S.L. – M.K. Correspondence re: Jesus, Resurrection, Love, Bible:
2024-01-14
2024-01-xx: S.L. wrote:
Man this is hard on Facebook and I appreciate they way you organize your thoughts. I'd love to jump on a Zoom call to discuss more throughly. Maybe some others would join. But for now...
>> Re: “If they're not true, then whose death suggests to you that the resurrection was real?”
I think there’s little debate that the early christians were killed because of their faith. This is well documented. What’s not documented is specially how the famous ones died.
___
>> Re: “IF a person could really rise from the dead and was divine, why would that person not hang around? Why run away into the sky to escape from the people one supposedly loves so much? It makes no sense.”
I agree. But at the same time, we are sitting here talking about Jesus of Nazareth in 2023 and he changed the world, so maybe the plan was pretty effective.
___
>> Re: modern cosmology…The Christian worldview was superstitious and primitive.
Correct. But EVERYONE was superstitious and primitive back then. It was in that very reality that whatever happened happened. So when we read the scriptures (or any ancient text) we have to do our best to sort out the primitive, superstitious stuff.
___
>> Re: raised messiah akin to roman rules becoming divine after they died.
Also true. They actually attributed divinity to Roman rulers before they died as well. This was a big problem for Christians because they would’t acknowledge Cesar’s divinity. But I don’t personally find it suspicions that the resurrection illegally took place in that context. I find it more suspicious that it’s similar to other myths. But dead things coming back to life in various ways throughout the story of the Bible.
But as I understand it, NOBODY expected Jesus to 1) be crucified—because you can’t have a dead messiah and 2) rise from the dead—because that doesn’t happen.
___
>> Re: “Further, you continue to ignore the imminent eschatology in the early christian message.”
Well…I actually think most of what Jesus said was going to happen, actually happened. I definitely have a few issues but in general, his message of the Kingdom of God was SPOT ON. It’s not a revolt form the Romans and it’s not about heaven when you die. It’s a new way of living in the here and now. And much of what he said in Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD.
___
>> Re: “You’re mixing your arguments there”
I don’t see how I’m mixing arguments. This is kind of my main argument.
___
>> Re: Messianic Jews that wanted rebellion…Matthew and Mark are apocalyptic Jewish literature…everybody thought Jesus was coming back soon.
There was a major sect (the zealots) who wanted a rebellion and were willing to fight for it. Others, like the Essenes, withdrew from religious life to pursue God outside of the religious establishment. Others, like the Pharisees and Sadducees, didn’t want a rebellion at all but thought if they could be holy enough, God would rescue them.
I don’t think your interpretation of Mark and Matthew is quite right but I do think that everyone assumed Jesus was coming back in their generation.
I don’t actually agree about the apocalyptic nature of the earliest literature—at least not in the way you define it. In fact, most of what many say is clearly apocalyptic, I seriously question. I don’t even think Revelation is about the end of time. I think it’s far more likely that it’s about how to follow Jesus in the current context of the Roman Empire. (I personally wish that book didn’t make the cut.)
___
>> Re: “You want to pretend everything was about "radical love," when in reality it certainly was not.”
They way I read it and understand history, radial love was the DEFINING characteristic of the Christians, as Jesus said it should be. There are lots of things Jesus said that aren’t real clear but what he said about love was pretty clear.
___
>> Re: “if you look at the history of the religion closely, it certain did not live up to the love part.”
Correct. We haven’t lived up to the Jesus way. And I'm quite sure that Jesus wound’t take credit for the atrocities done in his name. But it’s not his fault. It’s ours. He laid it out. We just think we know better. Still do.
___
>> Re: “But really, the earliest detectable messages were a black and white, us v. them message that came from apocalyptic Judaism and are present in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well. And you keep ignoring that. What was supposed to happen to all people not believing the messianic message? Destruction in fire at the soon-coming judgement.”
I agree that the earliest detectable messages were a black and white but it was the opposite of us v. them. And I think EVERY SINGLE PASSAGE that deals with destruction/fire/judgment wasn’t understood like most Christians believe and preach today. I don’t think Jesus ever talked about hell. We have to untangle our modern, Hollywood and Dante-informed version and take in the Jewish context of Jesus.
___
>> Re:2 Thessalonians 1.6-8…That is NOT love. It is propaganda.”�
Believers and skeptics alike love to use Paul to make their points. I find this highly problematic and often off topic. First, I’m interested in the Jesus way, not necessarily the Paul way. But second, it’s vitally important to understand Jesus in his context, and THEN try to understand Paul in light of Jesus. We often switch that around and it never ends up well. Third, everything Paul wrote was someone else’s mail with context that we might be missing. Fourth, there are several verses like this one that I don’t much like. But I’m okay with that because I don’t need to understand or even agree with everything to believe in something. Fifth, my faith (what little I have) isn’t based on a book or a collection of writings.
___
>> Re: “A real God could communicate HIMSELF…”
Perhaps. But maybe you are projecting how YOU would do it if you were God. I think you might be expecting god/Jesus/the holy spirit to do things he/they/whatever never promised to do. And again, considering we’re talking about Jesus right now is at least evidence that something worked pretty well. And as I mentioned in Erhman’s quote earlier, Jesus movement “was the most monumental cultural transformation our world has ever seen.”
Zoom?
---------------- -------------- ---------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------
M.K. Responses to S.L.:
Yes, but when? Maybe you can message me and we can set it up. Otherwise, it might have to wait until the week of Jan 23, because I’ll be so terribly busy.
--- --- ---
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. It is quite difficult to talk thoroughly about complex topics on social media.
There have many points forgotten, partly addressed, dropped, skipped, unanswered, or insufficiently answered along the way. Maybe Zoom will work better. And/or FB messenger combined with Zoom.
--- --- ---
Re: “>> Re: “If they're not true, then whose death suggests to you that the resurrection was real?” I think there’s little debate that the early christians were killed because of their faith. This is well documented. What’s not documented is specially how the famous ones died.”:
I supplied for you quotations of the earliest references to the deaths of Christians. They do not warrant belief in the literal resurrection of Jesus’ dead body from the grave and ascension into the sky. I do not think you adequately addressed those references or showed how they warranted belief in the resurrection of Jesus. And we have now seen that there are no reliable accounts of the deaths of Peter, Paul, etc. So again, you have not shown that Christian deaths warrant belief in the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus’ corpse from the grave and ascension into the sky to live with Yahweh above the clouds.
Let’s review.
Here is the earliest potential account of which I know.
According to the Roman historian Suetonius’ biography of Emperor Claudius (41-54 CE), the early Christians were TROUBLEMAKERS, constantly instigating disturbances at Rome, to the extent that the Emperor Claudius kicked them out of the city to maintain peace. Suetonius wrote the following:
- -
*** “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ, i.e. messiah], he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.” (Life of Claudius 25.4[1]).
- -
That’s it.
The Jews were constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus/Christus. “Chrestus”/Christus is the Roman version of Greek Christos, a translation for the Hebrew word “messiah,” which literally meant “anointed one,” and was used to signify an anointed king of Judah and/or Israel. Many ultra-conservative Jews during the time of the Greeks and Romans were hoping for a new messiah/king to govern Israel and defeat all of the political enemies of the Jews, ushering in an era of peace and prosperity for the Jewish people. Jewish messianism was a political and anti-Roman phenomenon.
[Really at this point, we should thoroughly review what Jewish messianism was, but there is not space here. This link will suffice if you want to review it later: https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/home/prophecies-of-the-messiah.]
Why would supporters of a Jewish messiah-king be kicked out of the city for creating constant disturbances? Because they were disturbing the peace in the very capital city of the empire, right under the nose of the emperor Claudius. Advocating for a king of the Jews, in the capital of the Empire, at a time when Rome controlled Judea, was overtly political, seditious, aggressive. It is not surprising that such people would be kicked out.
Where’s the “radical love”? Not visible at this juncture. IF they were merely a bunch of hippies preaching “radical love,” I suggest that they would not have been creating disturbances, and they would not have been kicked out. The Romans were VERY tolerant, VERY accommodating of all kinds of philosophies and religions from around the empire.
In his biography of the Emperor Nero, the same Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote about various abuses that the Emperor Nero punished and put down. According to Suetonius, as part of his crack down on various abuses,
*** “Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous superstition” (Life of Nero 16.2).
- - - - -
So once again we see Christians classified with undesirable superstitious beliefs and abuse. Suetonius gives no more information than that. However, a different Roman writer, Tacitus, did provide more information.
So far, is there anything in the evidence to suggest that these Christians were people who were “all about radical love,” or that they were merely teaching radical love and nothing else?
No way! IF they had been teaching “radical love” and nothing else, they would not have been hated, punished, or considered superstitious by the Romans.
The Roman senator and historian Tacitus (56-120 CE) mentions Christians and “Christus” in his Annals, a work of history written during the years around 109-118 CE, covering the reigns of the Roman Emperors Tiberius (r. 14-37 CE), Claudius (41-54 CE), and Nero (54-68 CE).
Tacitus writes about how the Emperor Nero blamed a hated group of people called Christians for the great fire in Rome in 64 CE:
- - - - -
*** “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.” (Tacitus, Annals 15.44.1)
- - - - -
What did this well-educated Roman senator have to say about the group of people known as the Christians? He said they:
-- were hated as a group for their abominations;
-- were called Christiani/ “Christians” by the Romans;
-- considered themselves followers of Christus [messiah = anointed king], who was executed during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius under the direction of a procurator named Pontius Pilatus;
-- were a mischievous superstition;
-- were evil;
-- were hideous and shameful.
Does Tacitus have anything good to say about Christus or Christians? No.
And why would Tacitus lie? He was not trying to make Nero look good. He did not even like Nero.
Why would he say Christians were hated, shameful, full of superstitions? He does not say merely that the emperor hated Christians. He implies that the Roman people in general did not like them. Why not?
Well, even if you look at New Testament literature and the kinds of things various Christians were saying about Rome, you can see why they would be considered superstitious and why they would be disliked by Romans. Christians were running around telling people that only followers of the Jewish god Yahweh and his only son Jesus the messiah-king of Israel could be saved from the coming wrath of Yahweh on the world. Anyone not believing in the messiah-king-christ would be condemned by the Jewish god Yahweh at a great judgement that was about to happen. Believers in the messiah-christ were “children of light.” Non-believers were “blinded by demons” and would be punished by the Jewish god.
[Biblical Sources for what Christians were saying to the people of the Roman Empire:
-- What Christian literature said about people who did not believe their message: https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/home/fate-of-non-believers#h.cpw0yrdhfz4j.
-- Explicit condemnation of anyone not believing the message about Yahweh and his alleged messiah-king Jesus: https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/home/fate-of-non-believers#h.49v4vmwp0zqj.
-- That the Jewish god Yahweh would soon judge the world, and only followers of Yahweh would be saved from Yahweh’s wrath: https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/home/fate-of-non-believers#h.i37ly42mmixu.
-- Yahweh’s wrath: https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/home/fate-of-non-believers#h.6ofli5fujmvw.
-- That Yahweh’s messiah would be coming again SOON in the clouds to establish his kingdom, sit on his throne, judge the world, etc.: https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/home/fate-of-non-believers#h.zgqbn8jgof2l.
Is there anything in Tacitus’ account that suggests maybe Jesus really did rise from the dead and ascend up into the sky?
Is there anything in Tacitus’ account that suggests that Jesus taught “radical love” and “only radical love”?
NO.
The Christian message was an us v. them, black v white message. It was a false claim to be the only true source of love, goodness, truth, etc. It was a claim to be superior to all of Roman and Greek culture, and not in an inconsequential way, but in a way that added a huge threat: that the Jewish god YHWH would eventually destroy everything and everyone not on board with worshiping Yahweh and honoring Yahweh’s messiah-king. It was also a claim that the Roman Empire would soon be judged by the Jewish god Yahweh and his messiah king.
That is NOT “radical love.” But apparently that was why the first Christians were persecuted.
It is nothing like what you pretend or desire it to be.
--- --- ---
And that’s not a problem for your theses? Your theses seem to be that:
-- Jesus preached radical love and only radical love.
-- early Christians’ deaths offer convincing proof that Jesus really rose bodily from the dead and really ascended up into the sky.
I do not see evidence for either claim in the earliest accounts of Christian deaths in the first century.
Can you address these points at least as thoroughly as I have?
Can you show me other evidence you consider more pertinent?
