the dead." That part is left mysterious and magical..
Where is Jesus's tomb supposed to have been?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_Tomb
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tomb
More: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus
Edited
*Mark: (not in earliest manuscripts) when he appeared to the eleven as they were eating (in Jerusalem)-" Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." In Jesus's name they would drive out demons, speak in new tongues, pick up snakes, drink poison, and heal sick people.
*Matthew: (on the mountain in galilee?) Jesus said "go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. Surely I am with you to the very end of the age."
*Luke: (in Jerusalem) Jesus said "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations...I am going to send you what my father has promised but stay in the city intil you have been clothed with power from on high." (No baptism mentioned.)
*John:(by the sea of Tiberias after eating a breakfast of fish) Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep then prophesizes about Peter's future. Then he says "follow me!" Nothing about preaching to all nations, miracles, or baptism. He also implies that he will return from an unspecified location.
What was the last sight of Jesus?
*Mark: After the final message, Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat at the right hand of god. How does the author know this? Does god have hands?
*Matthew: No mention of anything at all happening to Jesus after his final message.
*Luke: Jesus led the disciples from Jerusalem to the vicinity of Bethany and was taken up into heaven.
*John: No mention of anything happening to Jesus after his final message.
Acts, supposedly a continuation of Luke, has Jesus sticking around for forty days before he is taken up and hidden by a cloud. Then two men in white, presumably angels, tell the disciples Jesus is in heaven, but he will come back. Matthew, Mark and Luke do not speak of a return. Other New Testament books speak of Jesus being raised from the dead but give no details. Many passages in the gospels show that the authors believed in resurrection of the dead and have Jesus talking about the resurrection of the righteous, but they also show there were factions of Jews who did not believe this.
What does an empty tomb mean? Only one thing: there is no body there. It doesn't tell you how, when, where, or why. The story in John actually gives the most likely explanation, if a man Jesus actually died and was laid in a tomb. "They took his body and didn't tell us." Christians like to say nobody else's tomb is empty, but that's not true at all. Plenty of tombs are empty for various reasons, usually becuse the body was moved. As simple as that.
Things to remember about these stories: They do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses or to be inspired by god. We don't know who wrote them. There is no knowledge or indication of the year this happened, so it can't be pinned down in history. The stories are written in the third person, told as if these things happened to other people. They have a limited omnicient perspective, being able to show the actions words and feelings of separate people in separate places, but they don't know exactly when or how Jesus was "raised from the dead." That part is left mysterious and magical..
Where is Jesus's tomb supposed to have been?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_Tomb
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tomb
More: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus
Edited
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Galatians chapter 3 part 4
*Now we finish the chapter, starting at verse 26. The Jews have been released from the prison of the law, what about everyone else? Now, Paul says, every single person who has faith in christ is a child of god. Everyone who has been baptized has clothed themselves with christ. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female." Paul is saying that distinctions of ethnicity, social status, and gender don't matter. "If you belong to christ, you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise."
*There Is a question I have now that may be answered in the rest of Galatians. We'll see.
What are christians heirs of, exactly? What is this promise, this inheritance? So far, we have not had an explanation of this in Galatians. Look back to god's promises to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, 17. They are: Abraham will have many descendants, his descendants will be given the land of Canaan, and El/yahweh would be his god. That's basically it in a nutshell. There is never any mention of any christ figure, any punishment for sin with redemption, or any eternal life package. Christians obviously didn't inherit the land of Canaan. But they did inherit Yahweh as their god. Yahweh used to be a one nation god, but now he is not. Is that what Paul means?
In Genesis 12:2-3 god says to Abraham, "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Is that the promise Paul is referring to? Is he saying christians will be a blessing to the world and that whoever blesses them will be blessed, and whoever curses them will be cursed?
*Also, about "Abraham's seed." Paul claimed the word seed meant one person- christ. Now he is using the word seed to mean all the people who believe in the christ. Paul is playing fast and loose with his definitions, isn't he? We can't fault him too much. The whole Bible plays with words right and left, using puns, innuendoes, metaphors and similes, and alternate meanings. Paul is just following in the path of those that have gone before. It wouldn't matter, if the Bible was just literature. But, if we are supposed to take it as a guide to reality, we should be able to pin down exactly what is meant.
*It's interesting that this passage clearly supports baptism as essential to being "clothed with christ." That is one of the fundamental teachings of the church I belonged to. It is one teaching of theirs that I would say follows what the bible actually teaches. Too bad, I don't believe the bible has any real authority to tell anybody anything.
*I still don't get why the gentiles need faith in Jesus to become god's children. Why can't they go the direct route like Abraham and just have faith in god. It would be less complicated. Still, that would not make it more true.
*There Is a question I have now that may be answered in the rest of Galatians. We'll see.
What are christians heirs of, exactly? What is this promise, this inheritance? So far, we have not had an explanation of this in Galatians. Look back to god's promises to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, 17. They are: Abraham will have many descendants, his descendants will be given the land of Canaan, and El/yahweh would be his god. That's basically it in a nutshell. There is never any mention of any christ figure, any punishment for sin with redemption, or any eternal life package. Christians obviously didn't inherit the land of Canaan. But they did inherit Yahweh as their god. Yahweh used to be a one nation god, but now he is not. Is that what Paul means?
In Genesis 12:2-3 god says to Abraham, "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Is that the promise Paul is referring to? Is he saying christians will be a blessing to the world and that whoever blesses them will be blessed, and whoever curses them will be cursed?
*Also, about "Abraham's seed." Paul claimed the word seed meant one person- christ. Now he is using the word seed to mean all the people who believe in the christ. Paul is playing fast and loose with his definitions, isn't he? We can't fault him too much. The whole Bible plays with words right and left, using puns, innuendoes, metaphors and similes, and alternate meanings. Paul is just following in the path of those that have gone before. It wouldn't matter, if the Bible was just literature. But, if we are supposed to take it as a guide to reality, we should be able to pin down exactly what is meant.
*It's interesting that this passage clearly supports baptism as essential to being "clothed with christ." That is one of the fundamental teachings of the church I belonged to. It is one teaching of theirs that I would say follows what the bible actually teaches. Too bad, I don't believe the bible has any real authority to tell anybody anything.
*I still don't get why the gentiles need faith in Jesus to become god's children. Why can't they go the direct route like Abraham and just have faith in god. It would be less complicated. Still, that would not make it more true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)