Hello,
I've decided to focus on 1st John next, because I've already gone through 2nd and 3rd John. As a reminder, I'm using an NIV study bible and doing a plain reading of the text. If a god wanted everyone to understand the bible as his word, it should be easily interpreted by the common person, right? I do a lot of paraphrasing, but I put direct quotes in quotation marks. All opinions and thoughts are my own, unless stated otherwise. I provide links or name of a reference when I get information from another site. However, no one forms opinions in a vacuum and I have acquired some personal knowledge to draw on. My style is gently sarcastic at times. If you enjoy reading my posts, please share my site with a friend.
Now let's look at 1 John. The author is traditionally assumed to be the same author of the gospel of John and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John. There are some similarities and some differences, as noted in the Wikipedia article. To be clear, no authorship is claimed by name in any of those bible books.
1 John does not begin as a typical letter with an introduction, it leaps right into theology. The author refers to Jesus as "the word of life." He appears to claim he has seen Jesus with his eyes and touched him with his hands, and that he was actually alive, but the language is very poetic and uses the collective pronoun "we," indicating others with him. Neither the author or the others are named. The author is proclaiming what the collective has seen and heard to the readers, so that they can have fellowship with this unknown group. The group's fellowship is with god the father and his son, Jesus.
Next, the author claims to have heard a message from Jesus, and this is it : "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." Jesus is not recorded as saying that in any of the gospel accounts, nor is that exact phrase found anywhere else in the rest of the bible. The author continues on to say that anyone who "walks in darkness" yet claims to have fellowship with god, is a liar. (He does not say what walking in darkness consists of.) If anyone walks in light with god (again, what does that mean?), those people have fellowship with the mystery group, and the blood of Jesus cleans all the sin off all of them.
They mustn't claim to be without sin. They wouldn't be telling the truth. They just need to confess their sins, then Jesus will forgive them and purify them. If they say they do not sin, they are calling Jesus a liar. Lesson: No Matter what, you won't be believed if you say you haven't sinned. Sin makes you dirty. You can only be made clean if you tell what your sins are. Hmm. What constitutes sin? Who do you confess to?How could that go wrong?
Till next time.
Saturday, June 29, 2019
Friday, June 28, 2019
2 Peter wrap up
Time for a review of what we learned from 2nd Peter. It claims to be written by Peter to an unidentified group of believers. It does not claim to be inspired or the word of god. Except by fundamentalists, it is generally considered pseudepigrapha, which is another word for FAKE. (Seriously, folks, call a spade a spade.)
This letter is unique among other NewTestament letters in that the author is obviously familiar with a number of other New Testament writings: At least one of the gospels--he quotes Matthew's version of god's words to those present at Jesus's transfiguration on a mountain; a number of letters attributed to Paul, which he calls scripture; the book of Jude, which he plagiarizes. 2Peter 2:1-3:3 contains most of Jude 4-18 paraphrased and interspersed throughout the text.
The author is familiar with Jewish scriptures. He quotes Proverbs. He speaks of the prophets, and makes excuses for the fact that their interpretation of their own prophecies didn't literally come true. It was because they were not understood properly, being words from god, not man. The author also mentions Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot (who he calls a righteous man), and Balaam and the donkey. He speaks of angels sinning and being sent to Tartarus, which is not part of the Old Testament or New. It appears to be extrabiblical legend that was used to explain parts of the Old Testament.
Technically, there is no gospel preached in this letter. Jesus's righteousness saves people through faith, not his death. The initial message is "Do these things (like kindness, perseverance, and love) and you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ." The author also claims that the stories of Jesus are not "cleverly invented." One sentence about god saying Jesus is his son, on the mount of transfiguration, is all we are told about the life of Jesus. The author claims to have been present at this event. There is no birth story, no miracles, no teachings, no commands, no crucifixion, no resurrection. There is also no mention of any Christian religious rituals, no mention of any New Testament characters but Paul, no mention of any other New Testament places or events. There are two cryptic mentions of a sacred command but we are not told what it is.
