Now let us look at Isaiah chapter 8. God tells Isaiah to write on a scroll, with an ordinary pen, the name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. This means "quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil." Then two priests are to be called in as witnesses.
After that, Isaiah went to the prophetess, presumably his wife, they had sex and she had a son. They named him the above wacky name because god told them to. God also told Isaiah that before the child could say mommy and daddy, the king of Assyria would plunder Damascus and Samaria, the locations of the kingdoms of Aram and Israel. So is this child the same child mentioned in Isaiah 7:14? It is unclear. Why would Isaiah's child be a sign to King Ahaz? That makes no sense to me.
Next is a long poetic passage talking about this invasion. The end of verse 8 is the phrase "O Immanuel" which you may have heard in christmas carols. This is the name that was supposed to be given to the child in Isaiah 7:14 It means "god is with us," a completely different name than the one Isaiah supposedly gave his newborn son. The phrase "god is with us," echoing the name, is also at the end of verse 10.
In verse 18, Isaiah says, "Here I am, and the children the Lord has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the Lord Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion." Well, whoop-dee-doo. A guy has some kids, which lots of guys all over the world do, and that means they are some kind of special portent of coming destruction? Why should anyone believe him? What difference would it have made if he hadn't had any kids?
Yes, Assyria invaded. But when was this written? Before, or after the fact? It is unknown, but most probably after. If it was written after the invasion, with Isaiah projecting his past self into the future, how are we to know whether or not he actually recieved any message from god beforehand? Nobody was fact checking him then, just as very few people bother to fact check religious figures today. Should we just believe anyone who says they predicted a particular thing would happen and it happened after they said it? Of course, not. This is what makes biblical prophecy so problematic. The likelihood of actual detailed prophetic statements before specific events is highly unlikely.
The chapter ends with a screed against those who would consult mediums and spiritists who talk to the dead. Isaiah says they should enquire of their god instead, meaning him, the supposed mouthpiece of god. Then he goes on to pronounce a fancy curse on those don't consult god (him).
And what does all this have to do with Jesus?
To be continued.
Friday, December 22, 2017
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Isaiah chapters 7-9, part 1
Before I continue on with my study of hell, I thought I would do my "Christmas" post. We will look at Isaiah 7-9 because parts of it are often brought out at Christmas, as a supposed prophesies of the birth of Jesus.
Verse 7:14 says, "Therefore the lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel." Matthew 1:23 says that Mary concieved Jesus by the holy spirit to fulfill this passage in Isaiah. So, is this passage really prophesying the birth of Jesus?
First of all, If we go to the beginning of chapter 7 and read through the chapter , we see Ahaz, the king of Judah, is in a war with the kings of Aram and Israel. Isaiah is told by God that the kings of Aram and Israel will not conquer Judah. If they do not stand firm in their faith, they will not stand at all. God offerred Ahaz a sign that this would happen. Ahaz didn't want a sign from god, so god got irritated and gave him a sign anyway.The sign is the birth of the previously mentioned child. Notably, before this child "knows enough to to reject the wrong and choose the right" the armies of Assyria would invade the land and destroy Aram and Israel. (In fancy poetic language)
Does this sound like it has anything to do with a baby to be born at least 700 years later? Of course not. What about the virgin who was supposed to have this child? Who would be the child's father if this child was to be born before the Assyrian army came? Surely not god. So then, his mother wasn't actually a virgin when the child was born, if it had a human father. It turns out that this passage in Hebrew uses the hebrew word "almah", which has been translated here as virgin. However, this word can also denote a young, newly married woman. She obviously didn't remain a virgin. It is unclear who the father was supposed to be. My study bible suggests it might have been Isaiah, but it makes more sense to me if it was Ahaz. At any rate, the child was supposed to be born in that time period.
Notice that this young child will not yet know right from wrong when the Assyrian army comes. Was there a time when Jesus did not know right from wrong? Was he divine or not? Was he the son of god or not? Was he god in the flesh or not? Is this whole prophecy about Jesus, or was just the virgin part about Jesus? How does that work? How would anyone know which parts were supposed to be about a coming child of god/christ/messiah and which parts were not? What invasion was Jesus's birth supposed to be a sign of? What nations would be invaded before he was old enough to reject the wrong and choose the right?
