Random excerpts, comments, and questions of and discussion regarding the Bible. Note that although I like to quote that online NAB, I am reading The Catholic Youth Bible Revised. Once I finish it, I shall use either that NAB or the Douay-Rheims Bible. I will use only bibles endorsed by the Church1, as I have no reason to do otherwise.
A list of my favorite Bible passages, in no particular order:
However, I still do not
understand why endless torment is a just punishment for finite torment. Draw a timeline; allowing others comparatively less
than a speck of suffering warrants you endless suffering? I suppose we must bear in mind that all suffering,
regardless of its duration, is a terrible thing, and to be aware of it and do nothing is horribly wicked. It makes clear
why it is said that it is difficult for rich men to enter the kingdom of God
; if 18 billion USD is spent worldwide
on cosmetics, and 19 billion would end world hunger ... and
how much does Bill Gates
have? As of 22:54, 24 March, Google says $56 billion.
Let's hope that world hunger statistic is wrong. Then again, this is my beef with all capitalists and millionaires. Money is not correlated to happiness beyond the necessities; what reason do you have to keep it from those in need? Especially considering what only a little can do ...
The phrase Little children
makes me think Jesus addresses everyone here, not simply his disciples.
There is controversy whether some people, e.g. homosexuals, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Jesus says by the fruit you
will know the tree, for a bad tree cannot produce good fruit, and he says it again in John 13.35. I don't think there is any
ambiguity if you see a homosexual having love for one another.
A list of passages that challenge popular opinion, in my opinion ... (Also see my favorites.)
The idea of
unadulterated free will is decidedly a Christian one; what Christian would believe the statement, God made me do it
(1
Kings 12.15)? This
passage is yet another example of this Judaic tradition; another clear one is the Exodus story, with God causing Pharoah's
stubbornness, that the glory of God may be shown.
Even in the Gospels, the issue of free will is ambiguous: some say Judas
freely betrayed Jesus; another says the devil entered him; a few suggest that one of Jesus's disciples had to do it, for the word
of God to be
fulfilled (and in this case, how can you really blame Judas, if one of them had to do it for God to be glorified?)
Outspoken Christians would do well to remember this proverb before they assert that such-and-so will go to
hell or not inherit the kingdom of God.
Many Christians like to refer to the devil as Satan, the Father of Lies
and attempt to establish a
dichotomy between good and evil. Recently a friend of a friend lost her baby in pregnancy. My friend referenced God and Satan on
the phone, to the effect of We know that Satan wishes to bring us down, but that the Lord has a plan for us, and we must
remember that God always has a plan for us, though we may not know it,
effectively saying that Satan was responsible for the
tragedy, but that God will fight Satan and bring us to happiness.
Where did Christians depart from the original Jewish theology regarding things like this? I quote this Proverb simply because it
is a succinct example of what is found throughout much of the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures
): in the Book of Job, the
devil requests permission to torment Job. (Christians like to overlook the fact that if God is all-powerful, then God permits
these tragedies
to happen: that is, God is ultimately responsible, not the devil.) Where the devil is not mentioned, the
tragedy is a consequence of or punishment for sin, rebelling against God. For an example directly related to both this idea and
the lost pregnancy, see David and Bathsheba, 2 Samuel 11-12.23. Where sin is not mentioned, God himself, responsible for
all things, hardens hearts
(God makes the Pharoah stubborn in the Exodus story) and, as this proverb states, creates the
wicked.
I do not mean to say that the entire dichotomy of the devil versus God is false; rather, that God's plan and power are more complex; it is not that simple.
