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.
Showing posts with label circumcision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label circumcision. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Galatians wrap up
Whew! I am so glad that is over. Galatians was much more complicated than I had realised. Let's summarize:
The Galatians were gentiles that Paul had taught Jesus worship at one time. Paul got news that they were being influenced by Jews teaching that circumcision was necessary to become children of yahweh. Paul declares, through metaphors, that those who follow the law of Moses aren't the true heirs of the promise, but those that have faith like Abraham are. He compares followers of the law to children born in slavery, turning the conventional understanding of Judaism upside down. Then he declares the Galatians free, by virtue of faith, from a law they were never bound to in the first place.
Paul also gives an account of his conversion that is somewhat different from that depicted in the book of Acts. He tells the Galatians that he learned everything about Jesus from personal revelations through visions, not from mere people, especially not those Jews in Jerusalem, who think they are so special. Throughout the whole book we feel an antipathy towards Judaism. Paul even goes so far as to say that Jews are not children of the promise and will not inherit anything if they don't have faith in the cross of Jesus. Plus, if the Jews are so obsessed with circumcision, Paul says they should go one step further and cut it all off.
Last, Paul explains how to tell the difference between people who live by the sinful nature and those who live by the spirit. Just in case those who live by the spirit slip up, the ones who are more spiritual are to help those backsliders see the true path. Along the way, they must keep a steady eye on themselves as well.
This book does not claim to be the word of a God or gods. It is very one sided. We do not know what the Galatians or the Jews thought of what Paul wrote or taught.
I think the book of Jonah will be a nice change of pace.
The Galatians were gentiles that Paul had taught Jesus worship at one time. Paul got news that they were being influenced by Jews teaching that circumcision was necessary to become children of yahweh. Paul declares, through metaphors, that those who follow the law of Moses aren't the true heirs of the promise, but those that have faith like Abraham are. He compares followers of the law to children born in slavery, turning the conventional understanding of Judaism upside down. Then he declares the Galatians free, by virtue of faith, from a law they were never bound to in the first place.
Paul also gives an account of his conversion that is somewhat different from that depicted in the book of Acts. He tells the Galatians that he learned everything about Jesus from personal revelations through visions, not from mere people, especially not those Jews in Jerusalem, who think they are so special. Throughout the whole book we feel an antipathy towards Judaism. Paul even goes so far as to say that Jews are not children of the promise and will not inherit anything if they don't have faith in the cross of Jesus. Plus, if the Jews are so obsessed with circumcision, Paul says they should go one step further and cut it all off.
Last, Paul explains how to tell the difference between people who live by the sinful nature and those who live by the spirit. Just in case those who live by the spirit slip up, the ones who are more spiritual are to help those backsliders see the true path. Along the way, they must keep a steady eye on themselves as well.
This book does not claim to be the word of a God or gods. It is very one sided. We do not know what the Galatians or the Jews thought of what Paul wrote or taught.
I think the book of Jonah will be a nice change of pace.
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
Galatians 6 part 2
*In verse 11 Paul says, "See what large letters I use as I write with my own hand!" This phrase is a non sequiter, stuck in the passage, perhaps to try to prove Paul is the actual author. Other writings ascribed to Paul indicate he had some kind of infirmity or disability. Speculation is that his eyesight was poor.
*Paul returns to the topic of circumcision and continues to discount its proponents. He says they are just circumcised to avoid persecution for identifying with the cross of christ. They don't actually obey the law themselves. The circumcision is a bragging point. Who would brag about being circumcised and why? Well, male Jewish identity was tied to that physical mark. God had given the covenant of circumcision to Abraham as an everlasting covenant. (Gen. 17:13) The descendants of Abraham were God's chosen people. How could they discern who was part of the in crowd otherwise? It seems kind of strange to think that first century males went around looking to see if their acquantances were circumcised. Who would persecute a man for not being circumcised but proclaiming himself a child of Yahweh? Certainly not a gentile.
*I notice that this letter is not directed to women at all. Women in Judaism had no commanded distinguishing feature to proclaim them as children of Yahweh. Women had no everlasting covenant of any kind. They were just fertile ground in which to plant the male seed. Circumcision was none of their business, thank goodness.