Plus, when was Jesus ever called Immanuel? Well if you search the New Testament, you will come up empty. Matthew 1:23 is the only place that name occurs and there he is quoting Isaiah. Could it be that Matthew just cherry picked a verse about a young woman having a child and said "See, this proves Jesus was prophesied about?" But was he?
What do Jews have to say about this passage found in their scriptures? (Link) The link shows a similar line of thought to what I just covered. If Isiah 7:14 is not a prophecy, and Jesus was not born of a virgin or called Immanuel, then the author of the book of Matthew made that part up on purpose to try to convince his audience of the divinity of Jesus. Could he have made up the whole book, most of it, or other parts? Was Jesus even born at all? The author of Matthew was not an eyewitness to the birth, and we don't even know who he was or where he got his information. Why should we believe him?
More to come.
Verse 7:14 says, "Therefore the lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel." Matthew 1:23 says that Mary concieved Jesus by the holy spirit to fulfill this passage in Isaiah. So, is this passage really prophesying the birth of Jesus?
First of all, If we go to the beginning of chapter 7 and read through the chapter , we see Ahaz, the king of Judah, is in a war with the kings of Aram and Israel. Isaiah is told by God that the kings of Aram and Israel will not conquer Judah. If they do not stand firm in their faith, they will not stand at all. God offerred Ahaz a sign that this would happen. Ahaz didn't want a sign from god, so god got irritated and gave him a sign anyway.The sign is the birth of the previously mentioned child. Notably, before this child "knows enough to to reject the wrong and choose the right" the armies of Assyria would invade the land and destroy Aram and Israel. (In fancy poetic language)
Does this sound like it has anything to do with a baby to be born at least 700 years later? Of course not. What about the virgin who was supposed to have this child? Who would be the child's father if this child was to be born before the Assyrian army came? Surely not god. So then, his mother wasn't actually a virgin when the child was born, if it had a human father. It turns out that this passage in Hebrew uses the hebrew word "almah", which has been translated here as virgin. However, this word can also denote a young, newly married woman. She obviously didn't remain a virgin. It is unclear who the father was supposed to be. My study bible suggests it might have been Isaiah, but it makes more sense to me if it was Ahaz. At any rate, the child was supposed to be born in that time period.
Notice that this young child will not yet know right from wrong when the Assyrian army comes. Was there a time when Jesus did not know right from wrong? Was he divine or not? Was he the son of god or not? Was he god in the flesh or not? Is this whole prophecy about Jesus, or was just the virgin part about Jesus? How does that work? How would anyone know which parts were supposed to be about a coming child of god/christ/messiah and which parts were not? What invasion was Jesus's birth supposed to be a sign of? What nations would be invaded before he was old enough to reject the wrong and choose the right?
Plus, when was Jesus ever called Immanuel? Well if you search the New Testament, you will come up empty. Matthew 1:23 is the only place that name occurs and there he is quoting Isaiah. Could it be that Matthew just cherry picked a verse about a young woman having a child and said "See, this proves Jesus was prophesied about?" But was he?
What do Jews have to say about this passage found in their scriptures? (Link) The link shows a similar line of thought to what I just covered. If Isiah 7:14 is not a prophecy, and Jesus was not born of a virgin or called Immanuel, then the author of the book of Matthew made that part up on purpose to try to convince his audience of the divinity of Jesus. Could he have made up the whole book, most of it, or other parts? Was Jesus even born at all? The author of Matthew was not an eyewitness to the birth, and we don't even know who he was or where he got his information. Why should we believe him?
