3 John introduction, and part one

Next we take a look at the book of the bible called the  Third Epistle (letter) of John. This letter was not written about by the authors of the earliest known christian literature. It was disputed as authentic in the 3rd century and was not even accepted into the bible canon until the fifth century. The author and date of writing are unknown. However, a few similarities to the other writings attributed to John, lead some to believe it had the same author and was written in the same time frame.

The letter begins just like 2 John with "the elder" indicating the author is a person of some authority in a church. It is addressed to his dear friend Gaius, of whose identity or location we have no clue. The author hopes his friend is healthy and his soul is well. The author has been pleased to get a good report from "some brothers" about Gaius and how he is continuing to "walk in the truth." The nature of this truth is not explained. The identity of the brothers is not revealed. The author refers to Gaius as his child. I'm assuming this is metaphorical and Gaius is a student, disciple, or convert of the author's. The author told his church about Gaius.

These brothers were treated well by Gaius, even though they were strangers to him. The author suggests that Gaius send them on their way "in a manner worthy of god." I assume this means to be generous with resources. These particular brothers are said to have gone out "for the sake of the name." What is this name? You might think it is Jesus, however, it could very well be the Jewish god Yahweh.

According to my bible commentary, many Jews today call god by a phrase that means "the name." Jews considered the name of god holy. In order to keep from breaking the commandment about using god's name in vain, they resorted to euphemisms for god. In fact, after doing a quick scan of this letter, I realize Jesus is not even mentioned or alluded to in the whole letter. Could this be another possible case of a letter written by a Jew being taken for a christian document? I'm beginning to think so.

When these brothers (fellow Jews or Jewish christians?) went out for the sake of the name, they received no help no help from the pagans. They were probably proselytizers, commonly called missionaries. Either that, or perhaps they were trying to drum up monetary support for displaced Jews during the diaspora. Just speculation.

More to come.

Who wrote the bible? New Testament

Now let us look at the New Testament Authors.

Matthew: attributed to Matthew, author(s) actually unknown.
Mark: attributed to Mark, author(s) actually unknown.
Luke: attributed to Luke, author(s) actually unknown.
John: attributed to John, author(s) actually unknown.
Acts: attributed to Luke, author(s) actually inknown.
Romans: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed.
1 Corinthians: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed with some contested content.
2 Corinthians: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed, refers to Corinthian letters not in the bible.
Galatians: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed
Ephesians: attributed to Paul, highly disputed.
Philippians: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed.
Colossians: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed.
1 Thessalonians: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed with some contested content.
2 Thessalonians: attributed to Paul, often disputed.
1 Timothy: attributed to Paul, very highly disputed.
2 Timothy: attributed to Paul, very highly disputed
Titus: attributed to Paul, very highly disputed.
Philemon: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed.
Hebrews: often attributed to Paul, author(s) actually unknown.
James: attributed to a James whose specific identity is disputed.
1 Peter: attributed to Peter, very highly disputed.
2 Peter: attributed to Peter, very highly disputed.
1 John: attributed to John, author(s) actually unknown.
2 John: attributed to John, author(s) actually unknown.
3 John: attributed to John, author(s) actually unknown.
Jude: attributed to a Jude whose identity and authorship is disputed.
Revelation: attributed to a John whose identity and authorship are disputed.

I got most of this information from Wikipedia. If you have any questions about a particular book, I suggest you research it yourself. How many books of the New Testament do most scholars consider undisputedly authored by definitively known persons? Going by this list, seven, maybe eight. Those are all written by Paul. 7/27= approx. 26%. Paul says he recieved all his info about Jesus from personal revelation. How reliable is that? How many people would you believe if they told you they had a revelation from a god, and that you should obey it? Why should you believe them if you have not had the same revelation?

The majority of the content of the New Testament comes to us from people without credentials. A geat deal of it is contradictory. Most of its events have no, contemporary to that time, extra-biblical evidence to support that they actually happened. Most of the people mentioned in its pages have no, contemporary to that time, extrabiblical evidence that they actually existed. Not one of the books themselves claims to be divinely inspired or the  word of a god. Why should we take these writings so seriously that we would give our time and resources to promoting them as divinely inspired/authored? Not to mention condemning those who don't.