--- ---- ----- ------
Re: “>> Re: “IF a person could really rise from the dead and was divine, why would that person not hang around? Why run away into the sky to escape from the people one supposedly loves so much? It makes no sense.” …. I agree. But at the same time, we are sitting here talking about Jesus of Nazareth in 2023 and he changed the world, so maybe the plan was pretty effective.”:
We should pause there, since you agree. I think this agreement is a good step.
…
Would have been a better step if the other sentence had not followed.
IF you do honestly agree that it makes no sense to imagine Jesus truly got up from the dead, but simply did not wish to hang around on earth anymore, despite allegations that he loves everyone “radically,” and IF you agree that it is nonsensical to claim that Jesus went up into the sky, then why do you persist in defending the notion?
IF it is nonsensical, as you yourself just admitted, then this Jesus story did NOT change the world for the better, but for the worse, by setting in motion nonsensical superstitions that changed the world by deceiving people and making false promises. The pulling of masses of Gentiles into the worst forms of Jewish apocalyptic superstitions was tragic for the world, and we still deal with the fallout and sad ramifications.
---- ---- ----
Re: “But at the same time, we are sitting here talking about Jesus of Nazareth in 2023 and he changed the world, so maybe the plan was pretty effective.”:
We are talking about how nonsensical Christian claims were. We are talking about what an unreliable institution the church is. I am talking about how sad it is that so many hundreds of millions of people – over 2 billion – have been deceived by the false claims of Christianity in one form or another. To think it is cool would be sadistic. It is not cool. It is tragic. It is a testimony to the power of psychological manipulation, the depths of human credulity, the power of lies well crafted, the power of corrupt human institutions, etc.
Re: talking about Jesus: If one is impressed merely by the numbers, rather than quality, we could also be talking about the positive or negative, true or untrue aspects of Muhammed [1.8 billion followers and growing; founder of the fastest growing religion in the world currently] or the founders of Hinduism [1.2 billion Hindus], or the Buddha [>500 millions followers], or Joseph Smith [16 million Mormon followers in only 200 years], or the history of human sacrifices in the Americas, etc. We could be talking about the fictions of Genesis through Deuteronomy and how influential they have been.
We could be talking about Paul. You made it clear that you do not like talking about Paul, but more people follow Paul’s version of Christianity than the version of the gospel Jesus (which would have meant keeping the law of Moses). Without the influence of Paul (or some people like Paul) going against Jewish tradition to make it easier for Gentiles to join the apocalyptic, messianic Yahweh cult, Christianity might well have long ago fizzled or become just another tiny, almost insignificant cult. Paul may even deserve more credit or blame for Christianity than any historical Jesus does. It was Paul’s version (relaxing expectations and standards for Gentiles) that proved most attractive, most explosive for growth.
You say, “maybe the plan was effective.”
Was the plan to create a cult that would continually evolve and transform into – among other things – a gigantic, corrupt, superstitious institution that would eventually take over the Roman Empire, witness its downfall, and usher in the Dark Ages, with 1,000 years of ignorant religion dominating European minds?
You already said it is nonsensical. Now it seems you are celebrating the triumph of nonsense.
--- ---- ---- ----
Re: “>> Re: modern cosmology…The Christian worldview was superstitious and primitive.
Correct. But EVERYONE was superstitious and primitive back then. It was in that very reality that whatever happened happened. So when we read the scriptures (or any ancient text) we have to do our best to sort out the primitive, superstitious stuff.”:
1. I am glad that you can acknowledge that the Christian worldview was superstitious and primitive. I would like to recruit you to be a sincere advocate for education and for a better and more inclusive form of love than Christianity, so that more Christians can come to see and grow beyond the false nature of foundational biblical doctrines.
… but there’s a “but” again, … so …
2. No. Actually, NOT EVERYONE was superstitious, and not everyone was superstitious to the same degree. And that is something to celebrate.
Aristarchus of Samos (200s BCE) was a Greek astronomer credited with being the first to propose a heliocentric model of the cosmos.
[IF the bible had actually been divinely inspired, humans could have had better ideas sooner, but no, the bible would be a reason for people to continue to reject such ideas. Europe would have to wait until Copernicus and Galileo. And what did the Christian Church do to Giordano Bruno and to Galileo for questioning biblical cosmology?! And did any God care to ensure that the leaders of Christianity were guided by truth? Perfectly clearly, NO.]
Greek and Roman philosophy, math, skepticism, and early scientific notions are fascinating to study. Stoicism, Skepticism, and Epicureanism offered improvements on more traditional, literalistic interpretations of Greek and Roman religion. There were philosophers who were atheists and/or questioned the existence of anthropomorphic gods. In fact, it was somewhat fashionable in educated circles to consider that Greco-Roman religion was not true in a literal sense, but that it was still good for common people to believe in rewards for good and punishment of wrongdoing after death. I have a paper on the concept of “Pius Fraud” or “The Noble Lie” in the classical world, if you are interested.
Let me take one example of a reduction in superstition. Epicurus wanted to deliver humanity from fear of the gods. If only he had succeeded in spreading some of his ideas more broadly. The Roman epic poet Lucretius created an entire epic poem (De Rerum Natura / On the Nature of Things) to celebrate Epicurus, to spread his light among people, to help deliver people from fear of the gods, to teach about atoms, to address the human fear of death, etc. While other Greeks and Romans called them atheists, they did not official deny the existence of gods, but they changed the definition (like Spinoza [God = Nature] and Einstein would do), suggesting that the gods were not personalities with human emotions, but were more like deep and/or lofty natural forces in a state of perfect bliss.
Why did Epicurus’ ideas not spread more broadly?
I don't know. Maybe because there was obvious financial profit to be made, no desire/ability to manipulate people with this philosophy, no desire to control people. Cicero opposed Epicureanism. Why? He considered it not useful for the state, for political reasons.
[Sadly, Epicureanism was not considered useful for politics. What turned out to be great for politicians? Christianity. It proved a superb manipulative tool.]
… but …
Did you know that when a copy of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura was rediscovered and circulated in the 1400s, its ideas (e.g. atomism, deliverance from fear of the gods) would help inspire the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution in Europe? See the Pulitzer-Prize-winning book “The Swerve: How the World Became Modern,” by Stephen Greenblatt (2012) (https://www.amazon.com/Swerve-How-World-Became-Modern/dp/0393343405).
In the winter of 1417, a short, genial, cannily alert man in his late thirties plucked a very old manuscript off a dusty shelf in a remote monastery, saw with excitement what he had discovered, and ordered that it be copied. He was Poggio Bracciolini, the greatest book hunter of the Renaissance. His discovery, Lucretius’ ancient poem On the Nature of Things, had been almost entirely lost to history for more than a thousand years.
It was a beautiful poem of the most dangerous ideas: that the universe functions without the aid of gods, that religious fear is damaging to human life, that pleasure and virtue are not opposites but intertwined, and that matter is made up of very small material particles in eternal motion, randomly colliding and swerving in new directions. Its return to circulation changed the course of history. The poem’s vision would shape the thought of Galileo and Freud, Darwin and Einstein, and—in the hands of Thomas Jefferson—leave its trace on the Declaration of Independence.
The Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution are far more worthy of celebration than Jesus or Christianity.
Also, like I mentioned, some people were less superstitious than others. Pharisees, Essenes, and apocalyptic messianic Jews believed in a coming bodily resurrection of the dead. The Jews acquired the idea from Persians during Jewish domination by the Persia. But since it was not traditionally part of Judaism, not all Jews believed that. In fact, plenty of upper class and better educated Jews considered the concept of a bodily resurrection of the dead to be an undesirable superstition.
3. Re: “So when we read the scriptures (or any ancient text) we have to do our best to sort out the primitive, superstitious stuff.”:
We started this conversation because you promoted the superstition that Jesus really rose from the dead and went up into the sky, along with the false notion that Jesus was all about radical love and only love.
The scriptures promote superstition. The bible should be studied from an academic, non-sectarian perspective for understanding of (a) ancient cultures, (b) subsequent European history, and (c) how badly superstition and religion can warp people’s minds.
--- ---- ----- ------
Re: “I actually think most of what Jesus said was going to happen, actually happened. I definitely have a few issues but in general, his message of the Kingdom of God was SPOT ON. It’s not a revolt form the Romans and it’s not about heaven when you die. It’s a new way of living in the here and now. And much of what he said in Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD.”:
You just avoided the issue 100%. I am talking about the times the gospel Jesus character claimed he would be returning soon as the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with angels accompanying him, to sit on his throne and judge the nations, BEFORE that generation passed away, with some of his hearers being still alive when it would happen.
You said nothing to address this matter.
What you did say shows that you did not take time to read and seriously ponder the links and verses I suggested and offered previously.
Matthew 24 (the only section you mention) was written AFTER the events of 70 AD/CE. It is easy to make events appear to fulfill prophecy when the prophecy is written AFTER the events! [The Jews did the same thing in the 180s BCE with the book (pseudepigraphon) of “Daniel.”] But let’s pretend, for a moment, a historical Jesus really said them. It would mean the historical Jesus was a false “prophet,” because things did not all go as foretold, as he said, further,
“… ALL the TRIBES of the land WILL MOURN when they SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN, WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY. 31. And HE WILL SEND HIS ANGELS with a loud trumpet call, and THEY WILL GATHER HIS ELECT from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. ... 34. TRULY I TELL YOU, THIS GENERATION WILL CERTAINLY NOT PASS AWAY UNTIL ALL THESE THINGS HAVE HAPPENED.”
You chose to ignore the part I’m actually talking about, and instead focus on the most insignificant parts, and then you made up something nonsensical about Jesus teaching “a new way of living in the here and now,” which has nothing to do with the passages I’m citing.
I will provide the verses for you again. This time, instead of being so quick to reply without depth of thought, please take some time to read thoroughly and explore the verses and links I provide.
I will cut and paste, in addition to offering links.
The writer of Mark proposed an imminent eschatology: Jesus as messiah/Christ/"Son of Man" would return soon, before the current generation died, and some of his disciples would even live to see it (Mk 9.1;13.30; 14.61-62).
-- Mark 9.1 – “And he said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.’”
Context: Mark 8.38-9.1 – “‘If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels.’ And he said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, SOME WHO ARE STANDING HERE WILL NOT TASTE DEATH BEFORE THEY SEE the kingdom of God come with power.’”
In context, it is clear that the “kingdom of God coming with power” refers to what he just said: “when the son of man comes in his father’s glory.” And if it is not clear enough here, check out other references to the same proposed event (Mark 13.30; 14.61-62).
-- Mark 13.30 - “At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. ... I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until ALL these things have happened.”
Context: Mark 13.26-30 – “But in those days, following that distress, ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky [stars do not really fall from the sky, but they did not know that] and the heavenly bodies will be shaken [also nonsensical in light of science].' AT THAT TIME men will SEE the SON of MAN COMING IN CLOUDS WITH GREAT POWER AND GLORY. And HE WILL SEND HIS ANGELS AND GATHER HIS ELECT FROM THE FOUR WINDS, FROM THE ENDS OF THE LAND to the ends of the heavens. Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is NEAR, RIGHT AT THE DOOR. I tell you the truth, THIS GENERATION WILL CERTAINLY NOT PASS AWAY UNTIL ALL these things have happened.”
Note that the Jesus character does not say only some of those things will happen before that generation passes away. No. He says that his current/ contemporary generation would certainly not pass away until ALL of the things listed had happened, including people seeing the "Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory," stars falling from the sky, and the sending of angels to gather Jesus' chosen ones ("his elect").
-- Mark 14.61-62 – “Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ/Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?’ ‘I am,’ said Jesus. ‘And YOU WILL SEE the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.’ ”
The writer makes his Jesus character state that the Jewish high priest himself would actually live to see the “Son of Man” return to earth in the clouds of heaven, sitting at the right hand of the Jewish god Yahweh. But it did not happen.
--- --- ---
The author of the gospel now attributed to Matthew copied many aspects of Mark's story, including the imminent eschatology, but he also included some unique features. In Matthew, the Jesus character teaches explicitly that he was NOT sent to all people, but only to Israelites:
-- Matthew 15.24: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (And he even called non-Israelites “dogs” 15.26).
It is possible that these phrases (along with the passage where Jesus upholds the Mosaic law and says everyone should follow it, Matthew 5) are remnants of an older, Jewish version of the historical Jesus, before the movement became more gentile-friendly through Pauline influence. [It is also possible that the author is simply invented words for the kind of Jewish his community desired, like all the other fictional versions of Jesus.]