More to come.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Hell part 3
As we have seen, the Old Testament hell is actually sheol, which is not the same as the hell taught in christianity. It is the realm of the dead, the grave. It is underground or some nebulous place in the depths, "down below." It is often associated with a pit. The word pit associated with the grave or death in the Old Testament often comes from the Hebrew word "bowr." This word appears to have meanings associated with a hole in the ground that is a well or cistern, or a dungeon. The word pit associated with death and the grave in the KJV is also sometimes translated from the Hebrew word "shachath." This word has connotations of a ditch or a trap. Notice that these are all words associated with under the ground or holes in the earth.
Sometimes the word destruction is associated with sheol. Then, it is often from the word abaddon. They are often seen together as in "death and destruction." (Sheol and Abaddon) Abaddon appears to be a distinct part of hell, perhaps a bottomless pit. There is that word pit again.
Besides Sheol, the Old Testament does have a few descriptions of a punishment after death at some "end time," but it is not named as a particular place. Some christians claim these are descrptions of hell. Let's look at some of them.
First let's look at Daniel chapter 12: 1-2. "....at that time your people-everyone whose name is found written in the book-will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel is an apocalyptic/prophetic book, written anonymously, about 200 years before Jesus, according to many scholars. My NIV study bible says its writers think Daniel was written around the time period of its events, about 560 BC, at least partly by Daniel. I have not studied the book of Daniel in depth, but this passage does appear to refer to an afterlife. The phrase "your people" obviously refers to jews. Why do christians think it speaks to them? The book of Daniel was written by Jews for Jews. Also, in practical terms, what does it mean to awaken to everlasting shame and contempt?
The study bible references lead me from Daniel to another supposedly prophetic book, Isaiah. Again, this book was written by Jews, for Jews. In chapter 26, a future day of judgement is being sung about. In verse 11, Isaiah begs Yahweh to let the fire reserved for his enemies consume them. In verse fourteen we see Isaiah say that God's enemies are dead "they live no more." Yahweh "punished them and brought them to ruin." He wiped out all memory of them. This doesn't sound like a literal hell. In fact, from there the study bible leads me to Psalm 9:5 where the worse thing that can happen to the wicked is that they are utterly destroyed, their names blotted out, and the memory of them perishes. Really? Okay, being destroyed is totally the pits. We have only one life. But once you are gone, so what if noone remembers you. You won't know.
Let us remember that Daniel, Isaiah, and Psalms are written in poetic and metaphoric language. They are trash talking about the enemies of the Israelites. I don't think these passages were meant to be doctrinal statements about what happens to nonbelievers in christianity.
Sometimes the word destruction is associated with sheol. Then, it is often from the word abaddon. They are often seen together as in "death and destruction." (Sheol and Abaddon) Abaddon appears to be a distinct part of hell, perhaps a bottomless pit. There is that word pit again.
Besides Sheol, the Old Testament does have a few descriptions of a punishment after death at some "end time," but it is not named as a particular place. Some christians claim these are descrptions of hell. Let's look at some of them.
First let's look at Daniel chapter 12: 1-2. "....at that time your people-everyone whose name is found written in the book-will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel is an apocalyptic/prophetic book, written anonymously, about 200 years before Jesus, according to many scholars. My NIV study bible says its writers think Daniel was written around the time period of its events, about 560 BC, at least partly by Daniel. I have not studied the book of Daniel in depth, but this passage does appear to refer to an afterlife. The phrase "your people" obviously refers to jews. Why do christians think it speaks to them? The book of Daniel was written by Jews for Jews. Also, in practical terms, what does it mean to awaken to everlasting shame and contempt?
The study bible references lead me from Daniel to another supposedly prophetic book, Isaiah. Again, this book was written by Jews, for Jews. In chapter 26, a future day of judgement is being sung about. In verse 11, Isaiah begs Yahweh to let the fire reserved for his enemies consume them. In verse fourteen we see Isaiah say that God's enemies are dead "they live no more." Yahweh "punished them and brought them to ruin." He wiped out all memory of them. This doesn't sound like a literal hell. In fact, from there the study bible leads me to Psalm 9:5 where the worse thing that can happen to the wicked is that they are utterly destroyed, their names blotted out, and the memory of them perishes. Really? Okay, being destroyed is totally the pits. We have only one life. But once you are gone, so what if noone remembers you. You won't know.