Who wrote the bible? Old Testament.

Before we move on to 3rd John, I thought I would do some posts about the authors of the bible. Christianity never really addresses a major issue with the bible texts. That is that most of the authors of the 66 books of the bible are actually unknown. Lets take a look at the Old Testament.

Genesis: attributed to Moses, author/authors actually unknown.
Exodus: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown.
Leviticus: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown.
Numbers: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown.
Deuteronomy: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown
Joshua: sometimes attributed to Joshua, author(s) actually unknown
Judges: author(s) unknown.
Ruth: sometimes attributed to Samuel,  authors(s) actually unknown.
1 & 2 Samuel: Sometimes attributed to Samuel, Gad, and Nathan, author(s) actually unknown.
1 &2 Kings: sometimes attributed to Jeremiah,  author(s) actually unknown.
1 & 2 Chronicles: sometimes attributed to Ezra, author(s) actually unknown.
Ezra: attributed to Ezra, disputed because it appears highly edited
Nehemiah:  originally attached to the book of Ezra, sometimes attributed to Ezra and/or Nehemiah,         author(s)actually unknown.
Esther: sometimes attributed to Mordecai, author(s) actually unknown.
Job: sometimes attributed to Moses,  author(s) actually unknown.
Psalms: generally attributed to David (disputed), multiple Psalms reference other authors as well.
Proverbs: generally attributed to Solomon (disputed), references other authors,  an anthology.
Ecclesiastes: attributed to Solomon, disputed
Song of Songs: attributed to Solomon, author(s) actually unknown.
Isaiah: attributed to Isaiah, a portion possibly authentic, appears to have more than one author.
Jeremiah: attributed to Jeremiah, portions possibly authentic but highly edited.
Lamentations:attributed to Jeremiah, author(s) actually unknown.
Ezekiel: attributed to Ezekiel, portions possibly authentic but highly edited.
Daniel: attributed to Daniel, very highly disputed, possible fake.
Hosea: attributed to Hosea, possibly authentic?
Joel: attributed to Joel, portions possibly authentic, but highly edited and borrowed from others
Amos: attributed to Amos, portions possibly authentic but highly edited and borrowed from others.
Obadiah: attributed to Obadiah, possibly authentic but unconfirmed
Jonah: sometimes attributed to Jonah, author(s) actually unknown.
Micah: attributed to Micah, portions possibly authentic but highly edited and borrowed from others.
Nahum: attributed to Nahum, possibly authentic, though  almost nothing is known about Nahum.
Habakuk: attributed to Habakkuk, possibly authentic, almost nothing is known about Habakkuk.
Zephaniah: attributed to Zephaniah who is not mentioned anywhere else, in the bible or history.
Haggai:attributed to Haggai, possibly authentic?
Zechariah: attributed to Zechariah but appears to have more than one author.
Malachi: attributed to Malachi which may not even be the name of an individual, disputed, unknown.

*"Borrowed from others" means there are phrases that are direct quotes of, or allusions to, passages in other bible books, or extrabiblical writings. The information here is what I could glean from the Wikipedia article on each book. You can examine other sources if you wish.

Not one of these books is known for sure to actually be the unedited writing of the author that it is attributed to. At least 17 out of  39 of the books' authors are absolutely unaccounted for. In my opinion that should be 39/39 but I'm being generous. Is this a book you want to trust with your life? Do you have reason to believe it is the inspired word of a god when the authors can't even be vouched for?

2 John, part 5 And wrap up.

Today is the third anniversary of this blog! A great big thanks to all my readers. I don't know who you are, but you keep me going. More people from more countries visit the blog each week.

We are continuing on from verse 8. "Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully." What have they worked for, and what will the reward be? We aren't told.

Verse 9: "Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have god; whoever continues in the teaching has both the father and the son." The running ahead appears to mean going beyond, or leaving the teaching behind. Once you have been in the cult, if you leave you are doomed.