* Paul goes on to say that there aren't really any bragging rights inherent in circumcision. (Even though, as a jew, he is circumcised.) Circumcision doesn't mean anything, according to Paul. His bragging rights are in the cross of Jesus, through which the world has been crucified to Paul, and Paul to the world. (It's all about Paul.) So, because some poor guy got himself crucified, Paul has a right to brag. Paul brags because he believes the guy was crucified on behalf of Paul and Paul was "crucified" to the world, even though Paul never met the guy. He learned all about Jesus from visions, not real world experience. He believed his visions, so everyone else must too. I find it reasonable to wonder if the crucifixion only took place in Paul's head. His writings are the probably the earliest writings of Christianity, the gospels being written later. Is the whole thing a creation of Paul's imagination, through some kind of mental illness or brain anomaly?
*The thing that counts, says Paul, is a new creation. (What is a new creation?) Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule....even to the Israel of God. Okay, even Israelites are right, if they agree with Paul.
*Finally Paul tells them that nobody better mess with him, he bears the marks of Jesus on his body. This is interesting. Is he speaking physically or metaphorically? There are various speculations. My study Bible talks of scars and injuries from stonings and other persecutions. I've also heard it said that Paul bore the stigmata of Jesus's crucifixion. There is no way to know for sure. Like many passages in scripture, this statement is rather cryptic.
*Paul returns to the topic of circumcision and continues to discount its proponents. He says they are just circumcised to avoid persecution for identifying with the cross of christ. They don't actually obey the law themselves. The circumcision is a bragging point. Who would brag about being circumcised and why? Well, male Jewish identity was tied to that physical mark. God had given the covenant of circumcision to Abraham as an everlasting covenant. (Gen. 17:13) The descendants of Abraham were God's chosen people. How could they discern who was part of the in crowd otherwise? It seems kind of strange to think that first century males went around looking to see if their acquantances were circumcised. Who would persecute a man for not being circumcised but proclaiming himself a child of Yahweh? Certainly not a gentile.
*I notice that this letter is not directed to women at all. Women in Judaism had no commanded distinguishing feature to proclaim them as children of Yahweh. Women had no everlasting covenant of any kind. They were just fertile ground in which to plant the male seed. Circumcision was none of their business, thank goodness.
* Paul goes on to say that there aren't really any bragging rights inherent in circumcision. (Even though, as a jew, he is circumcised.) Circumcision doesn't mean anything, according to Paul. His bragging rights are in the cross of Jesus, through which the world has been crucified to Paul, and Paul to the world. (It's all about Paul.) So, because some poor guy got himself crucified, Paul has a right to brag. Paul brags because he believes the guy was crucified on behalf of Paul and Paul was "crucified" to the world, even though Paul never met the guy. He learned all about Jesus from visions, not real world experience. He believed his visions, so everyone else must too. I find it reasonable to wonder if the crucifixion only took place in Paul's head. His writings are the probably the earliest writings of Christianity, the gospels being written later. Is the whole thing a creation of Paul's imagination, through some kind of mental illness or brain anomaly?
*The thing that counts, says Paul, is a new creation. (What is a new creation?) Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule....even to the Israel of God. Okay, even Israelites are right, if they agree with Paul.
*Finally Paul tells them that nobody better mess with him, he bears the marks of Jesus on his body. This is interesting. Is he speaking physically or metaphorically? There are various speculations. My study Bible talks of scars and injuries from stonings and other persecutions. I've also heard it said that Paul bore the stigmata of Jesus's crucifixion. There is no way to know for sure. Like many passages in scripture, this statement is rather cryptic.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Galatians chapter 5 part 1
Back to Galatians:
*Paul tells the Galatians that it is for freedom that christ has set them free (from what?), they are not to let themselves be burdened again by the yoke of slavery. Wait. The Galatians are gentiles. They weren't under the yoke of slavery to the law to begin with. I do think Paul has a point when he says they should not try to be justified by the law. But, he says it would alienate them from christ and make them "fall from grace," which is nonsense.
*Again, Paul goes back to stressing that faith is the important thing. Apparently the Jews who were trying to teach these Galatians were advocating circumcision which Paul is adamantly against, because it is part of the slavery of the law. He says circumcision has no value one way or another, if you are in Christ. "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Nice sentiment, but the faith part is not even necessary. People can be loving without it.
*Paul goes on to tell the Galatians they were doing so well until someone (judaizers) kept them from obeying the truth (Paul's version). He says that kind of persuasion doesn't come from "the one who calls you"--presumably christ. How would they have known they were called if Paul didn't give them his version of salvation? He goes on to say that the one who is throwing them into confusion will pay the penalty. But he doesn't say what that penalty is. He also implies that he is being persecuted (by the Jews?) because he doesn't teach circumcision. If he did, noone would be offended at the preaching of the cross. Then, in a fit of pique, Paul wishes those agitators that are promoting circumcision would "go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"
*Paul tells the Galatians they were called to be free (again, from what?). They should use their freedom to serve one another in love, because the entire law can be summed up in one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Really? Paul, have you read the entire law? Where is all the love?