Jonathan undresses with David and they form a covenant (1 Samuel 18.1-5), something never before mentioned in the Old Testament. David says the following after the death of Jonathan (2 Samuel 1.25-26):
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
If this love were a brotherly love, friendship love, why would David say it passes the love of women
? Friendship love is
different from sexual love; for something to surpass something else it must necessarily be of the same kind. Perhaps he meant
overpowering, not surpassing; the brightness of a light can overpower the scent of a fragrance, overwhelming the person, although
the two are not of the same kind. The former seems more likely: if David meant overpowering (that is, he loved his friend more
than he cared about marriage and sex), he could have used a more precise word; perhaps he did, and my Bible's translation is
poor. Consider 1 Samuel 20.30, though, when Jonathan tries to speak favorably of David to his going-crazy father, Saul:
Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him,
You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse [i.e. David] to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?
The first part of this passage, you have chosen ... shame
has three different possible meanings:
gay affairwith David. It seems reasonable that it would be considered shameful even if they were chaste, given the condemnation of certain homosexual relations in the law of Moses.
The second part of this passage, ... shame of your mother's nakedness
restricts these possible meanings even more. It
seems clear that Saul refers to some sexual transgression, since your mother's nakedness,
your father's nakedness,
anyone's nakedness
has been expressed only when discussing sexual actions; prohibitions in Leviticus like Don't lie
with your father's daughter; it uncovers his nakedness and your own nakedness,
etc. or however they go.
It seems apparent, then, that Saul refers here to some sexual thing between David and Jonathan, which he considers shameful. It may be real or imagined by Saul, so even if he refers to sexual shame, it doesn't mean very much. If you have any further insight, please contact me. I'm trying to research the Church's position.2 I have come across the following two articles. After reading them, I attempted to post the following comment:
The father's comments were well-articulated, but there is one aspect of David and Jonathan's relationship which was not discussed, and until it is, I do not have peace of mind:
In 1 Samuel 20.30, Saul seems to accuse Jonathan of sexual conduct with David.
My bible, given to me by my local Catholic church ... translates the verse,
Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?The language, referring to nakedness, seems very similar to "uncovering nakedness", as discussing sexual actions in Leviticus.
The Douay-Rheims Bible translates it even more explicitly:
Then Saul being angry against Jonathan said to him: Thou son of a woman that is the ravisher of a man, do I not know that thou lovest the son of Isai to thy own confusion and to the confusion of thy shameless mother?...
Ravisher of a man,lovest [David] to thy own confusion,to the shame of your mother's nakedness, these strongly suggest to me sexual actions with David, and I cannot see how it may be interpreted otherwise. Discussing this passage was entirely omitted from this article, and I am disappointed.
As of 3 July 2008, 11:40 am, this comment is published on their
page. Ang_ela of DALnet brought to my attention (11:54 CST, 3 July) that ravisher of a man
most likely refers to
Jonathan's mother, thus other translations instead say son of a whore mother
. Still, we have the phrases chosen ... to
your own shame
and lovest ... to thy own confusion
, etc. It's clear Saul is accusing Jonathan of being confused about
something regarding David.
God has blessed you since you are moral.If you were to show someone a photocopy of this psalm, $5 says they wouldn't realize it's in the Bible.
Seems to go directly against calling priests Father
... Good morning, Father Michael ....
even Pastor
Bill
or whatever seems like a title (like Mister Bill) – I am not saying only the Catholic Church is at fault. I
suppose the difference is that it is a sign of respect, not of superiority. But why, then, do we not have verbal signs of
respect in our names for each other?
punish[es] children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generation for their fathers' wickedness!
shall not worship any other god.Note that the word used is
other,not
false.So far, I have seen no statement (or, I don't remember seeing any statement) from Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Proverbs, or Matthew that the Christian God is the only god – rather, as Exodus 34.14 states,
the LORD is 'the Jealous One'; a jealous God is he.That is, if you are to be a Christian or Jew, this god must be the only one that you follow, for this god demands exclusive allegiance. I wonder about the supernatural, what lesser gods may exist — I say 'lesser' because the God of the Jews appears to have declared and proven Himself as the dominant, most powerful of them, through taking them out of Egypt and decimating those who worship other gods, as well as through the notable prosperity of the Jewish people even to this day. (Indeed, others have become so jealous as to create stereotypes that
jews are greedy,etc., to explain their wealth.)
