What did we learn when we read 1 Peter? The author identifies himself as Peter at the beginning and mentions two traditional companions of Peter at the end, Silas and Mark. However, he never mentions anything Peter did or said in the gospel stories, Acts, or Paul's writings. He only says he was a witness to Christ's suffering. It is unclear to me if that is supposed to be literal or metaphorical.
No other New Testament people are mentioned, except Jesus. The author does not claim to be writing the words of god or to be inspired. At the end, it is implied that Silas did the actual physical writing and Peter dictated. The letter claims to be written to Believers in the region of Anatolia/ modern Turkey. This letter actually calls believers christians, which no other other New Testament writer did, except the author of Acts. A phrase at the end of the letter implies it is coming from Rome, but does not directly say that. No other New Testament places are mentioned.
There are no New Testament events mentioned except the crucifixion of Christ. The only Old Testament event mentioned is the story of Noah's flood. Besides Noah, only Abraham and Sarah are mentioned. Several Old Testament scriptures are quoted, sometimes differently than what is found in my Old Testament, and often out of context, as usual.
The author does not seem to be promoting any departure or separation from Judaism. It is clear that he assumes his readers are familiar with Jewish scriptures, which makes them exiled Jews or Gentile followers of Yahweh. It could be a combination of both.
There are no deeds, words, or teachings, of Jesus recorded in this letter. I find that particularly strange from someone who was supposedly his constant companion for one to three years. There are no mentions of any Christian rituals besides baptism, which many people forget was a Jewish ritual before it became a christian one. Angels and the Devil are mentioned. Heaven is waiting.
Unique to this book is the teaching that after Jesus was crucified, he went to the realm of the dead and preached the gospel to the souls that had been imprisoned there since the flood. It has supposedly already happened, not something that will happen in the future as some groups teach. In this book, Jesus is not the high priest of the heavenly temple, but simultaneously its cornerstone and capstone. He is also a stumbling block to nonbelievers. Believers are living stones in this spiritual house, and a holy priesthood. Biblical authors do not have any qualms about mixing metaphors. Jesus is also called the lamb of god, without blemish, chosen before the creation of the world.
To be fair, positive things like hospitality and love are also taught. Malice, deceit, hypocrisy, and slander are not acceptable. These Christians are urged not to repay evil with evil or insult with insult.
The theme of the book appears to be salvation through submission and obedience to all authority, the ultimate authority being god, of course. The reward for obedience is a "crown of glory that will never fade away." The reader is told to expect and rejoice in suffering as a christian, especially if it is for doing good. All this suffering is supposed to be for a short time because "the end of all things is near."
Next, we will look at 2 Peter.
Showing posts with label christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christianity. Show all posts
Sunday, June 16, 2019
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Church of Christ statistics
In case you are new here, I attend a church of Christ congregation with my family. My husband is the only one of them who knows I am an atheist. We don't talk about it because it upsets him. Recently, over on the Patheos blog Roll To Disbelieve, there has been a conversation about the decline in Christianity. I got curious and did some simple research on the churches of Christ in the United States.
This article in the Christian Chronicle, a church of Christ newspaper, gives an historical overview up to 2009. The statistics are routinely compiled by 21st Century Christian, a Church of Christ publishing company: https://christianchronicle.org/church-in-america-marked-by-decline/
This article in the Christian Chronicle, a church of Christ newspaper, gives an historical overview up to 2009. The statistics are routinely compiled by 21st Century Christian, a Church of Christ publishing company: https://christianchronicle.org/church-in-america-marked-by-decline/
Notice that the decline began after the peak in 2003, when it is reported that the group keeping the statistics decided to become hard-nosed and eliminate instrumental congregations from the ranks. This would not fully account for the decline in the number of congregations, but maybe a large number of attendees, because a few of the rare mega churches in the denomination are instrumental. Even when only non-instrumental congregations were counted, the numbers were still creeping down through to 2009, as shown in the article.