If the Law means that, then why are you against following it? Why does it need to be dismissed? Why have you compared it to slavery? Why does anyone need to be freed from it?
To be continued.
*Paul tells the Galatians that it is for freedom that christ has set them free (from what?), they are not to let themselves be burdened again by the yoke of slavery. Wait. The Galatians are gentiles. They weren't under the yoke of slavery to the law to begin with. I do think Paul has a point when he says they should not try to be justified by the law. But, he says it would alienate them from christ and make them "fall from grace," which is nonsense.
*Again, Paul goes back to stressing that faith is the important thing. Apparently the Jews who were trying to teach these Galatians were advocating circumcision which Paul is adamantly against, because it is part of the slavery of the law. He says circumcision has no value one way or another, if you are in Christ. "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Nice sentiment, but the faith part is not even necessary. People can be loving without it.
*Paul goes on to tell the Galatians they were doing so well until someone (judaizers) kept them from obeying the truth (Paul's version). He says that kind of persuasion doesn't come from "the one who calls you"--presumably christ. How would they have known they were called if Paul didn't give them his version of salvation? He goes on to say that the one who is throwing them into confusion will pay the penalty. But he doesn't say what that penalty is. He also implies that he is being persecuted (by the Jews?) because he doesn't teach circumcision. If he did, noone would be offended at the preaching of the cross. Then, in a fit of pique, Paul wishes those agitators that are promoting circumcision would "go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"
*Paul tells the Galatians they were called to be free (again, from what?). They should use their freedom to serve one another in love, because the entire law can be summed up in one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Really? Paul, have you read the entire law? Where is all the love?
If the Law means that, then why are you against following it? Why does it need to be dismissed? Why have you compared it to slavery? Why does anyone need to be freed from it?
To be continued.
Friday, January 13, 2017
Galatians chapter 2 part 2
*Starting in verse 11 we learn that Peter had been in Antioch with Paul, had been eating with the Gentiles, and had been living like a gentile. In Acts, Peter is not said to have ever been to Antioch, indeed never very far from Jerusalem. In Acts 10, we find a story of Peter experiencing a vision from God which makes it clear that "God accepts men from every nation" including their eating habits. Then Peter goes to Jerusalem and explains his vision to the apostles and other believers. The "circumcised believers" drop all objections to accepting Gentiles. They praise God, saying "So, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18) That sounds like the gentile question is settled, right? This supposedly takes place before Paul and Barnabus go to
Jerusalem in Galatians.
*It is also interesting to note that Acts has Paul and Barnabus travelling to Jerusalem once before the circumcision question arose, in order to take money to the saints in Judea as famine relief during the time of Claudius, which had supposedly been prophesied in Antioch by a man named Agabus. (Acts 11:27-30) while writing Galatians, Paul seems to have forgotten that he had been to Jerusalem with Barnabus before.
*Getting back to Galatians, we see Paul saying that while Peter was in Antioch "certain men came from James." When these Jews arrived, Peter separated himself from the gentiles and attached himself to the Jews because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Other Jews, and even Barnabas followed Peter's example. Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in front of everyone. Why was this even an issue if the passages in Acts 11 about Peter's vision and the Jerusalem Jews acceptance of the gentiles is true? Are these men from James the false brothers that Paul mentions in verse 4? And which James is this? In Acts 12, James the brother of John was executed, some time before the circumcision debacle and the following council in Jerusalem, found in Acts 15. Acts has Peter being bold and visionary, a friend and advocate of the Gentiles. Paul in Galatians has Peter being wishy-washy. There, Paul is the true friend and advocate of the Gentiles.
*The rest of the chapter, presented as part of Paul's speech rebuking Peter, is a doctrinal statement. Paul says no one will be justified by observing the law (of moses). Justification is by faith in Christ Jesus. But what is justification, and why is it necessary? Apparently, there are differing opinions on the subject, but they all seem to center around being made "righteous," after some kind of recognition that every individual is a sinner. Then we have to define righteous, which is another kettle of fish. Basically, we will think of it as unsinful.