The bulk of the text is about false teachers and their destruction. There are many warnings against destructive heresies, denial of Jesus, made up stories (irony alert), slander of celestial beings, blasphemy, scoffing, etc. The false teachers are thoroughly reviled in as many ways possible, being called all manner of foulness appropriate to the times. Examples are given of types of destruction that god meted out to the ungodly in the past. The readers are assured that all heretics will similarly be paid back. They are told that those who once knew the truth and turned their backs on it would be worse off in the end than if they had never known Jesus. This is clearly cult language.
There is also considerable effort made to assure the reader that "the day of the lord" will come, just not when they expect it. God works in his own time frame. It's taking a while because he wants to save all the people, except the ungodly, who will be burnt up with the heavens and the earth on the day of judgment. But the author and the readers will get to live in a new heaven and new earth, if they make every effort to be found spotless and blameless, and are not seduced by the dark side.
This letter is unique among other NewTestament letters in that the author is obviously familiar with a number of other New Testament writings: At least one of the gospels--he quotes Matthew's version of god's words to those present at Jesus's transfiguration on a mountain; a number of letters attributed to Paul, which he calls scripture; the book of Jude, which he plagiarizes. 2Peter 2:1-3:3 contains most of Jude 4-18 paraphrased and interspersed throughout the text.
The author is familiar with Jewish scriptures. He quotes Proverbs. He speaks of the prophets, and makes excuses for the fact that their interpretation of their own prophecies didn't literally come true. It was because they were not understood properly, being words from god, not man. The author also mentions Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot (who he calls a righteous man), and Balaam and the donkey. He speaks of angels sinning and being sent to Tartarus, which is not part of the Old Testament or New. It appears to be extrabiblical legend that was used to explain parts of the Old Testament.
Technically, there is no gospel preached in this letter. Jesus's righteousness saves people through faith, not his death. The initial message is "Do these things (like kindness, perseverance, and love) and you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ." The author also claims that the stories of Jesus are not "cleverly invented." One sentence about god saying Jesus is his son, on the mount of transfiguration, is all we are told about the life of Jesus. The author claims to have been present at this event. There is no birth story, no miracles, no teachings, no commands, no crucifixion, no resurrection. There is also no mention of any Christian religious rituals, no mention of any New Testament characters but Paul, no mention of any other New Testament places or events. There are two cryptic mentions of a sacred command but we are not told what it is.
The bulk of the text is about false teachers and their destruction. There are many warnings against destructive heresies, denial of Jesus, made up stories (irony alert), slander of celestial beings, blasphemy, scoffing, etc. The false teachers are thoroughly reviled in as many ways possible, being called all manner of foulness appropriate to the times. Examples are given of types of destruction that god meted out to the ungodly in the past. The readers are assured that all heretics will similarly be paid back. They are told that those who once knew the truth and turned their backs on it would be worse off in the end than if they had never known Jesus. This is clearly cult language.
There is also considerable effort made to assure the reader that "the day of the lord" will come, just not when they expect it. God works in his own time frame. It's taking a while because he wants to save all the people, except the ungodly, who will be burnt up with the heavens and the earth on the day of judgment. But the author and the readers will get to live in a new heaven and new earth, if they make every effort to be found spotless and blameless, and are not seduced by the dark side.
Thursday, June 27, 2019
2 Peter part four.
We are in chapter three, verse ten. We recently read that, even though it seems like god hasn't kept his promise to send Jesus back, we can't assume that he won't because our time and god's time are not on the same scale. God's not being slow, he's being patient, because he doesn't want anyone to perish.. Yeah, right.
That's why, in the very next passage, the reader is told that the day the world ends will be a surprise, in which everything will be burnt to ashes. Since everything will be destroyed, the readers ought to live holy and godly lives as they "look forward to the day of god and speed its coming." Plus, this end won't just be hot, it will melt the very elements in the heavens. But, no worries, the reader can look forward to a new heaven and new earth. All this is reason for the reader to make every effort to be practically perfect in every way. And remember, the longer it takes for Jesus to return, the more people will be saved. Why it might even take over two thousand years.