According to an addendum to the article, in 2012, the decision to dismiss instrumental churches from the ranks was reversed. However that reversal was obviously not permanent. The 2018 report includes only a cappella congregations. That is found here: https://www.21stcc.com/pdfs/ccusa_stats_sheet.pdf
After reviewing the statistics freely available, I have found that number of counted congregations has shrunk by about 9% since the 2003 peak, at an average rate of about 79 a year. The number of total members, which means baptized believers on the rolls, has decreased by about 12% over the last 15 years. The number of total adherents on the congregations' rolls, which includes non baptized children, has also decreased by about 13%.
The average attendance over just the last three years, state by state on this document, https://www.21stcc.com/pdfs/PDF_Sample_1.pdf has decreased by as low as 3% in bible belt areas to up to 8% in places like California and Colorado. The attendance in Maine was down 15%, but its churches are historically small.
These numbers seem to show that most of the gains since 1980 have been lost. If this trend continues, in another decade church of Christ numbers could approach the levels seen about 1950. I have no doubts at all that this decline is due to the effects of the expansion of the internet, the effects of social media, and the politicization of religion.
(I previously commented about these statistics on the Roll to Disbelieve blog.This post is a cleaned up version.)
The average attendance over just the last three years, state by state on this document, https://www.21stcc.com/pdfs/PDF_Sample_1.pdf has decreased by as low as 3% in bible belt areas to up to 8% in places like California and Colorado. The attendance in Maine was down 15%, but its churches are historically small.
These numbers seem to show that most of the gains since 1980 have been lost. If this trend continues, in another decade church of Christ numbers could approach the levels seen about 1950. I have no doubts at all that this decline is due to the effects of the expansion of the internet, the effects of social media, and the politicization of religion.
(I previously commented about these statistics on the Roll to Disbelieve blog.This post is a cleaned up version.)
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Titus part two
After telling Titus to appoint elders in every town in Crete, he proceeds to explain the qualifications of an elder. These qualifications are still referred to today, when appointing elders, especially in fundamentalist churches. However, the methods for appointing the elders often differ greatly. In churches of christ, elders are often chosen and voted for by the members of the congregation, under the oversight of the current elders. Depending on the strictness of the congregation, the voters may consist of only males, deacons, or current elders. The congregations I have attended generally open the process to every baptized member of the congregation.
Chapter 1, verse 6, tells us "an elder must be blameless, the husband of only one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Let's talk about the wife first. Even though this passage does not say the wife must be a believer, churches of christ require it. I don't know much about what other protestant churches require of their elders, but I imagine there are a lot of similarities. The elder is often chosen with great consideration put on the reputation of his wife. Also, the elder's wife often finds herself in a position of unspoken authority by virtue of her husband's standing in the community. She has her husband's ear, so she is often told things that might not reach him otherwise. She is looked up to by the other women of the congregation. She is also expected to be "blameless", a good example of wifehood and motherhood, and a kind of leader among the women of the congregation. She often finds herself required, or expected, to teach and organise other women. She is called upon to lead public prayers when women meet together. These are things not found in the scriptures, but they occur nevertheless.
The "husband of one wife" requirement means that congregations reject the appointment of a single man. Also, Churches of christ, and other protestant churches, do not usually accept divorcees or widowers as elders, even when remarried. There are a few exceptions. Some say one is one and no more. Others say one at a time is acceptable, depending on the individual circumstances.
As a reminder, I speak from over forty years experience in fundamentalist protestant christianity, specifically mainstream church of Christ. My husband was nominated to be an elder, two years ago. I told him to turn it down. His response was, "Are you telling me or asking me?" I said I was telling him. I refused to be an elder's wife. Without my cooperation, he could not be an elder. Plus, he was not qualified by their standards anyway, because I am an atheist.
The believing children requirement has been a tricky one, even harder for christians to distinctly define. How much belief? Just unqualified assent, or public confession of belief and baptism? Is this just for minor children residing in the home, or does it include adult children? Does it mean all the children of the candidate? Is one believing child enough, or must there be more than one because of the word children?