*Verse 19 says,"through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." Huh? Verse 20 begins a passage that has been familiarized in christian songs as a kind of mantra. " I have been crucified with Christ (?) and I no longer live, but christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." I think it is normal to question Paul's sanity here. Is he speaking metaphorically, or does he believe that Jesus actually lives inside him? Is he speaking for himself or suggesting that this is the case for all believers? Remember that the only knowledge of Jesus that Paul claimed to have was through personal revelation by visions and disembodied voices.
*Last, Paul says he does not set aside the grace of God (christianese for a gift of mercy that you don't deserve), for if a state of unsinfulness could be reached by the law, christ died for nothing. Weeeellll.
First of all, you have assume that there is such a thing as a state of sinfulness to begin with. Then you have to believe that the death of a god born by a woman can fix that somehow. Of course, you must first believe that gods born by women can exist and that their deaths have the power to cancel out sins. Then you have to believe that one actually died. But, yeah, if a dude named Jesus died for the sins of the world, it may have been for nothing.
Jerusalem in Galatians.
*It is also interesting to note that Acts has Paul and Barnabus travelling to Jerusalem once before the circumcision question arose, in order to take money to the saints in Judea as famine relief during the time of Claudius, which had supposedly been prophesied in Antioch by a man named Agabus. (Acts 11:27-30) while writing Galatians, Paul seems to have forgotten that he had been to Jerusalem with Barnabus before.
*Getting back to Galatians, we see Paul saying that while Peter was in Antioch "certain men came from James." When these Jews arrived, Peter separated himself from the gentiles and attached himself to the Jews because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Other Jews, and even Barnabas followed Peter's example. Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in front of everyone. Why was this even an issue if the passages in Acts 11 about Peter's vision and the Jerusalem Jews acceptance of the gentiles is true? Are these men from James the false brothers that Paul mentions in verse 4? And which James is this? In Acts 12, James the brother of John was executed, some time before the circumcision debacle and the following council in Jerusalem, found in Acts 15. Acts has Peter being bold and visionary, a friend and advocate of the Gentiles. Paul in Galatians has Peter being wishy-washy. There, Paul is the true friend and advocate of the Gentiles.
*The rest of the chapter, presented as part of Paul's speech rebuking Peter, is a doctrinal statement. Paul says no one will be justified by observing the law (of moses). Justification is by faith in Christ Jesus. But what is justification, and why is it necessary? Apparently, there are differing opinions on the subject, but they all seem to center around being made "righteous," after some kind of recognition that every individual is a sinner. Then we have to define righteous, which is another kettle of fish. Basically, we will think of it as unsinful.
*Verse 19 says,"through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." Huh? Verse 20 begins a passage that has been familiarized in christian songs as a kind of mantra. " I have been crucified with Christ (?) and I no longer live, but christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." I think it is normal to question Paul's sanity here. Is he speaking metaphorically, or does he believe that Jesus actually lives inside him? Is he speaking for himself or suggesting that this is the case for all believers? Remember that the only knowledge of Jesus that Paul claimed to have was through personal revelation by visions and disembodied voices.
*Last, Paul says he does not set aside the grace of God (christianese for a gift of mercy that you don't deserve), for if a state of unsinfulness could be reached by the law, christ died for nothing. Weeeellll.
First of all, you have assume that there is such a thing as a state of sinfulness to begin with. Then you have to believe that the death of a god born by a woman can fix that somehow. Of course, you must first believe that gods born by women can exist and that their deaths have the power to cancel out sins. Then you have to believe that one actually died. But, yeah, if a dude named Jesus died for the sins of the world, it may have been for nothing.
Monday, January 9, 2017
Galatians chapter 2, part 1
After reading chapter 2:
*The chapter starts with the words "Fourteen years later." Depending on Paul's intended starting date, his first revelation of Jesus or last visit to Jerusalem, it is 14-17 years from the time he was "converted" and started preaching to Gentiles. Remember, in chapter 1 he claims not to have had any personal contact with the churches in Judea, except for Peter and James, contrary to what we read in the Acts accounts. Now, he has had another revelation telling him to go to Jerusalem to privately tell the leaders (of the church?) what he was preaching to the Gentiles, hoping to be validated. Apparently, he had some doubts. He took Barnabus and Titus along.
*Titus was an uncircumcised Greek. This apparently had been an issue raised by what Paul calls "false brothers" who wanted to "make them slaves", presumably to the law of moses. The false brothers had to have been Jews. These Jews had the appearance of authority, but Paul puts them in their place by telling them that he is entrusted with preaching the gospel to the Gentiles just as Peter is to the Jews. Titus is not mentioned in Acts, only in the books of Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and of course, Titus. Many Christians assume that Titus was present in other passages, just not mentioned.
