1 Thessalonians part four

We are at chapter four verse 13. Paul is telling the Thessalonians about people who have "fallen asleep" which a euphemism for died. He doesn't want the Thessalonians to grieve about those people who have died "like the rest of men who have no hope." (Is false hope a good thing?) Paul believes "that Jesus died and rose again" and that one day he will bring the dead back with him. Well, not all the dead. Just the ones who "fell asleep in him." In other words, only Jesus believers. So, should the Thessalonians grieve for those who died and didn't believe?

By the way, grieving is normal and very human. It also occurs in the animal kingdom. Pretending that people don't actually die, but live on, prevents people from learning valuable coping skills. Tragedies happen. Death happens every day. We will all die. Everyone we love will die, some before us. We need to talk about how to deal with it in non harmful ways.

Next Paul tells the Thessalonians that the dead in christ will rise before the living, at the command of the archangel and the trumpet call of god. When he says rise, he literally means rise up into the air. After the dead begin to rise, the living believers..."we who are alive and left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the lord in the air. And we will be with the lord forever." Very dramatic. What happens to the rest of the people, the dead and the living? Anyway, it never happened, did it?

Paul can not tell the Thessalonian when this will happen because god wants it to be a surprise. He wants to catch people off guard, when they think they are safe. Then boom! Destruction. No escape. Nice god. No worries, the Thessalonians won't be caught off guard, like those who sleep peacefully at night and don't expect intruders. No, the Thessalonians are like fully awake people in the day time, alert and self controlled.

The Thessalonians will be ready for Jesus's coming by "putting on faith and love as a breastplate and the hope of salvation as a helmet." There's a war coming. They need armor. God did not "appoint them to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through Jesus." He died for the believers, the dead and the living ones. They will all get to live together with him. Good for them. I'll pass.

Next Paul tells them how to police each other. They were to respect the hard workers who are over them in the lord. These are not everyday hard workers but ones who have been given authority over the church in Thessaloniki. This passage is talking about church work, not everyday living work. The respect has not necessarily been earned. They are also to "warn the idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, and be patient with everyone." This is in the context of the church. It is god's will that they are always joyful, thankful, and prayerful, no matter what.

Finally the Thessalonians are told not to put out the spirit's fire, not to treat prophecies with contempt, test everything, and avoid every kind of evil. The letter ends with a kind of blessing. May god grant the Thessalonians sanctification and blamelessness of spirit, soul, and body, and he can do it. (What is the difference between a spirit and a soul?) Paul asks the Thessalonians to pray for his entourage and to greet all the bothers with a holy kiss. The letter is to be read aloud.

Next the wrap up.

Hebrews part fifteen

We are now at Hebrews 11:17. It's time to read more about Abraham's faith. Abraham's faith was so great that he offered his son Isaac as a sacrifice when god tested him. God was being a sadistic bastard. He had previously  told Abraham that the promise of numerous offspring would be fulfilled through Isaac. The Hebrews author claims Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac because he "reasoned" that god could raise the dead. Baloney. The author of Hebrews is trying to use the old testament story to prove that belief in resurrection has always been part of Hebrew beliefs. There is actually no indication in most of the old testament that anyone of the ancient Abrahamic tradition believed in a resurrection of the dead. Sheol was the fate of every dead person. The author of Hebrews goes on to say that "figuratively speaking, he (Abraham) did receive Isaac back from the dead." Just so you know, figurative speech doesn't have any more substance than faith.

Next, the author says, that by faith Isaac blessed Jacob's and Esau's future. In other words, he said magical words at them that were supposed to have some mystical power over their lives. By faith, Jacob also "blessed" Joseph's sons. By faith, Joseph spoke of the exodus from egypt and what he wanted done with his bones. Joseph did speak of the Israelites leaving Egypt, going to the promised land, and taking his bones with them, in Genesis 50,  but there were no other specifics. We are not going to go into the fact that none of the stuff we are reading about actually happened. So, it doesn't matter what these supposed patriarchs supposedly said or did and why they did it. It's the same as if we would take the Iliad and the Odyssey seriously.

The author goes on to say, "by faith Moses's parents hid him for three months after he was born because they saw that he was no ordinary child, and they were afraid of the king's edict." Any parent worth being called a parent would try to do anything they could to save their child from death. Faith has nothing to do with it.

 We are also told that "by faith, Moses refused to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of god rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time." Again, this never actually happened, but let's look at what Exodus says. Did Moses refuse to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter? Nope, can't find that. Did Moses choose to be mistreated along with the people of god? Nope, can't find that either. In fact, Exodus 2:11 says Moses went out and watched his people doing hard labor.