Then there is the requirement that an elder's children cannot be open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Again, is this about minor children, or all children? How wild? How disobedient? Disobedient to whom? This seems to be a regulation that naturally finds itself broken regularly. When children find themselves in the spotlight of scrutinization, they rarely measure up to anything close to perfection. It's too much to expect, and rebellion often occurs. In my experience, most church of christ elders' children are a mixed bag. An elder may have three children, one devout, one halfhearted, and one living a lifestyle totally unacceptable by church of christ standards. This doesn't seem to matter in today's church. When I was a teenager, churches of christ were generally more strict. I think conditions have relaxed somewhat out of necessity. Else, who would be qualified to lead?
Chapter 1, verse 6, tells us "an elder must be blameless, the husband of only one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Let's talk about the wife first. Even though this passage does not say the wife must be a believer, churches of christ require it. I don't know much about what other protestant churches require of their elders, but I imagine there are a lot of similarities. The elder is often chosen with great consideration put on the reputation of his wife. Also, the elder's wife often finds herself in a position of unspoken authority by virtue of her husband's standing in the community. She has her husband's ear, so she is often told things that might not reach him otherwise. She is looked up to by the other women of the congregation. She is also expected to be "blameless", a good example of wifehood and motherhood, and a kind of leader among the women of the congregation. She often finds herself required, or expected, to teach and organise other women. She is called upon to lead public prayers when women meet together. These are things not found in the scriptures, but they occur nevertheless.
The "husband of one wife" requirement means that congregations reject the appointment of a single man. Also, Churches of christ, and other protestant churches, do not usually accept divorcees or widowers as elders, even when remarried. There are a few exceptions. Some say one is one and no more. Others say one at a time is acceptable, depending on the individual circumstances.
As a reminder, I speak from over forty years experience in fundamentalist protestant christianity, specifically mainstream church of Christ. My husband was nominated to be an elder, two years ago. I told him to turn it down. His response was, "Are you telling me or asking me?" I said I was telling him. I refused to be an elder's wife. Without my cooperation, he could not be an elder. Plus, he was not qualified by their standards anyway, because I am an atheist.
The believing children requirement has been a tricky one, even harder for christians to distinctly define. How much belief? Just unqualified assent, or public confession of belief and baptism? Is this just for minor children residing in the home, or does it include adult children? Does it mean all the children of the candidate? Is one believing child enough, or must there be more than one because of the word children?
Then there is the requirement that an elder's children cannot be open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Again, is this about minor children, or all children? How wild? How disobedient? Disobedient to whom? This seems to be a regulation that naturally finds itself broken regularly. When children find themselves in the spotlight of scrutinization, they rarely measure up to anything close to perfection. It's too much to expect, and rebellion often occurs. In my experience, most church of christ elders' children are a mixed bag. An elder may have three children, one devout, one halfhearted, and one living a lifestyle totally unacceptable by church of christ standards. This doesn't seem to matter in today's church. When I was a teenager, churches of christ were generally more strict. I think conditions have relaxed somewhat out of necessity. Else, who would be qualified to lead?
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Grace, part two
For your reading, I present the Wikipeda article on Grace in Christianity. The church of christ stance would be considered arminian.
In protestant christianity, grace is often defined as unmerited favor. You get something good from god that you did not earn. Even more than that, you get something good that you didn't deserve. The implication being that you actually deserved something bad, but you got something good instead. What do you deserve? Condemnation. Death and destruction. No ifs ands or buts.
God's gracious act to the human race was supposed to be sending Jesus to die in your place, even though he didn't deserve to die, you did. You filthy trash. Wait a minute, that's quite offensive. I wouldn't want to be called filthy trash even if it were true. Do unto others. Tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to spread a little of god's grace around and I'm not going to verbally condemn you, even if I believe you probably are going to hell. I'm going to be gracious because I feel sorry for you. There is no point in making you experience hell any sooner than necessary. We would be in the same sinking boat if I hadn't let Jesus save me. "But for the grace of god, there go I." These kinds of christians are often labelled "liberal."
There are some christians who don't want to be gracious. They want to call a spade a spade and an unsaved sinner an unsaved sinner. They want to prophetically call out the sins that the people are committing. They fear for your immortal soul. So they give you a little taste of coming fire and brimstone, hoping you will learn to fear for your own soul, so they won't have to. No pain no gain. These are the people that the gracious christians call "legalistic."