The author goes on to say Paul wrote about this stuff too. I think this is the only book of the bible not attributed to Paul, besides Acts, which mentions Paul by name. Not only that, it mentions that Paul wrote multiple letters, and that the letters contain "some things that are hard to understand, Which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction." Implication: don't try too hard to understand what Paul wrote, because if you get it wrong, Poof! You're toast.
So, be careful, who you listen too. You are in a precarious situation and could very easily fall "from your secure position" if you follow the wrong person. Just grow in grace (what's grace?) and knowledge and you should be fine. (I hope.) to Jesus be the glory (what's glory?) forever. Amen.
Comforting?
We have finished with 2nd Peter. Next time we will wrap up with our usual summary. Till then.
That's why, in the very next passage, the reader is told that the day the world ends will be a surprise, in which everything will be burnt to ashes. Since everything will be destroyed, the readers ought to live holy and godly lives as they "look forward to the day of god and speed its coming." Plus, this end won't just be hot, it will melt the very elements in the heavens. But, no worries, the reader can look forward to a new heaven and new earth. All this is reason for the reader to make every effort to be practically perfect in every way. And remember, the longer it takes for Jesus to return, the more people will be saved. Why it might even take over two thousand years.
The author goes on to say Paul wrote about this stuff too. I think this is the only book of the bible not attributed to Paul, besides Acts, which mentions Paul by name. Not only that, it mentions that Paul wrote multiple letters, and that the letters contain "some things that are hard to understand, Which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction." Implication: don't try too hard to understand what Paul wrote, because if you get it wrong, Poof! You're toast.
So, be careful, who you listen too. You are in a precarious situation and could very easily fall "from your secure position" if you follow the wrong person. Just grow in grace (what's grace?) and knowledge and you should be fine. (I hope.) to Jesus be the glory (what's glory?) forever. Amen.
Comforting?
We have finished with 2nd Peter. Next time we will wrap up with our usual summary. Till then.
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
2 Peter part three
We are at chapter two verse seven. We have read about god's power to destroy the ungodly, which uses language similar to Jude 6 and 7. Now the author tells us god knows how to rescue the godly, like Lot. He says, "Lot was a righteous man who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men." Go back and read the story of Lot in Genesis 19. This is the Lot who offered his daughter to be raped by an angry mob to save the virtue of a couple of angels. This same Lot got filthy stinking drunk and was raped by his own daughters. Lovely story. Not.
The author continues on, talking of arrogant men who are not afraid to slander celestial beings. Good for them. Why should they be afraid? Well, the author says that not even very powerful angels will slander celestial beings in the presence of the lord. Maybe because none of them exist. Or is it because the slanderers are "brute beasts...born only to be caught and destroyed."
The next verses, from 13-22, are pure vitriol. They malign and slander the author's opposition in a particularly nasty way. He calls them blots and blemishes, carousers, adulterers, seducers, unstable, greedy, accursed, wicked, boastful, and lustful. He also uses some pretty descriptive metaphors like springs without water, mists driven by a storm, slaves to depravity, dogs returning to vomit (Proverbs 26:11 quote), and sows wallowing in mud. Were they actually that bad? What is the other side of the story? Also, I urge you to read through the book of Jude, which is quite short. So much of this passage is similar to the language found there.
What was the point of all that hatred? It was this, "If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our lord and savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning." This is a subtle threat to those christians who would dare to leave the group, dare to say anything against it, and go back into the world. "Blackest darkness is reserved for them." This is cult language, calculated to make people fear and quake at the mere thought of leaving, questioning, or complaining.
We have come to chapter three. The author says, "Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you." That is interesting because many scholars don't believe 1st and 2nd Peter were written by the same person. The language, the format, and the subject matter differ. The author of first Peter wrote in a very Jewish way, referring to the Old Testament with quotations. So far, the author of second Peter Has referred to various parts of the old Testament and to Matthew, but he has drawn significant amounts of text directly from Jude. What's even more interesting, he used all the bits he got from Jude in the order that they appear in that book, interspersed with his own words. According to my study bible he clearly uses, in order, phrases from Jude 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 18. He is a plagiarist.