Verses 10-11: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." There you go. All nonbelievers are not welcome in christian homes and are deemed wicked. Is that Love? Is that Agape? My bible commentary says "This does not prohibit greeting or inviting a person in for conversation." According to the commentary, the injunction was only against feeding and lodging. But that's not what it says, is it? That sounds like the attempt to find a loophole in the command. What should a christian do about nonchristian family members who want to come for a visit?

Verses 12-13 just express the author's desire to visit the unknown readers. Then he closes with "The children of your chosen sister send their greetings." This could mean a christian woman or a church congregation.

There you have it. This letter does not mention: heaven, hell, angels, demons, Satan, miracles, life after death, Jesus's birth, life experiences, teachings, death, or resurrection. It does not mention the names of any bible books, places, events in history, or people, except for Jesus and god. It does not mention the Jews, the gentiles, or the word "church."

It boils down to: God is the father. Jesus is the son. God commanded the readers to love one another and obey his commands. Jesus came in the flesh. Anyone who does not acknowledge that is an antichrist. Do not let an antichrist into your home. This letter is extraordinarily generic and pretty pointless. Is the author trolling? (Trying to stir up trouble in the community)

It is interesting to note that the term antichrist appears nowhere else but in the epistles called 1st and 2nd John.  In 1 John 2:22, it is defined as the one who denies the father and the son.

2 John part 4

 Last time I talked about what hubris the author of the gospel of John must have had to effectively have made himself the mouthpiece of god. Then I got to thinking. Most of the bible writers had to have been charlatans, mentally ill, or deluded. They set themselves up as authorities about the words and actions of a god  that cannot be verified (the god, the actions, or the words) and we must take their word for it that they are telling us the truth or know what they are talking about.

Let us continue with verse 7.   "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." This is what you call group insurance. No one wants to be called a deceiver or an antichrist. This puts a person in an uncomfortable position if they just don't believe. There is no room to wiggle here. This is the attitude of a cult. What if you are in a community or a family of believers? You may have no option but to pretend belief.

Commentators say that this passage is in response to something called the "Gnostic heresy." Gnosticism is supposed to have said that "the son of god did not become flesh, he temporarily came upon the man Jesus between his baptism and crucifixion." It doesn't really matter. If Jesus Christ is not acknowledged, in way whatsoever, this scripture is used to condemn. I'm sure many first century Jews did not believe or accept that any actual son of god appeared in the flesh. Many people all over the world still do not accept it, including me.  Some people don't even believe that any Jesus Christ, in any form, ever existed. According to this verse, that makes us the antichrist.

This verse is also compared to one in 1 John, to try to prove that they have the same author:

1 John 4:2-3,  "This is how you can recognize the spirit of god: every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from god, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from god. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is in the world." Notice the wording is similar but not precisely the same. Again, it may or may not have been written by the same person. Neither the John epistles, nor the gospel, state who the authors are in the text.

Notice the condemnation of anyone who does not acknowledge Jesus. Clearly, at that time, there must have been enough people denying the existence of Jesus, whether in the flesh or in the divine, to warrant an attempt to curb the spread of such teaching. Basically, the readers of these letters are being told to cover their ears and yell "LA, LA, LA, LA, LA" when anyone tries to convince them they are wrong. Such a person would not be from god. Where would they be from? We shudder to think.

These are the kinds of passages that scare many christians into refusing to  read, listen to, or even associate with, nonbelievers. The religion comes with built in safeguards to prevent members from questioning too hard or learning too much. Anyone who does not acknowledge belief in Jesus, is automatically suspect and is often disregarded as any kind of expert or authority on any subject that touches the fundamentalist christian's beliefs about history, science, and even their perception of reality. The opinions of nonbelievers on all sorts of subjects do not matter to the "true believer."

2 John, part 3

We move on to verse 6. "And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love ( noun, agape)."  Here we have the author's definition of love: walking in obedience god's to commands. What commands? The ones that say walk in love. Walk in love by obeying the command to walk in love. Say what? This is the definition of a circular argument.

This verse is another that is compared to ones in 1 John and the gospel of John to identify the authors as being the same. Let's take a look at them.