*This episode is presumed to be the same as the one mentioned in Acts 15. There Paul and Barnabas, while in Antioch, dispute with Men from Judea who try to insist that circumcision is essential to salvation. Paul and Barnabas are appointed (no revelation) to go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders about this. There, some believers who were pharisees said the Gentiles had to obey the law of moses. Then Peter gets up and makes a lovely speech about God accepting the Gentiles without the burden of the law. In Acts, Peter also had a revelation about preaching to the Gentiles. This speech and Peter's actions in Acts contrast to what we will read about Peter in the second part of Galatians chapter 2. Acts is much kinder to Peter and the apostles in Jerusalem than Paul is in his letter to the Galatians.
*The result, in either case, is that Paul's work with the Gentiles is accepted by Peter, James, and John in Galatians. In Galatians, Paul is only admonished to remember the poor. In Acts, a delegation of authorities from Jerusalem is sent back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, including a letter which states that the only requirements they insisted on were abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, blood from the meat of strangled animals, and sexual immorality. That is not mentioned in Galatians.
*The chapter starts with the words "Fourteen years later." Depending on Paul's intended starting date, his first revelation of Jesus or last visit to Jerusalem, it is 14-17 years from the time he was "converted" and started preaching to Gentiles. Remember, in chapter 1 he claims not to have had any personal contact with the churches in Judea, except for Peter and James, contrary to what we read in the Acts accounts. Now, he has had another revelation telling him to go to Jerusalem to privately tell the leaders (of the church?) what he was preaching to the Gentiles, hoping to be validated. Apparently, he had some doubts. He took Barnabus and Titus along.
*Titus was an uncircumcised Greek. This apparently had been an issue raised by what Paul calls "false brothers" who wanted to "make them slaves", presumably to the law of moses. The false brothers had to have been Jews. These Jews had the appearance of authority, but Paul puts them in their place by telling them that he is entrusted with preaching the gospel to the Gentiles just as Peter is to the Jews. Titus is not mentioned in Acts, only in the books of Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and of course, Titus. Many Christians assume that Titus was present in other passages, just not mentioned.
*This episode is presumed to be the same as the one mentioned in Acts 15. There Paul and Barnabas, while in Antioch, dispute with Men from Judea who try to insist that circumcision is essential to salvation. Paul and Barnabas are appointed (no revelation) to go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders about this. There, some believers who were pharisees said the Gentiles had to obey the law of moses. Then Peter gets up and makes a lovely speech about God accepting the Gentiles without the burden of the law. In Acts, Peter also had a revelation about preaching to the Gentiles. This speech and Peter's actions in Acts contrast to what we will read about Peter in the second part of Galatians chapter 2. Acts is much kinder to Peter and the apostles in Jerusalem than Paul is in his letter to the Galatians.
*The result, in either case, is that Paul's work with the Gentiles is accepted by Peter, James, and John in Galatians. In Galatians, Paul is only admonished to remember the poor. In Acts, a delegation of authorities from Jerusalem is sent back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, including a letter which states that the only requirements they insisted on were abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, blood from the meat of strangled animals, and sexual immorality. That is not mentioned in Galatians.
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Joshua chapter 5
After reading chapter 5:
*After the Amorite and Canaanite kings heard about the crossing of the Jordan, they were afraid of the Israelites. At this time Yahweh ordered Joshua to circumcise all the men in the camp. Apparently, none of them had been circumcised during the forty years wandering in the desert. The author of Joshua has not forgotten that the fathers of the current Israelite soldiers, who apparently had been circumcised, were all dead. They had been the ones who were told they would not enter the promised land because of disobedience. So, Joshua circumcised about 600,000 men, more if the boys were included. With handmade flint knives, no less. This was done at Gibeath Haaraloth, which means "Hill of Foreskins." Yahweh said this event "rolled away" the reproach of Egypt, whatever that means. God doesn't like foreskins? The men remained in the camp until they had healed. I feel sorry for the women who had to endure that day. This would have been the perfect time for their enemies to attack them.
*A few days later, on the 14th day of the first month, the Israelites celebrated passover. Back in Exodus chapter 12 we see that circumcision was a requirement for all males eating the passover. I guess the Israelites did not celebrate Passover while wandering in the desert. The day after Passover, they ate unleavened bread and roasted grain, products of that land. From that time on, the manna ceased. I wonder where they got the unleavened bread and grain, enough to feed over a million people every day. It doesn't just appear on the ground. Grain has to be grown, harvested, threshed, stored, ground into flour, etc. It would have to have been purchased or stolen, by the women. The men were out of commission.