Um ... what?
The book of Samuel ends very strangely. It and 2 Samuel 23 almost seem as if they were written by a different author. What's the deal with these last two chapters? 2 Samuel 23 is a brief history of David's warriors, only tangentially significant; 2 Samuel 24 is about the wrath of God coming upon Israel once again, but why? And then David claims he's sinned by doing what God told him to do? What?
I wonder if David did this because his son Absolam screwed them before he died (2 Samuel 16.20-23), and so
David no longer found pleasure in their sight
... And maybe he didn't like women that much, anyway (see my discussion above
regarding David and Jonathan.) I wonder why women were regarded as property as much as people, and why God waited so long in the
timeline of humanity (or at least, in the timeline of the Jews and the seeming majority of the world) to correct the matter.
What does the Son of Man
mean? This phrase is seen several times in the Gospels. It makes sense when I see
the phrase Son of God,
because that is the Mystery of the Trinity: God sent Jesus, Jesus is from God, yet is God, but is
distinct enough to be glorified in God. But what does the Son of Man
mean? A reference to something in the book of Daniel
that I've not yet read?
What does the who holds a spindle
part mean? To be honest, my first thought was that David was cursing
someone to sew, to do women's work. The New American Bible's
translation of this verse seems to be just that. How weird. Why were women seen as so inferior? Was it because tribes were
frequently at war during this time, and women generally couldn't war?
All human beings that are doomed lose the right to be redeemed; they must be put to death.
Footnote: [29] All human beings that are doomed: according to some interpreters, this signifies the idolatrous Canaanites, who were doomed to destruction by divine authority; according to others, this drastic law was enacted for the purpose of discouraging private persons from rashly vowing their slaves or other dependents as offerings to God. Cf Exodus 22:19; Deut 13:13-19.
Human sacrifice?! In my Bible? Here I must also raise the question of interpretation. If you're a literalist, God help you ... What of my Bible's introduction to Leviticus?
... Most Scripture scholars believe that the laws and regulations in Leviticus developed over hundreds of years after the people entered the Promised Land. The book was composed at a time when the priests were struggling to unify Israel as it lay in ruins from its Babylonian conquerers. They wished to gather the various traditions and regulations that governed Israel's way of life. The author of Leviticus, referred to as the Priestly writer, writes as if these gathered traditions and regulations were given by God to Moses at Mount Sinai as part of the original Law. The author wishes to show that these laws are an extension of the Sinai Covenant. ... The customs and rites in Jesus' time are observances of the laws in Leviticus. Many of those customs and rites were left behind as Christianity emerged as a dinstinct religion.
He also said to them,
Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power.Footnote: [1] There are some standing . . . come in power: understood by some to refer to the establishment by God's power of his kingdom on earth in and through the church; more likely, as understood by others, a reference to the imminent parousia.
I'm not quite sure how to take this. There are immortals on Earth, awaiting the second coming of Christ? Hm, most will scoff at that idea. Okay, so then he's referencing his resurrection? So the kingdom of God has come in power, and is on earth today, thus we're to be doing God's will? I still don't quite understand.
He also told them,
Take care what you hear. The measure with which you measure will be measured out to you, and still more will be given to you.
To the one who has, more will be given; from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
What does Mark 4.25 mean? I could only think of the following explanation: If you do God's will, God will bless you, requiring you to do even more. (That is, the righteous prosper, and are then required to share what they have received with others.) If you don't do God's will, God won't bless you, and you won't have anything. And if you're not of God, then even what you have – your life – will be taken away, at the Final Judgment, perishing in the lake of fire, and so on.
But clearly, we're not seeing these things happen. Something like $19 billion would end world starvation, yet
Warren Buffett is worth
$62
billion, and what has he been doing? It makes me wonder ...
While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had happened.
They assembled with the elders and took counsel; then they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers,
telling them,You are to say,His disciples came by night and stole him while we were asleep.