In Hebrews 11:26, the author says, Moses "regarded disgrace for the sake of christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt because he was looking ahead to his reward." This is blatant nonsense. Go back and read Exodus 2. Moses killed a man and became a fugitive, eventually going incognito as a shepherd. He had no eternal reward in mind only saving his own skin. Moses had no christ in mind.

Next, the author says, "By faith (Moses) left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger, because he saw him who is invisible." At least that part is true to the Exodus story. The reader is also told,"By faith (Moses) kept the passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel." That also happened in the story. Plus, Moses never pleaded on behalf of all the innocent children that would die that night. Nice guy.

Some more things that supposedly happened by faith: the people walked through the Red Sea on dry land, the walls of Jericho fell, Rahab welcomed spies and was not killed. These are all stories that most likely never happened, so faith had nothing to do with them. Besides, if faith was a factor, it wasn't faith in Jesus or a resurrection, was it?

Till next time.

Mark wrap up

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark part twenty-one

We are now at Mark chapter twelve. Jesus is speaking to the religious authorities in the temple. He tells a parable about a man who planted a vineyard, rented it out, and then went away on a journey. This man obviously represents god. The tenants represent the Israelites. When harvest time comes, the man sends servants to collect some of the produce. (It was common for tenant farmers to have to give a percentage of their crop to the landowner, just as the Israelites had been commanded to tithe.) As we have seen in other parts of the bible the servants represent the  prophets of yahweh. The servants in the parable were treated very badly by the farmers, even killed like John the Baptist. Eventually, the landowner sent his beloved son (aka Jesus), thinking they would respect him. Of course they did not, they killed him and threw him out of the vineyard.

Remember, Mark was written at least a couple of decades after the death of Jesus. So, the author already knows what has happened, if in fact Jesus did exist. Mark also very well could be putting words in Jesus's mouth as a literary tool, foreshadowing what was to come in the story. This book is written very much like a work of fiction. We go from one tall tale to the next, with very little sense of time.

Next Mark has Jesus saying that the owner of the metaphoric vineyard will come back, kill the tenants, and give the vineyard to others. If this is a literary foreshadowing of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, then this book was written after 70 CE. I assume it would be a retroactive prophecy, because I do not accept the existence of true foreknowledge. Then Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22-24 to the religious authorities. It says "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone (or cornerstone)." It appears that Jesus believes the passage is referring to himself being rejected but becoming foundational in some way.

The religious leaders assumed Jesus's parable referred to them. The text says they wanted to have him arrested but were afraid of the crowd. Later (How much later?), they sent some Pharisees and Herodians to try to trap Jesus into saying something which would condemn himself. They asked him if they should pay taxes to Caesar. If he said no, they could sic the Romans on him. If he said yes, the Jewish people might take offense and he would lose his following. Jesus was too clever for them. He asked them to give him a Roman coin and tell him whose picture was on it. They said Caesar's. Jesus then replied, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to god what is god's."

Next, came the Sadducees, who did not believe in a resurrection of the dead. They were justified in that non-belief, in my opinion, considering the Hebrew scriptures say next to nothing about resurrection. We know Jesus must believe in a resurrection. He has said the son of man will rise again after he is killed. The Sadducees reminded Jesus of the Old Testament teaching that if a woman became a widow and had no children, her husband's brother must marry her and produce an heir for his dead brother. They then tell a story of a widow who ended up marrying seven consecutive brothers without producing an heir for any of them. Then the woman died. The question asked of Jesus was, "At the resurrection, whose wife will she be?"

Jesus told them they were in error because they did not know the scriptures. "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." However, this concept is not even found in the canon of Old testament scriptures. A similar idea can  be found in 1 Corinthians 15, leading to the possibility that Mark wrote his book after Paul had spread this teaching about resurrected bodies.

A very interesting note: My study bible ignores the fact that the idea of the woman with seven husbands most likely came from the book of Tobit.

Resurrection part four.

We are still in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. Verse 29 says, "if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?" Good question. In fact I've got another question. Why are Mormons the only people I know of who baptize for the dead. Why doesn't all of christendom practice this? It's biblical.

If we move on to verse 35, Paul tells us what resurrection is like. According to him, there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. Earthly bodies that die are metaphorically like seeds that are being sown. The body that is sown is perishable, but what rises up after death is imperishable. "It is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body." Here is Paul's logic for that: Adam was made a living being, then he was given a spirit. That means spiritual stuff comes after natural stuff. Therefore spiritual bodies come after natural bodies. Duh!

Further proof of  spiritual bodies, offered by Paul, is this: Adam, who was the first man, came from the earth. All earthly men are like Adam. The second man (Jesus?) came from heaven. All men are going to be like the second man. As usual, no women are mentioned. Further more, Paul says, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.....we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." Paul promises the Corinthians immortality. He says nothing here about judgment on that day, or what happens to non-believers.