Let us remember that Daniel, Isaiah, and Psalms are written in poetic and metaphoric language. They are trash talking about the enemies of the Israelites. I don't think these passages were meant to be doctrinal statements about what happens to nonbelievers in christianity.
Monday, December 4, 2017
Hell part 2
We are going to look at the Old Testament passages where Sheol is translated into "hell" in the King James version. We are doing that because Strong's concordance was created based on the King James. We will compare that to how the NIV scholars translated those passages. My NIV study bible has no references for hell in the Old Testament in its concordance. The words "death" or "grave" in the NIV replace the word hell from the KJV. The Hebrew is sheol for each of these.
1- Deut. 32:22, sheol is translated to "realm of death below" in the NIV. There is a fire from god's wrath.
2- 2 Sam. 22:6 talks of the cords of the grave.
3- Job 11:8 says the mysteries of god are deeper than the depths of the grave
4- Job 26:6 "death is naked before god"
5- Psalm 9:17 "the wicked return to the grave"
6- Psalm 16:10 "you will not abandon me to the grave"
7- Psalm 18:5 "the cords of the grave entangled me" This is very similar to the verse in 2 Samuel.
8- Psalm 55:15 "let them go down alive to the grave"
9- Psalm 86:13 "you have delivered me from the depths of the grave"
10- Psalm 116:3 "anguish of the grave came upon me"
11-Psalm139:8 "if I make my bed in the depths (sheol) you are there" this is talking about god.
12- Prov. 5:5 "her feet go down to death" talking about the "adulterous woman."
13- Prov. 7:27 "her house is a highway to the grave"
14- Prov 9:18 "her guests are in the depths of the grave"
15- Prov. 15:11 "death and destruction lie open before the lord"
16- Prov. 15:24 "The path of life leads upward.....to keep him from going down to the grave."
17- Prov. 23:14 "punish him with the rod and save his soul from death"
18- Prov. 27:20 "death and destruction are never satisfied."
19- Is. 14:15 "you are brought down to the realm of the dead to the depths of the pit"
20- Is. 28:15 "with the realm of the dead we have made an agreement"
21- Is. 28:18 "your agreement with the realm of the dead will not stand"
22- Is. 57:9 "you descended to the very realm of the dead"
23- Eze. 31:16 "I brought it down to the realm of the dead"
24- Eze. 31:17 "they too had gone down to the realm of the dead"
25- Eze. 32:21 "from within the realm of the dead, the mighty leaders will say"
26- Eze. 32:27 "who went down to the realm of the dead"
27- Amos 9:2 "though they dig down to the depths below"
28-Jonah 2:2 "from deep in the realm of the dead"
29- Hab. 2:5 "he is as greedy as the grave"
Again, these are all the NIV versions of the passages where sheol is translated into "hell" in the KJV Old Testament. We see from these that NIV scholars determined they should be translated as death, the grave, the depths, and the realm of the dead.
I also looked up "death" in the Strong's concordance and found no instances where the KJV translators used death for sheol.The Hebrew word translated as death was an entirely different word. However, when I looked up "grave" in the Strong's concordance, I found 30 instances where sheol had been translated as "the grave" instead of hell. So, even the KJV scholars were not consistly translating sheol into hell. I also found 3 instances where sheol had been translated into "the pit" in the KJV. As far as I could tell grave, hell, and pit are the only English words that the KJV uses for sheol.
I searched the text of the NIV for the word hell here: (link). As far as I can see, there is no hell in the Old Testament of the NIV, at all. Very interesting. In fact, the Old Testament scriptures of these translations also do not contain the word hell: ASV, RSV, ISV, NET, WEB, YLT, ISV, EST, NASB, The Easy To Read Version, and the Good News Bible. The ones that do contain hell in the Old Testament are the various versions of the KJV, and surprisingly enough, The Living Bible and The Message. That last one shocked me, considering it is often used by non-fundamentalist, progressive christians. I wonder if the word hell occurring in the KJV is one of the reasons that version is preferred by fundamentalists.