Further, Jesus teaches his disciples NOT to take his message to Gentiles/non-Israelites, but to go only to Israelite towns:
-- Matthew 10.5-6: "5. These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7. As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ "
And Jesus told them that any town / people rejecting their message would be harshly treated on the coming “Day of Judgment” (Mt 10.14-15; cf. Mt 25.31-46; also Mt 7.21-23; 11.24; 25.31-46).
Even worse, JESUS TOLD THEM THAT THE "SON OF MAN" WOULD COME BEFORE THESE DISCIPLE EVEN FINISHED TAKING THEIR MESSAGE THROUGH THE TOWNS OF ISRAEL, and as if that were not clear enough, the Jesus character says again several chapters later that ALL OF THOSE THINGS, INCLUDING THE SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN, WOULD HAPPEN BEFORE THE CURRENT GENERATION PASSED AWAY:
-- Matthew 10.23: "Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes."
The Jesus character was telling his own disciples that THEY would not even finish spreading the message through Israel before the "Son of Man" would come IN THEIR OWN LIFETIMES.
-- Matthew 16.27-28: "27. For the SON OF MAN WILL COME IN HIS FATHER'S GLORY WITH HIS ANGELS, AND THEN HE WILL REPAY each one according to what he has done. 28. Truly I tell you, SOME WHO ARE STANDING HERE WILL NOT TASTE DEATH BEFORE THEY SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN HIS KINGDOM."
In context, it is clear that the author was portraying a Jesus who claimed all of these things would happen within the lifetimes of some in his audience, including the Son of Man coming in his father’s glory, with angels accompanying him, repaying people according to their deeds (i.e. the judgement) and establishing a kingdom.
-- Matthew 24.30-34: 30. "Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And THEN ALL THE TRIBES OF THE LAND WILL MOURN WHEN THEY SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN, WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY. 31. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. ... 34. Truly I tell you, THIS GENERATION WILL CERTAINLY NOT PASS AWAY UNTIL ALL THESE THINGS HAVE HAPPENED."
Notice that this writer imagines the mourning of ALL of the tribes/nations of the land. Why? Why would they mourn?
Because the messiah and Yahweh were about to bring JUDGEMENT upon the world. This is a repetition of standard themes in Jewish apocalyptic messianic belief.
What did the Jesus character claim was going to happen then, at the coming of the "Son of Man" soon to take place, the coming "end of the age"? He said HE PLANNED TO BE A KING, TO SIT ON A THRONE, TO JUDGE ALL THE NATIONS, AND TO CAST INTO THE FIRE ANY PEOPLE WHO DID NOT HONOR HIS CLAIMS AND KINGSHIP:
-- Matthew 25.31-32, 41, 46: 31. "WHEN THE SON OF MAN COMES IN HIS GLORY, AND ALL THE ANGELS WITH HIM, HE WILL SIT ON HIS GLORIOUS THRONE. 32. ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE GATHERED BEFORE HIM, AND HE WILL SEPARATE THE PEOPLE ONE FROM ANOTHER as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." ... 41. “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO ARE CURSED, INTO THE ETERNAL FIRE PREPARED FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS. ... 46. “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
-- Matthew 13.24, 41-42, 49-50: "24. Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable." ... 36. "Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.” 37. He answered, “THE ONE WHO SOWED THE GOOD SEED IS THE SON OF MAN. 38. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39. and the enemy who sows them is the devil. THE HARVEST IS THE END OF THE AGE, AND THE HARVESTERS ARE ANGELS. 40. AS THE WEEDS ARE PULLED UP AND BURNED IN THE FIRE, SO IT WILL BE AT THE END OF THE AGE. 41. THE SON OF MAN WILL SEND OUT HIS ANGELS, AND THEY WILL WEED out of HIS KINGDOM everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42. They will THROW THEM INTO THE BLAZING FURNACE, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ... 49. "This is how it will be AT THE END OF THE AGE. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50. and THROW THEM INTO THE BLAZING FURNACE, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Notice the black and white thinking. Either a person believes the "Son of Man" messiah claims and is part of the kingdom, or one does not believe it and is not part of the kingdom.
Note the phrase "the end of the age." If you read these passages carefully, you can understand some of the ideas Christianity inherited from apocalyptic Judaism, including the idea that they were living AT THE END OF AN AGE, and Yahweh was about to intervene in human history to restore the kingdom of Israel, judge the nations of the world, reward Yahweh-followers, and punish everyone else.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ANYONE NOT RECOGNIZING YAHWEH OR YAHWEH'S MESSIAH? THEY WOULD BE THROWN INTO A BLAZING FURNACE AND BURNED UP.
-- Matthew 10.14-15: "14. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on THE DAY OF JUDGMENT than for that town."
Again we see the idea of judgement that will soon come upon anyone not accepting the Jewish god Yahweh and his messiah.
-- Matthew 10.34-47: "34. DO NOT SUPPOSE THAT I HAVE COME TO BRING PEACE TO THE EARTH. I DID NOT COME TO BRING PEACE, BUT A SWORD. 35. For I have come to turn “ ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—36. a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ 37. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."
Note that the Jesus character is represented as coming to earth to bring a sword and to divide people. Only people willing to lose their lives for the sake of Yahweh and his messiah will be worthy. Verses like these, and verses about judging the nations, hint at the revolutionary intent of the message, before it was later reinterpreted by the Church, after the failure of such original expectations.
It should be noted that the gospel attributed to Luke contains a similar passage:
-- Luke 12.49-51: [the Jesus character speaking] "49. I HAVE COME TO BRING FIRE ON THE EARTH, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50. But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51. DO YOU THINK I CAME TO BRING PEACE ON EARTH? NO, I TELL YOU, BUT DIVISION."
-- Matthew 19.28: Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, AT THE RENEWAL OF ALL THINGS, WHEN THE SON OF MAN SITS ON HIS GLORIOUS THRONE, YOU WHO HAVE FOLLOWED ME WILL ALSO SIT ON TWELVE THRONES, JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL.”
And not only did this Jesus character say HE would sit on a throne and judge the nations, he also said his closest followers would sit on thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel.
And you think Christianity was not using revolutionary language?
If Romans found any of these texts and read them, would they see a message of “radical love and only love”?! NO WAY, they would see either a delusional text about a supposed Jewish savior coming in the sky very soon, in that generation, or a text that pretended to prophesy of a coming revolt against Rome, or both, and either way a text that claimed a Jewish messiah who would set up a kingdom and sit on a throne, judging all the nations – which would be in mourning and fear – and punishing with fire all not following the Jewish god and his messiah-king, etc.
[Speculation: Originally, the “Son of Man” imagery may well have been symbolic code for a planned Jewish/Israelite revolt against Rome, alluding to imagery from the book of Daniel. (For more details: https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/home/is-jesus-coming-back-soon-imminent-eschatology-in-the-new-testament#h.o2rr2nnik45c)]
SUMMARY THUS FAR: It is very clear, looking at the passages above, that the writers presented a Jesus who claimed he would be coming back soon, accompanied by angels, in Yahweh’s glory, within THAT generation, to set up a kingdom, to sit on a throne, to judge the nations, to reward those who follow Yahweh and the messiah, and to punish all who do not (hence the weeping of all the tribes of the land) by casting them into fire.
--- --- --- --- --- ---
You wrote: “I don’t actually agree about the apocalyptic nature of the earliest literature—at least not in the way you define it.”
Well, I just showed you how the gospels of Mark (the earliest gospel) and Matthew contained an apocalyptic message, imminent eschatology, the claim that Jesus would be coming back in the clouds soon, in that very generation.
Now I will show you very clearly that this basic message is in the other parts of the New Testament as well.
--- --- --- --- ---
The New Testament is divided into 3 main kinds of documents: the gospels, the Acts, and a set of letters called "epistles" (from the Greek word for a letter). The epistles also bear many marks of imminent eschatology, an expectation that Jesus / the messiah would return soon, even within their own generation.
-- 1 Corinthians 15.51-52 – “Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.”
Note the contrast between "the dead" and "we." Paul, or the writer, seems to think that Jesus will come in his own generation. Cf. 1 Thess 4.15-17, below.
-- 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18: “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that WE WHO ARE STILL ALIVE, WHO ARE LEFT TILL THE COMING OF THE LORD, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, WE WHO ARE STILL ALIVE AND ARE LEFT WILL BE CAUGHT UP TOGETHER WITH THEM IN THE CLOUDS to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words.”
In 1 Thess 4.15 and 1 Cor 15.51-52, the writer apparently expects to be one of the "we" who will be alive when the Messiah/Christ returns. Later, he may consider the possibility of death before that, in 2 Cor 5.1-5 and Phil 1.20-23.
The Greek word translated as “coming” is parousia, a technical term for A RULER’S STATE VISIT. The Jesus of Matthew, remember, teaches that the "Son of Man" coming in the clouds will be coming AS A RULER, WILL HAVE A THRONE, AND WILL JUDGE EVERYONE AS A KING, judging his subjects.
Aside from the passage in chapter 4, there is frequent mention of the second coming in Thessalonians:
-- 1 Thessalonians 2.18-20: For we wanted to come to you—certainly I, Paul, did, again and again—but Satan stopped us. For what is our hope, our joy, or THE CROWN IN WHICH WE WILL GLORY IN THE PRESENCE OF OUR LORD JESUS WHEN HE COMES? Is it not you? Indeed, you are our glory and joy.
-- 1 Thessalonians 3.13: May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father WHEN OUR LORD JESUS COMES WITH ALL HIS HOLY ONES.
-- 1 Thessalonians 5.23: May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless AT THE COMING OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST [messiah-king].
1 Corinthians also had passages EMPHASIZING THE IMMINENT END, CLAIMING THAT THERE WAS ONLY A SHORT TIME LEFT, because the world was passing away.
-- 1 Corinthians 7. 25-31: 25. Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26. Because of THE IMPENDING/PRESENT CRISIS, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27. Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. 29. WHAT I MEAN, BROTHERS, IS THAT THE TIME IS SHORT. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30. those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31. those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. FOR THIS WORLD IN ITS PRESENT FORM IS PASSING AWAY.
In 1 Cor 7, Paul has urged people to remain celibate (unmarried) if they can, but that they may marry if they cannot control their lust (7.8-9). When he says they can marry, it is “by way of concession, not of command” (7.6); “I wish that all were as I myself am” (7.7). And why does he urge celibacy? So that people can devote themselves more fully to religious work, because he believed the remaining time was short. HERE IS A WRITER SO DEVOTED TO THE IDEA THAT THE MESSIAH WAS COMING BACK SOON, THAT HE DID NOT EVEN WANT PEOPLE TO GET MARRIED, BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT MUCH TIME LEFT!
-- 1 Corinthians 1.7-8: 4. I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. 5. For in him you have been enriched in every way—in all your speaking and in all your knowledge— 6. because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. 7. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual GIFT AS YOU EAGERLY WAIT FOR OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST [messiah-king] TO BE REVEALED. 8. He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless ON THE DAY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Would they be waiting "eagerly" if what they were waiting for was not to happen for thousands of years to come? No. The eagerness implies imminence!
Paul's letter to the Romans also contains some imminent eschatology:
-- Romans 13.11-14: “11. And do this, understanding the present time. THE HOUR HAS COME for you to wake up from your slumber, because OUR SALVATION IS NEARER NOW than when we first believed. 12. THE NIGHT IS NEARLY OVER; THE DAY IS ALMOST HERE. … .”
Paul, or the writer, may have been thinking in terms similar to Luke 17.26: "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man." He thinks he is in the last days before A MAJOR EVENT, and that except for himself and a few true believers, everyone is living in gross sin and ignorance and is about to be wiped out unexpectedly as humanity supposedly was during Noah’s day.
Compare 1 Peter 4.7:
1 Peter 4.7 – “THE END OF ALL THINGS IS NEAR. Therefore be clear-minded and self-controlled so that you can pray.”
1 Peter 4.7 has other features resembling the Romans 13 passage. It, too, is warning against drunkenness, orgies, debauchery (4.3), and the imminent approach of destruction and judgement, and it, too, brings up associations with the flood of Noah. The end of 1 Peter 3, verses 20-21, brought up the flood, and 4.4 alludes to it through subtle language – “tēn autēn tēs asōtias anakhusin” – the same outpouring (punning on the flood) of dissipation – which NIV perceptively translates as “flood of dissipation.” An “anakhusis” (ανάχῠσις, εως, ἡ) is an expansion, effusion, excess, expanse of water, or inundation/flood [from the verb “anakheô” – to pour forth, cause to overflow].