In Philippians 4:10-11, Paul says he wants to know Christ and the power of his resurrection, so he can also attain resurrection some day. In Hebrews 6, the author says the resurrection of the dead is one of the elementary teachings about Christ, along with repentance, faith, baptism, and eternal judgment." In Hebrews 11:35 tells of those who were tortured for their faith and refused to be released so that they might have a better resurrection. (!!) That is so messed up.

1 Peter chapter one speaks of a hope of an eternal inheritance for the suffering faithful being kept in heaven and the coming salvation of souls in the last times. This hope comes through the resurrection of Jesus.  1 Peter chapter three tells  the reader that baptism with water saves people by the resurrection of Jesus.

Finally, we come back to Revelation 20, where we read of a first resurrection of Christian martyrs and a second resurrection of the rest of the dead, from the sea and Hades. Then comes judgment and second death for anyone whose name is not written in the lambs book of life.

Does this give you a sense of why Christians are so keen on martyrdom? It should also show you that these beliefs are what many Christians believe they are living for, an eternal reward  of an imperishable body, for the price of faithfullness. Any alternative is unthinkable to so many. It's hard not to feel sorry for them, wasting so much precious time and thought on a delusion.

Resurrection part three

We are still in the books of Acts. In chapter 23, Paul is in Jerusalem and  has been taken into custody by some Roman soldiers because some Jews are supposed to have caused a riot in objection to Paul's presence in the temple. The Roman commander doesn't understand why there is such animosity towards Paul. (He's been preaching about Jesus.) So, the commander takes Paul to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling body. Paul plays off the fact that there are both Pharisees and Sadducees in the Sanhedrin. Pharisees believe in a resurrection, Sadducees do not. Paul shouts out that he is a Pharisee and is on trial because of his belief in a resurrection. Of course that is part of the truth, but not the whole truth. The Pharisees and Sadducees present get into a violent argument. Paul has to be removed from there by the commander.

In Acts chapter 24, Paul has been brought before the governor. The high priest of the Jews has charged him with being a troublemaker, inciting riots, being a ringleader of "the Nazarene sect," and trying to desecrate the temple. Paul denies any wrong doing and says he was in compliance with the religious laws and no one can prove otherwise.  He admits to being a member of the sect called "the way" and again says that it he has hope of a resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that he was there. Paul had been teaching about the resurrection of Jesus.

We move on to the book of Romans, which was written before the book of Acts. Paul is telling the Romans about baptism and metaphorically comparing it to burial. Just as Jesus was buried and was raised again, believers are united with Jesus in the burial of baptism, so they are also united with him in his resurrection. After they are raised out of the waters of baptism, their "bodies of sin" are gone and they may live new lives. There is a definite blurring of the lines between reality and metaphor in this teaching of Paul's. Nothing actually happens to a person when they are baptized, besides getting wet. In spite of what Paul says, a baptized person still dies and still "sins." Any difference is all in their heads.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, starting in verse12, Paul again speaks of resurrection. Apparently, some Corinthians may have been teaching that there was no resurrection of the dead. Paul says,"if there is no resurrection, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Ain't that the truth. Also that would make the preachers liars. Yep. And all those who died in Christ are lost. No, just dead.

Paul goes on to say that Christ HAS been raised from the dead. He is the first fruits of those who have "fallen asleep" or dies. Paul is claiming here that Christ was the first to be resurrected. He obviously hasn't read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Probably because he wrote all his material before those books were written. He also obviously never heard of the times Jesus resurrected people from the dead, or the dead that rose right after Jesus died. Paul says that "in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

According to Paul, Christ was first and when he comes back those who belong to him will rise. Then comes the interesting part, which is a bit different from what Revelation 20 says: "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to god the father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Paul goes on to say this destruction Jesus is doing obviously doesn't include destroying god. After all this stuff happens, the son will be be made subject to god so that god may be all in all. I don't understand why god needs Jesus to do all that, or anything else.Can't he just speak stuff into happening?

More to come.

Resurrection part two

We are still in the book of John. In chapter 11, Jesus' friend Lazarus has died. His sister Martha is distraught. She is convinced that if Jesus had come sooner, Lazarus would not have died. In verse 23, Jesus tells Martha Lazarus will rise again. Martha says, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus replies, " I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." Jesus asks Martha if she believes this and she says she does. Martha goes and tells her sister Mary  that Jesus has arrived. Mary runs and tells Jesus the same thing Martha had, that Lazarus would still be alive if Jesus had come sooner. This time however, Jesus does not give his resurrection spiel. He responds to Mary's distress in a more emotional way. He weeps. Why? Presumably he knows he's going to raise Lazarus from the dead. Even if he waits till judgment day, Lazarus is guaranteed to live again, right? Unsurprisingly, that is no consolation to the living. It rarely is.