*Sometime after this, Joshua has an encounter with the commander of Yahweh's army, (God has an army?) near Jericho. He appeared in front of Joshua holding a sword, looking very much like man, because Joshua said,"friend or foe?" The Angel (?) said, " neither." Then he told Joshua to take off his sandals because he was standing on holy ground. We can't have shoes touching holy ground, can we? This, of course, is reminiscent of Moses's encounter with the burning bush. Notice that neither Joshua nor Moses had witnesses to these events, so we have to take their word for it. Or the word of the people telling the stories, who got their info who-knows-how-many-times removed from the supposed events.
*After the Amorite and Canaanite kings heard about the crossing of the Jordan, they were afraid of the Israelites. At this time Yahweh ordered Joshua to circumcise all the men in the camp. Apparently, none of them had been circumcised during the forty years wandering in the desert. The author of Joshua has not forgotten that the fathers of the current Israelite soldiers, who apparently had been circumcised, were all dead. They had been the ones who were told they would not enter the promised land because of disobedience. So, Joshua circumcised about 600,000 men, more if the boys were included. With handmade flint knives, no less. This was done at Gibeath Haaraloth, which means "Hill of Foreskins." Yahweh said this event "rolled away" the reproach of Egypt, whatever that means. God doesn't like foreskins? The men remained in the camp until they had healed. I feel sorry for the women who had to endure that day. This would have been the perfect time for their enemies to attack them.
*A few days later, on the 14th day of the first month, the Israelites celebrated passover. Back in Exodus chapter 12 we see that circumcision was a requirement for all males eating the passover. I guess the Israelites did not celebrate Passover while wandering in the desert. The day after Passover, they ate unleavened bread and roasted grain, products of that land. From that time on, the manna ceased. I wonder where they got the unleavened bread and grain, enough to feed over a million people every day. It doesn't just appear on the ground. Grain has to be grown, harvested, threshed, stored, ground into flour, etc. It would have to have been purchased or stolen, by the women. The men were out of commission.
*Sometime after this, Joshua has an encounter with the commander of Yahweh's army, (God has an army?) near Jericho. He appeared in front of Joshua holding a sword, looking very much like man, because Joshua said,"friend or foe?" The Angel (?) said, " neither." Then he told Joshua to take off his sandals because he was standing on holy ground. We can't have shoes touching holy ground, can we? This, of course, is reminiscent of Moses's encounter with the burning bush. Notice that neither Joshua nor Moses had witnesses to these events, so we have to take their word for it. Or the word of the people telling the stories, who got their info who-knows-how-many-times removed from the supposed events.
Saturday, December 19, 2015
The Nativity part 3- the main characters
In order of appearance:
Matthew-
*Joseph- son of Jacob, the 39th generation descendant of Abraham through David, a righteous man, saw an angel in his dreams.
*Mary- virgin, pledged to marry Joseph, found to be with child through the Holy Spirit, gave birth to Jesus in Bethlehem.
*Jesus-Son of Mary and the Holy Spirit, 40th generation from Abraham though not related, born in Bethlehem, prophesy said he was to be called Immanuel but he was named Jesus.
*An angel of the lord-unknown name, appears to Joseph in dreams, does not appear to anyone else.
*King Herod-worried about his position as King of the Jews, murdered children.
*Magi- from the east, possibly Zoroastrian astrologers, found Jesus in a house and gave him presents, outsmarted Herod.
*The chief priests and teachers of the law-Jews that Herod consulted about the Christ.
Luke-
*King Herod- King of Judea, no other info.
*Zachariah- a priest of the division of Abijah, upright, blameless, father of John, prophesied his son would be a prophet.
*Elizabeth- older cousin of Mary, mother of John, lives in a Judean hill country town, possibly Bethlehem, upright, blameless.
*An angel of the lord (Gabriel)-appears in person to Zachariah in the temple and to Mary in Nazareth, to announce that each of them would have a son and foretold the greatness of John and Jesus,told Mary to name her child Jesus, brought news of Jesus's birth to shepherds.
*Joseph-from Nazareth, a descendant of David, son of Heli (3:23), 55 generations from Abraham, 85 generations from Adam.
*Mary-lives in Nazareth, a virgin, pledged to marry Joseph, "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit which caused her to be pregnant, sang a poetic/ prophetic song.
*John (the baptist)- son of Zachariah and Elizabeth, circumcised on the eighth day, his father's prophesy said he would become a prophet.