What does Jesus have to say about grace in the gospels? Nothing. Zip. Nada. I find that quite odd. However, the letters ascribed to Paul have a whopping 89 instances of the usage of the word grace.
The word grace occurs in the gospels four times. This is the same exact greek word that Paul uses.
*Luke 2:40- (speaking of the child Jesus) "he was filled with wisdom and the grace of god was upon him." This is confusing. Would a christian say even Jesus did not merit gods favor? Are there different kinds of god's grace?
*John 1:14 (speaking of Jesus) "The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only who came from the father, full of grace and truth." Does it make sense here to call grace unmerited favor? Clearly it means something else, but what? Does it mean grace is a quantity of unmerited favor that Jesus can dispense?
*John 1:16 &17(speaking of Jesus). "From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." But what is grace? If Jesus gave/gives grace, how come he never talked about grace in the only accounts of his words and life?
Here is my take on christian grace: The greek word used in the New Testament is charis. This is defined as a blessing, favor, or kindness. It is where we get our word charity from. There is no implication of being undeserving in the original word at all. In the Luke passage, we might just say god blessed Jesus. (Though what constitutes a blessing isn't exactly clear either) However, christianity has taken Paul's statements in his letters, that we don't work for or earn god's grace through merit, and extended them to mean that noone deserves god's grace, which they have equated with salvation and eternal life. They have equated merit with deserving. Therefore, since noone can do anything to merit god's favor, christianity says everyone who receives salvation is undeserving. In Romans 1:18-32 there are those who are even more undeserving than others. They don't get salvation. According to this passage, they merit death. If you don't fall on the list of the condemned, you qualify for salvation, but don't forget you didn't earn it.
It doesn't seem right to me that you can earn hell but not earn heaven.
In protestant christianity, grace is often defined as unmerited favor. You get something good from god that you did not earn. Even more than that, you get something good that you didn't deserve. The implication being that you actually deserved something bad, but you got something good instead. What do you deserve? Condemnation. Death and destruction. No ifs ands or buts.
God's gracious act to the human race was supposed to be sending Jesus to die in your place, even though he didn't deserve to die, you did. You filthy trash. Wait a minute, that's quite offensive. I wouldn't want to be called filthy trash even if it were true. Do unto others. Tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to spread a little of god's grace around and I'm not going to verbally condemn you, even if I believe you probably are going to hell. I'm going to be gracious because I feel sorry for you. There is no point in making you experience hell any sooner than necessary. We would be in the same sinking boat if I hadn't let Jesus save me. "But for the grace of god, there go I." These kinds of christians are often labelled "liberal."
There are some christians who don't want to be gracious. They want to call a spade a spade and an unsaved sinner an unsaved sinner. They want to prophetically call out the sins that the people are committing. They fear for your immortal soul. So they give you a little taste of coming fire and brimstone, hoping you will learn to fear for your own soul, so they won't have to. No pain no gain. These are the people that the gracious christians call "legalistic."
What does Jesus have to say about grace in the gospels? Nothing. Zip. Nada. I find that quite odd. However, the letters ascribed to Paul have a whopping 89 instances of the usage of the word grace.
The word grace occurs in the gospels four times. This is the same exact greek word that Paul uses.
*Luke 2:40- (speaking of the child Jesus) "he was filled with wisdom and the grace of god was upon him." This is confusing. Would a christian say even Jesus did not merit gods favor? Are there different kinds of god's grace?
*John 1:14 (speaking of Jesus) "The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only who came from the father, full of grace and truth." Does it make sense here to call grace unmerited favor? Clearly it means something else, but what? Does it mean grace is a quantity of unmerited favor that Jesus can dispense?
*John 1:16 &17(speaking of Jesus). "From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." But what is grace? If Jesus gave/gives grace, how come he never talked about grace in the only accounts of his words and life?