So, As we all know, Jesus ends up raising Lazarus from the dead. We are told from the passage that Lazarus was not just merely dead but really most sincerely dead.  There are so many questions I have about this event. Is this considered a resurrection? It also took place before Jesus was resurrected. Did Lazarus get a new fully human body? How did Lazarus feel about it? After all, he would presumably have to die and be resurrected again some day. Will Lazarus have to go through the final judgment?

Lets move on to the book of Acts. In chapter 1, verse 22, the  disciples/apostles, decide to choose someone to replace Judas. It must be someone who was with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry. This person is to become a co-witness of Jesus' resurrection, not to mention make the disciples twelve again. Eleven is not quite as magical. Matthias is chosen and we never hear about him again.

In Acts 2:31, Peter tells a crowd of Jews that "David died and was buried and his tomb is here to this day." (Funny thing that. No one actually knows where David's tomb is, if there was one. There are some doubts as to whether David actually existed. The only extrabiblical evidence of him is found in a couple of unclear stone inscriptions. ) Peter says David was a prophet who predicted Jesus and his resurrection. He goes on to say, "god has raised this Jesus to life and we (the disciples) are all witnesses of the fact." According to Peter, David didn't go up to heaven, but Jesus did. The Jesus that the Jews crucified was now both lord and Christ. This is one of the bible passages often used to justify anti-semitism.

In Acts 4:2, the Sadducees are disturbed because Peter and John were preaching in Jesus about the resurrection of the dead. They got a lot of people to believe them. In 4:32-36, the believers begin to pool all their funds and resources in a kind of cooperative socialism, and the apostles continue to preach about the resurrection of Jesus. (Isn't it funny that so many fundamentalist christians today think any and all socialism or social welfare is evil.)

In Acts 17:18-34, Paul is preaching in Athens about Jesus and the resurrection, to some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. He tells them that the god who created everything and everyone "has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." Many of them called Paul a babbler and sneered at him when he mentioned resurrection. Others are said to have believed. One thing: How is the resurrection of one man proof that there is going to be a resurrection of all and a final judgment? It doesn't necessarily follow. It seems to be typical of biblical logic to make such leaps.

More to come.

Resurrection part one

I feel like we need to cover resurrection in the bible as a natural segue to the study of heaven. First I want to note that the word resurrection does not appear at all in the Old Testament. What do you make of that? In the New Testament, the Greek word usually translated resurrection is anastasis, which according to Strong's concordance, means "standing up again" or a literal resurrection from the dead. It can also be used in a figurative sense. We will see how that works as we go through the scriptures.

We first encounter the word resurrection in Matthew 22. Verse 23 tells us that the Jewish sect of the Saducees did not believe in a resurrection. That would make sense, since the Hebrew scriptures do not contain the word. In verse 28, Jesus is asked a trick question about marriage after the resurrection by the Saducees. Jesus replied, "silly Saducees, marriage is not for the resurrected." Instead, Jesus goes on to say, the resurrected dead will have bodies like angels. Jesus's proof of the resurrection is that god said he is the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Since god is not the god of the dead, but the living, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, must be alive. How can they be alive, unless they are resurrected? Gotcha! Does this mean Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were already resurrected, before the final judgment? The book of Revelation skipped that part. Does this mean they were resurrected before Jesus? I thought he was supposed to be the first.

In Matthew 27:51-53, after Jesus died on the cross, there was an earthquake. "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. (Before Jesus?) They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people." Strangely, there is no other record of this extraordinary event.

Mark chapter 12 also tells the story of the Sadducees asking about marriage for the resurrected. So does Luke chapter 20. Luke adds that the resurrected will no longer die and they are god's children. Luke also adds that to god, everyone is alive, which is interesting. If everyone is alive to god, what's the resurrection for?

In Luke 14:13-14, Jesus says, "when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." Did Jesus appeal to empathy and say that all people need to eat and that it's good to feed those less fortunate, because if they were in that situation, the listeners would need food also. No, he did not. Instead, he appealed to their selfishness. They would get a reward from god...eventually.

We are now at John chapter 5. Here we get new resurrection information. Jesus tells the Jews who are persecuting him that he is the son of god the father. Verses 21-22 say, "Just as the father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the son." In Revelation 20:11 is unclear about who s sitting on the throne of judgment. It says things like "he who is seated on the throne." Revelation 22 calls it the throne of god and the lamb, as though the two are melded together.

John 5:24-29 goes on to say, "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (Sounds a bit metaphorical there.) ...a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the son of god and those who hear will live....Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." Wait, no baptism requirement?

More to come.