*Caesar Augustus- emperor of Rome, issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire roman world.
*Quirinius- governor of Syria during the census.
*Jesus- conceived by the Holy Spirit, born in Bethlehem, slept in a manger, circumcised on the eighth day, Gabriel prophesied he would be called the son of the most high and would reign on the throne of David, his kingdom would never end, 56 generations from Abraham, 86 generations from Adam.
*Shepherds-living in the fields watching their flocks, given a message by an angel, saw more Angels praising God, saw Jesus in the manger.
*More Angels- praised God.
*Simeon-righteous, devout, told by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he saw the christ, saw Jesus and prophesied about Him.
*Anna- prophetess, daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, eighty for year old widow, lived in the temple fasting and praying, saw Jesus and prophesied about him.
We can see that beside Joseph, Mary, Jesus, and an angel, Matthew and Luke have a completely different cast of characters. Plus, some details about the core characters differ.
Matthew-
*Joseph- son of Jacob, the 39th generation descendant of Abraham through David, a righteous man, saw an angel in his dreams.
*Mary- virgin, pledged to marry Joseph, found to be with child through the Holy Spirit, gave birth to Jesus in Bethlehem.
*Jesus-Son of Mary and the Holy Spirit, 40th generation from Abraham though not related, born in Bethlehem, prophesy said he was to be called Immanuel but he was named Jesus.
*An angel of the lord-unknown name, appears to Joseph in dreams, does not appear to anyone else.
*King Herod-worried about his position as King of the Jews, murdered children.
*Magi- from the east, possibly Zoroastrian astrologers, found Jesus in a house and gave him presents, outsmarted Herod.
*The chief priests and teachers of the law-Jews that Herod consulted about the Christ.
Luke-
*King Herod- King of Judea, no other info.
*Zachariah- a priest of the division of Abijah, upright, blameless, father of John, prophesied his son would be a prophet.
*Elizabeth- older cousin of Mary, mother of John, lives in a Judean hill country town, possibly Bethlehem, upright, blameless.
*An angel of the lord (Gabriel)-appears in person to Zachariah in the temple and to Mary in Nazareth, to announce that each of them would have a son and foretold the greatness of John and Jesus,told Mary to name her child Jesus, brought news of Jesus's birth to shepherds.
*Joseph-from Nazareth, a descendant of David, son of Heli (3:23), 55 generations from Abraham, 85 generations from Adam.
*Mary-lives in Nazareth, a virgin, pledged to marry Joseph, "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit which caused her to be pregnant, sang a poetic/ prophetic song.
*John (the baptist)- son of Zachariah and Elizabeth, circumcised on the eighth day, his father's prophesy said he would become a prophet.
*Caesar Augustus- emperor of Rome, issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire roman world.
*Quirinius- governor of Syria during the census.
*Jesus- conceived by the Holy Spirit, born in Bethlehem, slept in a manger, circumcised on the eighth day, Gabriel prophesied he would be called the son of the most high and would reign on the throne of David, his kingdom would never end, 56 generations from Abraham, 86 generations from Adam.
*Shepherds-living in the fields watching their flocks, given a message by an angel, saw more Angels praising God, saw Jesus in the manger.
*More Angels- praised God.
*Simeon-righteous, devout, told by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he saw the christ, saw Jesus and prophesied about Him.
*Anna- prophetess, daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, eighty for year old widow, lived in the temple fasting and praying, saw Jesus and prophesied about him.
We can see that beside Joseph, Mary, Jesus, and an angel, Matthew and Luke have a completely different cast of characters. Plus, some details about the core characters differ.
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Exodus chapter 4 part 2
*Now the story turns weird, in case you didn't already think so. When Moses and his family stopped at some place on the way to Egypt, yahweh met Moses and was about to kill him. To prevent that, Moses's wife whips out a knife and cuts off her son's foreskin! Then, she touches Moses's feet with it and declares," you are a bridegroom of blood to me, " which is a phrase referring to circumcision, according to my study bible. This saved Moses's life.
*There all sorts of things to say about this passage. First of all, my study bible says " feet" here is a euphamism for genitals. The weirdness continues. Was Moses himself ever circumcised? Why did God want to kill him after he gave him a job to do? Some people seem to think Zipporah acted in anger, even though the text does not say that. Maybe she knew that's what God wanted. Why does circumcising a child and touching his father's genitals, or feet, with the cut off piece of skin save Moses's life? Also, according to verse 20, there is more than one son. As usual, there are dozens of traditional and speculative answers to these questions, none of them in the text. By modern standards, this is crazy stuff.
