Acts chapter 19 opens with a few more people in Ephesus who are only familiar with the work of John the Baptist. Paul meets these men and asks them if they've received the Holy Ghost, and they essentially respond with, "Holy Ghost? Never heard of it!" Paul tells them about Jesus, and baptizes them again. It's an interesting doctrinal point here that Paul makes, saying the baptism of John was a baptism of repentance, which might make one wonder what the baptism of Jesus is about, because it sounds like Paul is contrasting here. The men receive the Holy Ghost and speak in tongues, prophesying. (Here's another instance of the Holy Ghost being given for the SAB.) After speaking in the synagogue for three months, the non-believing Jews start slandering Paul, so he leaves the synagogue and relocates to "the school of one Tyrannus" which the SAB notes as the only school in the entire Bible; while this may be technically true (that is, it's the only mention of "school") I think the idea of education is present throughout the Bible, and on the flipside, it's not really clear what kind of "school" this is. Anyway, Paul is in Ephesus for two years, and apparently his teaching of the gospel spreads throughout Asia (note that "Asia" in the Bible is referring to what we would call "Asia Minor" today).
There is mentioned some actually rather strange miracles here. It seems that Paul was working in Ephesus, and people would take his sweat rags and aprons and touch sick people with them, causing them to be cured. The Bible doesn't explain why this is effective, and yeah, I can see the "Absurdity" tag here. In a related story, some professional exorcists who are non-Christian Jews try to cast out a demon by saying, "We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." The demon apparently finds this amusing saying he knows Jesus and Paul (with a different Greek word for "know" in each case, the NIV rendering the response, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?") but doesn't know who the exorcists are, and he beats them up and strips them naked. Once again, the absurdity of this story is pretty obvious, although to those contemporary to it happening, it was apparently scary, and a bunch of people are essentially spooked into the kingdom of heaven.
Then there is noted a book burning. The SAB should really include this passage on their Is magic OK? page, because it's implied here that these are something like spellbooks. Paul is apparently thinking about traveling back to Jerusalem and then to Rome, but for now he sends Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia. In Ephesus, a silversmith named Demetrius gathers together craftsmen in the city who make money crafting (I assume) idols of the goddess Diana, and points out that the idol making craft is losing money from all these people turning to Christianity. They stir up a sort of rally for Diana, which turns into a would-be lynch mob for some Christians. The town clerk gets them to calm down and implores them to not do anything rash and illegal that they will regret, and the crowd disperses.
Showing posts with label Baptism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baptism. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
Monday, October 16, 2023
I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh (Acts 10)
Acts chapter ten is also a turning point. We go back to Peter for a bit, and his discovery that the gospel is for Gentiles, which shouldn't have been so surprising since Jesus told him and the other disciples that the gospel was to go "to the ends of the earth." Perhaps Peter, like other believers we hear about later in Acts, believed that you had to convert to Judaism to be a Christian?
Anyway, the chapter starts with the focus on Cornelius, a Roman centurion who is not a Jew, but is a devoted follower of the God of Israel. It even says in verse 22 that he is "of good report among all the nation of the Jews." Cornelius has a vision of an angel who tells him to send men to Joppa to fetch Peter. So he sends two servants and a soldier with directions on where to find Peter according to his vision.
As the men are approaching, Peter is on the roof of the house praying, and he has a vision. In his vision, a sheet comes down from the sky filled with all sorts of animals, many (maybe all) of them not kosher, and a voice tells him to get up, kill something and eat it. Peter says, "Not so, Lord," (which I've heard in sermons pointed out to be a ridiculous thing to say in itself) because, as he explains, he keeps kosher. The voice (of God) tells him if God calls something clean, don't call it unclean. This whole thing repeats three times. I answered "What kind of animals may we eat?" way back in Genesis chapter nine, and it's actually a rather thorough response for my early work, some of which I'm not happy with now. As for What the Bible says about vegetarians, I think there's a need for cultural context with all of these verses. I think I already explained Peter's vision, but in case it's not fully clear, Jesus was trying to break down the wall between Jews and Gentiles for Peter so the gospel could spread. As for the two passages from Paul's letters, there were apparently some people who came to Christianity from faith traditions that had meat eating rituals and/or rules, and because of it, they chose to not eat meat at all as Christians. This was perhaps a sign of weak faith but Paul doesn't want people judged for that personal choice. On the other hand, if someone was against meat eating and wanted to force others to abstain, well, that's just false doctrine. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't judge people who eat meat.
So, the men arrive, and God tells Peter to go with them. It's an interesting thing here about God's character in that really, one would suppose anywhere in the process, God could have just simplified things by delivering the message himself. He could have just told Cornelius about Jesus directly; he could have told Peter to go find Cornelius instead of having Cornelius send men to fetch him; he could have told Peter what this trip was all about instead of "go with them, doubting nothing"; but God doesn't do any of those things. For whatever reason, God likes to set up people to meet and spread his message for him; he wants people to spread his love. Peter goes with the men and brings along a few fellow believers. When they arrive at Cornelius's home, Cornelius falls down and worships Peter, which Peter tells him not to do. Peter tells the people gathered there that normally a Jew wouldn't go among Gentiles, but God has revealed to him that he shouldn't be prejudiced. Cornelius shares his vision, and asks Peter to share his message, and Peter shares the gospel. I answered whether God respects people in Genesis chapter four. I answered whether Jesus was peaceful in John chapter 14. I answered whether there is an unforgivable sin in Matthew chapter 12.