1- Deut. 32:22, sheol is translated to "realm of death below" in the NIV. There is a fire from god's wrath.
2- 2 Sam. 22:6 talks of the cords of the grave.
3- Job 11:8 says the mysteries of god are deeper than the depths of the grave
4- Job 26:6 "death is naked before god"
5- Psalm 9:17 "the wicked return to the grave"
6- Psalm 16:10 "you will not abandon me to the grave"
7- Psalm 18:5 "the cords of the grave entangled me" This is very similar to the verse in 2 Samuel.
8- Psalm 55:15 "let them go down alive to the grave"
9- Psalm 86:13 "you have delivered me from the depths of the grave"
10- Psalm 116:3 "anguish of the grave came upon me"
11-Psalm139:8 "if I make my bed in the depths (sheol) you are there" this is talking about god.
12- Prov. 5:5 "her feet go down to death" talking about the "adulterous woman."
13- Prov. 7:27 "her house is a highway to the grave"
14- Prov 9:18 "her guests are in the depths of the grave"
15- Prov. 15:11 "death and destruction lie open before the lord"
16- Prov. 15:24 "The path of life leads upward.....to keep him from going down to the grave."
17- Prov. 23:14 "punish him with the rod and save his soul from death"
18- Prov. 27:20 "death and destruction are never satisfied."
19- Is. 14:15 "you are brought down to the realm of the dead to the depths of the pit"
20- Is. 28:15 "with the realm of the dead we have made an agreement"
21- Is. 28:18 "your agreement with the realm of the dead will not stand"
22- Is. 57:9 "you descended to the very realm of the dead"
23- Eze. 31:16 "I brought it down to the realm of the dead"
24- Eze. 31:17 "they too had gone down to the realm of the dead"
25- Eze. 32:21 "from within the realm of the dead, the mighty leaders will say"
26- Eze. 32:27 "who went down to the realm of the dead"
27- Amos 9:2 "though they dig down to the depths below"
28-Jonah 2:2 "from deep in the realm of the dead"
29- Hab. 2:5 "he is as greedy as the grave"
Again, these are all the NIV versions of the passages where sheol is translated into "hell" in the KJV Old Testament. We see from these that NIV scholars determined they should be translated as death, the grave, the depths, and the realm of the dead.
I also looked up "death" in the Strong's concordance and found no instances where the KJV translators used death for sheol.The Hebrew word translated as death was an entirely different word. However, when I looked up "grave" in the Strong's concordance, I found 30 instances where sheol had been translated as "the grave" instead of hell. So, even the KJV scholars were not consistly translating sheol into hell. I also found 3 instances where sheol had been translated into "the pit" in the KJV. As far as I could tell grave, hell, and pit are the only English words that the KJV uses for sheol.
I searched the text of the NIV for the word hell here: (link). As far as I can see, there is no hell in the Old Testament of the NIV, at all. Very interesting. In fact, the Old Testament scriptures of these translations also do not contain the word hell: ASV, RSV, ISV, NET, WEB, YLT, ISV, EST, NASB, The Easy To Read Version, and the Good News Bible. The ones that do contain hell in the Old Testament are the various versions of the KJV, and surprisingly enough, The Living Bible and The Message. That last one shocked me, considering it is often used by non-fundamentalist, progressive christians. I wonder if the word hell occurring in the KJV is one of the reasons that version is preferred by fundamentalists.
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Hell, part 1
Over the next few weeks, I thought we could take a look at Heaven and Hell. My personal, in depth study of hell some years ago was one of the main factors in my deconversion. I looked through my old posts and could not find a comprehensive examination of those subjects, so that's what I want to do now. We will start with Hell, since that is a fear introduced to believers as the only alternative to Heaven, where everyone woul prefer to end up, of course.
The general, cultural idea of Hell, in Christian North America, is either a place of eternal torment with fire, pain, and anguish, or a dark void of eternal separation from god and all that is good. Does the Bible support either of these ideas? Is there reason to believe either version of Hell exists? Let's find out.