Colossians part 2

Before we continue, take a look at this chapter called "The Idea of Salvation in Greece and Italy" from an old book. It does an interesting job of discussing the ways in which Roman and Greek ideas of salvation and punishment after death were eventually synchronized  with those of Christianity, even though they were very different to begin with.

Now we turn to verse 15 of Colossians chapter one. This starts a theological description of the person Jesus Christ. "He is the image of the invisible god." What exactly does that mean? The Greek word for image here is the same word from which we get the modern word icon. It is a representation or likeness. A statue or painting of a god would be the god's icon. In ancient times the priests treated the icons (idols)  as if they actually were the god the represented. Does that mean Jesus was as much god as an ancient statue of a god was that god?

Next we are told Jesus was "the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.......all things were created for him and by him." Being the firstborn in Jewish society means he is the favorite and the heir. This creation bit seems quite blasphemous if you are Jewish. The god of the Hebrews was supposed to be the creator. Why didn't he previously mention any first born by which he created everything? God supposedly had a couple thousand years to tell them, yet he never mentioned it. And how exactly did an invisible god have a son, plus use the son to create stuff?

Verse 18 tells us "He is the head of the body, the church..." This body symbolism is prevalent in Christianity. The church (universal) is often called the body of Christ. Christ being the head obviously means he is above the body, the one in charge and in control. Except what exactly does he do? People tend to control their own lives, for the most part, unless they are under a visible authority. Invisible authorities can't do much on their own, so they need visible ones to enforce the rules. There are plenty of people eager to assume authority in order to "help" the invisible god. It sounds like Paul was one.

Next Paul says Jesus is "the beginning and the first born from among the the dead, so that in everything he might have supremacy." So, Jesus is first at everything, even at being raised from the dead. But what about Lazarus or Jairus's daughter or the widow's son? Paul's letters were most likely written before the gospel accounts were ever penned. Beside that, he prided himself on getting his info about Jesus directly from revelation, not from people. His work shows that he knew next to nothing about the actual activities and teachings of Jesus, as represented in Matthew Mark, Luke, and John. Perhaps Paul meant first  at being made into a heavenly being after being resurrected. Those people Jesus raised had to live out the rest of their lives and die again. There was no guarantee that they would be resurrected after their second death.

Verse 19 says "god was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him." So, if all god's fullness dwelt in Jesus then was god still omnipresent? How is it possible to be everywhere yet have all of your being in a single container? I say it's not. If god dwelt in Jesus, was Jesus just a god container, not the god himself? We end up back in icon territory. Is the physical representation of a god a god itself? This would explain why ancient gods were territorial. They only existed for the people where there were icons made specifically for those gods. Yahweh of the old testament did not allow his people to create an icon of himself. He lived where he chose to live, in a cloud, a pillar of fire, a burning bush, a temple, but he was still not omnipresent. He belonged to the nation of Israel alone.

More to come.

Philippians part 5

I would like apologize for not posting recently. My father was very ill in the last few weeks and he passed away the first week of June. Everything that goes along with that has been stressful for me.

We have come to chapter three of Philippians. In verse one, Paul tells the Philippians to rejoice in the lord. It's okay if he repeats himself, it is insurance that they get the message. Verse two tells them to watch out for " those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh." Make no mistake, he is referring to Jews, possibly Jewish Christians. He doesn't like them very much does he?

Mutilation of the flesh refers to circumcision, which was a prerequisite to becoming a Jew, one of Yahweh's chosen. In the old testament circumcision is called " an everlasting covenant" between the Jews and Yahweh. In spite of that, Paul says those who worship by the spirit of God, glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh are the true circumcised people. Paul is doing what many today do with old testament scriptures, going metaphorical with them. They are in fact following Paul's example. Everything physical becomes spiritual.

Even though Paul takes no stock in circumcision, or his birthright as an upstanding Jew, he parades it out in verses 4-7 to make a point. His point is that none of that matters to him as much as knowing Christ Jesus. Let us remember that the only way he knows Jesus is through personal revelation, revelation that he alone received. So, we have to take his word for it. He goes on to say that he has lost all those things for Jesus's sake. He considers them garbage, because righteousness does not come from following the law but by faith. Paul wants to know Christ by sharing in his sufferings and becoming like him in his death. This is why Paul was happy to be persecuted and taught that others should rejoice in it too. His ultimate goal is resurrection from the dead, like Jesus. Paul wants to live forever. The fact that he was once a Pharisee has primed him to believe in the resurrection of the dead.

There are questions that always return to me. At what exact point in history did all believers in Jesus gain the gift of resurrection? What happened to all the people that didn't,  from before and  that point onward?  If there were no more than a few thousand believers at the time of Paul, that's an awful lot of leftover people who who would go to hell. I'm not even sure what Paul preached about hell, if anything. However, it is clear he doesn't believe they will be with him in the resurrection.