After sharing the gospel, all the Gentiles believe, receive the Holy Ghost (another instance of the Holy Ghost being given!), and speak in tongues like on Pentecost. The Jewish believers are astonished, and decide to baptize them. The SAB has some interesting stuff here that I've never heard of about how if the disciples were surprised about Gentiles, but accepted them, wouldn't they also accept homosexuals? I'm not sure if the logic is sound, nonetheless it's my belief that anyone can be a Christian, so yes, regardless of what one believes about the morality of same-sex relationships, homosexuals can be Christian; whether they should abstain from same-sex intimacy is obviously a sticking point among Christians, however. I answered whose name people should be baptized in in Acts chapter two.
Anyway, the chapter starts with the focus on Cornelius, a Roman centurion who is not a Jew, but is a devoted follower of the God of Israel. It even says in verse 22 that he is "of good report among all the nation of the Jews." Cornelius has a vision of an angel who tells him to send men to Joppa to fetch Peter. So he sends two servants and a soldier with directions on where to find Peter according to his vision.
As the men are approaching, Peter is on the roof of the house praying, and he has a vision. In his vision, a sheet comes down from the sky filled with all sorts of animals, many (maybe all) of them not kosher, and a voice tells him to get up, kill something and eat it. Peter says, "Not so, Lord," (which I've heard in sermons pointed out to be a ridiculous thing to say in itself) because, as he explains, he keeps kosher. The voice (of God) tells him if God calls something clean, don't call it unclean. This whole thing repeats three times. I answered "What kind of animals may we eat?" way back in Genesis chapter nine, and it's actually a rather thorough response for my early work, some of which I'm not happy with now. As for What the Bible says about vegetarians, I think there's a need for cultural context with all of these verses. I think I already explained Peter's vision, but in case it's not fully clear, Jesus was trying to break down the wall between Jews and Gentiles for Peter so the gospel could spread. As for the two passages from Paul's letters, there were apparently some people who came to Christianity from faith traditions that had meat eating rituals and/or rules, and because of it, they chose to not eat meat at all as Christians. This was perhaps a sign of weak faith but Paul doesn't want people judged for that personal choice. On the other hand, if someone was against meat eating and wanted to force others to abstain, well, that's just false doctrine. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't judge people who eat meat.
So, the men arrive, and God tells Peter to go with them. It's an interesting thing here about God's character in that really, one would suppose anywhere in the process, God could have just simplified things by delivering the message himself. He could have just told Cornelius about Jesus directly; he could have told Peter to go find Cornelius instead of having Cornelius send men to fetch him; he could have told Peter what this trip was all about instead of "go with them, doubting nothing"; but God doesn't do any of those things. For whatever reason, God likes to set up people to meet and spread his message for him; he wants people to spread his love. Peter goes with the men and brings along a few fellow believers. When they arrive at Cornelius's home, Cornelius falls down and worships Peter, which Peter tells him not to do. Peter tells the people gathered there that normally a Jew wouldn't go among Gentiles, but God has revealed to him that he shouldn't be prejudiced. Cornelius shares his vision, and asks Peter to share his message, and Peter shares the gospel. I answered whether God respects people in Genesis chapter four. I answered whether Jesus was peaceful in John chapter 14. I answered whether there is an unforgivable sin in Matthew chapter 12.
After sharing the gospel, all the Gentiles believe, receive the Holy Ghost (another instance of the Holy Ghost being given!), and speak in tongues like on Pentecost. The Jewish believers are astonished, and decide to baptize them. The SAB has some interesting stuff here that I've never heard of about how if the disciples were surprised about Gentiles, but accepted them, wouldn't they also accept homosexuals? I'm not sure if the logic is sound, nonetheless it's my belief that anyone can be a Christian, so yes, regardless of what one believes about the morality of same-sex relationships, homosexuals can be Christian; whether they should abstain from same-sex intimacy is obviously a sticking point among Christians, however. I answered whose name people should be baptized in in Acts chapter two.
Friday, October 13, 2023
Neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree (Acts 8)
Acts chapter eight has a lot of interesting stuff, not all of which is noted on by the SAB. As I said in the comments of the last chapter, I find it interesting that the SAB doesn't mark a passage as violent if the violence is against Christians or Jews; here I note we start the persecution of the church, but the passage is not marked for intolerance.
Philip goes to Samaria to preach the gospel, and is apparently well received. However, there is an interesting distinction here in that for some reason the Samaritans aren't given the Holy Ghost, and Peter and John have to come and lay hands on people. I already answered the question of what name people should be baptized in back in Acts chapter two, but this passage would also fit under the question of when the Holy Ghost was given, and I wonder why the SAB doesn't put it there.