The author of Hebrews likewise thought he was living "at the end of the ages."
Hebrews 9.26: "BUT NOW HE [CHRIST/MESSIAH] HAS APPEARED ONCE FOR ALL AT THE END OF THE AGES to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself."
The writer believed the coming of the messiah had already marked "the end of the ages." In other words, he was living in what Jewish apocalypticism called "the last days."
The epistle attributed to James also bears a sense of urgency and promotes the notion that Jesus would be coming soon.
James 5.8: "You, too, be patient and strengthen your hearts, BECAUSE THE LORD'S COMING IS NEAR."
--- --- --- --- ---
The imminent eschatology in Revelation seems perhaps even more striking and emphatic.
-- Revelation 1.1-3 – 1. The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants WHAT MUST SOON TAKE PLACE. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2. who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3. Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because THE TIME IS NEAR.
Notice that the very introduction of the book explained that it was intended to reveal what would "soon" take place. In other words, the scroll of revelation was NEVER intended for some distant future, but for the writer's own generation.
-- Rev 2.25 - [To the church at Thyatira:] "ONLY HOLD ON TO WHAT YOU HAVE UNTIL I COME."
The message specifically to the church at Thyatira, above, also implied that Jesus would be coming to them soon.
-- Revelation 3.11 – “I AM COMING SOON. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.”
The writer of this “revelation” claimed that Jesus wanted to tell the church at Philadelphia, in Asia minor (modern Turkey) around 81-96 ce, that he was coming within their lifetime and that they should be ready.
-- Rev 6.9-11 - 9. When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10. They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” 11. Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to WAIT A LITTLE LONGER, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed.
-- Rev 16.15 – 15. "SEE, I AM COMING LIKE A THIEF! Blessed is he who stays awake and is clothed, not going around naked and exposed to shame."
-- Rev 22.6, 7, 10, 12, 20 –
6. The angel said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants THE THINGS THAT MUST SOON TAKE PLACE."
22.7 – "BEHOLD, I AM COMING SOON! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book."
10. Then he told me, "DO NOT SEAL UP THE WORDS OF THE PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK, BECAUSE THE TIME IS NEAR."
12. "BEHOLD, I AM COMING SOON! MY REWARD IS WITH ME, AND I WILL GIVE TO EVERYONE ACCORDING TO WHAT HE HAS DONE.
20. He who testifies to these things says, "YES, I AM COMING SOON." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
--- --- ---
IT IS QUITE CLEAR, THEN, THAT THE WRITER OF REVELATION CLAIMED THAT JESUS WAS COMING SOON AND CLAIMED THAT JESUS HIMSELF WAS SAYING SO. It may be possible that the original writer was using the Jesus character as a kind of symbolic code for some kind of planned revolt against Rome, which the writer expected to happen soon. Whether that was the case, or whether he really expected Jesus to come in the clouds with angels to set up the kingdom and the throne, EITHER WAY THE AUTHOR WAS WRONG.
Another aspect of the book of Revelation should be clear to readers who pay attention: The Book of Revelation was never intended to apply to the lives of people living 2,000 years later. Rev 22.10 is clear: "Do NOT seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is NEAR." It was not a book for the distant future, but for his own generation.
SUMMARY of the GOSPELS JESUS’ CLAIMS TO BE COMING SOON:
IN SUMMARY: It is very clear that there was an apocalyptic messianic Jewish message at the heart of the earliest layers of Christian literature. Not only did the earliest gospels (Mark and Matthew) teach an imminent eschatology (soon second-coming of Jesus), but so did the epistles, which most consider to have been written before the gospels.
We can also see how Christianity was beginning to change as those hopes began to be disappointed.
--- --- --- --- ---
Another passage from the New Testament shows that Christians were already being ridiculed for expecting the messiah-king’s imminent return. Why would messianic Jews/Christians be ridiculed for believing in the imminent return of a messiah? Because the Jews actually tried it in 66-70 CE, and they were crushed by Roman military forces. Also, the generation that depicted Jesus as claiming that the messiah would return to sit on a throne and judge the world before that generation passed away was already dead. And the triumphant "coming of the Son of Man in the clouds" had not happened. So influential messianic/ Christian leaders were already beginning to reinterpret the older prophecies of the imminent return of Jesus within that generation.
The writer of 2 Peter addresses "scoffers" (those ridiculing messianic/Christian belief) and wants to combat their skepticism and mockery. 2 Peter was traditionally said to have been written by the apostle Peter, although most scholars now believe it was written later (80-90 ce) in Peter's name, i.e. pseudepigraphically. [Tradition placed Peter's death in the 60's ce, under Nero.]
--- --- ---
2 Peter 3: The Day of the Lord:
1. Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
3. First of all, you must understand that IN THE LAST DAYS scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4. THEY WILL SAY, "WHERE IS THIS 'COMING' HE PROMISED? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5. But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8. But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
11. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12. as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.
14. So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His 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.
17. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 18. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.
--- --- ---
How does the writer get around the disappointment caused when Jesus did not return by the end of that generation? He suggests a reinterpretation of previous teachings! He makes excuses.
-- "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
THE INTERESTING THING IS THAT HE STILL CLAIMS THAT HE AND HIS READERS ARE LIVING "IN THE LAST DAYS," HE TAKES MOCKERY TO BE A SIGN THAT HE WAS LIVING IN "THE LAST DAYS," AND HE WANTED HIS AUDIENCE TO THINK THAT THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WERE RIDICULING THEIR BELIEFS WAS BUT A FURTHER SIGN THAT JESUS REALLY WAS ABOUT TO RETURN SOON. He wanted his audience to still "look forward" to this second coming of Jesus. He still wanted them to be expectant!
Notice also that he specifically mentioned "Paul's letters" and "other scriptures" containing confusing ideas that "ignorant and unstable" people distort. Why would he say this? Because messianic/Christian expectations and "prophecies" had failed, utterly. If the messianic cults were going to maintain their movement, they would be forced to reinterpret those failures, to claim, "Oh, no, that's not what he actually meant. God works in mysterious ways. God just wants to give people more time to repent, allowing more people to be saved from his wrath." But despite the reinterpretation and the attempts to make excuses, he still insisted that they were living "in the last days."
The writer of John 21.23 (the latest canonical gospel to be written) also seems to have been dealing with the issue of disappointment over people dying before the second coming of the messiah.
John 21.23. – "the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
This is a great example of gaslighting. Now you and I know that Christian authors DID depict Jesus as saying some people standing with him would not die before ALL of the things in his list had happened, including the Son of Man coming with the clouds and angels and great glory. You can go back and review the passages we have covered saying precisely that. We know that Christian stories portrayed Jesus as claiming some of his hearers would still be alive to see him coming in great glory, etc.. So of course there was confusion when it did not happen. This kind of situation has happened in many cults when a major "prophecy" has failed to come to pass. In order to preserve the cult and ease the minds of members, leaders must make excuses, add some new authoritative teachings to explain the old ideas in a different way, or otherwise reinterpret teachings or claim that people were wrongly confused about what was originally intended. If it sounds like gaslighting, that's because it is.
This author has "solved" the issue by suggesting that certain expectations of an imminent eschatology were merely a rumor and had resulted from a misunderstanding of Jesus' actual words. He claims to be giving Jesus' actual words to set the record straight. And to lend authority to his claim, he is saying that his version of events comes from the very disciple whom Jesus loved.
--- --- --- --- ---
Many early Christian writers and preachers were going around telling people that "the Son of Man," Yeshua [YHWH saves] / Joshua / Jesus, the messiah, had appeared, died, risen from the dead, gone up into the clouds, and would be returning again SOON to established a promised kingdom, "restore the kingdom to Israel." They were even saying it would happen BEFORE THEIR OWN GENERATION PASSED AWAY, and some of those passages are still preserved in the Bible. WHETHER THESE PASSAGES ARE INTERPRETED LITERALLY OR SYMBOLICALLY, EITHER WAY THE MESSIANIC BELIEVERS MAKING SUCH CLAIMS WERE DEAD WRONG, and they misled countless gullible, uneducated people across the Roman empire and created false traditions that would continue to plague humanity up to the modern era.
It is possible that such claims of a messianic return "before this generation passes away" were not originally to be interpreted literally, but were originally code for the hoped-for success of a Jewish uprising against Rome. After all, the "Son of Man" title used for Jesus was likely an allusion to a dream figure in the Book of Daniel that actually represented the nation of Israel as a whole in the context of the original work, in which dream figures were used to represent whole nations. The Jews did, indeed, try to oust the Romans & restore their own kingdom, which would have metaphorically been equivalent to the symbol of "the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven." On three especially noteworthy occasions, messianic movements tried in an organized manner to stage a revolt:
>> The First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE): Rebel/nationalist Jews in Roman Judea and Galilee rose up in revolt against Rome and attempted to reinstate an independent kingdom, but they were defeated by Rome. Romans besieged and conquered Jerusalem in 70 CE, destroying the Jewish Temple of Yahweh. Roman victory at the siege of Masada in 73–74 ended the war.
>> The Kitos War (115–117): Rebel/nationalist Jews in Cyrenaica, Cyprus, and Egypt rose up against Roman garrisons and Roman citizens. These Jewish rebellions were eventually crushed by Roman legions.
>> The Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE): Rebel/ nationalist Jews in Roman Judea, led by Simon bar Kokhba, revolted against the Roman Empire. They were defeated.
However, when all Jewish (and possibly the earliest Christians'/ messiah-followers’) attempts at revolt against Rome and the re-establishment of a Kingdom of Israel failed miserably, such early symbolic meanings would have eventually been reinterpreted, transformed, or abandoned by most. Yet one way or another, literalists eventually had lots of people convinced that a flesh-and-blood human/prophet and/or incarnation of God actually died and rose again bodily and went up into the sky and would be coming back down in the clouds, in great glory and accompanied by angels.
The Bible was and is wrong. Any historical Jesus that might have lived is long dead and decayed, not hiding up in the clouds, hovering over Jerusalem, just waiting for his daddy YHWH to say it is a good day to come down again to send unbelievers to be burned in fire while the credulous get eternal rewards!
--- --- --- --- ---
>> You wrote, “I think EVERY SINGLE PASSAGE that deals with destruction/fire/judgment wasn’t understood like most Christians believe and preach today. I don’t think Jesus ever talked about hell. We have to untangle our modern, Hollywood and Dante-informed version and take in the Jewish context of Jesus.”:
You are hung up on the word “hell.” I am not. It does not even matter what you call it! The Jesus character in the gospels teaches FEAR of FIRE and DESTRUCTION at the hands of YHWH even AFTER DEATH. Luke 12.5 says the fiery Gehenna is AFTER death. The Jesus character said the fire was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25.41). He said it was a place for unbelievers (Luke 12.46, "He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers."). You cannot blame these verses on “Hollywood” or “Dante," my friend, because they are IN THE BIBLE ITSELF. They are part of the oldest Christian literature we have.
I can understand why you would want to distance yourself from these ideas. They are clearly ugly, crass, superstitious, us v. them, dark v. light, judgmental, condemnatory, NOT loving ideas. But when you try to pretend these are not ideas of the biblical Jesus, but of “Hollywood,” that is not correct. The ideas I quoted came straight from the bible itself, not from “Hollywood” or “Dante.”
I have collected quite a few passages for you. I would appreciate it much if you could take some real time to go through these carefully.
I will list some out.
The following passages depict Jesus teaching the fear of Yahweh and the fear of being punished by Yahweh after death:
Matthew 10.28: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, BE AFRAID of the One who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.”
Luke 12.4-5: [Jesus talking] 4. “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5. I will show you whom you should fear: FEAR him who, AFTER your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into Gehenna. Yes, I tell you, FEAR him.”
The Jesus character in Matthew and Luke wants people to be afraid of the Jewish god Yahweh, because Yahweh can allegedly throw them into a fiery Gehenna AFTER death and harm their soul, even after their body is already dead.
What is this Gehenna supposed to be like after death?