More to come.

1 Clement part one

I am about halfway through the letter to the Corinthians attributed to Clement and will share a few observations.

*Like many books of the bible, the letter does not mention Clement or say that he is the author. It says that it is from the church in Rome. I'm not sure how  it has been established that Clement actually wrote this letter. It does not give a clear indication of the date of the writing but would have to have happened after the deaths of Peter and Paul, whom he mentions.  Like the books of the bible, the original of the letter no longer exists.

*The letter is a rambling treatise that seems to have a general theme of "get right church." It does not go into detail about the nature of the issues the Corinthians are experiencing except to repeatedly use words like strife, sedition, and emulation. The word emulation has me puzzled. Is he talking about oneupmanship?

*Between the exhortations to shape up, the letter is a jumbled mash-up of paraphrased old testament stories and scriptural quotes, with no particular order or literary structure. There has been mention of Abraham, Moses, Cain and Abel, Noah, Lot, Joshua, Rahab, and David. Old Testament scriptural quotes have come from Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Job, and Jeremiah. These quotes are often worded slightly differently than how they occur in my NIV, which is not surprising. Also, a few quotes are pieced together from mutiple books, or don't actually exist in modern bibles.

*So far, very few quoted scriptures appear to come from the New Testament writings. Some that could also have parallels in the Old Testament. Others seem more clearly to have come from the books of 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James. (Unless those authors borrowed from this letter, which seems unlikely.) There is one passage quoting Jesus that appears to have come from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. There is also a quote from the apocryphal book of Wisdom of Solomon.

*There are repeated mentions of the resurrection of the christ and the hope of future resurrection for believers. Jesus is called the first fruit of resurrection. Of great interest to me was the legendary story of the phoenix (chapter xxv), told as if true and given as proof of God's power and ability to perform resurrections. Yes, really. The author assures us that nothing is impossible with god but to lie.

*We are given very few details of Jesus's life, or the lives of Paul and Peter, who are said to have worked hard for the church and were martyred. Jesus is said to have descended from Abraham, which is basically another way to say he was a Jew. So far, I've seen very little mention of the actual practices of the church in Rome or Corinth, other than the mention of "presbyters."

To be continued.

What happened on Sunday morning part 2

What was the response when the women told people about finding Jesus gone from the tomb?

*Mark: WhenMary Magdalene told the mourners Jesus was alive, they did not believe her story.

*Matthew: The disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him, but some doubted. Previous passages say nothing about a mountain,

*Luke: when the women told the disciples, they did not believe and thought they were talking nonsense. Peter got up and ran to the tomb, saw the linen grave clothes, and wondered what happened.

*John: Peter and "the other disciple" raced to the tomb at the news. The other disciple got there first. He saw the grave clothes. They believed Jesus was gone but didn't understand that he had risen from the dead.

What are the reports of initial Jesus sightings after that?
*Mark: Jesus appeared in a different form to two of the mourners while they were walking in the country. They returned and reported it to the rest, but they did not believe them.
*Matthew: the eleven disciples went to the mountain in Galilee where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him, but some doubted.
*Luke: That same day, two disciples, one named Cleopas, encountered Jesus on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize him when he talked to them. They talked together, travelled together, and sat down to eat together. When Jesus broke the bread and gave thanks, they finally recognized him. As soon as they recognized him, he vanished. They went right back to Jerusalem, where they told their story to the eleven who also had a story of Jesus appearing to Simon (Peter?)
*John: After Peter and the other disciple went home. Mary remained at the tomb weeping, then saw two angels in white seated where the body had been. They asked her why she was crying. She said it was because Jesus's body had been taken and she didn't know where. Then she turned around and saw  someone she thought was the gardener but who was actually Jesus. He spoke her name. She cried out "Teacher!" He told her not to hold on to him because he had not yet returned to the father, God. She was to tell the disciples. And she did. No response at the news is indicated. This is a different sequence of events than the other stories.

What are the reports of further Jesus sightings?
*Mark: Jesus appeared to the eleven while they were eating and rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
*Matthew: none

*Luke: While Cleopas and the other follower of Jesus were talking to the eleven, Jesus appeared in their midst. They thought he was a ghost and were startled. He told them to touch him and see that he had flesh and bones. He showed them his hands and feet. He ate some food to prove he was alive. He opened their minds so they could understand scripture.
*John: It was still resurrection Sunday, in the evening, when Jesus appeared to the disciples in a locked room. He said "Peace be with you." He showed them his hands and feet. He breathed on them and said, "recieve the holy spirit." Thomas was not with the disciples at that time. (That makes ten, not eleven present.) Whe he heard the story, he doubted and said he would have to touch Jesus to believe. A week later, Jesus appeared in the locked room again. This time, Thomas was there and he got to see and touch Jesus. Afterward, Jesus appeared again to his disciples by the sea of Tiberious where he helped them catch fish, and had breakfast with them, and talked to Peter.