One of the people is a sorcerer named Simon, which prompts the SAB to ask, Is magic OK? I think that what the SAB is missing here is there is a difference between supernatural acts that come from the power of God and ones that come from another source. In fact, generally those that come from God tend to be called "miracles" rather than "magic". There are a few things on that page that need clarification nonetheless. When Hezekiah destroyed Moses's bronze serpent in 2Kings 18, it's not because it's magic; it's because people were worshipping it as an idol. Also, it's worth noting that the two run-ins with sorcerers in the Book of Acts don't end with them being killed, but merely rebuked; in fact, here in this chapter there's nothing to suggest Simon wasn't a Christian, he was just one who was misled in his intentions. Oh, and while it's not an entirely clear passage one way or the other, it's notable that the witch in 1Samuel 28 does actually manage to call up the spirit of Samuel, so does the Bible at least give legitimacy to magic? It seems to. I answered "Should the gospel be preached to everyone?" in Acts chapter one, although the page links to a much less thorough response in Matthew chapter ten. I should get that redirected.
So God tells Philip that he should go to Gaza, and apparently, it's so he can have an appointment with an Ethiopian eunuch of some importance. (This is perhaps how Christianity got to Ethiopia.) The man is reading the book of Isaiah, and when he meets Philip, he asks him about the meaning of the passage. Philip explains that the passage is a prophecy about Jesus and proceeds to share the gospel with him. The eunuch is very excited, and asks to be baptized, which Philip does. The SAB asks: May a eunuch enter into the congregation of the Lord? It's important to understand what these verses are saying, and what they are not saying. I'm pretty sure that the Leviticus passage is saying that that a eunuch (among others) may not serve as a priest. The Deuteronomy passage may possibly be echoing this, or it may be a more general ban on eunuchs participating in Jewish religious practices at all. Now the Isaiah passage is saying that while a eunuch can't participate, he can still actively serve God in his life, and God will definitely accept him. The New Testament passages that mention eunuchs are a completely separate matter, because the requirements for being a Christian are pretty much wide open. As for the possibility that the eunuch was a homosexual, I don't know about that, but I don't think it really matters, as I said, anyone can be a Christian.
The chapter ends in a bit of a strange way, with the statement that Philip goes away as soon as they come out of the water. As the SAB notes, it rather sounds like God magically teleported Philip to a town over 20 miles away, and some people interpret it like that, but it's also entirely possible that what's meant here is that Philip got abother call and immediately left, traveling quickly to Azotus. (If Philip was able to keep up with a chariot, he probably had a horse.)
Philip goes to Samaria to preach the gospel, and is apparently well received. However, there is an interesting distinction here in that for some reason the Samaritans aren't given the Holy Ghost, and Peter and John have to come and lay hands on people. I already answered the question of what name people should be baptized in back in Acts chapter two, but this passage would also fit under the question of when the Holy Ghost was given, and I wonder why the SAB doesn't put it there.
One of the people is a sorcerer named Simon, which prompts the SAB to ask, Is magic OK? I think that what the SAB is missing here is there is a difference between supernatural acts that come from the power of God and ones that come from another source. In fact, generally those that come from God tend to be called "miracles" rather than "magic". There are a few things on that page that need clarification nonetheless. When Hezekiah destroyed Moses's bronze serpent in 2Kings 18, it's not because it's magic; it's because people were worshipping it as an idol. Also, it's worth noting that the two run-ins with sorcerers in the Book of Acts don't end with them being killed, but merely rebuked; in fact, here in this chapter there's nothing to suggest Simon wasn't a Christian, he was just one who was misled in his intentions. Oh, and while it's not an entirely clear passage one way or the other, it's notable that the witch in 1Samuel 28 does actually manage to call up the spirit of Samuel, so does the Bible at least give legitimacy to magic? It seems to. I answered "Should the gospel be preached to everyone?" in Acts chapter one, although the page links to a much less thorough response in Matthew chapter ten. I should get that redirected.
So God tells Philip that he should go to Gaza, and apparently, it's so he can have an appointment with an Ethiopian eunuch of some importance. (This is perhaps how Christianity got to Ethiopia.) The man is reading the book of Isaiah, and when he meets Philip, he asks him about the meaning of the passage. Philip explains that the passage is a prophecy about Jesus and proceeds to share the gospel with him. The eunuch is very excited, and asks to be baptized, which Philip does. The SAB asks: May a eunuch enter into the congregation of the Lord? It's important to understand what these verses are saying, and what they are not saying. I'm pretty sure that the Leviticus passage is saying that that a eunuch (among others) may not serve as a priest. The Deuteronomy passage may possibly be echoing this, or it may be a more general ban on eunuchs participating in Jewish religious practices at all. Now the Isaiah passage is saying that while a eunuch can't participate, he can still actively serve God in his life, and God will definitely accept him. The New Testament passages that mention eunuchs are a completely separate matter, because the requirements for being a Christian are pretty much wide open. As for the possibility that the eunuch was a homosexual, I don't know about that, but I don't think it really matters, as I said, anyone can be a Christian.
The chapter ends in a bit of a strange way, with the statement that Philip goes away as soon as they come out of the water. As the SAB notes, it rather sounds like God magically teleported Philip to a town over 20 miles away, and some people interpret it like that, but it's also entirely possible that what's meant here is that Philip got abother call and immediately left, traveling quickly to Azotus. (If Philip was able to keep up with a chariot, he probably had a horse.)