Here is my take on christian grace: The greek word used in the New Testament is charis. This is defined as a blessing, favor, or kindness. It is where we get our word charity from. There is no implication of being undeserving in the original word at all. In the Luke passage, we might just say god blessed Jesus. (Though what constitutes a blessing isn't exactly clear either) However, christianity has taken Paul's statements in his letters, that we don't work for or earn god's grace through merit, and extended them to mean that noone deserves god's grace, which they have equated with salvation and eternal life. They have equated merit with deserving. Therefore, since noone can do anything to merit god's favor, christianity says everyone who receives salvation is undeserving. In Romans 1:18-32 there are those who are even more undeserving than others. They don't get salvation. According to this passage, they merit death. If you don't fall on the list of the condemned, you qualify for salvation, but don't forget you didn't earn it.
It doesn't seem right to me that you can earn hell but not earn heaven.
Thursday, March 15, 2018
What is Grace? Part one.
Grace is a word that is often bandied about in Christianity today. It irritates the heck out of me. Why? Because there is no concrete definition. It is feel-good christianese. Whole books could be written about the various theological meanings of grace. Here is dictionary.com's definition of grace: ( link) Read every definition. In my mind, most of it is just word salad. Almost every definition of grace has a clearer synonym. Notice that grace is not something that can be pinned down. It is ephemeral, a purely subjective and invisible quality. Its presence is guessed at by 1. how well a person does life, and/or 2. how well life treats or has treated them, 3. their unearned, desireable qualities and advantages.
Wikipedia has a few explanations of the theology of grace. First look at what it says about Divine Grace. If you are more enlightened than you were a moment ago, I congratulate you. Each paragraph in that article differed on its explanation of what grace actually is. Sometimes even one sentence to the next differs in the explanation of grace. Unsurprisingly, Catholics and Protestants disagree on the definition.
Very surprisingly, someone has quoted Bill Gothard's definition of grace in the Wikipedia article. Of all the quotable christians in the world and throughout history, in the nonexistent god's name, WHY? Many Christians claim grace to be the opposite of legalism. Mr. Gothard's organization has promoted some of the most virulent teachings of christian legalism over the last few decades.
Let's look at the defining first paragraph of the Wikipedia article. First, grace is said to be "the divine influence which operates in humans to regenerate and sanctify, to inspire virtuous impulses, and to impart strength to resist trial and endure temptation." To boil it down, grace is that quality that keeps some people from acting like jerks when everyone around them is. This is said to have a divine source. Baloney. Some people have been lucky enough to get the right combination of genes, family background, and life circumstances, to engender patience, tolerance, and mercy in their attitudes. They are said to be "gracious." Other people learn those qualities through experience. Other people deliberately set out to cultivate those qualities in themselves. No gods required.
The second part of Wikipedia's definition of grace is "an individual virtue or excellence of divine origin." This could refer to innate desireable personality traits, unique talents, or personal beauty, in an individual. A person who has these things is often considered favored by god, or the gods. These "graces" are bestowed upon them from on high. They didn't do anything to deserve them, they are arbitrary divine gifts. People thus favored could still be jerks. Do you think the idea that beautiful, talented, or wealthy people are favored by god/the gods has died out? It's been around a long time. Just read about the ancient minor goddesses called the graces. Some of the ancient graces include: splendor, mirth, good cheer, blossoms, happiness, banquet, night festivities, sound, light, growth, leader, persuasion, hallucination (? Maybe that means dreams and visions) and beauty. It appears that the visual representation of the graces has evolved into one of three naked young women.
Scroll down the Wikipedia article on Divine Grace till you get to the section on grace in scripture. There you will see that the New Testament word in Greek is Karis. It is generally translated as graciousness of manner or act. The Old Testament Hebrew word is chen. That is defined as favor, charm, and the moral quality of kindness.
Do we know exactly what grace is yet? At the moment, It seems safe to say that grace is an unmeasurable quality that is desirable but not universally available. So, there must be reasons some people have got it and others don't, right? Well, someone somewhere decided that that certain something must be a gift from a god or gods.
More to come.
Wikipedia has a few explanations of the theology of grace. First look at what it says about Divine Grace. If you are more enlightened than you were a moment ago, I congratulate you. Each paragraph in that article differed on its explanation of what grace actually is. Sometimes even one sentence to the next differs in the explanation of grace. Unsurprisingly, Catholics and Protestants disagree on the definition.