And if this gets to the ears of the governor, we will satisfy (him) and keep you out of trouble.
The soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has circulated among the Jews to the present (day).
What does history and archeology have to say here? Surely we have something from this time period other than these gospels? Who is right? Lee Strobel argues that the disciples, if they had stolen the body, wouldn't be willing to die for a lie unless they were insane, and then argues that they weren't insane. How does this argument factor in to history, here? Precisely who was martyred? All eleven, from Matthew 28.16? What does history say about Jesus' resurrection? Surely something so remarkable was recorded in other documents? Or was every document in which it was written merely made into canon, or overshadowed by the canon so as to make it unnecessary?
...The Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.Footnote: It would be better . . . born: the enormity of the deed is such that it would be better not to exist than to do it.
So what's Judas' fate? He repents (Matthew
27.3-5), but he commits suicide by hanging in Matthew, while he ambiguously falls to his death in Acts (possibly also
suicide.) I once thought that the Catholic Church taught that if you committed suicide, you went to hell – but reading
the Catechism (search Catechism suicide
), the Church actually teaches (now) that only God knows what happens to them,
that God may give them the chance to repent, and that we should pray for them.
Even so, how can Judas be blamed, if the doctrine is true that Christ died for all of our sins? That is, it seems that Christ's death was predetermined (Matthew 26.38-39, John 3.16) ... It seems to me that if Judas didn't repent, he would have been given unimaginable punishment. What am I to make of all of it?
So Moses stayed there with the LORD for forty days and forty nights, without eating any food or drinking any water, and he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
What happens to the body if one fasts for 960
hours? Is this physically possible, or will one die without God's sustainment, else be badly damaged? Or is this length of
time merely figurative for a long time?
The choicest first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the LORD, your God.You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk.
What is the significance of boiling a kid in its mother's milk? We see this prohibition a few times in the Old Testament. Did it offend God because the mother's milk was to nourish it, not aid in its destruction, and to use the milk for that purpose was a perversion of the milk's significance?
To me belongs every first-born male that opens the womb among all your livestock, whether in the herd or in the flock.No one shall appear before me empty-handed.
The firstling of an ass you shall redeem with one of the flock; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. The first-born among your sons you shall redeem.
What does this mean? How is a son redeemed? Is the son to be sacrificed to God if he cannot be redeemed?
(This does not seem to be a possibility – God declares the son shall be redeemed, leaving no alternative.) What
is the difference between this redemption and the earlier prescription of consecration? Is it the same thing?
Footnote 1: Cf Mark 15:1-20. ... Matthew follows his Marcan source closely but adds some material that is peculiar to him, ... possibly the name Jesus as the name of Barabbas also (Matthew 27:16-17), ...
Now on the occasion of the feast the governor was accustomed to release to the crowd one prisoner whom they wished.
[9] And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called (Jesus) Barabbas.
So when they had assembled, Pilate said to them,Which one do you want me to release to you, (Jesus) Barabbas, or Jesus called Messiah?Footnote [9]: [Jesus] Barabbas: it is possible that the double name is the original reading; Jesus was a common Jewish name; see the note on Matthew 1:21. This reading is found in only a few textual witnesses, although its absence in the majority can be explained as an omission of Jesus made for reverential reasons. That name is bracketed because of its uncertain textual attestation. The Aramaic name Barabbas means
son of the father; the irony of the choice offered between him and Jesus, the true son of the Father, would be evident to those addressees of Matthew who knew that.
Why is there so much ambiguity concerning the name of the other prisoner? It makes salient the fact that one
must be very specific with names... (e.g. the Christ
vs. Jesus
vs. Yeshua bin Yoseph.
)
So Moses went back to the LORD and said,
Ah, this people has indeed committed a grave sin in making a god of gold for themselves!
[5] If you would only forgive their sin! If you will not, then strike me out of the book that you have written.[5]The book that you have written: the list of God's intimate friends. In a similar sense St. Paul wished to be anathema from Christ for the sake of his brethren. Cf Romans 9:3.