The author goes on to say he wrote both his letters to "stimulate the reader to wholesome thinking." He wants them to recall the words of the prophets and the command Jesus gave the apostles, but he doesn't say which words and which command. They also need to realize that in the last days scoffers will scoff. (Haters will hate.)They will question the whereabouts of Jesus, as well they should. He supposedly promised he would come back. He hadn't then, and he hasn't yet. The author accuses the scoffers of deliberately forgetting that god's word has the power to create and destroy. Then he explains Jesus's tardy return. "With the lord, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day. The lord is not slow in keeping his promis as some understand slowness." In other words, time means nothing to god, whenever he decides to do something will be the right time.
Till next time.
The author continues on, talking of arrogant men who are not afraid to slander celestial beings. Good for them. Why should they be afraid? Well, the author says that not even very powerful angels will slander celestial beings in the presence of the lord. Maybe because none of them exist. Or is it because the slanderers are "brute beasts...born only to be caught and destroyed."
The next verses, from 13-22, are pure vitriol. They malign and slander the author's opposition in a particularly nasty way. He calls them blots and blemishes, carousers, adulterers, seducers, unstable, greedy, accursed, wicked, boastful, and lustful. He also uses some pretty descriptive metaphors like springs without water, mists driven by a storm, slaves to depravity, dogs returning to vomit (Proverbs 26:11 quote), and sows wallowing in mud. Were they actually that bad? What is the other side of the story? Also, I urge you to read through the book of Jude, which is quite short. So much of this passage is similar to the language found there.
What was the point of all that hatred? It was this, "If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our lord and savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning." This is a subtle threat to those christians who would dare to leave the group, dare to say anything against it, and go back into the world. "Blackest darkness is reserved for them." This is cult language, calculated to make people fear and quake at the mere thought of leaving, questioning, or complaining.
We have come to chapter three. The author says, "Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you." That is interesting because many scholars don't believe 1st and 2nd Peter were written by the same person. The language, the format, and the subject matter differ. The author of first Peter wrote in a very Jewish way, referring to the Old Testament with quotations. So far, the author of second Peter Has referred to various parts of the old Testament and to Matthew, but he has drawn significant amounts of text directly from Jude. What's even more interesting, he used all the bits he got from Jude in the order that they appear in that book, interspersed with his own words. According to my study bible he clearly uses, in order, phrases from Jude 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 18. He is a plagiarist.
The author goes on to say he wrote both his letters to "stimulate the reader to wholesome thinking." He wants them to recall the words of the prophets and the command Jesus gave the apostles, but he doesn't say which words and which command. They also need to realize that in the last days scoffers will scoff. (Haters will hate.)They will question the whereabouts of Jesus, as well they should. He supposedly promised he would come back. He hadn't then, and he hasn't yet. The author accuses the scoffers of deliberately forgetting that god's word has the power to create and destroy. Then he explains Jesus's tardy return. "With the lord, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day. The lord is not slow in keeping his promis as some understand slowness." In other words, time means nothing to god, whenever he decides to do something will be the right time.
Till next time.
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
2 Peter part two
We are at 2 Peter 1:12. The author says he will always remind the reader of the stuff they already know. That seems rather pointless doesn't it? He thinks it is right to keep doing this as long as he is alive, because Jesus has made it clear to him that he hasn't got much time left. But no fear, he will find a way to be responsible for helping them remember, even after he shuffles off this mortal coil. This guy has issues.