*Yahweh tells Aaron to go to the desert to meet Moses. They meet at "the mountain of God" and Moses tells Aaron about everything. They go together and tell the elders of the Israelites and show them the magic tricks. They all believed and worshipped Yahweh when Moses told them God was concerned about them.
*What I notice about this story: the Israelites are collectively called Yahweh's "first born son" implying that they are the first worshippers of that God. If the mountain of God was such an important place why is there no way to know for sure where it actually was?
*There all sorts of things to say about this passage. First of all, my study bible says " feet" here is a euphamism for genitals. The weirdness continues. Was Moses himself ever circumcised? Why did God want to kill him after he gave him a job to do? Some people seem to think Zipporah acted in anger, even though the text does not say that. Maybe she knew that's what God wanted. Why does circumcising a child and touching his father's genitals, or feet, with the cut off piece of skin save Moses's life? Also, according to verse 20, there is more than one son. As usual, there are dozens of traditional and speculative answers to these questions, none of them in the text. By modern standards, this is crazy stuff.
*Yahweh tells Aaron to go to the desert to meet Moses. They meet at "the mountain of God" and Moses tells Aaron about everything. They go together and tell the elders of the Israelites and show them the magic tricks. They all believed and worshipped Yahweh when Moses told them God was concerned about them.
*What I notice about this story: the Israelites are collectively called Yahweh's "first born son" implying that they are the first worshippers of that God. If the mountain of God was such an important place why is there no way to know for sure where it actually was?
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
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.
*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.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Genesis chapter 17
After reading chapter 17:
*This chapter takes place 13 years after chapter 16, when Abram is 99 and Sarai is 90, or approximately 1953 B.C.E.
*Abram has another personal revelation from the lord (Yaweh) who says he is the almighty God (El ). God renews his covenant with Abram. He changes Abram's name to Abraham and Sarai's name to Sarah.
* The terms of the covenant:
~Abraham will be given the whole land of Canaan
~He will be the father of many nations
~Every male in his entourage, slave and free, must be circumcised as an everlasting sign of the covenant, whether they wanted to be or not. That was at least a few hundreds of men( Gen. 14:14), not to mention the billions of descendants to follow. Any uncircumcised male will be cut off from the the rest of the family.
~Abraham and Sarah will have a son and will call him Isaac. He will be the heir of the covenant even though he is technically the Younger Brother.
~Ishmael will be blessed and will be the father of twelve rulers.
* What does Abraham have to do for all this? Just be God's man and blameless. One wonders what blameless means, since Abraham has lied, traded his wife for riches to save his own neck, treated a woman with contempt, and is the owner of many slaves.
*Abraham laughed at the thought if having a son at his age, but he went ahead and circumcised every male in his clan on that very day. Nobody would be doing any baby making quite yet.
*The earliest record of circumcision is from about 2,400 B.C.E. in Egypt. It had probably been practiced for hundreds of years before that. Ra the sun god was said to have circumcised himself. Check out he Wikipedia article on circumcision for more info.
*This chapter takes place 13 years after chapter 16, when Abram is 99 and Sarai is 90, or approximately 1953 B.C.E.
*Abram has another personal revelation from the lord (Yaweh) who says he is the almighty God (El ). God renews his covenant with Abram. He changes Abram's name to Abraham and Sarai's name to Sarah.
* The terms of the covenant:
~Abraham will be given the whole land of Canaan
~He will be the father of many nations
~Every male in his entourage, slave and free, must be circumcised as an everlasting sign of the covenant, whether they wanted to be or not. That was at least a few hundreds of men( Gen. 14:14), not to mention the billions of descendants to follow. Any uncircumcised male will be cut off from the the rest of the family.
~Abraham and Sarah will have a son and will call him Isaac. He will be the heir of the covenant even though he is technically the Younger Brother.
~Ishmael will be blessed and will be the father of twelve rulers.
* What does Abraham have to do for all this? Just be God's man and blameless. One wonders what blameless means, since Abraham has lied, traded his wife for riches to save his own neck, treated a woman with contempt, and is the owner of many slaves.
*Abraham laughed at the thought if having a son at his age, but he went ahead and circumcised every male in his clan on that very day. Nobody would be doing any baby making quite yet.
*The earliest record of circumcision is from about 2,400 B.C.E. in Egypt. It had probably been practiced for hundreds of years before that. Ra the sun god was said to have circumcised himself. Check out he Wikipedia article on circumcision for more info.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)