Wednesday, October 04, 2023
Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost (Acts 2)
Acts chapter two is where we finally get to Pentecost and the baptism of the Holy Ghost. There's a lot of weird, supernatural, one-of-a-kind stuff going on in this chapter, so, yeah, it's going to be called absurd by the SAB. I already explained when the Holy Ghost was given in the last chapter.
The interesting thing about this event is that--as some have pointed out--the spiritual gift of "tongues" seems to be about speaking known languages, rather than glossolalia. The people who thought the disciples were drunk were probably speakers of Aramaic and Greek who couldn't figure out what was going on. If you don't know a foreign language and you hear it spoken, it's just nonsense to you.
Will those who call on the Lord be delivered? Yes and no. I think there's more of an element of earnestness here that simply saying a name. It's a contradiction if you take what Peter says at very simple face value, but I don't believe it's meant that way. I answered whether Jesus performed many signs and wonders in John chapter three, where the answer was yes. I answered who raised Jesus from the dead in John chapter two, where the answer was all persons of the Trinity were involved. Verse 31 has Peter mention Jesus being in Hell (the Greek word here is "Hades") and the SAB wonders why. I talked about Hell in John chapter five, but I didn't discuss this aspect in depth; the reason Jesus went to Hell was twofold: the sin of the world was put on him at his crucifixion, and he needed to go to Hell apparently to set free some (or maybe all?) of the people held captive there.
In whose name is baptism to be performed? I don't think it particularly matters, actually. Yes, Matthew reads differently, but the important thing is just that baptism happens for new believers in Jesus. Yes, 3,000 new Christians were baptized that day, which is a lot, but there were a lot of Jews in Jerusalem at that time because it was still the tail end of Passover, which lasts for seven days. And also yes, technically the early church, well through the 2nd century, practiced what was essentially a form of communism!
The interesting thing about this event is that--as some have pointed out--the spiritual gift of "tongues" seems to be about speaking known languages, rather than glossolalia. The people who thought the disciples were drunk were probably speakers of Aramaic and Greek who couldn't figure out what was going on. If you don't know a foreign language and you hear it spoken, it's just nonsense to you.
Will those who call on the Lord be delivered? Yes and no. I think there's more of an element of earnestness here that simply saying a name. It's a contradiction if you take what Peter says at very simple face value, but I don't believe it's meant that way. I answered whether Jesus performed many signs and wonders in John chapter three, where the answer was yes. I answered who raised Jesus from the dead in John chapter two, where the answer was all persons of the Trinity were involved. Verse 31 has Peter mention Jesus being in Hell (the Greek word here is "Hades") and the SAB wonders why. I talked about Hell in John chapter five, but I didn't discuss this aspect in depth; the reason Jesus went to Hell was twofold: the sin of the world was put on him at his crucifixion, and he needed to go to Hell apparently to set free some (or maybe all?) of the people held captive there.
In whose name is baptism to be performed? I don't think it particularly matters, actually. Yes, Matthew reads differently, but the important thing is just that baptism happens for new believers in Jesus. Yes, 3,000 new Christians were baptized that day, which is a lot, but there were a lot of Jews in Jerusalem at that time because it was still the tail end of Passover, which lasts for seven days. And also yes, technically the early church, well through the 2nd century, practiced what was essentially a form of communism!
Tuesday, June 06, 2023
Greater love hath no man than this (John 3:16-36)
John 3:16 is arguably the most famous verse in the Bible, because so many Christians feel that it sums up the Gospel, and it's one verse virtually every Christian has memorized. How does the SAB unpack it?
Does God love everyone? The answer is yes. Period. Obviously, however, it's complicated. I think it's important to note that it's entirely possible for a person to have more than one emotion towards another person at the same time, so why can't God? Confession time here: I have a daughter with mental health issues. She's been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and her behavior is sometimes erratic. There are times when I find myself hating her, but even when I feel that way, I never stop loving her. I think a lot of what is on this contradiction page is resolved by understanding that God sometimes has a love/hate relationship with certain people. Let's see... Yes, God hates entire nations sometimes, but it's usually because they are so steeped in sin that they are hurting people; sometimes God has felt that the hurting was so bad that they needed to be destroyed. God didn't hate Job; Job was simply suffering so badly that he incorrectly assumed God must hate him. Apparently, God hated Esau; he really wasn't a very good person.
I answered the question of how many sons God has in John 1
Is salvation by faith alone? Sort of. I answered a similar question in the last post, in which I said faith is important, but true faith leads to good words and deeds, so they are found together. It's actually the main theme of James, that faith is not complete without works. It's worth noting that a lot of the verses in the bottom of the page are from the Old Testament, which didn't often deal with the concepts of salvation and the afterlife, and those verses are actually about how to live a good life, which is nonetheless also important. However, "The just shall live by faith," appears several times in the New Testament, but is a quote from Habakkuk 2:4, so the importance of faith is indeed taught in the Old Testament. Matthew 5:20 is not making the claim that you need to be righteous to enter the Kingdom of heaven, but is rather hyperbole essentially saying that it takes more than righteousness. Matthew 19:17 needs context; Jesus is saying that one needs to be perfect and sinless to go to Heaven, but when the man Jesus was talking to claimed to be sinless, Jesus showed him that money was his idol. I believe 2Corinthians 5:10 and Revelation 2:23 (and maybe Revelation 20:12-13, it's not very clear) are referring to a non-salvific judgment; there is a theological understanding of judgment in the afterlife that while faith is what gets you into Heaven, in Heaven, there are different levels of reward waiting for believers based on their amount of good works. The question of how people are judged by God is a closely related matter, which I answered in my last entry.