He goes on to say that he and his cronies didn't make stuff up when they told about "the power and coming of our lord Jesus Christ." They were "eyewitnesses of his majesty" because they were with Jesus on a sacred mountain when a voice from god said, "This is my beloved son, with him I am well pleased." Well, well, well. This is the story of the transfiguration of Jesus in the presence of Peter, James and John. It is found in Mark 9, Matthew 17, and Luke 9. Mark says god's words are "This is my son, whom I love. listen to him." In Luke it is "This is my son, whom I have chosen. listen to him." In Matthew it is "This is my son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased. Listen to him." Notice that 2 Peter appears to be quoting from the book of Matthew. In all of the instances, god supposedly also commanded those present to listen to Jesus, but the author of 2 Peter did not include those words of god. Will he ever tell us any of the things Jesus is supposed to have said?
The author goes on to say that the readers would also do well to pay attention to the words of the prophets. (What about the words of Jesus?) However, they need to understand that no prophecy of scripture ever came about by the prophets own interpretation. That's funny. He's acknowledging that prophets got the meanings of their prophecies wrong. He says that's because the prophecies didn't come from the will of man, but from god, through the holy spirit. Excuses excuses. So, how in the world can anyone know what the prophecies actually meant, or if they came true, if even the prophets got it wrong?
We are now in chapter two.The author says, "There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign lord who bought them (AKA Jesus)." Okay. Let us recognize that both liars and truth tellers will say that the people disagreeing with them are wrong. These people "spreading heresies" could actually be the truth tellers, but of course the author begs to differ. He says people will follow the heretic's shameful ways and bring the truth into disrepute. They will also exploit the reader with made up stories. Is this projection? I'm pretty sure the story of the transfiguration is made up. The author says the story tellers will get the destruction awaiting them. When we point our finger, three fingers are pointing back at us.
The author goes on to say that after all, "God did not spare the angels when they sinned but sent them to hell, putting them in gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement" He also did not spare the people who were drowned in the flood. Nor did he spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were burnt to ashes, "an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly." These are all proof that sinners will get what is coming to them. A note about the angels who sinned and got sent to hell: there isn't actually any Old Testament scriptures that say this. Also the word "hell" here is translated from the Greek word Tartarus, which is a deep pit located below Hades, the land of the dead. This isn't the "lake of fire" hell that Christianity is fond of.
Till next time.
Edited to add: the bit about angels in prison and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah very closely echoes terminology found in Jude 6.
He goes on to say that he and his cronies didn't make stuff up when they told about "the power and coming of our lord Jesus Christ." They were "eyewitnesses of his majesty" because they were with Jesus on a sacred mountain when a voice from god said, "This is my beloved son, with him I am well pleased." Well, well, well. This is the story of the transfiguration of Jesus in the presence of Peter, James and John. It is found in Mark 9, Matthew 17, and Luke 9. Mark says god's words are "This is my son, whom I love. listen to him." In Luke it is "This is my son, whom I have chosen. listen to him." In Matthew it is "This is my son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased. Listen to him." Notice that 2 Peter appears to be quoting from the book of Matthew. In all of the instances, god supposedly also commanded those present to listen to Jesus, but the author of 2 Peter did not include those words of god. Will he ever tell us any of the things Jesus is supposed to have said?
The author goes on to say that the readers would also do well to pay attention to the words of the prophets. (What about the words of Jesus?) However, they need to understand that no prophecy of scripture ever came about by the prophets own interpretation. That's funny. He's acknowledging that prophets got the meanings of their prophecies wrong. He says that's because the prophecies didn't come from the will of man, but from god, through the holy spirit. Excuses excuses. So, how in the world can anyone know what the prophecies actually meant, or if they came true, if even the prophets got it wrong?
We are now in chapter two.The author says, "There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign lord who bought them (AKA Jesus)." Okay. Let us recognize that both liars and truth tellers will say that the people disagreeing with them are wrong. These people "spreading heresies" could actually be the truth tellers, but of course the author begs to differ. He says people will follow the heretic's shameful ways and bring the truth into disrepute. They will also exploit the reader with made up stories. Is this projection? I'm pretty sure the story of the transfiguration is made up. The author says the story tellers will get the destruction awaiting them. When we point our finger, three fingers are pointing back at us.