Very surprisingly, someone has quoted Bill Gothard's definition of grace in the Wikipedia article. Of all the quotable christians in the world and throughout history, in the nonexistent god's name, WHY? Many Christians claim grace to be the opposite of legalism. Mr. Gothard's organization has promoted some of the most virulent teachings of christian legalism over the last few decades.
Let's look at the defining first paragraph of the Wikipedia article. First, grace is said to be "the divine influence which operates in humans to regenerate and sanctify, to inspire virtuous impulses, and to impart strength to resist trial and endure temptation." To boil it down, grace is that quality that keeps some people from acting like jerks when everyone around them is. This is said to have a divine source. Baloney. Some people have been lucky enough to get the right combination of genes, family background, and life circumstances, to engender patience, tolerance, and mercy in their attitudes. They are said to be "gracious." Other people learn those qualities through experience. Other people deliberately set out to cultivate those qualities in themselves. No gods required.
The second part of Wikipedia's definition of grace is "an individual virtue or excellence of divine origin." This could refer to innate desireable personality traits, unique talents, or personal beauty, in an individual. A person who has these things is often considered favored by god, or the gods. These "graces" are bestowed upon them from on high. They didn't do anything to deserve them, they are arbitrary divine gifts. People thus favored could still be jerks. Do you think the idea that beautiful, talented, or wealthy people are favored by god/the gods has died out? It's been around a long time. Just read about the ancient minor goddesses called the graces. Some of the ancient graces include: splendor, mirth, good cheer, blossoms, happiness, banquet, night festivities, sound, light, growth, leader, persuasion, hallucination (? Maybe that means dreams and visions) and beauty. It appears that the visual representation of the graces has evolved into one of three naked young women.
Scroll down the Wikipedia article on Divine Grace till you get to the section on grace in scripture. There you will see that the New Testament word in Greek is Karis. It is generally translated as graciousness of manner or act. The Old Testament Hebrew word is chen. That is defined as favor, charm, and the moral quality of kindness.
Do we know exactly what grace is yet? At the moment, It seems safe to say that grace is an unmeasurable quality that is desirable but not universally available. So, there must be reasons some people have got it and others don't, right? Well, someone somewhere decided that that certain something must be a gift from a god or gods.
More to come.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
Religious survey report
A link to a recent religious survey report showing the demographics of religion in America:
https://www.prri.org/research/american-religious-landscape-christian-religiously-unaffiliated/
https://www.prri.org/research/american-religious-landscape-christian-religiously-unaffiliated/
Friday, April 14, 2017
Galatians chapter 4 part 2
*In verses 21-31, Paul is trying to redeem his metaphor of God and God's relationship to the jews and gentiles by comparing it to Abraham's relationship to his two sons, born of Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was a slave, Sarah was a free woman. Abraham's son by Hagar was "born in the ordinary way." That is Abraham consented to have sex with his wife's slave, at his wife's urging. Whether the slave consented doesn't enter into the matter. The child that was born would have been a slave also. The children of slave women, even by their masters, were slaves. This has been a fact of slavery even up to the age of American enslavement of Africans. Let's be clear, "Biblical slavery" was not any different than the slavery that was fought against in more modern times. It certainly wasn't a kinder more humane slavery. Slaves were only treated as well as their masters wanted to treat them.
*According to Paul, Sarah's son was not born in the ordinary way, but was born as the result of a promise. Well, folks, in case you didn't know, there is only one way for children to be born. That is pretty ordinary, promise or no promise. Abraham was a man. Sarah was a woman. If they actually lived and had a child, he was born in the ordinary way. What did god do to cause this birth? Guide the sperm to the right egg? Produce a one time egg in a dried up old woman? Let's not forget that Sarah was ninety years old and have a little chuckle at the thought. Human female fertility ends well before the age of sixty. If I found out I was pregnant at ninety, I would probably die from the shock. I would probably die laughing if a 100 year old man tried to have sex with me when I am 90.