??? If you won't forgive them then I
want nothing to do with you, even though they were wrong and you are right.
How does that make any sense at all?
When the people became aware of Moses' delay in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said to him,
Come, make us a god who will be our leader; as for the man Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.
Aaron replied,Have your wives and sons and daughters take off the golden earrings they are wearing, and bring them to me.
So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron,
who accepted their offering, and fashioning this gold with a graving tool, made a molten calf. Then they cried out,This is your God, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.[See footnote, which I believe directly contradicts verses four and eight]
On seeing this, Aaron built an altar before the calf and proclaimed,Tomorrow is a feast of the LORD.
Early the next day the people offered holocausts and brought peace offerings. Then they sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to revel.
With that, the LORD said to Moses,Go down at once to your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt, for they have become depraved.continued the LORD to Moses.
They have soon turned aside from the way I pointed out to them, making for themselves a molten calf and worshiping it, sacrificing to it and crying out, 'This is your God, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!'
I see how stiff-necked this people is,Let me alone, then, that my wrath may blaze up against them to consume them. Then I will make of you a great nation.
But Moses implored the LORD, his God, saying,Why, O LORD, should your wrath blaze up against your own people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with such great power and with so strong a hand?
Why should the Egyptians say, 'With evil intent he brought them out, that he might kill them in the mountains and exterminate them from the face of the earth'? Let your blazing wrath die down; relent in punishing your people.
Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, and how you swore to them by your own self, saying, 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky; and all this land that I promised, I will give your descendants as their perpetual heritage.'
So the LORD relented in the punishment he had threatened to inflict on his people.
A few basic beliefs of most Christians today are that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever,
that
God is just, and that God does not make mistakes. This story seems to contradict at least one of these basic principles.
It strongly suggests that God is fickle – despite having absolute knowledge that they would do this, God made the
covenant with Abraham, yet the author of Exodus implies God needed to be reminded of it by Moses. If God has absolute
knowledge and is beyond time, then God effectively made a promise to Abraham that God knows God will decide, or is
simultaneously deciding, to break here.
If God is just and does not make mistakes, then God's first reaction was the correct one and needed no correction from Moses.
The only reconciliation I can
make between this story and these mentioned beliefs is that the story is not entirely true; it reveals how God is quick to
anger and a jealous God (thus the monotheism), and the importance of Moses as a prophet for the Israelites. The story must be
false, though, when it implies that God would have obliterated Abraham's descendents and broken God's promise with Abraham
had Moses not intervened.
What other explanation can reconcile these discrepancies?
Whoever prepares a perfume like this, or whoever puts any of this on a layman, shall be cut off from his kinsmen."
Does that mean ostracization? Banishment? Or is it something even more than that?
The LORD also said to Moses,
When you take a census of the Israelites who are to be registered, each one, as he is enrolled, shall give the LORD a forfeit for his life, so that no plague may come upon them for being registered.
Everyone who enters the registered group must pay a half-shekel, according to the standard of the sanctuary shekel, twenty gerahs to the shekel. This payment of a half-shekel is a contribution to the LORD.
Everyone of twenty years or more who enters the registered group must give this contribution to the LORD.
The rich need not give more, nor shall the poor give less, than a half-shekel in this contribution to the LORD to pay the forfeit for their lives.
When you receive this forfeit money from the Israelites, you shall donate it to the service of the meeting tent, that there it may be the Israelites' reminder before the LORD, of the forfeit paid for their lives.
What does this passage mean? Forfeit as a noun confuses me, especially in this context. Are they paying a fee to avoid enlistment? It doesn't sound like it.
"The sacred vestments of Aaron shall be passed down to his descendants, that in them they may be anointed and ordained.
What happened to them? Do we still have them? Lost or stolen when the temple was destroyed ~ 67 AD?
The entire ram shall then be burned on the altar, since it is a holocaust, a sweet-smelling oblation to the LORD.
