An apology

There has been a devastating death in my family. I may be gone for a week or so, but will try to get back to posting regularly.

Hebrews part two

We are in Hebrews 1:5. The author is giving us old testament scriptures that show god telling some man he is gods son. We haven't actually been given Jesus's name yet, but it is assumed the reader knows who the author is referring to. The implication is that Jesus is god's son and that it was foretold in the Hebrew scriptures. We've read the first quoted scripture from Psalms and have seen that it is problematic as a foretelling of Jesus. It is most likely referring to David.

 Let's look at the next scripture given. It comes from 2 Samuel 7:14. "I will be his father, he will be my son." These words of god are coming from the prophet Samuel and being told to David, about David. In fact the rest of the verse reads "when he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men." Is god really also speaking of Jesus here?

The next Old Testament verse quoted is supposed to be about when god's first born came into the world (aka the birth of Jesus). Deuteronomy 32:43: "Let all god's angel's worship him." There is a problem with this sentence. It is not found in all the manuscripts of Deuteronomy, just one dead sea scroll and the Septuagint. It is obviously an addition. Not only that, when the phrase is put in context, the subject is god, not Jesus. The angels are worshipping god, not his son at all. There is no mention of god's son in Deuteronomy 32.

The author of Hebrews then goes off on a tangent. "Speaking of angels" he decides to include an Old Testament reference to angels, Psalm 104:4. "He makes his angels winds and his servants flames of fire." Even though this phrase has nothing to do with Jesus, it is interesting, in that the author has quoted this scripture differently than how it appears in the context of the Psalm. In  Psalm 104, natural elements are being created and used by god for his purposes. "He makes the wind his messengers and flames of fire his servants." He does not start with spiritual beings and turn them into forces of nature.   The author of Hebrews is clearly playing word games.

Back to the son. The author of Hebrews next quotes Psalm 45:6-7. "Your throne, o god, will last forever and ever, and righteousness ("justice" in my OT) will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore god, your god, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." What in the world is the oil of joy? First of all, in context, this Psalm specifically states in verse one that it was written for the king who lived at that time. What king? We don't know, but nevertheless, an earthly king born in the lineage of David, long before Jesus. He is called a man in verse two. He is also called god in verse six.

Guess what, it was not  uncommon for kings in ancient days to be thought of as gods themselves. However, the same terminology was often used for gods and kings, even when the kings were not considered divine, such as "lord" and "master." This is terminology that was also used for Jesus in the New Testament. My study bible notes say that the king was probably called god as an honorific, because he was god's representative on earth. However, it is a false equivalence to assume that every king or revered person called god actually was a supernatural god. Not to mention, the same individual called god in the Old Testament Psalms was not in any way the same person as Jesus.

Did the Jews believe in reincarnation? Did they believe he was David reborn? Do Christians believe that? That's almost what they would have to believe in order to believe this Psalm is talking about Jesus. Otherwise, the author is just cherry picking phrases that he likes and applying them to his perception of who Jesus was. In fact, I am beginning to be convinced that is exactly what Jesus's followers originally believed. When he was called the son of god or the christ (anointed one), I think they knew very well that those phrases referred to King David, the king of the Jews.

Remember in Mark, when Jesus asked Peter who people thought he was. Peter replied "Some say
John the Baptist, some say Elijah." Jesus would have been a reincarnation to be John or Elijah. Peter
then told Jesus that he believed Jesus was the christ. Who would have been reincarnated then? David! No wonder Jesus told his disciples not to tell people about him. No wonder he was killed for claiming to be king of the Jews! That makes sense to me, what do you think?

Introduction to Hebrews and part one.

I think our next book to study will be Hebrews. I tried to do an in depth study of Hebrews a couple of times as a christian and gave up. I was using a Bible study guide before. It only confused me because there seemed to be a lot of speculation and subjective opinion. Let's see how it goes this time.

First, let's read what Wikipedia has to say about the book of Hebrews here.

Hebrews is called an epistle or letter because there is a postscript which sounds personal, mentions Timothy, and sends greetings to unspecified leaders from unspecified persons in Italy. However, there is no greeting or address from or to a specific person or church at the beginning of Hebrews. There is also no claim of authorship in the entire book. The mention of Italy seems to suggest authorship by Paul or his cohorts, which may be exactly what the author intended us to think. The main body of the text, before the postscript, ends with an amen, leading me to think that was the original ending. Multiple other authors have been hypothesized throughout the centuries. The author still remains unknown.

The date of the writing is also unknown, with speculations ranging from 63 CE on into the second century. The oldest existing manuscripts of Hebrews are fragments from the late second century-early third century.  The book appears to be directed specifically at Jewish christians.