Today, we will start with the old testament. I looked up the word Hell in my Strong's concordance. For the old testament there appeared to be only one Hebrew word translated into the English word Hell: Sheol. Sheol is also translated into the English words "death" and "grave" in multiple scriptures. Read about Sheol here: (link)
Sheol of the old testament was not the hell of eternal punishment found christianity. It was an underground world where ALL the dead resided. It has its equivalent in the Greek Hades. Obviously, no such world actually exists. It is pure mythology.
However, it is important to recognize that Jews do not follow the doctrine of "sola scriptura" that many protestant christian groups do, including the church of christ, of which I was a member. Jews also have a long tradition of rabbinical writings which include laws, commentary and additional stories. These are found in the Talmud and other books. They are often given as much weight, or more, as what christians would call the old testament, which Jews call the bible.
We are not going to cover what Jewish extrabiblical writings say about hell, because I'm not all that concerned with them. Jews are not going around trying to convince anyone they will go to hell if they do not believe what is taught by Judaism. Many christians, however, are doing just that.
I will give you a few links with Jewish discussions of what they believe about hell and or an afterlife.
Here
Here
Here
Here
and
Here
As you can see there is great variation in the Jewish faith and tradition. Each of the above links shows a unique perspective, with some pertinent history. However, they all seem similar in that they do not take a stance of condemnation or eternal punishment/torture. They don't see a need to evangelize to save souls. Most do not think what you believe matters as much as what you do. If christianity had not happened, would the world have been a kinder gentler place? Who knows.
The general, cultural idea of Hell, in Christian North America, is either a place of eternal torment with fire, pain, and anguish, or a dark void of eternal separation from god and all that is good. Does the Bible support either of these ideas? Is there reason to believe either version of Hell exists? Let's find out.
Today, we will start with the old testament. I looked up the word Hell in my Strong's concordance. For the old testament there appeared to be only one Hebrew word translated into the English word Hell: Sheol. Sheol is also translated into the English words "death" and "grave" in multiple scriptures. Read about Sheol here: (link)
Sheol of the old testament was not the hell of eternal punishment found christianity. It was an underground world where ALL the dead resided. It has its equivalent in the Greek Hades. Obviously, no such world actually exists. It is pure mythology.
However, it is important to recognize that Jews do not follow the doctrine of "sola scriptura" that many protestant christian groups do, including the church of christ, of which I was a member. Jews also have a long tradition of rabbinical writings which include laws, commentary and additional stories. These are found in the Talmud and other books. They are often given as much weight, or more, as what christians would call the old testament, which Jews call the bible.
We are not going to cover what Jewish extrabiblical writings say about hell, because I'm not all that concerned with them. Jews are not going around trying to convince anyone they will go to hell if they do not believe what is taught by Judaism. Many christians, however, are doing just that.
I will give you a few links with Jewish discussions of what they believe about hell and or an afterlife.
Here
Here
Here
Here
and
Here
As you can see there is great variation in the Jewish faith and tradition. Each of the above links shows a unique perspective, with some pertinent history. However, they all seem similar in that they do not take a stance of condemnation or eternal punishment/torture. They don't see a need to evangelize to save souls. Most do not think what you believe matters as much as what you do. If christianity had not happened, would the world have been a kinder gentler place? Who knows.
Friday, November 24, 2017
Ephesians 6 wrap up
After reading Ephesians, I have noticed that, as I mentioned before, it contains very little information that is concrete. It mentions "spiritual" blessings but not material ones. It talks of faith in Jesus, but gives us little to no information about Jesus, his life, and his teachings. It talks of how the gentiles and the jews are no longer separated, but are now fellow citizens of god's household, sharing in the promise of christ. This was supposedly once a great mystery that has now been revealed through Paul. It is also a direct contradiction of Paul's statements concerning the Jews in the letter to the Galatians, chapter 4.