Verse 22 is worth noting for a minor detail of "came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea." It's not specified where the meeting with Nicodemus occurred, but it's very likely that wherever it happened, it was in Judea already. It may be that John's Gospel is a collection of stories thrown together by an editor. Did Jesus baptize anyone? I think John 4:2, especially following so closely on this passage (remember that as originally written, there were no chapter divisions or verses), gives us the answer to clarify what is said here: Jesus's disciples baptized, but Jesus didn't. While it sounds like a contradiction between this chapter and the next, I think what is going on here is that when John was writing this he realized that he made it sound like Jesus was baptizing, but didn't mean to, so he simply clarified shortly afterward. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is an entirely different thing, and happened first at Pentecost. The timing of the calling of Peter and Andrew I covered in John chapter one.
How much power did Jesus have? Jesus was essentially all-powerful. The reason why he couldn't grant John and James's mother's request was, at least I always believed, that they didn't realize that what they were asking was to be crucified with Jesus, and that wasn't meant for them. The reason Jesus was unable to perform many miracles in his home town was that nobody there believed in him, so there simply wasn't enough opportunity!
As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed.Yes, this is meant to highlight absurdity, injustice, and violence, and seems a bit irreverent, but honestly, it's spot-on; this is what the verse is saying, and this is what Christianity is about! There are different theological approaches to what this really means when you understand it, but by far the majority view is that humanity was doomed to go to Hell because of Original Sin, and in order to be reconciled with God, there needed to be a perfect sacrifice to erase it, which could only be the killing of a completely innocent human being in the person of Jesus Christ.
Does God love everyone? The answer is yes. Period. Obviously, however, it's complicated. I think it's important to note that it's entirely possible for a person to have more than one emotion towards another person at the same time, so why can't God? Confession time here: I have a daughter with mental health issues. She's been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and her behavior is sometimes erratic. There are times when I find myself hating her, but even when I feel that way, I never stop loving her. I think a lot of what is on this contradiction page is resolved by understanding that God sometimes has a love/hate relationship with certain people. Let's see... Yes, God hates entire nations sometimes, but it's usually because they are so steeped in sin that they are hurting people; sometimes God has felt that the hurting was so bad that they needed to be destroyed. God didn't hate Job; Job was simply suffering so badly that he incorrectly assumed God must hate him. Apparently, God hated Esau; he really wasn't a very good person.
I answered the question of how many sons God has in John 1
Is salvation by faith alone? Sort of. I answered a similar question in the last post, in which I said faith is important, but true faith leads to good words and deeds, so they are found together. It's actually the main theme of James, that faith is not complete without works. It's worth noting that a lot of the verses in the bottom of the page are from the Old Testament, which didn't often deal with the concepts of salvation and the afterlife, and those verses are actually about how to live a good life, which is nonetheless also important. However, "The just shall live by faith," appears several times in the New Testament, but is a quote from Habakkuk 2:4, so the importance of faith is indeed taught in the Old Testament. Matthew 5:20 is not making the claim that you need to be righteous to enter the Kingdom of heaven, but is rather hyperbole essentially saying that it takes more than righteousness. Matthew 19:17 needs context; Jesus is saying that one needs to be perfect and sinless to go to Heaven, but when the man Jesus was talking to claimed to be sinless, Jesus showed him that money was his idol. I believe 2Corinthians 5:10 and Revelation 2:23 (and maybe Revelation 20:12-13, it's not very clear) are referring to a non-salvific judgment; there is a theological understanding of judgment in the afterlife that while faith is what gets you into Heaven, in Heaven, there are different levels of reward waiting for believers based on their amount of good works. The question of how people are judged by God is a closely related matter, which I answered in my last entry.
Verse 22 is worth noting for a minor detail of "came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea." It's not specified where the meeting with Nicodemus occurred, but it's very likely that wherever it happened, it was in Judea already. It may be that John's Gospel is a collection of stories thrown together by an editor. Did Jesus baptize anyone? I think John 4:2, especially following so closely on this passage (remember that as originally written, there were no chapter divisions or verses), gives us the answer to clarify what is said here: Jesus's disciples baptized, but Jesus didn't. While it sounds like a contradiction between this chapter and the next, I think what is going on here is that when John was writing this he realized that he made it sound like Jesus was baptizing, but didn't mean to, so he simply clarified shortly afterward. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is an entirely different thing, and happened first at Pentecost. The timing of the calling of Peter and Andrew I covered in John chapter one.
How much power did Jesus have? Jesus was essentially all-powerful. The reason why he couldn't grant John and James's mother's request was, at least I always believed, that they didn't realize that what they were asking was to be crucified with Jesus, and that wasn't meant for them. The reason Jesus was unable to perform many miracles in his home town was that nobody there believed in him, so there simply wasn't enough opportunity!