Does that mean the holocaust is sweet-smelling to us, the LORD, or both?
(The fear of the LORD is to hate evil;) Pride, arrogance, the evil way, and the perverse mouth I hate.
What does the parenthetical comment mean, and why is it parenthetical?
To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
In the New Testament use of this axiom of practical
wisdom(see Matthew 25:29; Mark 4:25; Luke 8:18; 19:26), the reference transcends the original level. God gives further understanding to one who accepts the revealed mystery; from the one who does not, he will take it away (note thetheological passive,more will be given, what he has will be taken away).
Why? Jesus also has the parable of the prodigal son, rejoicing when one returns ... It seems contradictory;
rather, God would want to help lost sheep understand – that is, after all, what a shephard does. He finds. He
doesn't go around blinding his sheep so they'll walk off cliffs. It's the same thing with the many are called but few are
chosen
bit, also in Matthew, I think.
I am not saying these ideas are not true. I actually think I see the latter, that God calls everyone, but few heed the
call. And, since God is arguably responsible for every bit of our existence, it follows that God is responsible for those who
heed the call; thus they are referred to as chosen.
C.S. Lewis articulates this idea better in Mere
Christianity, that God is both the driving force and end result of our Christian journey (I'm paraphrasing.)
But why would – or does – God kick people when they're down,
so to speak? (Particularly when
considering Jesus as the shepherd and part of the Trinity of God.
You shall not delay the offering of your harvest and your press. You shall give me the first-born of your sons.You shall be men sacred to me. Flesh torn to pieces in the field you shall not eat; throw it to the dogs.
You must do the same with your oxen and your sheep; for seven days the firstling may stay with its mother, but on the eighth day you must give it to me.
It would be contradictory if this means child sacrifice, but I do not know how else it may be read. Even more strangely, there is no explicatory footnote. One could assume that the author means simply that the parents must thank and honor God, perhaps name him something in praise of God; perhaps even dedicate the son to the priesthood ... but I do not see that any of these suggestions are justified from the text, particularly due to Exodus 22.29. What, then, does this passage mean to say, and why is it not said more clearly?
The first fifteen chapters of Exodus were about God proving how great God is. Did God make his point? I have not looked; is this story well-known to Egyptians even to this day? Is there historical evidence of it, other than the Jews once being enslaved, and now not being enslaved? If you could provide me with some, books to read, etc., I would really appreciate it.
Note: From
For before those days there were no wages for men, or hire for beasts; those who came and went had no security from the enemy, for I set every man against his neighbor.
But now I will not deal with the remnant of this people as in former days, says the LORD of hosts,
for it is the seedtime of peace: the vine shall yield its fruit, the land shall bear its crops, and the heavens shall give their dew; all these things I will have the remnant of the people possess.
Why would God do that, if God does not change, is just, and teaches love and forgiveness?
(Nor shall I spare the inhabitants of the earth any more, says the LORD. Yes, I will deliver each of them into the power of his neighbor, or into the power of his king; they shall crush the earth, and I will not deliver it out of their power.)
Um ... what? ... and so on through the remainder of the chapter. I don't understand it at all.
Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is my associate, says the LORD of hosts. Strike the shepherd that the sheep may be dispersed, and I will turn my hand against the little ones.
Zechariah makes little sense to me as it is ... The footnote explains this verse as a prophecy of Christ's arrest and death, and the resulting scattering of the Jews historically. But what does the last part of that verse mean?
Was not Esau Jacob's brother? says the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, but hated Esau; I made his mountains a waste, his heritage a desert for jackals.
If Edom says, "We have been crushed but we will rebuild the ruins," Thus says the LORD of hosts: They indeed may build, but I will tear down, And they shall be called the land of guilt, the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.Footnotes: The thought passes from the person Esau to his descendants, Edom, and from the person Jacob to his descendants, Israel. Loved: preferred; hated: rejected; cf Genesis 25:21-23. St. Paul uses this passage as an example of God's freedom of choice in calling the Gentiles to the faith (Romans 9:13).