Saints are mentioned and are presumably referring to believers. Unity of all believers is stressed in a kind of creedal statement."There is one body, and one spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called, one lord, one god and father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."
Another famous passage is found in 6:10-18, referring to the "armor of god." This invisible armor is to be used to fight against an invisible enemy.
There is mention of the devil/Satan, but not hell or specifics about any punishments for disobedience. There are vague references to heaven as the place where Jesus and god live, but no specifics. Forces of evil are also said to reside in the heavenly realms. (6:12) I don't remember any mention of angels.
A day of evil is coming (6:13), but again no specifics. There is no mention of any old testament characters, places, or events, not even Moses or Abraham, just the phrase "men in other generations." (3:5) The law with its commandments and regulations is said to have been abolished. (2:15)
The submission/obedience of women to husbands and slaves to masters is actively promoted and encouraged.
There are two old testament passages supposedly quoted, but when we look back at the Old Testa,ent, the passages read differently and mean something else in their particular context. The first is Eph. 4:8- "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men." This is different in Psalm 68:18, which reads-"When you ascended on high, you led captives in your train and you recieved gifts from men." The second is found in Eph. 5:14- "Wake up o sleeper, rise from the dead, and christ will shine on you." The closest scripture to that is found in Isaiah 60:1-"Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the lord rises upon you." These are obviously not the same, but no other passage is either. Theses passages don't appear to actually have anything to do with Jesus.
There is also no mention of any other New Testament characters, places, and events, except Jesus's death and resurrection. One exception is the mention of Tychicus at the closing of the letter. Tychicus is mentioned in almost exactly similar wording at the closing of Colossians. His name is also found in Titus 3:12 and Acts 20:4.
All in all, this is an extraordinarily ambiguous and generic letter. It could have been written to anyone at any time in the first century church. It is assumed to be written near the end of Paul's life when he was supposedly in prison. This is assumed from the passages where the author calls himself an "ambassador in chains" (6:20) and a "prisoner for the lord" (4:1), a "prisoner for Jesus christ" (3:1). However, these could all be metaphors, because they do not come right out and say he is actually imprisoned.
Saints are mentioned and are presumably referring to believers. Unity of all believers is stressed in a kind of creedal statement."There is one body, and one spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called, one lord, one god and father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."
Another famous passage is found in 6:10-18, referring to the "armor of god." This invisible armor is to be used to fight against an invisible enemy.
There is mention of the devil/Satan, but not hell or specifics about any punishments for disobedience. There are vague references to heaven as the place where Jesus and god live, but no specifics. Forces of evil are also said to reside in the heavenly realms. (6:12) I don't remember any mention of angels.
A day of evil is coming (6:13), but again no specifics. There is no mention of any old testament characters, places, or events, not even Moses or Abraham, just the phrase "men in other generations." (3:5) The law with its commandments and regulations is said to have been abolished. (2:15)
The submission/obedience of women to husbands and slaves to masters is actively promoted and encouraged.
There are two old testament passages supposedly quoted, but when we look back at the Old Testa,ent, the passages read differently and mean something else in their particular context. The first is Eph. 4:8- "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men." This is different in Psalm 68:18, which reads-"When you ascended on high, you led captives in your train and you recieved gifts from men." The second is found in Eph. 5:14- "Wake up o sleeper, rise from the dead, and christ will shine on you." The closest scripture to that is found in Isaiah 60:1-"Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the lord rises upon you." These are obviously not the same, but no other passage is either. Theses passages don't appear to actually have anything to do with Jesus.
There is also no mention of any other New Testament characters, places, and events, except Jesus's death and resurrection. One exception is the mention of Tychicus at the closing of the letter. Tychicus is mentioned in almost exactly similar wording at the closing of Colossians. His name is also found in Titus 3:12 and Acts 20:4.
All in all, this is an extraordinarily ambiguous and generic letter. It could have been written to anyone at any time in the first century church. It is assumed to be written near the end of Paul's life when he was supposedly in prison. This is assumed from the passages where the author calls himself an "ambassador in chains" (6:20) and a "prisoner for the lord" (4:1), a "prisoner for Jesus christ" (3:1). However, these could all be metaphors, because they do not come right out and say he is actually imprisoned.