The author goes on to say that after all, "God did not spare the angels when they sinned but sent them to hell, putting them in gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement" He also did not spare the people who were drowned in the flood. Nor did he spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were burnt to ashes, "an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly." These are all proof that sinners will get what is coming to them. A note about the angels who sinned and got sent to hell: there isn't actually any Old Testament scriptures that say this. Also the word "hell" here is translated from the Greek word Tartarus, which is a deep pit located below Hades, the land of the dead. This isn't the "lake of fire" hell that Christianity is fond of.
Till next time.
Edited to add: the bit about angels in prison and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah very closely echoes terminology found in Jude 6.
Thursday, June 20, 2019
A Grieving Atheist Book Review: The Grief Recovery Handbook.
I've recently finished reading The Grief Recovery Handbook by John James and Russell Friedman. This book is outlines a method for coming to grips with all types of loss in your life, from horrendous death to moving. The title is a little misleading because, as the authors recognize, we don't always get over major losses but can live with them in a way that they call "completing our emotions." They discuss how we are poorly socialized to deal with loss because most of our culture is concerned with gains. I agree with them that modern therapeutic methods and language are often not very helpful. Every loss and every grief is unique to the individual and can not be reduced to stages or timelines.
As I was reading through the book and finally arrived at the steps to the implementation of the grief recovery method, I felt a sense of familiarity. This book was originally written before Marie Kondo put out her best seller on the Joys of Tidying Up, but it promotes metaphorically similar actions. I realized that this practice of "emotional completeness" was the explanation I had missed when I read Miss Kondo's book.
In a nutshell, the authors of the grief recovery handbook suggest a method for reviewing your relationship to an idea, a person, a place, or a thing. It is recommended to find a partner to share the exercises with in six sessions. They want you to examine the good and the bad related to the whatever or whomever was lost, then write your thoughts down in an orderly fashion. For the loss of a person, you reminisce, you apologize if needed, you forgive if needed, you make any emotional statements that you might need to get off your chest, and you write a final good bye. This letter is to be read aloud, even if you do not have a partner in the process. It is recommended that the letter be burned afterward.
Basically, the idea is to practice letting things go in a way that gets all the thoughts and feelings off your chest, hopefully once and for all. The reason I said this reminded me of Marie Kondo is she advocates a telling each of your possessions good bye when you decide to get rid of them. You remind yourself how you got it, what joy or sorrow it brought you, and then release it to move on from your life. People tend to make fun of her thinking of things as conscious beings, but I am seeing another side of this. We do develop all kinds of relationships, attachments if you will. There is no condemnation in that. But when we need to let go, or are ready to let go, we need examples of how to do that. This book provides them.
Do I think it is perfect? No. Grief will still remain.. Sorrow still happens, but unresolved emotions have been addressed and dealt with. This can only be helpful, in my opinion. There are two things of note. First, you must be ready and willing to say goodbye, at which point I have not arrived yet. Second, though the authors stress doing the method their way, I think it's perfectly fine to adapt it in a way that works for you.
There is very little talk of faith, even though the authors let you know they are believers. They make a point out of taking faith out of the recovery process. Their method is completely accessible to those without supernatural beliefs.
As I was reading through the book and finally arrived at the steps to the implementation of the grief recovery method, I felt a sense of familiarity. This book was originally written before Marie Kondo put out her best seller on the Joys of Tidying Up, but it promotes metaphorically similar actions. I realized that this practice of "emotional completeness" was the explanation I had missed when I read Miss Kondo's book.
In a nutshell, the authors of the grief recovery handbook suggest a method for reviewing your relationship to an idea, a person, a place, or a thing. It is recommended to find a partner to share the exercises with in six sessions. They want you to examine the good and the bad related to the whatever or whomever was lost, then write your thoughts down in an orderly fashion. For the loss of a person, you reminisce, you apologize if needed, you forgive if needed, you make any emotional statements that you might need to get off your chest, and you write a final good bye. This letter is to be read aloud, even if you do not have a partner in the process. It is recommended that the letter be burned afterward.