*Paul says, in a round about way, that his metaphor is equating the children of the slave woman Hagar with the present day Israelites, who are children of the covenant friom Mount Sinai (the law of Moses). This is how the metaphor works so far: Abraham= father/god. Hagar= Slave Mother/Mount Sinai/Jerusalem. Hagar's children=Jews/slave children born in the ordinary way. This is turning the tables on the Israelite identity. The Israelites banked on being the legitimate children of god and Abraham, the children of the promise. Paul is saying that may have been the physical reality, but not the spiritual one. I'm sure this did not go over well with the Jews.
*Paul goes on to say that there is a "Jerusalem that is above" that is free. If you follow the metaphor, Sarah=Free (non-slave) mother/spiritual Jerusalem. Isaac=Galatian christians/ gentile christians/ all christians/ children of promise born by the power of the spirit. In the Abrahamic story, the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the spirit. "It is the same now." Wow. Is Paul actually saying the Jews are persecuting the christians? Well, he did it himself once, didn't he? (Gal. 1:13) Wait. It gets even more interesting.
*Paul goes on to ask, "What does the scripture say?" Then he claims scripture says," Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son" (!!!) It's true. Genesis 21:10 does say this. It is Sarah speaking, not God. Paul knows this. He goes on to say "we" (christians) are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman. Do you realize what Paul is implying here, in light of his extended metaphor? Spiritual Jerusalem (Sarah) advocates getting rid of physical Jerusalem's (Hagar's) children (the jews) in favor of her own children (christians.) He says the slave woman's son (Jews) will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son (christians.)
I'm blown away by today's reading. This is something I never heard in church. Sure we read this passage, but it was usually not dissected the way I've done here. Hagar was usually associated with every non believer, not just Jews. But I think it is quite clear that Paul is advocating a complete separation with Judaism, even going so far as to say Jews will not recieve the promised inheritance. We haven't been told what that inheritance is yet, but maybe that is to come.
*According to Paul, Sarah's son was not born in the ordinary way, but was born as the result of a promise. Well, folks, in case you didn't know, there is only one way for children to be born. That is pretty ordinary, promise or no promise. Abraham was a man. Sarah was a woman. If they actually lived and had a child, he was born in the ordinary way. What did god do to cause this birth? Guide the sperm to the right egg? Produce a one time egg in a dried up old woman? Let's not forget that Sarah was ninety years old and have a little chuckle at the thought. Human female fertility ends well before the age of sixty. If I found out I was pregnant at ninety, I would probably die from the shock. I would probably die laughing if a 100 year old man tried to have sex with me when I am 90.
*Paul says, in a round about way, that his metaphor is equating the children of the slave woman Hagar with the present day Israelites, who are children of the covenant friom Mount Sinai (the law of Moses). This is how the metaphor works so far: Abraham= father/god. Hagar= Slave Mother/Mount Sinai/Jerusalem. Hagar's children=Jews/slave children born in the ordinary way. This is turning the tables on the Israelite identity. The Israelites banked on being the legitimate children of god and Abraham, the children of the promise. Paul is saying that may have been the physical reality, but not the spiritual one. I'm sure this did not go over well with the Jews.
*Paul goes on to say that there is a "Jerusalem that is above" that is free. If you follow the metaphor, Sarah=Free (non-slave) mother/spiritual Jerusalem. Isaac=Galatian christians/ gentile christians/ all christians/ children of promise born by the power of the spirit. In the Abrahamic story, the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the spirit. "It is the same now." Wow. Is Paul actually saying the Jews are persecuting the christians? Well, he did it himself once, didn't he? (Gal. 1:13) Wait. It gets even more interesting.
*Paul goes on to ask, "What does the scripture say?" Then he claims scripture says," Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son" (!!!) It's true. Genesis 21:10 does say this. It is Sarah speaking, not God. Paul knows this. He goes on to say "we" (christians) are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman. Do you realize what Paul is implying here, in light of his extended metaphor? Spiritual Jerusalem (Sarah) advocates getting rid of physical Jerusalem's (Hagar's) children (the jews) in favor of her own children (christians.) He says the slave woman's son (Jews) will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son (christians.)
I'm blown away by today's reading. This is something I never heard in church. Sure we read this passage, but it was usually not dissected the way I've done here. Hagar was usually associated with every non believer, not just Jews. But I think it is quite clear that Paul is advocating a complete separation with Judaism, even going so far as to say Jews will not recieve the promised inheritance. We haven't been told what that inheritance is yet, but maybe that is to come.