It is supposed to be a place of undying, unquenchable fire and worms:
Mark 9.43-48: “43. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into GEHENNA, WHERE THE FIRE NEVER GOES OUT. … And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and BE THROWN INTO GEHENNA. … 47: And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and BE THROWN INTO GEHENNA, 48. WHERE ‘THE WORMS THAT EAT THEM DO NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.’”
Matthew 18.8-9: 8. “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be CAST INTO THE ETERNAL FIRE. If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be CAST INTO THE FIERY GEHENNA.
RELATED PASSAGES:
Matthew 3:12: [John the Baptist talking about Jesus, the one who would come:] "His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather His wheat into the barn; but HE WILL BURN UP THE CHAFF WITH UNQUENCHABLE FIRE."
Matthew 13.36-42: "36. Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.” 37. He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38. The field is the world, AND THE GOOD SEED STANDS FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE KINGDOM. THE WEEDS ARE THE PEOPLE OF THE EVIL ONE, 39. and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. 40. “AS THE WEEDS ARE PULLED UP AND BURNED IN THE FIRE, SO IT WILL BE AT THE END OF THE AGE. 41. THE SON OF MAN WILL SEND OUT HIS ANGELS, AND THEY WILL WEED OUT OF HIS KINGDOM everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42. THEY WILL THROW THEM INTO THE BLAZING FURNACE, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Notice the belief in "THE EVIL ONE." During the era of APOCALYPTIC Judaism, the Jews had developed an elaborate angelology and demonology, and they connected various characters and symbols into one identity for "the evil one": Satan, the devil, the serpent in the Garden of Eden, the chief of demons, an angel who rebelled against Yahweh and was cast out of heaven. [See "The Origin of Satan," and scroll down to the "Dead Sea Scrolls" section.]
Notice also the BLACK-AND-WHITE, DUALISTIC THINKING. Everyone who believes in Yahweh and Yahweh's messiah/"Christ" are the "people of the kingdom." They will be rewarded. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN YAHWEH OR YAHWEH'S MESSIAH/"CHRIST" ARE AUTOMATICALLY "THE PEOPLE OF THE EVIL ONE." They will be weeded out and cast into the fire at the soon-coming judgement and end of the age. These are the kinds of passages that Christians used to justify persecution and murder of non-believers or people who questioned church teachings during the Middle Ages, the Dark Ages, the Age of Faith in European history. These ideas are present in the earliest gospels and the earliest epistles.
Matthew 13.49-50: "49. So will it be AT THE END OF THE AGE: The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous, 50. AND THROW THEM INTO THE FIERY FURNACE, WHERE THERE WILL BE WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH."
Matthew 24.50-51: "50. The master of that servant will come on a day he does not expect and at an hour he does not anticipate. 51. And SHALL CUT HIM ASUNDER, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: THERE SHALL BE WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH."
Matthew 25.41: “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO ARE CURSED, INTO THE ETERNAL FIRE PREPARED FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS."
Luke 12.46: [The Jesus character talking] “The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. HE WILL CUT HIM TO PIECES AND ASSIGN HIM A PLACE WITH THE UNBELIEVERS.”
Luke 8.12: [The Jesus character talking] “Those by the wayside are those who hear; then THE DEVIL COMES AND TAKES AWAY THE WORD OUT OF THEIR HEARTS, LEST THEY SHOULD BELIEVE AND BE SAVED.”
From where would an apocalyptic Jew, a messianic hopeful, or the writers of this literature get such ideas as Yahweh destroying people with fire, such language as "the worm will not die, the fire is not quenched"? They were adapting ideas from Hebrew scripture, claims attributed to the Hebrew "prophet" Isaiah that one day in the future the Jewish god Yahweh would destroy all who do not follow him.
Isaiah 66: "22. As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares Yahweh, “so will your name and descendants endure. 23. From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,” says Yahweh. 24. “AND THEY WILL GO OUT AND LOOK ON THE DEAD BODIES OF THOSE WHO REBELLED AGAINST ME; THE WORMS THAT EAT THEM WILL NOT DIE, THE FIRE THAT BURNS THEM WILL NOT BE QUENCHED, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.”
Other examples of related imagery from Hebrew scripture:
The idea of Yahweh's wrath as a burning fire that cannot be quenched is also found in Jer 7.20. "Therefore this is what Yahweh God says: Behold, My anger and My fury will be poured out on this place, on man and beast, on the trees of the field and the produce of the land, and it will burn and not be extinguished.
Malachi 4.1-2: "1. "For behold, THE DAY IS COMING, BURNING LIKE A FURNACE, when all the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble; the day is coming when I WILL SET THEM ABLAZE,” SAYS YAHWEH OF HOSTS [ARMIES]. "Not a root or branch will be left to them. 2. But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings ..."
Psalm 21.9: "You will make them AS A FIERY OVEN in the time of your ANGER: YAHWEH WILL SWALLOW THEM UP IN HIS WRATH, AND THE FIRE SHALL DEVOUR THEM."
The "gnashing of teeth" concept (from Mt 13.42; 13.50; 22.23; 24.51) can be found also in Psalm 112.10, "The wicked man will see and be grieved; he will gnash his teeth and waste away; the desires of the wicked will perish."
So the seeds of such ideas were present in the writings of the Hebrew [false] “prophets,” and Apocalyptic Judaism took such ideas and developed them further. The Jesus of the gospels fits within apocalyptic Judaism. Consider the following excerpt from an essay on "The Origin of Satan":
"In the writings of the Jewish sect of Essenes who settled at Qumran (c. 150 BCE), we have our first literature that created a method known as the personification of evil. The sectarian literature equated Satan not only with evil but specifically with anyone or any group not in agreement with their own views, including other Jews. [N.B. Christianity adopted this practice. The Jesus character does this in the New Testament gospels.] According to their texts, God had created two spirits in humans: the way of light and the way of darkness. The demons were now under the control of Satan; he sent them to possess those in darkness to commit evil. The Essenes applied symbolic names to Satan and his agents; Belial (Hebrew for 'worthless') who will lead the "sons of darkness" against those of light in the final battle (The War Scroll). As with the angels and archangels in heaven, we now have hierarchy and different functions in Satan’s court. Beelzebub was one of the seven princes of Hell and derived from an ancient Canaanite god who was known for getting rid of flies (carriers of disease). Thus, Beelzebub, Lord of the Flies."
"Various apocalyptic texts were among the scrolls at Qumran. The Books of Enoch fill in more details about the "sons of God". They were condemned for teaching humans metallurgy and magic and were punished by being tossed out of heaven and chained in the abyss (the Jewish concept of Sheol, the land of the dead) for eternity.
[N.B. The books of Enoch are quoted in the New Testament in Jude 1.14-15.
Jude 1.14-15: "14. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15. to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
"In another text, Jubilees, more Devil lore was added. Satan’s name here is Mastema (which means 'hated' or 'hostility'). We learn that Mastema wanted to be higher than God and rebelled. He and his fellow angels were tossed down into the bottomless pit. Satan became the fallen angel. God wanted to destroy all the demons after the flood, but Mastema asked God to let him have a tenth of them to continue to plague men because "the evil of the sons of men is great" (10:8). With God’s permission, Mastema became the tempter who was written back into earlier stories. In Jubilees, it was Mastema who was permitted to test Abraham with the binding of Isaac. In other words, God’s omnipotence remained intact; Satan could not do his work without God’s permission."
[Those apocalyptic Jewish inventions, combining "Satan," "the evil one," with the story of a fallen angel, etc., along with the black v. white, us v. them, dark v. light, "children of God" v. "children of the devil" way of thinking, are ideas that appeared in Christianity also.
Luke 10.18-19: "18. So He [Jesus] told them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19. Behold, I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy. Nothing will harm you."
John 12.31: "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out."
John 16.11: "Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged."
Revelation 12.9: "And the great dragon was hurled down -- that ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."
Hebrews 2.14: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil."
Ephesians 6.12: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world's darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."
Matthew 12.24-27: "24. But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” 25. Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27. And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges." [Also, Mark 3.21-23]
2 Corinthians 2.11: "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices."
2 Corinthians 11.3: "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."
2 Corinthians 11.13-15: "13. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness."
Note the way Christians label other Christians as evil, "servants of Satan," etc. when they disagree regarding various doctrines. This practice has gone on for over 2,000 years in Christian circles. It goes back to ideas that evolved in apocalyptic Judaism.
2 Peter 2.4, 9: "... God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. ... 9. ... the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.
Jude 1.6: "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
The "evil one" / Satan:
Mark 4.15: "And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts."
Matthew 13.18-19: "18. Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19. When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart."
Matthew 5.37: "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' Anything more comes from the evil one."
Matthew 13.38: "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the weeds are the children of the wicked one."
Apocalyptic themes: Children of the kingdom v. the children of the evil one; Us v. Them; Light v. Dark.
Matthew 12.30: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."
Luke 11.23: "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters."
Luke 8.12: "Those by the way side are they that hear; then comes the devil, and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved."
1 John 3.8: "The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the very start. This is why the Son of God was revealed, to destroy the works of the devil."
1 John 5.19: "We know that we are of God, and that the whole world is under the power of the evil one."
Light v. Dark, Us v. Them, God v. Satan:
Ephesians 5.8: "For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light."
Colossians 1.12: "Giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the light."
Colossians 1.13: "He has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of His beloved Son."
John 3.18-20: "18. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19And this is the verdict: The Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the Light because their deeds were evil. 20. Everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come into the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."
John 12.35-36: "35. Walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. 36. While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of light.” After Jesus had spoken these things, He went away and was hidden from them."
John 12.44-48: "44. Then Jesus cried out, “Whoever believes in me does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. 45. The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me. 46. I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. ... 48. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day."
Matthew 5.14: "You are the light of the world."
Luke 16.8: "For the sons of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the sons of light."
John 1.4-5: "4. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."
John 1.9-13: "9. The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God -- 13. children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."
John 8.12: "12. When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, 'I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.'”
John 8.42-47: "42. Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46. ... If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47. Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
A human wrote this, not Jesus or any God. Anyone not believing the Christian message was considered a child of the devil, and Christians claimed Jesus himself taught this idea.
John 9.5: "While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
1 John 1.5-7: "5. And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you: God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. 6. If we say we have fellowship with Him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin."
1 John 2.8: "For the darkness is fading and the true light is already shining."
1 John 2.15-16: “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world – the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life – comes NOT from the Father but from the world.”
1 John 3.8: "The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the very start. This is why the Son of God was revealed, to destroy the works of the devil."
1 John 4.2-6: "2. By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3. and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and which is already in the world at this time. 4. You, little children, are from God and have overcome them, because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. 5. They are of the world. That is why they speak from the world’s perspective, and the world listens to them. 6. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. That is how we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deception."
1 John 5.1-5: "1. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, ... 4. everyone born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world: our faith. 5. Who then overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God."
1 John 5.10-12: "10. Whoever believes in the Son of God has this testimony within him; whoever does not believe God has made Him out to be a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given about His Son. 11. And this is that testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
Note the the writer equates his own words with the testimony of God. When he says, "Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar," what he actually means is, "Whoever does not believe what we say is against God." For never at any time was a real God speaking for himself. It was always humans running around claiming to speak for God, and claiming that anyone who disagreed was disagreeing with God, anyone not believing was doubting God himself. Quite a con job.
1 John 5.19: "We know that we are of God, and that the whole world is under the power of the evil one."
And there are lots of other passages about God’s wrath, judgment, etc.
--- --- --- --- ---
>> re: “They way I read it and understand history, radial love was the DEFINING characteristic of the Christians, as Jesus said it should be. There are lots of things Jesus said that aren’t real clear but what he said about love was pretty clear.”:
The way you have been reading and (mis)understanding is to cherry pick a handful of verses about love, and to ignore critical thinking and the vast amount of ugly stuff in the rest of the New Testament, and even in the very books that talk most about love.
So I have quoted to you from the earliest layers of the literature to show conclusively that Christianity and its gospel Jesus character were NOT all about “radical love” or only about “radical love.” The verses cited above show conclusively that “radical love” was 100% certainly NOT “the defining characteristic of the Christians,” regardless of what anyone claims. The evidence does not support your claim.
When you insist that it really was all about love, you ignore far too much of the Christian literature in order to try to wall yourself off in lala love land.
Can you say specifically where you get your idea about Jesus being only about “radical love”?
Are you getting it from John and 1 John?
Do you realize those represent the latest layers of Christian evolution in the New Testament, not the earliest?
"Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them." -- Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible (1985), p. 355.
And even the books that talk the most about “love” also talk about the condemnation of anyone not believing the stories.
John and 1 John talk a lot about “love,” but their notion of “love” would not hold up to a standard human definition of love.
Let us examine them in detail.
--- John 13.34-35: “34. A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another. 35. By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”
Maybe this is where you get your idea?
So here, the latest canonical version of the Jesus character says people can know his disciples if they love one another.
So there is in-group love in Christianity. Is that radical? No.
Do not all religions and most philosophies and almost all humans teach love? Yes.
Doesn’t even non-religious secular humanism teach love for all people? Yes.
And do not various human philosophies teach love even of one’s enemies? Yes.
Wasn’t Mozi teaching about “universal love” in China in c. 470 – c. 391 BCE? Yes. And he did not need to threaten anyone with fiery punishment in order to discuss love, like the Jesus character of the gospels.
Didn’t Siddhartha Gautama Buddha teach about love, lovingkindness, compassion, appreciative joy, and equanimity in the 400s/500s BCE?
So was John 13 radical? Certainly not. … Especially when one sees what other horrible things were taught by the same Jesus character / gospels / religion.
--- John 3.16-18: [The Jesus character speaking] “16. For God so loved the world that He gave His only born Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. …
Sounds “loving” and sweet, right? “Awww, how wonderful. God is so loving, gentle, and nice, huh?”
No! Keep reading! Two verses later …
--- John 3.18. “Whoever believes in Him is not CONDEMNED, but WHOEVER DOES NOT BELIEVE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONDEMNED, BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF GOD’S ONE AND ONLY SON.”
There you have it. Is it all about “radical love” and “only love”? NO WAY!
Plus, what was the Jewish god Yahweh allegedly sending his “son” for? To be a blood sacrifice! Because the Jewish god Yahweh was allegedly incapable of forgiving mistakes apart from bloodshed! That is mere ancient blood magic, the worst sort of superstition, utter nonsense. (Take some time to read: https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/is-the-god-of-the-bible-loving#h.p5b1pu6l1lb2)
So John 3 is NOT about true love. It is about the worst kinds of religious propaganda, manipulating people into a cult, teaching black and white / us v. them thinking, and explicit CONDEMNATION of all people who do not believe these HUMAN claims regarding the Jewish god YHWH and his alleged messiah-king.
--- John 3.36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. WHOEVER REJECTS THE SON WILL NOT SEE LIFE. INSTEAD, THE WRATH OF GOD REMAINS ON HIM."
--- John 12.46-48: [The Jesus character talking] “…46. I have come into the world as a light, so that no one WHO BELIEVES IN ME should remain in darkness. ... 48. There is a judge for the one who rejects Me and does not receive My words: THE WORD THAT I HAVE SPOKEN WILL JUDGE HIM ON THE LAST DAY.…”
The threats and condemnatory language come through loud and clear, despite the author's pretense that he and his Jesus and his god are bringing love to the world.
Is true love threatening? “Love me and worship me, or else I will destroy you”? No. That is not love.
Would a loving father destroy his children for not believing a story? No.
Would a loving father stay in a place separate from his children and not come to see them or spend time with them regularly? No.
Would a loving father avoid showing regular, physical affection to his children? No.
Would a loving father avoid communicating with each child face to face, and instead send some old scrolls written by anonymous authors to his children to communicate his concerns and truths? No.
Is the best way to show love to kill something innocent, watch the blood flow, let blood assuage one’s anger, and only then forgive people? No. That’s psychologically warped.
IF you are honest, you will admit that these are true, and that the Christian message was not one of true love.
--- --- --- --- ---
Now let’s look at 1 John.
--- 1 John 4.16: “God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.”
--- 1 John 4.7-8: “7. Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8. … God is love.”
On the surface, this looks great, right?! Wow, so much love. IF that were the entire message, it would be quite a different story from what it actually turns out to be.
BUT LET US LOOK BENEATH THE MISLEADING FAÇADE AT WHAT THE AUTHOR REALLY THINKS AND TEACHES.
The same little letter that says, “Whoever has love knows God,” has so much nasty nonsense in it.
The author was a strong dualist who believed only people who were part of his particular cult were “in the light,” could love, could know God, could be with God, were “born of God,” or could have true life. Let me show you, if you have never seen this for yourself.
The author did NOT believe in universal love.
--- 1 John 2.15-16: “DO NOT LOVE THE WORLD OR ANYTHING IN THE WORLD. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world – the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life – comes NOT from the Father but from the world.”
The writer’s god concept was a very limited one. And he wanted to separate his god from nature. But any god separated from nature cannot be truly omnipresent, if he is not present in nature, biology, senses, life in the real world. A god separated from Nature / the World is no real God at all.
Also, the writer says everything in the world does NOT come from his god, “the Father.” In this guy’s view, “the Father” did not create the world? Where does the world come from then, if it is not part and manifestation of God? And where is his god, if it is totally unrelated to “the world”?
--- 1 John 1.5: “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.”
Well, there goes at least 50% of life out the window right there!
This writer was a dualist. He probably inherited it from apocalyptic Judaism through Christianity. That is a huge limitation on his “God” concept. IF there were no darkness in God, where would darkness come from? How could a God in whom there is no darkness ever create or understand darkness? And if this writer’s god is not present in darkness, then he is certainly not omnipresent or omniscient, and he is quite limited indeed, as there is far more darkness in the universe than light. And if this guy’s god did not create darkness and cannot understand darkness or be present within darkness, it does not sound like a real or powerful God.
“Oh, but he is merely using a metaphor.” Right, but he is using it badly and falsely and with a hateful, judgmental “us v. them” mentality.
The writer also believed that “the whole world” was “under the control of the evil one.”
--- 1 John 5.19: “19. We know that WE ARE CHILDREN OF GOD, AND THAT THE WHOLE WORLD IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EVIL ONE.”
Is this realistic or delusional?
How could an evil being take control of a world away from a real God? Haha. Was the evil one more powerful? This man’s god concept simply does not add up, does not hold up under logical scrutiny. Again, it is a screwed up idea from apocalyptic Judaism.
--- 1John 2.1-2: “Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He IS THE ATONING SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS.”
This guy is also superstitious and believes in ritual blood sacrifice. He – like the rest of the New Testament – imagines his god, the Jewish god YHWH, to be an angry, rule-oriented god who cannot forgive a mistake without bloodshed.
We should certainly move past such harmful, outdated notions. (https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/is-the-god-of-the-bible-loving#h.p5b1pu6l1lb2)
--- 1 John 2.18: “Dear children, THIS IS THE LAST HOUR; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how WE KNOW IT IS THE LAST HOUR.”
Was he really living "in the last hour"? No. He was a delusional apocalyptic cult member, trying to keep others trapped in the same delusion.
This author was an imminent eschatologist, one of those who got caught up in superstitious Jewish apocalypticism, thinking the end of the world was upon his generation, like the Jesus character of Mark and Matthew, along with so much of the New Testament.
--- 1 John 2.22-23: “whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ [messiah-king]. Such a person is the antichrist – denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”
This cult leader thinks that anyone who does not consider Jesus to have been the promised Jewish messiah/ Christ is a liar and can never have anything to do with God!
Anyone who does not share his religious view is evil in his eyes. He is insane, and his teaching is shameful.
--- 1 John 2.25: “And this is what he promised us – eternal life.”
And here is his sales pitch. He wants to play on people’s fear of death. If people listen to him, support him, follow him, they will get to live with his god forever, he claims. No God has ever spoken to humanity to promise humans eternal life. Only human peddlers have promised eternal life to people joining their cults and obeying their authority.
IF a real God were promising me eternal life in a beautiful, happy place, I would be happy to join, delighted to sign up. But alas, it is not true. It is mere human deceit, as good study shows all too well.
--- 1 John 3.8: “THE REASON THE SON OF GOD APPEARED WAS TO DESTROY THE DEVIL’S WORK.”
Really?!
Well did he destroy it or not?
If he did, why does this guy seem to find the “devil’s work” all around him, esp. in anyone who does not share his superstitious doctrines?!
This, again, is irrational, delusional thinking. This is not “God’s word,” not the truth, not loving, not healthy. And he, like the other Christian writers of the New Testament, and like the Jesus character of the gospels, believes in the devil character from apocalyptic Judaism.
--- 1 John 4.2-3: “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist … ”
Again, this guy thinks that anyone who does not believe his particular version of religious stories about Jesus is influenced by an evil spirit, and is not “from God.”
Also, what does this passage tell us? It tells us that the author was mad at certain people in his community who said Jesus did not really come in the flesh.
1 John 2.18-19: "18. Children, it is the last hour; and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19. They went out from us, but they did not belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But their departure made it clear that none of them belonged to us."
There had apparently been a big schism in the author's cult, as has happened so very frequently in the history of Christianity. We can see that people from the writer's own group did not believe all of the same things this writer did. What did he do? He condemned them. He said he was speaking "God's" words, whereas they were of the devil.
--- 1 John 4.5-6: “They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us.”
Again, this guy teaches people light-dark dualism, and that anyone who does not listen to what HE says is in “the dark”/ “the world”, while only people who think the same way he does can be part of “the light” / “God”.
Nasty stuff.
--- 1 John 4.7: “Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.”
So here is the famous love verse. “Every single person who loves … knows God and has been born of God.”
Christians love this verse, because 99.99% of people feel love. So this verse makes them feel good! Yay, “God is love”!
Even non-Christians, when they see this verse out of context (as it is usually presented), think, "Wow, what a sweet idea! I love, so I am part of God too."
Except the writer does not mean what he seems to mean!
To think he is being lovey-dovey here, one must ignore all the other nasty, stupid, hateful, superstitious crap this cult-leader said! He just got through saying that anybody who does not listen to his message is NOT from God!
So what he really thinks is that anybody not in his cult is NOT really capable of love.
Only people in his cult are capable of love, in his eyes.
Other people are “of the world,” “in darkness,” in the spirit of “the antichrist.”
Further, he already told his listeners NOT to love the world or “anything” in/of the world (which for him includes people who do not believe his doctrines) (1 John 2.15).
So his “love” is quite limited indeed. It is certainly not “universal love.” And he is definitely on the wrong track.
--- 1 John 4.15: “If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God.”
So for this man, God is not truly omnipresent. “God” does not live in people who do not join this writer’s cult. “God” only lives in certain people, he says, and only those people who believe this man’s version of some stories can live in God and live forever.
That is not real love.
… Then again, the stuff everyone likes:
--- 1 John 4.16: “God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.”
This is what people love to cherry pick, quote, and post on FB with pretty pictures. But they do not fully realize what this writer means when he says it, as we have seen. The writer has already stated clearly that anyone who does not share his theology is NOT of God. He thinks that when people outside claim to love each other, it is not real love. He thinks they are liars, deceived, the “antichrist,” ungodly.
--- 1 John 4.17: “we will have confidence ON THE DAY OF JUDGMENT.”
Here again is the real message underlying the false façade of “love” talk: Judgment!
Again we see the language of ancient Jewish apocalypticism. The writer mistakenly believed he was living in the last days (“the last hour,” 2.18), and that his god YHWH and Jesus would soon intervene in human history and would judge the world. And only people who joined this guy’s cult would be the ones god was going to pick to live forever.
He was wrong. He was not living in the last hour, and his notion of the coming Judgement Day was a false apocalyptic myth.
--- 1 John 4.18: “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.”
Logic is not this man’s strong point. His entire message is based on FEAR of the soon-coming judgement, but he pretends he is all about love. He wants everyone to be afraid of that judgement, so they will join his cult and can then be “free from fear”!
It is a racket. First, preach the fear. Make people afraid. Play on their fears of death and judgement. Then tell them you have the only cure.
--- 1 John 5.3-5: “3. In fact, THIS IS LOVE FOR GOD: TO KEEP HIS COMMANDS. And his commands are not burdensome, 4. for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5. WHO IS IT THAT OVERCOMES THE WORLD? ONLY THE ONE WHO BELIEVES THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD.”
Again, he thinks only people who share his theological doctrines can be “born of God,” will be saved from God’s wrath and soon-coming judgement, and will overcome the world.
AND WHAT IS REAL LOVE TO THIS WRITER?
KEEPING THE ALLEGED “COMMANDMENTS” OF GOD. So the writer is still stuck in the false belief that the “commandments of Moses” were actually given to people by a real god.