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Ephesians chapter 6, part 3
Starting in verse 10, this section is subtitled "the armor of god " in my bible. It is the beginning of the end of the chapter and the letter. The christians addressed in this letter are told to be strong in the lord and in his mighty power. But what is his mighty power? So far it seems to be only abstract ideas. There are no concrete acts that this god does, that I can recall being mentioned in this letter. Instead, all the real action is to be done by the readers/hearers. Everything else is couched in metaphors and the language of "spiritual" philosophy. We have been told about grace, redemption, salvation, etc.. All words that have ambiguous meanings and purpose. What good is this god in the present tense, here on earth, besides making sure his commands are followed correctly? To what earthly end?
This armor that the readers are to put on is another metaphor and it is supposed to be for protection against the schemes of the devil. Is he also a metaphor? The passage tells us he is not flesh and blood, but he has something to do with rulers, authorities, and powers in this dark world, and spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. He is a Sith Lord? Now that humans have actually explored the heavens with spacecraft and telescopes, it is quite obvious there are no spiritual forces of evil messing around up there. Where are these heavenly realms any way?
This armor of god is for fighting a spiritual battle on an evil day that is supposedly coming. When? Is the battle just as imaginary as the armor? The armor consists of 1. The belt of truth. 2. The breastplate of righteousness. 3. Shoes of readiness 4. A shield of faith. (To extinguish the devil's flaming darts) 5. The helmet of salvation 6. The sword of the spirit, aka the word of god. Add all kinds of prayers and requests. What practical good is any of that? The armor sounds a bit like it belongs on Wonder Woman. At least you can see hers. The christian's armor is invisible and just about as powerful as any other invisible armor.
Lastly, Paul asks the readers to pray for him that he can continue to propagate this drivel fearlessly. Why does he need prayers? Isn't he wearing his armor? I am impressed with how much a waste Paul's life was, earnestly suffering and toiling for nothing, not to mention teaching others to do the same.
*Today many christians interpret the fiery darts to be the persecution and opposition of nonbelievers, which they see in the most innocuous places. The sword of the spirit is interpreted to be the bible, even though the bible did not exist in its present form then, and the only New Testament writings that existed were possibly a few of Paul's letters. Even the author of Ephesians has not been bold enough to call his own writings the word of god.
This armor that the readers are to put on is another metaphor and it is supposed to be for protection against the schemes of the devil. Is he also a metaphor? The passage tells us he is not flesh and blood, but he has something to do with rulers, authorities, and powers in this dark world, and spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. He is a Sith Lord? Now that humans have actually explored the heavens with spacecraft and telescopes, it is quite obvious there are no spiritual forces of evil messing around up there. Where are these heavenly realms any way?
This armor of god is for fighting a spiritual battle on an evil day that is supposedly coming. When? Is the battle just as imaginary as the armor? The armor consists of 1. The belt of truth. 2. The breastplate of righteousness. 3. Shoes of readiness 4. A shield of faith. (To extinguish the devil's flaming darts) 5. The helmet of salvation 6. The sword of the spirit, aka the word of god. Add all kinds of prayers and requests. What practical good is any of that? The armor sounds a bit like it belongs on Wonder Woman. At least you can see hers. The christian's armor is invisible and just about as powerful as any other invisible armor.
Lastly, Paul asks the readers to pray for him that he can continue to propagate this drivel fearlessly. Why does he need prayers? Isn't he wearing his armor? I am impressed with how much a waste Paul's life was, earnestly suffering and toiling for nothing, not to mention teaching others to do the same.
*Today many christians interpret the fiery darts to be the persecution and opposition of nonbelievers, which they see in the most innocuous places. The sword of the spirit is interpreted to be the bible, even though the bible did not exist in its present form then, and the only New Testament writings that existed were possibly a few of Paul's letters. Even the author of Ephesians has not been bold enough to call his own writings the word of god.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)