Now we see the stories clearly diverging in details, especially Matthew and John. Matthew has the disciples going to a mountain in Galilee, that's it. Is Jesus a spirit or flesh and blood? John includes a fish story. Notice the element of doubt introduced in each story. More to come...

What happened on Sunday morning? part 1

Last year, on the Saturday before Easter, I posted "What happened on Saturday?" Today, I want to look at the events of "resurrection Sunday" as recorded in the Bible. We will look at Mark 16, Matthew 28, Luke 24, and John 20. We will also try to see what passages outside the gospels might say about the resurrection.

First, all four gospels record what happened on the morning ofthe first day of the week.
*Mark: very early just after just after sunrise
*Matthew: at dawn
*Luke: very early in the morning
*John: early, while it was still dark

Who went to the tomb?
*Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bringing spices for the body.
*Matthew: Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" to look at the tomb
*Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women, taking spices.
*John: Mary Magdalene

How was the tomb opened?
*Mark: the large stone in front of the tomb was already rolled away from the entrance
*Matthew: there was a violent earthquake because of an angel coming down from heaven to roll away the stone.
*Luke: the stone was already rolled away
*John: the stone was already removed from the entrance

What people or things did the women see at the tomb?
*Mark: a young man dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side as the women entered the tomb. He said Jesus was not there, he had risen and was going ahead of them to Galilee.
*Matthew: an angel of the lord was sitting on top of the stone. His appearance was like lightening, his clothes as white as snow. He said Jesus was not there he had risen. The tomb guards were so afraid they were shaking and unable to move. The angel told the women to go tell Jesus's disciples that Jesus was going ahead of them to Galilee and they would see him there.
*Luke: two men in clothes that gleamed like lightening suddenly appeared. The men said Jesus was not there, he had risen.
*John: no people or things mentioned

What did the women do when they found Jesus was gone?
*Mark: 16:8 says the women said nothing to anyone because they were afraid. 16:10 (not found in the earliest manuscripts) contradicts that and says Mary Magdalene went and told those who had been with Jesus who were mourning.
*Matthew: the women ran to tell the disciples. On the way, Jesus appeared and spoke to them. They clasped his feet and worshipped him. He reiterated the command to tell the disciples to go to Galilee where they would see him.
*Luke: the women told everything to the eleven remaining disciples and "all the others."
*John: Mary ran to Peter and the disciple "Jesus loved." She said, "they have taken the lord out of the tomb and we don't know where they have put him!" No supernatural explanations have been provided yet.

So far, I see that Luke and Mark have many similarities, but are not exactly alike  in details. Matthew is kind of like Mark and Luke smashed together then embellished with many extra details. It is much more dramatic and wordy. John's story is very quiet and down played, with very little detail and nothing of a supernatural nature yet.

Galatians chapter 1 part 1

After reading chapter 1:

*The first five verses are the letter's greeting, telling who it is from and to whom it is written. Paul describes himself as an apostle, sent not from man nor by men but by Jesus christ and God the father. An apostle is someone who is sent, or a messenger, basically a missionary. Who sent Paul? He claims Jesus and God sent him. Let's be clear though, he is not talking about the living physical man Jesus. As far as the bible shows,  Paul never encountered him. Paul is talking of a Christ (messiah) named Jesus (literally Joshua) who he believes is resurrected from the dead. How did he recieve this commission from a formerly dead person? We will find out later in this book.

*A common mistake some modern christians make is to assume that this kind of resurrected messiah talk was unusual  in the first century. The truth is the Jews had and still have multiple messianic teachings, and arguments for and against them.. Plus, Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead.
Messiah ben Joseph (son of Joseph) 
Messiah in Judaism
Menahem ben Hezekiah
Jewish Eschatology (scroll down to "messianism")

*From reading the above articles we can see that the idea of a messiah was multifaceted and complicated, with many schools of thought. The Old Testament prophetic writings were sometimes read as a code that needed to be deciphered, just as many christians treat the book of Revelation today. There was no overarching consensus about the who, how, where, and when of this messiah. Paul as a first century educated Pharisee, before the fall of Jerusalem, would have been steeped in the traditions, arguments,and teachings of his day. They were not confined to the biblical literature we now call scripture. There were intertestamental writings and the Jews had a rich oral tradition. These people weren't just looking for a messiah. They were willing to see it anywhere, just like  christians of today who see the end times and parallels with Revelation in modern events, even stretching facts to make them fit.