Basically, the idea is to practice letting things go in a way that gets all the thoughts and feelings off your chest, hopefully once and for all. The reason I said this reminded me of Marie Kondo is she advocates a telling each of your possessions good bye when you decide to get rid of them. You remind yourself how you got it, what joy or sorrow it brought you, and then release it to move on from your life. People tend to make fun of her thinking of things as conscious beings, but I am seeing another side of this. We do develop all kinds of relationships, attachments if you will. There is no condemnation in that. But when we need to let go, or are ready to let go, we need examples of how to do that. This book provides them.
Do I think it is perfect? No. Grief will still remain.. Sorrow still happens, but unresolved emotions have been addressed and dealt with. This can only be helpful, in my opinion. There are two things of note. First, you must be ready and willing to say goodbye, at which point I have not arrived yet. Second, though the authors stress doing the method their way, I think it's perfectly fine to adapt it in a way that works for you.
There is very little talk of faith, even though the authors let you know they are believers. They make a point out of taking faith out of the recovery process. Their method is completely accessible to those without supernatural beliefs.
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
2 Peter, introduction
Hello, time to move on to the 2nd bible book attributed to Peter. Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it here. There appears to be very little doubt that this letter is a fake, written between 100-150 CE, by an unknown author who was familiar with Paul's epistles and the so called book of Jude. In fact, it seems to rely heavily in the content of Jude, which we have studied before. This should be interesting.
The letter begins with the author introducing himself as Simon Peter, not just Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. It is addressed to a nonspecific group of believers.
The author opens by saying that Jesus's divine power has given them everything they need for life and godliness through their knowledge of him. (Then why do they need this letter from Peter?) Through Jesus's divine power, he gave them "great and precious promises" (what were they?)so that they could participate in the divine nature (what is that?) and "escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." So, does this boil down to " Jesus has the power to take away your evil desires?"
In spite of Jesus's awesome power in their lives, the readers must still make an effort to have faith, goodness, self control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. (What does the divine power do?) If the readers have these qualities in increasing measure, it will keep them from being ineffective and unproductive in their knowledge of christ. (Again, then what does the divine power actually do that a person can't do for himself?) if anyone does not have the aforementioned qualities, the author says they are nearsighted, blind, and have forgotten they were cleansed from their sins. I guess he's implying that they owe Jesus their good behavior and good attitudes in repayment for the invisible nullification of their sins.
So, a claim is made that Jesus did something for them that they can not see, and gave something to them that they may never experience. Now it's up to them to be sure they act like they deserve it. And if they do, they will "receive a rich welcome into the eternal (invisible) kingdom of Jesus Christ." After they are dead.
Till next time.
The letter begins with the author introducing himself as Simon Peter, not just Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. It is addressed to a nonspecific group of believers.
The author opens by saying that Jesus's divine power has given them everything they need for life and godliness through their knowledge of him. (Then why do they need this letter from Peter?) Through Jesus's divine power, he gave them "great and precious promises" (what were they?)so that they could participate in the divine nature (what is that?) and "escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." So, does this boil down to " Jesus has the power to take away your evil desires?"
In spite of Jesus's awesome power in their lives, the readers must still make an effort to have faith, goodness, self control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. (What does the divine power do?) If the readers have these qualities in increasing measure, it will keep them from being ineffective and unproductive in their knowledge of christ. (Again, then what does the divine power actually do that a person can't do for himself?) if anyone does not have the aforementioned qualities, the author says they are nearsighted, blind, and have forgotten they were cleansed from their sins. I guess he's implying that they owe Jesus their good behavior and good attitudes in repayment for the invisible nullification of their sins.
So, a claim is made that Jesus did something for them that they can not see, and gave something to them that they may never experience. Now it's up to them to be sure they act like they deserve it. And if they do, they will "receive a rich welcome into the eternal (invisible) kingdom of Jesus Christ." After they are dead.
Till next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)