Monday, January 16, 2017
Jesus and Gentiles part 1
*In Galatians we see that the salvation of the Gentiles was Paul's mission in life, Peter's was to the Jews. Paul believed he was commissioned to go preach about Jesus to the Gentiles by Jesus himself, in visions and disembodied voices. He believed that following the law of moses couldn't make a person unsinful (righteous). Faith in Jesus is what did that. Therefore, no one, especially not Gentiles, was obligated to follow the law of moses, including circumcision. The gentile part was agreed upon by Peter, James and John after a council in Jerusalem, with no exceptions but remembering to take care of the poor. They agreed that they would go to the Jews and Paul and Barnabas would go to the Gentiles.
*In Acts, we see both Paul and Peter being commissioned by visions to go to the Gentiles. They both tell their stories to the Jews in Jerusalem, who accept them. Also in Acts 11:20, some Greeks are spreading the "good news" about Jesus to the Gentiles in Antioch. Then Barnabas is sent by the Jews in Jerusalem to check out the believers in Antioch. He was pleased by what he saw, so he went to Tarsus to fetch Paul, where he had presumably been staying since he was sent there by the Jerusalem Jews back in Acts 9:30, a different story than the one Paul tells in Galatians. Paul and Barnabas then worked together in Antioch teaching great numbers of people. Eventually, the circumcision question arises, Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem, a council is held, and it is agreed that Gentiles don't have to follow any of the law of moses...except for refraining from eating blood, meat sacrificed to idols, and engaging in sexual immorality.
*Here we have two versions of how Gentiles came to become believers in Jesus, along with many
Jews. Which version is the true one? Or did it happen a totally different way? We know for a fact it had to have begun somehow because the majority of christians today are Gentiles, yet christianity has its roots in Judaism. These stories led me to wonder, what would have happened if Paul and Peter had not supposedly claimed to have had personal revelations concerning the Gentiles? If Jesus actually existed, would his teachings as recorded in the gospels alone have been sufficient to create the worldwide phenomenon of Gentile christianity? What did Jesus have to say about and to Gentiles? Did he advocate eventual disposing of the law of Moses? Why was it necessary for Paul and Peter to get special messages? Was Jesus's message while he was alive not clear on the subject? Over the next few posts, we will look at Jesus's words in the gospel to se if we can answer some of these questions.
*In Acts, we see both Paul and Peter being commissioned by visions to go to the Gentiles. They both tell their stories to the Jews in Jerusalem, who accept them. Also in Acts 11:20, some Greeks are spreading the "good news" about Jesus to the Gentiles in Antioch. Then Barnabas is sent by the Jews in Jerusalem to check out the believers in Antioch. He was pleased by what he saw, so he went to Tarsus to fetch Paul, where he had presumably been staying since he was sent there by the Jerusalem Jews back in Acts 9:30, a different story than the one Paul tells in Galatians. Paul and Barnabas then worked together in Antioch teaching great numbers of people. Eventually, the circumcision question arises, Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem, a council is held, and it is agreed that Gentiles don't have to follow any of the law of moses...except for refraining from eating blood, meat sacrificed to idols, and engaging in sexual immorality.
*Here we have two versions of how Gentiles came to become believers in Jesus, along with many
Jews. Which version is the true one? Or did it happen a totally different way? We know for a fact it had to have begun somehow because the majority of christians today are Gentiles, yet christianity has its roots in Judaism. These stories led me to wonder, what would have happened if Paul and Peter had not supposedly claimed to have had personal revelations concerning the Gentiles? If Jesus actually existed, would his teachings as recorded in the gospels alone have been sufficient to create the worldwide phenomenon of Gentile christianity? What did Jesus have to say about and to Gentiles? Did he advocate eventual disposing of the law of Moses? Why was it necessary for Paul and Peter to get special messages? Was Jesus's message while he was alive not clear on the subject? Over the next few posts, we will look at Jesus's words in the gospel to se if we can answer some of these questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)