The book begins by talking about how god spoke to the Hebrews of old through the prophets but in those "last days" he spoke through his son. (If those were the last days, what are these days?) Right off the bat, Jesus is identified as the son of god. He is the heir of all things. Why does god need an heir? Is he going to die? That's what heirs are for, right? They inherit the father's property upon his death. If the father is eternal, what happens to the heir?

Next we are told that the universe was made through the son. This is news. The son didn't appear in the first chapter of Genesis. Oh wait, next we are told the son is the "radiance of god's glory." Is he shiny? Maybe he is the light in "let there be light." Next we are told the son is the exact representation of god's being. What does that mean? Is he the spitting image of god? In what way? Is he a clone? Does god have a body? If not, did Jesus have a body? That is not clear yet. We are also told the son sustains all things by his powerful word. Again, what in the heck does that mean? How does he do that?

The text then assumes that we know how the son provided purification for sins, after which he sat at the right hand of god in heaven. Presumably, god and Jesus have bottoms to sit with and heavenly chairs to sit on, unless they sit on clouds. In this way the son became superior to the angels, because God never called any angel his son. How do we know god called anyone his son? Must we take them at their word? What if Jesus was actually a liar, or a lunatic? If someone today told you god spoke to him and told him he was god's son, what would you think? You and I both know you would think he is bonkers.

The text gives two old testament references for god calling someone his son. Let's take a look at them. The first is Psalm 2:7. Who wrote this? Nobody knows, but it is presumed to be David speaking. Who is it talking about? "God's anointed one" which is a phrase for the king god has sanctified to lead the Jews, presumably David. This is all about the king/David being called god's son and being given the nations as an inheritance. (Not only that, The psalm goes on to say he will dash them to pieces like pottery!) Is the writer of the book of Hebrews referring to David? Nope. He's referring to Jesus. Is Jesus going to dash the nations to pieces like pottery? Hmm. That psalm also goes on to say that kings better kiss the son or he might get angry and destroy them. Nice guy this son of god.

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 thirty

Today we finish Mark with verses 16:9-19. These verses are not in the oldest available manuscripts, which leads many scholars to conclude they were added later by someone who is not the author. The last passage had concluded with the two Marys being told by a young man dressed in white that Jesus had risen and he would meet the disciples in Galilee. The women did not tell anyone because they were afraid. Now, in verse nine, we are told that Mary Magdalene was the first person to see Jesus after he rose. According to the text, Jesus had driven seven (magic number) demons out of her. The demon story does not occur in Mark, but it is found in Luke 8:2, leading me to the conclusion that this passage was added after the circulation of Luke's gospel.

We've just been told the women said nothing to anyone, but now we are being told Mary Magdalene went and told those who had been with Jesus earlier, presumably his entourage of disciples and women followers. Would you believe the word of someone who was thought to have had seven demons? The text says they didn't believe her either. However, Jesus appears in a different form (so how did they know it was Jesus?) to two more people (who were they?) as they were walking along a country road. No other witnesses. They weren't believed either, naturally.

Later, Jesus appears to the eleven (minus Judas) while they were eating. The text does not say where they were. He rebukes them for not believing the tales the others told. Shouldn't he have praised them for not having blind faith in something so unlikely? Shouldn't he have known ahead of time those people would not be believed? At this time he gives them what has been called "the Great Commission." He tells the disciples (not anyone else, not you and I) "Go out into all the world and preach the good news (What good news? He doesn't say.) to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Just like that, Jesus ruins the lives of countless unbelievers throughout the centuries, even those who led exemplary lives. Is this the exact point in history at which all unbelievers are eternally condemned? It doesn't seem quite fair to all the people who died after this moment  yet never heard this "good news." Or is this condemnation only for those who hear the message and don't believe it. Wouldn't they have been better off never hearing it at all? The churches of Christ use this passage as one of there references for the doctrine of the necessity of believers baptism for salvation.

Jesus is not done talking. He also tells the disciples that signs will accompany those who believe. They will drive out demons, speak in tongues, handle snakes, drink poison with no ill effects, and heal the sick by laying on of hands. Was the person who wrote this trying to kill off crazy Christians?

When he was done talking, he was taken up to heaven and sat at the right hand of god. How do they know that? Then the disciples went out and preached. Stuff happened just the way Jesus said it would. Amen.

We are done! Next time we will do a wrap up of what we learned in the book of Mark.

Mark part twenty nine

We are at Mark 15:38 Jesus has just breathed his last. He did not ask god to forgive his executioners and those crucified with him were not told they would be with him in paradise. His side was not pierced. He said nothing but a lament. Then, according to the text, the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. This would not have been seen by anyone unless they were at the temple, and certainly not by anyone at the execution. It is also not recorded in extrabiblical history.