Wednesday, November 06, 2013
It seemed good to me also (Mark 1)
Well, I disputed with myself for quite a while whether or not I should simply continue with the Gospels. On the one hand, it seems sort of logical, and on the other hand...well, there are a few reasons why not. My main reason had been repetitiveness. Years ago, a friend of mine who was not a Christian told me that she was going to read through the New Testament, straight from beginning to end. I actually advised her that this might not be the best idea, and that once you read Matthew, the act of jumping into Mark will have you saying, "Didn't I just read all this?" I think it's easier for a Christian who has some enthusiasm for the subject material, but for the casual reader, the first three books of the New Testament can get boring especially for this very reason.
In my case, as I would have to work my ways through the issues brought up by the SAB, it's probably bound to be boring to be covering the same issues all over again, and thus I would have a similar experience. There's going to be a lot or repetition, I think.
I'll admit that when it comes to Mark 1, there is the additional issue of what to do with the very first note the SAB presents, which is an unusual one. Generally, the SAB uses the King James version, and as such, sticks to it with admirable devotion. Here on the very second verse, however, the SAB points out an issue not with the KJV, but with the ancient documents on which the KJV may have been based. I'm not an expert in the ancient documents myself, but I am somewhat familiar with the expert being consulted here: Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is the sort of author that anyone who finds the SAB an enjoyable read would enjoy. Apparently once a devoted Christian (if I'm remembering his story correctly) he decided to embark on a course of study that would allow him to examine the original manuscripts upon which the New Testament is based. Rather than finding enlightenment as many do, he was shocked to find that these manuscripts were not telling the unified and clear story that he expected them to tell, and thereafter set forth on a career of publishing books that examined what he considered to be important errors, not in any particular translation, but in the manuscripts on which the translations are based.
Anyway, I've read at least one of his books, and while I found it interesting, I disagreed with the majority of his conclusions, although not all of them. I don't know if an author like Ehrman is proving anything quite so clearly as he supposes he is. Literary interpretation from any age can be a shaky subject, and I tend to think of Ehrman as being probably as convincing as I am, despite having some advanced degrees and far better knowledge of ancient languages. If you're at all of a curious or skeptical mind, he's probably worth reading, but I don't think I have anything to say regarding his footnote here.
So, to the repetitiveness: As I said in Matthew 3, I don't think that slight differences in wording really should bother people.
"What did Jesus do after his baptism?" I would say that as Mark says, he went to the wilderness for 40 days. The passage being used in the Gospel of John is not talking about the day after Jesus' baptism, but the day after John talked about Jesus' baptism; the time frame is far from clear there.
I answered at length in Matthew 4 concerning the timing of the calling of the disciples, mainly saying that I believe the story in John is a separate story than the calling here.
"Where was the home of Peter and Andrew?" This looks like a problem until you look at a map and see that Bethsaida is just the next town over from Capernaum, it looks like about two miles away by my map, making it easy to have left a synagogue in one town and go straight away to a home in the other.
"Are those who believe Jesus is the Christ of God?" You know, I may have to hand it to the SAB that this is a genuine contradiction; I don't know anything I could say here at all except that maybe John means human beings only? Who knows, so I'll leave it on an up for the SAB.
In my case, as I would have to work my ways through the issues brought up by the SAB, it's probably bound to be boring to be covering the same issues all over again, and thus I would have a similar experience. There's going to be a lot or repetition, I think.
I'll admit that when it comes to Mark 1, there is the additional issue of what to do with the very first note the SAB presents, which is an unusual one. Generally, the SAB uses the King James version, and as such, sticks to it with admirable devotion. Here on the very second verse, however, the SAB points out an issue not with the KJV, but with the ancient documents on which the KJV may have been based. I'm not an expert in the ancient documents myself, but I am somewhat familiar with the expert being consulted here: Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is the sort of author that anyone who finds the SAB an enjoyable read would enjoy. Apparently once a devoted Christian (if I'm remembering his story correctly) he decided to embark on a course of study that would allow him to examine the original manuscripts upon which the New Testament is based. Rather than finding enlightenment as many do, he was shocked to find that these manuscripts were not telling the unified and clear story that he expected them to tell, and thereafter set forth on a career of publishing books that examined what he considered to be important errors, not in any particular translation, but in the manuscripts on which the translations are based.
Anyway, I've read at least one of his books, and while I found it interesting, I disagreed with the majority of his conclusions, although not all of them. I don't know if an author like Ehrman is proving anything quite so clearly as he supposes he is. Literary interpretation from any age can be a shaky subject, and I tend to think of Ehrman as being probably as convincing as I am, despite having some advanced degrees and far better knowledge of ancient languages. If you're at all of a curious or skeptical mind, he's probably worth reading, but I don't think I have anything to say regarding his footnote here.
So, to the repetitiveness: As I said in Matthew 3, I don't think that slight differences in wording really should bother people.
"What did Jesus do after his baptism?" I would say that as Mark says, he went to the wilderness for 40 days. The passage being used in the Gospel of John is not talking about the day after Jesus' baptism, but the day after John talked about Jesus' baptism; the time frame is far from clear there.
I answered at length in Matthew 4 concerning the timing of the calling of the disciples, mainly saying that I believe the story in John is a separate story than the calling here.
"Where was the home of Peter and Andrew?" This looks like a problem until you look at a map and see that Bethsaida is just the next town over from Capernaum, it looks like about two miles away by my map, making it easy to have left a synagogue in one town and go straight away to a home in the other.