— 1 John 5.10-12: “10. Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. WHOEVER DOES NOT BELIEVE GOD HAS MADE HIM OUT TO BE A LIAR, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12. WHOEVER HAS THE SON HAS LIFE; WHOEVER DOES NOT HAVE THE SON OF GOD DOES NOT HAVE LIFE.”
Anyone not part of his particular cult the writer accuses of “not believing God,” … AS IF God had actually communicated with everyone, yet they somehow did not believe it! He confuses the preaching of mere humans with “the testimony God has given.” He confuses the writings of a few humans with “the word of God.”
All people who do not join the cult do not have life, he says, and they will have no hope in the great and terrible judgement which this writer believed was about to come upon the world in his generation.
The writer was soooo badly wrong, about sooo much.
He is not a good model, not a good teacher, not a trustworthy or reliable source of information on reality.
His message is not about real love, but mere religiosity.
And … the letter was anonymous.
--- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Re: “>> Re: “A real God could communicate HIMSELF…”
Perhaps. But maybe you are projecting how YOU would do it if you were God. I think you might be expecting god/Jesus/the holy spirit to do things he/they/whatever never promised to do.”:
I said, “A real, personal God could communicate himself,” and you for some reason seem reluctant to acknowledge that. You merely granted a “perhaps.” Really?
Is that honest?
Do you really think there is a real, personal God, powerful enough to design and create the universe, but NOT capable of communicating with humans himself?
--- --- ---
Re: “But maybe you are projecting how YOU would do it if you were God.”:
Actually, I am using standard definitions of LOVE, and it seems you object to that for some reason, but cannot yet articulate why.
Using a dictionary is not “projecting.”
Let’s do even better. Let us use the definition of “love” found in the bible itself, in Corinthians, and let us look closely to see if the “God” character of the bible even lives up to the bible’s own definition of love.
Are you willing to give it serious and honest thought? Read it well, and then after giving it lots of time and thought, get back to me, either in writing or when we Zoom.
--- --- ---
--- How do you know your mom and/or dad love you?
--- How do you know your best friend loves you?
--- How do you know your husband / wife loves you?
--- What does 'love' mean to you?
When people answer these questions about love, what do people say?
What does the dictionary say love is?
--- "an intense feeling of deep affection; a great interest and pleasure in something” (Oxford).
--- “strong affection for another; affection and tenderness; affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests; warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion; unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another.” (Merriam-Webster).
What do ordinary people say love is? …
People say LOVE is caring, kindness, physical affection, quality time, listening, quality communication, sharing, patience, never giving up, laughing and crying together, always BEING THERE, helping and trying to help the beloved, ... etc. …
The Vietnamese writer Thich Nhat Hanh said, “If you love someone, the greatest gift you can give them is your presence.” That is a true and important thing to notice.
Do you agree that these are accurate descriptions of love?
Using these honest, simple, every-day definitions of love, one can show clearly that the Judeo-Christian god character of the bible:
(1) fails to do the most important, most basic things a loving being should and would do, and
(2) allegedly has qualities and performs actions that are inconsistent with true love.
[You accused me of “projecting,” but I am showing you here plainly that I am not merely “projecting” what I would like to be true. I am using standard definitions of “love.” If these definitions do not apply to the god of Christianity, it is not my fault. I am not the one who made up such stories. To argue that normal definitions of words should not apply to a “god” of a particular religion would be to engage in the logical fallacy of special pleading, claiming to exempt your prized but unsubstantiated doctrine from normal definitions that apply in all other circumstances.]
--- --- ---
IF a personal being
(A) loves another personal being,
and
(B) is able
— to express physical affection to them (in forms like hugging, hand-shaking, pats on the back, caring eye-contact),
— to spend quality time with them, and
— to communicate with them IN PERSON, face-to-face, OPENLY, clearly, INDUBITABLY, in an uncontrived manner,
then the loving being does so, simply, gladly, earnestly, with pleasure.
Love shows itself in action when it can. That is part of what love is.
LOVE, by definition, does not withhold its affections, especially when such is desired or needed by the beloved. Love is not reticent or unwilling to provide evidence of itself. It is glad, happy, eager to provide evidence of itself, in an abundant, overflowing way.
IF a being were to fail to do these things, we would NOT call that being "loving." Love has no need to hide or to make threats of violence or destruction of the beloved upon the beloved's failure to believe some odd-sounding stories that a few other people, not known personally, allegedly told long ago in one small part of a very big world. …
The Judeo-Christian god Yahweh and the Jesus character depicted in the bible are *allegedly* able to show love in this way, BUT in reality the biblical god:
— is NOT HERE in person;
— is NOT communicating openly, face-to-face, indubitably, clearly to all those he allegedly loves;
— is NOT making eye contact;
— is NOT spending quality time with all the people on planet earth;
— is NOT hugging us;
— is NOT patting us on the back;
— is NOT here laughing or crying or enjoying good things with us;
— is NOT eager to provide simple, direct, in-person evidence of his existence or his love;
— is NOT clearly and unequivocally responsive to our needs.
Those are things that the biblical god fails to do in reality, and these are all things that would be very simple for a divine being to accomplish, if one existed and loved humans.
*** Do the children of good, loving parents ever need to debate whether their parents really exist? ***
No, not if their parents are alive and physical able to show their existence and love. Yet people have debated for millennia whether the personal, anthropomorphic, culturally limited gods invented by humans really exist. Why do people debate the existence of such gods? Because such gods do not exist, do not show themselves openly, clearly, and obviously do not love humanity the way good parents love their children. Anthropomorphic gods are incapable to showing up like real, loving parents do, because they are not real or loving beings.
But the case against the claim that "God is loving" is much worse than that.
--- --- ---
Not only is NO personal god actively doing for all people the simple loving things that a loving being should and would do for others, but the god and Jesus characters imagined in the New Testament writings are emphatically associated with unloving qualities.
For example, the Yahweh and Jesus characters make shameful THREATS of VIOLENCE toward people who do not believe the stories conveyed in the text, even though the majority of humans on this planet honestly lack sufficient reasons to believe bible stories, and so many studious and well-educated people have abundant and very clear reasons NOT to believe those stories.
Yet the bible says that unbelievers are:
--- automatically CONDEMNED (Mark 16.16; John 3.16-18, 36; 1 John 5.10-12; Hebrews 2.3; Luke 12.46; 2 Thessalonians 1.6-8; Revelation 21.7-8);
--- automatically “WICKED” and “DARK” and “corrupted” (2 Corinthians 6.14; Titus 1.15);
--- blinded by an EVIL, angelic spirit or fooled by the devil (2 Corinthians 4.4; Luke 8.12);
--- an object of God’s WRATH (John 3.36; Romans 1.18; 1 Thessalonians 1.9-10; 2 Thessalonians 1.6-8);
--- will be objects of Jesus' vengeance (2 Thessalonians 1.6-8);
--- and will be CAST by God into a lake of FIRE and BURNING SULFUR after death (Rev 21.8; cf. Matthew 10.28; Luke 12.4-5).
Those are rather harsh words toward people who simply do not believe the stories.
Is that true love?
No way. It certainly is not. Further, it is not reasonable at all.
If my children lacked evidence for something they needed to understand about me for their wellbeing, would I condemn them and/or threaten them with fiery punishment? Of course not. Why not? Because I am a loving and reasonable father. I would provide abundant evidence of my love and devotion, as regularly as I could. So would any good, loving parent.
--- --- ---
So the alleged god character of Christianity and the bible:
(1) OMITS key, basic actions that a loving being should perform routinely, and
(2) COMITS many unloving actions that a truly loving person should NOT perform.
By NO ordinary definition of the word “love" would such omitted good actions and committed bad / mean actions be worthy to be called “loving.”
--- --- ---
To call the biblical Christian god “loving" is to indulge in a logical fallacy called “special pleading.”
SPECIAL PLEADING = “Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification."
You are trying to make the Christian god and the Jesus character exempt from my use of normal English definitions of words like “love,” while at the same time claiming yourself that Jesus was all about “radical love.” That is not thoughtful or honest on your part. Rather it is an indulgence in special pleading and faulty logic in order to protect a bad idea you were manipulated into believing when you were vulnerable.
Humans, when honest, know quite well what it is like to be loving.
But Christians have been manipulated into joining a cult that tricks them into claiming a certain god character is loving, even though that character miserably fails to do what we all know true love does, AND that character allegedly actively does and intends to do unloving things that true love certainly does not do.
--- --- ---
Likewise, the demand for bloodshed for forgiveness in Christianity is (a) superstitious ancient blood magic, (b) not in harmony with real love. Please read: https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/is-the-god-of-the-bible-loving#h.p5b1pu6l1lb2.
--- --- ---
Likewise, Christian claims that “God is love” sound nice and appealing, but they do not logically harmonize with other claims made by the religion. https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/is-the-god-of-the-bible-loving#h.a7uos0gizsri.
--- --- ---
Likewise, despite your reluctance to acknowledge what the biblical Jesus character taught about condemning unbelievers, I have shown very clearly and beyond any reasonable doubt, that the gospels and the rest of the New Testament do indeed teach that Jesus and YHWH would condemn and punish anyone not believing in YHWH or claims regarding Jesus as YHWH’s messiah-king. (https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/home/gods-alleged-wrath#h.rjb7lf171wwp)
I ask you again:
** Would a good, loving, decent human being or other being ever condemn someone merely for not believing a set of stories without evidence?
** Would you condemn your children if they did not believe stories about you?
** If a father did condemn his children for not believing some stories, despite the father never showing up in person for those kids, would you call that father a loving person?
I would like your honest answers to these questions.
I AM a father in real life, and I do know what it is like to truly love my son. Here is my honest answer to the questions: https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/is-the-god-of-the-bible-loving#h.fyozxgxx6dxo.
--- --- ---
Is the Christian “God” a loving father?
I did not invent the claim that the Judeo-Christian God is a loving father. That is a Jewish claim, a Christian claim, and it is attributed to Jesus also in the gospels.
So I am not “projecting” when I ask whether the god character in the bible truly lives up to the claim. I am merely asking for honesty and consistency in one’s definition of love.
Here is my answer to whether the Christian god lives up to the standards of a loving father: https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/is-the-god-of-the-bible-loving#h.qkzph6rx16zk.
--- --- ---
You might think the Jesus character taught “radical love” for saying people should “love your enemies,” even though other philosophers have also taught universal love, and unlike the biblical Jesus, they were far more consistent in applying it through the rest of their teachings.
Do the YHWH and Jesus characters of the bible live up to their own standard of “loving their enemies”?
No. https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/is-the-god-of-the-bible-loving#h.quykho7743t7. Please read and ponder thoroughly before discussing it.
IF they lived up to that standard, they would not threaten people simply for not believing stories; they would not threaten to cast people into fire. Any real, all-powerful, personal God who was also genuinely loving could easily find fantastic, amazing, wonderful alternatives to resorting to nasty 3rd-party threats issued by mere humans in the name of the god & Jesus characters. Among other interventions not even attempted, a real God/Jesus could simply communicate honestly with everyone themselves.
Why not?
Is it mere “projection” on my part to say that a loving being tries to communicate honestly and openly when possible?
Or is honest and open communication a part of true love?
Without trying to defend some ancient cult, but simply as a human who has felt and acted upon love for other humans, you tell me, what do you honestly think?
--- --- ---
The Bible has a famous passage offering one possible definition of love. Does the Bible’s condemnation of non-believers fit its own definition of love?
>>> 1 Corinthians 13.4-8: “4. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8. Love never fails.”
Condemning people for not believing a set of stories does not fit the definition of love offered in the Bible itself. Quite a tragic irony, this is.
>>> Love is Kind:
Would it be “kind” for an all-powerful being to condemn people for lack of belief without doing everything possible to help them? Is it kind for a father not to appear to his children face to face, regularly, and demonstrate love and communication openly? Is it kind for a father to communicate to his children only through anonymous ancient texts with suspicious stories that disagree with history & science and sound like ancient myths from other cultures? NO. Yet the alleged God of Christianity suffers from all of these faults. That suggests he is not real.
>>> Love Does NOT dishonor others:
Does it “dishonor others” to condemn them for lack of belief in something without clearly demonstrating the thing to be believed, when that would be easy to do? Yes, that is dishonor.