*We can see that Paul lived in a world and among a people that expected a leader, one whose name might be recognized as one of the great Israelite heroes, a Moses, an Elijah, a Joseph, a David, or maybe even a Joshua? Maybe that person would be a reincarnation or resurrection of that hero of old. Maybe he would perform similar acts, in reality or symbolically. Paul also lived in a world that was familiar with Hellenic philosophy. He could have been aware of or influenced by the Platonists, the Stoics, the Epicureans, and more, including Hellenistic Jews like Philo of Alexandria. I included all this information because I think it is very important to remember that Paul did not live in a "biblical" bubble as we continue on.

Job chapter 14

After reading chapter 14:

*Job is still talking. The first few verses are well known."Man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble." Job is saying people have short little lives, why does a god need to focus his attention on them. Just leave them alone, so they can put in their time. Trees that are cut down can sprout again from the roots, but when people die, that's it for them. "So man lies down and does not rise; till the heavens are no more, men will not awake or be roused from their sleep." So... No resurrection, reincarnation, or afterlife.

*In verse 13, Job seems to wish that some kind of resurrection would take place in a time when the God would not keep track of his sins. However, he says this God destroys man's hope in verse 19. Man is overpowered and sent away for good. He never gets a chance to know how his children's lives turn out.

*My study bible says this passage doesn't really mean Job is actually pessimistic about resurrection, he's just focusing on his present predicament. I don't see it. It seems quite clear that the author has no idea of any  possibility of an afterlife.

What happened on Saturday?

Yesterday was Good Friday, when Jesus was supposedly crucified. Tomorrow is Resurrection Sunday, when Jesus supposedly rose from the dead. But what about Saturday? It was the  only complete 24 hour day of the supposed 3 days Jesus spent in the grave. What was going on? Well, we aren't really told much of anything about that day in the scriptures.

If the disciples were obedient to the law of Moses, they were not doing anything that could be classified as work.  They were spending their day in forced idleness. However, according to Matthew 27 the day after the crucifixion is when the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate and requested that the tomb be sealed and guarded. Were the chief priests and Pharisees breaking the Sabbath? Jesus had eaten the passover meal on the first day of the passover week with his disciples in Matthew 26.The day of the crucifixion was technically still the Passover, since days were measured from twilight to twilight. It also had been preparation day, as the day before the Sabbath, Saturday,  was called. The sequence of holy days can get confusing as they sometimes overlap, but that is the only way to get Matthew's account to make any  sense, if it is assumed to be correct. That first day of the Passover week should have been a non work day as well, according to Leviticus 23. The Pharisees and chief priests should have been holding sacred assembly, instead of trying to get Jesus crucified. It is all very confusing.

Mark has the same timeline as Matthew: 1. The day the  Passover lamb is killed and disciples look for a place to eat the Passover. 2. Twilight Passover meal/ betrayal/crucifixion/burial/ day before sabbath 3. Sabbath. 4. Empty tomb Sunday. Mark says nothing at all about the sabbath sealing and guarding of the tomb.

Luke also has the same timeline. He also neglects to mention the sabbath sealing and guarding of the tomb. However, he makes sure to mention that the women who had been with Jesus spent the sabbath resting according to the commandment. Here Joseph of Aramathea wraps Jesus's body but the women prepared the spices. 

John has a very different story. Before the Passover, there is a meal with the disciples where Jesus washes their feet. This is work and would not have been done on the first day of the Passover week. Then comes a lot of talk, the betrayal, arrest, the bringing before Pilate, and the crucifixion. In chapter 18 verse 28, it is made clear that the Passover meal has not happened yet, because it says the Jews were anxious to avoid ceremonial uncleanness so they could eat the Passover. Chapter 19 verse 20 says that was the day of preparation for the sabbath. The Passover apparently fell on the sabbath (Saturday) in this account. Here Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus wrap and prepare the body with spices ( no mention of the women) and place it in a tomb, because the sabbath was coming. But this act  would have made them ceremonially unclean and unable to eat the Passover/sabbath meal. John says nothing about the sabbath day itself. 

Needless to say, in spite of the fact that John's version appears to have a different timeline, christians have come up with many ways to reconcile the accounts, including copying errors, confusion with the number of days in the Passover week, what day of the week the Passover started on, etc. However, some scholars feel that John's timeline is a deliberate attempt to create the image of Jesus as the (Passover) lamb of god which takes away the sins of the world, as mention in John 1. The other gospels do not use that phraseology. Instead they have Jesus giving his body, and his disciples symbolically eating it, at the Passover meal aka Last Supper.  John does not. 

There are many extrabiblical teachings and traditions about that Saturday's events, not usually in protestant circles though. I never heard a word about it for the forty years I was a christian.