"Are those who believe Jesus is the Christ of God?" You know, I may have to hand it to the SAB that this is a genuine contradiction; I don't know anything I could say here at all except that maybe John means human beings only? Who knows, so I'll leave it on an up for the SAB.
Monday, November 04, 2013
They came unto the sepulchre (Matthew 28)
Matthew 28 is filled with a ton of stuff. I may have tried to squeeze in too much by making the last chapter one post, we'll see how this one goes.
The SAB has a slew of questions on just the first two verses, so I'm going to list them all here: "How many women went to the sepulchre?" "When did they arrive?" "Whom did they see at the tomb?" "Was the tomb open or closed?" "Were the men or angels inside or outside the tomb when first seen?" Here is my take. A whole bunch of women came to the sepulchre, but they didn't all travel in one group, and in particular, Mary Magdalene was the first to arrive, before dawn, alone. She sees the stone rolled away already, why? Because as it says in verse 2, an angel had come and rolled it back. (Yes, I am suggesting that chronologically, verses 2-4 happened before verse 1, and it's my understanding that the Greek can support that.) The angel that rolled back the stone was seen by the guards outside the tomb, but the angel (or two angels, it's not clear) that spoke to the women was inside the tomb.
"Did the women immediately tell the disciples?" Well, they told them as soon as they found them. I would say that the verse in Mark indicates that they were too afraid to go and tell just anyone, so they stayed silent until they found who they were looking for.
Verse nine gives us a ton of questions again: "To whom did Jesus first appear?" "Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus?" "Was it OK to touch the risen Jesus?" "Was Mary Magdalene happy or sad when she saw the risen Jesus?" The question of to whom Jesus first appeared is a tricky one, but the answer is Mary Magdalene. There is a lot of stuff going on that Sunday morning, and in the midst of it, it's easy to miss that as Mark 16:9 says, the story at John 20:11ff is the story of Jesus first appearing to anyone. Although Matthew 28:9 sounds like a first appearance, in John 2:2 we are told that as Mary M. came to the tomb and found it empty, she immediately ran and got Peter and John. While the other women were travelling, Mary came back to the tomb and saw Jesus first. Mary was not with the group of women spoken of in verse 9, and when she saw Jesus, she didn't recognize him at first. While it did seem to be okay to touch the risen Jesus in general, Jesus did for some reason tell Mary M. not to touch him. Whether this was only okay later, or there was something about the way that Mary was touching him (I've heard some suggest that she was clinging to him tightly, and he was telling her that he could not stay) I don't know. Anyway, Mary was indeed sad when she first saw Jesus, but mainly because she didn't recognize him and was still confused.
"Where did Jesus tell his disciples to meet him?" This is simple: He told them to go to Galilee. Once they had gone to Galilee and met with him, he told them to go back to Jerusalem, where they would wait for Pentecost. "How many disciples did Jesus appear to in his first post resurrection appearance?" The linked page might be a problem if any of those verses actually said it was the "first" post resurrection appearance; I'll stick with "One", that being Mary Magdalene. (It's worth noting about the 1Corinthians passage that sometimes the Bible uses the term "the twelve" to refer to the Apostles, even when there were less than twelve present at an event.
"How much power did Jesus have?" I think you have to take into consideration that this is the post resurrection Jesus, and he's more powerful than he was while a mere mortal.
"Should the gospel be preached to everyone?" I thought I had addressed this previously, but not very thoroughly apparently. Yes, the Gospel should be preached to everyone, despite the fact that sometimes the timing is not right to preach to any one particular group.
"In whose name is baptism to be performed?" I don't see a strong reason why it should be one way or the other. That's the end of the book, and I think I'll just let that one drop.
The SAB has a slew of questions on just the first two verses, so I'm going to list them all here: "How many women went to the sepulchre?" "When did they arrive?" "Whom did they see at the tomb?" "Was the tomb open or closed?" "Were the men or angels inside or outside the tomb when first seen?" Here is my take. A whole bunch of women came to the sepulchre, but they didn't all travel in one group, and in particular, Mary Magdalene was the first to arrive, before dawn, alone. She sees the stone rolled away already, why? Because as it says in verse 2, an angel had come and rolled it back. (Yes, I am suggesting that chronologically, verses 2-4 happened before verse 1, and it's my understanding that the Greek can support that.) The angel that rolled back the stone was seen by the guards outside the tomb, but the angel (or two angels, it's not clear) that spoke to the women was inside the tomb.
"Did the women immediately tell the disciples?" Well, they told them as soon as they found them. I would say that the verse in Mark indicates that they were too afraid to go and tell just anyone, so they stayed silent until they found who they were looking for.
Verse nine gives us a ton of questions again: "To whom did Jesus first appear?" "Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus?" "Was it OK to touch the risen Jesus?" "Was Mary Magdalene happy or sad when she saw the risen Jesus?" The question of to whom Jesus first appeared is a tricky one, but the answer is Mary Magdalene. There is a lot of stuff going on that Sunday morning, and in the midst of it, it's easy to miss that as Mark 16:9 says, the story at John 20:11ff is the story of Jesus first appearing to anyone. Although Matthew 28:9 sounds like a first appearance, in John 2:2 we are told that as Mary M. came to the tomb and found it empty, she immediately ran and got Peter and John. While the other women were travelling, Mary came back to the tomb and saw Jesus first. Mary was not with the group of women spoken of in verse 9, and when she saw Jesus, she didn't recognize him at first. While it did seem to be okay to touch the risen Jesus in general, Jesus did for some reason tell Mary M. not to touch him. Whether this was only okay later, or there was something about the way that Mary was touching him (I've heard some suggest that she was clinging to him tightly, and he was telling her that he could not stay) I don't know. Anyway, Mary was indeed sad when she first saw Jesus, but mainly because she didn't recognize him and was still confused.