A centurion who heard Jesus's lament and saw him die said, "surely this man was the son of god." I don't see how he came to that conclusion. Some women watched the crucifixion from a distance. One was Mary Magdalene, who is first mentioned here. Another was Mary the mother of James, Joses, and Salome. These women were part of a group of women who had followed Jesus to Jerusalem from Galilee. They had been "taking care of his needs." This probably means they cooked and washed for him, because for some reason he couldn't do it for himself. (It couldn't be because he was sexist and thought that was women's work, could it?) The text does not say Jesus's mother or any of the twelve disciples was there.

In verse 42 we are told it was preparation day, the day before the Sabbath, Friday. Either Passover fell on a Friday that year or something about the timeline in Mark is off. It is still Passover if we follow the text. Evening is coming. The Sabbath begins at dusk. Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate and asked for Jesus's body. Pilate confirmed with the centurion that Jesus was already dead and then gave the body to Joseph. The body was wrapped in linen and put in a tomb. A stone was rolled in front of it. The text does not say the tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea. The two Marys previously mentioned saw where the body was laid.

We are now in chapter 16. The Sabbath is over. It is just after sunrise on the first day of the week, Sunday. Jesus has been dead approximately 39 hours, less than two full days, if you count hours. If you count the names of the days he has been dead, I guess it makes three: part of Friday, all of  Saturday, and part of Sunday. But that seems like cheating to me.

The two Marys are going to the tomb to anoint the body with spices. They aren't sure who will roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. When they got there, the stone was already rolled away. A young man dressed in white was sitting inside the tomb. The ladies were alarmed but the young man told them not to be. He said Jesus had risen. They were to go tell Peter and the disciples that Jesus was going ahead of them to Galilee and they would see him there.

The women were naturally frightened and confused. They ran away from the tomb and told no one what had happened!  So, how does the author know anything about it? This is where the story ends in the earliest manuscripts, suggesting that perhaps Jesus was never actually seen alive again.

Mark 16:9-16 appear to have been added to the text at a later date, making its events highly unlikely. We will cover that passage next time.

Mark part 28

First, I want to apologize to regular readers for being a little late with content. I've been having my kitchen remodelled and it's been hard to find time to dedicate to the blog.

We are at Mark 15:21. Jesus has been condemned to crucifixion. He has been mocked and abused by Roman soldiers for claiming he was king of the Jews, which he appears to actually believe. Now the soldiers are leading him outside to be crucified. We are told that Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, (as if we should know who they are), was forced to carry Jesus's cross. Alexander is never mentioned again in the NT. A Rufus is mentioned only once, in Romans 16:13.

Jesus was taken to a place called Golgotha, or the place of the skull. No one actually knows the original location of this spot. I think that is rather odd. Wouldn't it have been of great significance to the early christians? There, the soldiers offered Jesus wine mixed with myrrh, but he didn't take it. This concoction may have been offered as an analgesic. Remember, Jesus had said he would not drink wine again till he drank it in the kingdom of god. Perhaps that is why the author says he refused it.

Jesus was then crucified and the soldiers cast lots to see who would get his clothing. This is supposed to have happened at "the third hour" of the day. (There is the number three again.) By the Jewish tradition of time reckoning, the third hour was half way between dawn and noon, 9 O'clock-ish. There  was a written notice of the charge against Jesus that read "the king of the Jews." Two robbers were crucified on either side of him. (Three people in a row.) Jesus was mocked and insulted by people who said that he had claimed  he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. Back in Mark 14:58, the text says this was a false testimony. Jesus didn't actually make that claim about the temple. But the text of Mark does have him claiming to be killed and rising again after three days.

The people mocking him dared Jesus to come down from the cross and save himself. He saved others (referring to the supposed miraculous events and healings?) but he couldn't save himself. Some messiah, some king of Israel, he couldn't even save himself. They have a point. Not only that, I just realized that Jesus performed NO miracles in Jerusalem. Zip. Nada. The other people being crucified also heaped insults on Jesus. Ouch.

At the sixth hour (three hours from the initial crucifixion and also high noon) darkness came over the whole land and lasted til the ninth hour, three hours later. What was this darkness? Who knows. It can't have been an eclipse. A lunar eclipse can take a few hours to complete but doesn't happen in the day time. A solar eclipse only lasts about seven minutes. Plus there is absolutely no extrabiblical historic record of such a three hour darkness occurring around that time. That is something someone would have definitely noticed.

At the ninth hour, Jesus had been on the cross about six hours. He cried out in Aramaic, "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" Would he say this if he was god? How can he forsake himself? In the language that Jesus spoke, apparently he was mistakenly thought to have been calling out to Elijah. A man offered Jesus a drink from a sponge filled with wine vinegar, then told the people watching to see if Elijah would come down to take him.Surely he was being facetious. (Did the wine vinegar count as wine? Did Jesus drink it?)

With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.