Does it “dishonor others” if a supposed “father” fails to appear to his children face to face, regularly, and show them physical affection and demonstrate love, communication, and teaching openly? Yes. That is dishonorable behavior.
Does it “dishonor others” to avoid clear, personal, unambiguous, face-to-face communication with them and to expect them to believe unverifiable ancient hearsay on pain of torture and death? Yes, that is most dishonorable.
Therefore, the God of Christianity appears dishonorable and unloving, which suggests Christian claims are false.
>>> Love is NOT self-seeking:
Would it be “self-seeking” for the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh to desire to be believed in, feared, worshipped exclusively, obeyed meticulously, and praised lavishly by humans, without actually appearing to all humans unambiguously or verifying his desires? Yes, that sounds quite self-seeking indeed.
Would a father be demonstrating love and care for others, or for himself, if he never bothers to see the majority of his children face-to-face, or to hug them, or even to let them hear his voice unambiguously, even though it would be easy for him to do? That sounds like a self-seeking, unloving father who has abandoned his children, if he is too self-absorbed even to visit his children in person and demonstrate his love openly and without question.
The God of Christianity IS self-seeking, according to the stories. He is not a truly loving character, and we do not see open, unambiguous, loving actions bestowed upon all of humanity by any personal God.
>>> Love is NOT easily angered:
Would you call it “easily angered” or “NOT easily angered,” if a God were to say he cannot and will not forgive even the simplest of mistakes without bloodshed or the ritual blood sacrifice of innocent animals or an innocent human?
The Bible says, “Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9.22). It teaches that Yahweh demanded burnt animal sacrifices from the Hebrews/Jews for over a thousand years (and enjoyed the smell from up in heaven!), with animal blood routinely sprinkled on an altar by Temple priests, AND that Yahweh eventually used Jesus as a blood sacrifice to appease his own wrath so that he could forgive humans for their mistakes without the need for more animals. Allegedly, that’s the only real reason belief in the Jesus stories is so important: to attain forgiveness, and thus a promised eternal life in heaven.
But if a human male ever demanded blood sacrifice for a person who has done nothing worse than an average human, we would call that man not only “easily angered” but wholly unwell. And if a human were incapable of forgiveness apart from bloodshed, we would not think highly of that human. “Love” would not be the first adjective coming to our minds.
What if God never even bothered to give all humans an unequivocal set of rules to follow and verify that those rules actually were divine in origin, not merely human? And what if that God still became angry at people for breaking his rules, when they did not honestly even know they were truly “His rules”?
That sounds like “easily angered” to me. We would never accept or honor any being behaving in such a manner, unless we had been conned/ manipulated/ brainwashed.
According to Numbers 15.32-36, Yahweh/God ordered the execution of a man simply because he collected some firewood on a Saturday. Sounds like “easily angered” to me.
According to the Old Testament, actions such as eating shellfish (Lev 11.9-10), picking up sticks on a Saturday (Num 15.32-36), trimming the edges of one’s beard (Lev 19.27), wearing clothing made of multiple materials (Lev 19.19), failing to cut off the penis foreskin of a male child (Ex 4.24-26) are major offenses that anger Yahweh. But according to the Paul of the New Testament, such things are not actually that important. If Yahweh once tried to kill Moses until his wife got a rock, cut off her son’s penis skin, and threw it at Moses’ feet (Ex 4.24-26!!), but Paul teaches Christians that Yahweh’s old laws don’t even really matter that much anymore, what does that say? The whole set-up seems rather whimsical and capricious, in addition to such a character being “easily angered.”
>>> Love keeps no record of wrongs:
According to other parts of the Bible, the God Yahweh does keep a record of wrongs and uses his records to judge people after death. So the Biblical god Yahweh does not even live up to the definition of love in one of the Bible’s own epistles.
-- Revelation 20.12: “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne. And there were open books, and one of them was the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their deeds, as recorded in the books.”
-- Revelation 20.15: “Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.”
-- Daniel 7.10: “A river of fire was flowing, coming out from His presence. Thousands upon thousands attended Him, and myriads upon myriads stood before Him. The court was convened, and the books were opened.”
-- Matthew 16.27: “For the Son of Man will come in His Father's glory with His angels, and then He will repay each one according to what he has done.”
-- Luke 10.20: “Nevertheless, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” [-- Apparently, Yahweh needs record keepers! What a silly idea for a supposedly all-knowing deity.]
-- Revelation 3.5: [Jesus character speaking] “He who overcomes will be dressed in white. And I will never blot out his name from the Book of Life, but I will confess his name before My Father and His angels.”
>>> Love ALWAYS protects:
---- Is it “always protecting” if someone condemns and punishes with fire anyone who does not believe a set of ancient stories without evidence? No.
--- Does a father “always protect” if he avoids spending time in person with his children and fails to do what he can to help them and protect them from error, misinformation, sickness, disease, harm, death?
--- An all-powerful God that met this definition of love could find a way to “always protect” everyone and ensure that all beings learn whatever lessons need to be taught. Yet this does not happen. Why not? Clearly the Biblical god fails this definition of love as well.
>>> Love never fails:
Well, if you throw your supposed beloved creatures into a Lake of Fire to kill them a second time, because they did not believe some stories, that certainly sounds like failed love.
--- Revelation 20.15: “Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.”
--- Revelation 21.7-8: “7. The one who overcomes will inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son. 8. But to the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and sexually immoral and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death.”
I know you said you do not like the book of Revelation.
Good for you! I am proud of that moment of honesty in your heart.
I think that your heart really does desire love, and because it really does, it will not continue forever to give mere half-hearted half-credence to a hand-full of cherry-picked teachings about love promoted by a religion that is not consistently loving and promotes teachings that do not represent true love.
Anyway, the Revelation was not alone in condemning unbelievers, as I have shown elsewhere already. Such is the standard in the gospels and the New Testament in general. (https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/home/gods-alleged-wrath#h.rjb7lf171wwp)
>>> Love does not envy:
The Greek word here translated “envy” is ζηλόω, which means “to be jealous” (See Strong’s Bible Concordance 2206 or any ancient Greek dictionary or lexicon). Yet the Bible teaches explicitly that the God Yahweh IS a jealous being.
--- Exodus 20.5: “I, Yahweh your God, am a JEALOUS God.”
--- Exodus 34.14: “For you must not worship any other god, for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a JEALOUS God.”
--- Deuteronomy 4.24: “For Yahweh your God is a consuming fire, a JEALOUS God.”
--- Deuteronomy 5.9: “I, Yahweh your God, am a JEALOUS God.”
The biblical god YHWH is but a character in primitive literature, unworthy of being called either a real God or a truly loving being.
>>> Love ALWAYS perseveres:
If there were an all-powerful God who met this definition of love by always persevering, then such a God would be able to persevere in reconciling unbelievers.
I, for one, along with everyone I know, would be happy to believe, happy to have a relationship with a real and loving God.
Even according to the Bible’s own admission, the god character of the Bible allegedly has no intention of persevering in love for unbelievers.
SUMMARY:
So what have we seen?
We have seen that the God character and Jesus character in the Bible do NOT live up to definition of love supplied by another book in the very same Bible.
Harming people for failing to believe a set of stories is NOT love, even according to the Bible itself. And there are lots of other unloving things we do not have time to enumerate, like calling for homosexuals to be stoned to death, calling for believers in other religions to be stoned to death, etc.
--- --- ---
The Bible teaches a golden rule: “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you” (Luke 6.31; Matthew 7.12).
Does the Biblical God, in allegedly condemning and harming non-believers, pass the Bible’s own golden-rule morality test?
Would you want to be condemned or thrown into a fire simply for not believing some stories without evidence, especially if you had honest doubts about those stories of lots of evidence causing you to disbelieve those stories?
No. You would not want to be treated that way.
Would a God want to be treated that way? Haha.
No. No being that loves life would wish to be threatened or harmed for failing to believe some stories.
There are many other points on which the God character of the Bible would fail the golden rule, treating people in a way that no one would want to be treated.
How can a mere literary character who cannot live up to its own alleged standards actually be a good, loving father?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Re: “>> Re:2 Thessalonians 1.6-8…That is NOT love. It is propaganda.”
Believers and skeptics alike love to use Paul to make their points. I find this highly problematic and often off topic. First, I’m interested in the Jesus way, not necessarily the Paul way. But second, it’s vitally important to understand Jesus in his context, and THEN try to understand Paul in light of Jesus. We often switch that around and it never ends up well. Third, everything Paul wrote was someone else’s mail with context that we might be missing. Fourth, there are several verses like this one that I don’t much like. But I’m okay with that because I don’t need to understand or even agree with everything to believe in something. Fifth, my faith (what little I have) isn’t based on a book or a collection of writings.”:
(1.) You were making claims about the earliest Christians being all about “radical love.”
So I quoted Paul, who is supposed to be one of the earliest Christians.
You should not make claims regarding early Christians and then turn around and say early Christians are off limits in my discussion.
Do you understand now why I would quote one of the supposed earliest Christians, given your claims about them?
I can understand why you do not like Paul, because his writing is clearly not about “radical love” and only radical love, but neither is the writing about Jesus in the gospels.
(2.) Also, that same material I quoted from 2 Thessalonians is also found in the gospels themselves, and I already quoted that too. (If you forget, go here and look at these quotations from throughout the New Testament, including quotations from the gospel Jesus: https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/home/gods-alleged-wrath#h.rjb7lf171wwp.) Although you try to deny that Jesus taught such things, you keep ignoring an abundance of verses to the contrary of your claims.
(3.) You want to understand “Jesus in his context, then Paul,” … which would be nice, yes, BUT the Pauline literature appears to have come BEFORE the gospels (although the Pauline corpus does appears to contain forgeries and interpolations, and no Christian literature is uncorrupted, and we do not have any original copies).
So IF you want to look at the earliest Christian literature to be found, why not look at epistles?
(4.) IF Paul is not a good representative of Jesus’ teachings, yet Pauline Christianity became dominant, that only shows that no real God cared enough to watch over his supposed church to make sure it spread the truth.
The unreliability of the church, the gospels, the epistles, etc. are all good reasons NOT to believe in Christian claims.
(5.) IF Paul was dishonest or not presenting the truth, WHY do you think the anonymous authors of the various gospels are more deserving of trust than Paul?
--- --- ---
What IS it based on then?
You said Jesus was all about “radical love.”
Where does that idea come from?
Is Jesus appearing to you and telling you this himself, in the flesh?
----- ---- ---- ----
“Something worked pretty well”? … only if you do not care about whether the teachings of Christianity are actually true.
If a person studies the Bible well and understands its falsehoods, then it was very sad indeed that such a nasty set of superstitions came to dominate the Roman empire and the Western world. It would have been much better if Greek Skepticism or Epicureanism or even Stoicism had come to dominate European culture for 1,000 years instead, and if the spirit of inquiry that thrived in ancient Greece had been able to continue and spread. Instead, Christianity brought the Age of Faith, the Dark Ages, upon Europe, and Europeans had to wait until the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment to begin to escape from the insanity and irrationality Christianity brought upon the world.
There is a good historical work I recommend, but it would take you time to wade into it:
The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason,
by Charles Freeman (2007, reprint).
“A radical and powerful reappraisal of the impact of Constantine’s adoption of Christianity on the later Roman world, and on the subsequent development both of Christianity and of Western civilization.”
“When the Emperor Contstantine converted to Christianity in 368 AD, he changed the course of European history in ways that continue to have repercussions to the present day. Adopting those aspects of the religion that suited his purposes, he turned Rome on a course from the relatively open, tolerant and pluralistic civilization of the Hellenistic world, towards a culture that was based on the rule of fixed authority, whether that of the Bible, or the writings of Ptolemy in astronomy and of Galen and Hippocrates in medicine. Only a thousand years later, with the advent of the Renaissance and the emergence of modern science, did Europe begin to free itself from the effects of Constantine's decision, yet the effects of his establishment of Christianity as a state religion remain with us, in many respects, today. Brilliantly wide-ranging and ambitious, this is a major work of history.”
(https://www.amazon.com/Closing-Western-Mind-Faith-Reason-ebook/dp/B000XUBFZ6/.)
The number of people who came to believe certain ideas is not a guarantee of the worth of the ideas believed. In the case of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, it is one of the greatest tragedies of human history that billions of humans have so horribly been misled by such falsehoods.
[1] Suetonius. The Lives of the Twelve Caesars. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. Loeb Classical Library. 1914. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Claudius*.html