"Where did Jesus tell his disciples to meet him?" This is simple: He told them to go to Galilee. Once they had gone to Galilee and met with him, he told them to go back to Jerusalem, where they would wait for Pentecost. "How many disciples did Jesus appear to in his first post resurrection appearance?" The linked page might be a problem if any of those verses actually said it was the "first" post resurrection appearance; I'll stick with "One", that being Mary Magdalene. (It's worth noting about the 1Corinthians passage that sometimes the Bible uses the term "the twelve" to refer to the Apostles, even when there were less than twelve present at an event.
"How much power did Jesus have?" I think you have to take into consideration that this is the post resurrection Jesus, and he's more powerful than he was while a mere mortal.
"Should the gospel be preached to everyone?" I thought I had addressed this previously, but not very thoroughly apparently. Yes, the Gospel should be preached to everyone, despite the fact that sometimes the timing is not right to preach to any one particular group.
"In whose name is baptism to be performed?" I don't see a strong reason why it should be one way or the other. That's the end of the book, and I think I'll just let that one drop.
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
And was baptized of John in Jordan (Matthew 3)
Just to keep things in order, in case anyone tries to read this blog straight through rather than jumping around, I'll insert a short note here that I've already analyzed the rest of Matthew 1 here, and Matthew 2 here (with verse 11 in particular addressed here). Merry Christmas and all that. So, on to chapter 3.
The first issue that the SAB has with this chapter is whether or not John baptized any Pharisees. I think this isn't a problem; in verse 11 I don't think John is addressing the Pharisees in particular, but the crowd at large and saying that baptism is something he's offering whether or not any particular member of the crowd is taking him up on the offer. As for calling them "O generation of vipers...", yes, I'd agree that this is harsh language, but I'd note that the word "generation" may be somewhat questionable in meaning, so I'm not sure what the SAB is insinuating about "an entire generation". He may not even be talking about the Pharisees as a whole.
I think marking verses 10-12 with violence may be a bit strong, but I don't have a major issue with this. The point that John is making is a metaphorical one. If a fruit tree doesn't bear fruit, then what good is it, and why not just use it for firewood? So if you're someone who isn't doing something worthwhile with their life, then what good are you? It's food for thought, in my opinion.
Now the SAB thinks that Jesus coming to John to get baptized is absurd, and as they note, John himself seems to be of the same opinion. It is rather odd, and for the very reasons that the SAB points out. If baptism is is about repentance and sinfulness, and Jesus is sinless, then what the heck is going on? I've heard it suggested that Jesus is getting baptized in order to be an example for generations of Christians to come, which might be possible, but I think that it's a mistake to assume that everything Jesus ever did was intended to be an example to follow. I suppose it does make some slight sense out of verse 15, of which the SAB wonders as to the meaning.
The last issue in this chapter is a question concerning the wording used by the voice of God, which here disagrees with the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke. Make what you want of this sort of thing; slight differences in wording in the Gospels don't bother me personally, and this is only the first of many of this sort. I figure if the gist of the wording is the same, why should it bother me?
The first issue that the SAB has with this chapter is whether or not John baptized any Pharisees. I think this isn't a problem; in verse 11 I don't think John is addressing the Pharisees in particular, but the crowd at large and saying that baptism is something he's offering whether or not any particular member of the crowd is taking him up on the offer. As for calling them "O generation of vipers...", yes, I'd agree that this is harsh language, but I'd note that the word "generation" may be somewhat questionable in meaning, so I'm not sure what the SAB is insinuating about "an entire generation". He may not even be talking about the Pharisees as a whole.
I think marking verses 10-12 with violence may be a bit strong, but I don't have a major issue with this. The point that John is making is a metaphorical one. If a fruit tree doesn't bear fruit, then what good is it, and why not just use it for firewood? So if you're someone who isn't doing something worthwhile with their life, then what good are you? It's food for thought, in my opinion.
Now the SAB thinks that Jesus coming to John to get baptized is absurd, and as they note, John himself seems to be of the same opinion. It is rather odd, and for the very reasons that the SAB points out. If baptism is is about repentance and sinfulness, and Jesus is sinless, then what the heck is going on? I've heard it suggested that Jesus is getting baptized in order to be an example for generations of Christians to come, which might be possible, but I think that it's a mistake to assume that everything Jesus ever did was intended to be an example to follow. I suppose it does make some slight sense out of verse 15, of which the SAB wonders as to the meaning.
The last issue in this chapter is a question concerning the wording used by the voice of God, which here disagrees with the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke. Make what you want of this sort of thing; slight differences in wording in the Gospels don't bother me personally, and this is only the first of many of this sort. I figure if the gist of the wording is the same, why should it bother me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