1 John 5:3- "This is love for god: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome." That's it. Yes, it is similar in a way, but it is not the same. And isn't the fact that god's commands were burdensome part of the reason Jesus was supposed to have come, to relieve us of that burden?

John 14:23- "Jesus replied, 'If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My father will love him and we will come to him and make our home with him.'" That's it. Yes, it is similar in a way, but it is not the same at all. Really, I wonder about these "scholars" who determine that things are written by the same people if they just happen to have two or more of the same words in a sentence that conveys similar meaning. If these are things taught by the same community, wouldn't all the people in the community begin to sound alike? Today we call it "christianese." That is when you use christian buzz words and phrases that identify you as part of the tribe. Even particular denominations have their own
Identifying speech. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say, "guide, guard, and direct us" during a prayer, I'd be a millionaire. Does that make them all the same person? There are even times when I sit in a worship service and can predict the next sentence out of a preacher's mouth.

Let's think about the hubris of the author of John. The book was written half a century or more after Jesus died, if he even existed. Yet, the author is putting words in Jesus's mouth telling the readers that they need to follow the teachings of Jesus to be on god's good side. Not only that, the reader is told in the next few verses that the words of Jesus are literally the words of god transmitted through Jesus. Where are those teachings found? In John's book. John is in effect making himself the mouthpiece of god, if you think about it. Also, if those words of Jesus were literally the words of god, they would be super important to remember and transmit, right? Why didn't John write them down sooner, like fifty years before. What took him so long?

More to come.

2 John part 2

We continue on with verse 5 which says "and now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another." This is a deceptively simple command, until you question from what beginning, what is love, and who are the one another. Are the "one another" fellow Christians, fellow Jewish Christians, or all people everywhere?

The word love here is derived from the Greek root verb agapao. You may have heard of the related noun agape, which, for Christians, represents a special self-sacrificial, divine, Yahweh love. The noun form, agape, appears to have been first used in the greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It was apparently derived from the verb. The verb forms, as in this passage, were common in secular ancient Greek writings. The ancient Greeks used it to simply mean having affection or preference for someone or something. Most Christians that I am acquainted with do not differentiate between the religious noun and the common verb. It's all the same to them.

This verse is one of a list of verses that my study bible says correlates to verses in 1 John and the gospel of John, which supposedly proves they have the same author. Lets see how they match up.

1 John 2:7- "Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard." This passage does not come right out and state what the command is. It is only implied, up until 1 John 3:11. A quick scan of 1st John shows me that the love one another in that book is being applied to fellow Christians or "brothers."

John 13:34-35- "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know you are my disciples if you love one another." These are supposed to be the words of Jesus. 1 John and 2 John appear to be referring back to this passage. They seem saying the command is not new, because it was supposed to be new when Jesus gave it. That is possibly the "beginning" referred to in the other two verses.

As I was writing this, a question came to mind about whether Paul ever preached "love one another" as a command of Jesus. The only place in Paul's writing in which I found the specific phrase "love one another" is Romans 13:8. It says "let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law." Here Paul seems to be saying that to love one another is a universal obligation for all humanity which also fulfills the law of Moses. (The Old Testament makes it clear that the love that fulfilled the law was directed at fellow
Jews and was not necessarily universal.) Paul never mentions love one another being a separate command given by Jesus to his disciples. For Paul the beginning of the command was the law. Other Pauline letters do stress the importance of love, but do not present it as a direct command of Jesus, as far as I can tell.

 I want to add that this seems rather hypocritical of Paul, since not all the writings attributed to him show a universal love for all of humanity. He displays some marked instances of dislike for particular people and groups of people. It is interesting to note that the letters attributed to Paul were probably written well before any of the letters attributed to John and even before the gospel of John.

Beside all that, how easy do you think it is to have affection for all of humanity? Most people have a hierarchy of affection, starting with their immediate family and moving outward to friends, acquaintances, countrymen, etc. should we be obligated to have the same level of affectionate feeling for everyone? Is it possible? Christians often say that this agape has nothing to do with how you feel, but with how you treat others. I'm not convinced. I don't think that is what love is. That is altruism. It's not the same, in my opinion.