Again we see a vengeful God who chooses whom God prefers, contradicting the idea that God finds favor with
everyone. Or is agape distinct from finding favor?
Malachi 1 addresses impure sacrifices at the altar of God, and prophecies a future where only pure, sincere
sacrifices will be made. The Church claims that
this is fulfilled now in Catholic masses, by Transubstantiation and consuming the body of Christ. I am not convinced; I
must see their logic.
I will draw near to you for judgment, and I will be swift to bear witness Against the sorcerers, adulterers, and perjurers, those who defraud the hired man of his wages, Against those who defraud widows and orphans; those who turn aside the stranger, and those who do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts.
This theme occurs intermittently throughout the Old Testament: God is to be feared. When I was 16, at an eleventh-grade church retreat, teachers said fear of God was a virtue, one of ... seven, I think. I understand that we are to be in awe of God's power, and that we should fear God because we constantly do wicked things (and that's why every Sunday we plead for God's mercy and forgiveness) – but the Old Testament doesn't say, "Fear me because you are bad and I am good and just." It says simply, "I am to be feared. I deserve to be feared." Why should something trying its best to be good fear that which is better?
Surely I, the LORD, do not change, nor do you cease to be sons of Jacob.
Footnote: God is faithful to his promises. He will not abandon the Israelites, who are still his people.
How is this to be read? Does this simply mean what the footnote says, that God keeps promises? Or is this also to be read literally, that God's ideas do not change: That we are to kill evildoers (Old Testament) after forgiving them (New Testament)? But how is this to be done, if only those without sin are to cast the first stone? Or am I also misunderstanding that passage as well ...
Dare a man rob God? Yet you are robbing me! And you say, "How do we rob you?" In tithes and in offerings!
You are indeed accursed, for you, the whole nation, rob me.
This passage presents a paradox: Everything we are given is to be considered a blessing from God, and we must give these things back to God, both directly and by giving to those whom God has decided to bless with less. If we don't, then we are robbing God. But what's the sense in pointing this out when what we're giving God was God's to begin with?! I could be misinterpreting the text, though: Perhaps they – every single person in the nation – was actually stealing from the collection plate, so to speak.
Then the LORD God said:
See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever.
This passage is difficult for me to understand, especially if I am to understand God actually said and did it. Why is our knowing right from wrong a problem for God? Why would it be bad for us to live forever knowing right from wrong? Because those who choose to do wrong would live forever? What is right and wrong, other than obeying or disobeying God? Is it a problem for God that we know when we're obeying or disobeying God, then? Why did God put us here, if we were not meant to have an understanding of God?
When he expelled the man, he settled him east of the garden of Eden; and he stationed the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.
Footnote: The above rendering is based on the ancient Greek version; that of the current Hebrew is, When he expelled the man, he settled east of the garden of Eden, the cherubim.
What is the significance of the distinction? How did it arise? It sounds like a great deal of difference: In one account, God places guards at the Garden. In the other, God places angels on Earth. And there are accounts of angels having sex with human women in the Old Testament, are there not? (Birthing giants as a result ...)
Only ask it of me, and I will make your inheritance the nations, your possession the ends of the earth.
With an iron rod you shall shepherd them, like a clay pot you will shatter them."
And now, kings, give heed; take warning, rulers on earth.
Serve the LORD with fear; with trembling bow down in homage, Lest God be angry and you perish from the way in a sudden blaze of anger. Happy are all who take refuge in God!
Again we see this meme of fearing God. Obey God, or else. So we are to be cowering – trembling – from the LORD's wrath, but we are happy to do it? This idea seems innately contradictory; I have never seen someone be happy about being scared.
When he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew to Galilee.
He left Nazareth and went to live in Capernaum by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali,
that what had been said through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled:
Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the way to the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles,
the people who sit in darkness have seen a great light, on those dwelling in a land overshadowed by death light has arisen.Footnote: Isaiah's prophecy of the light rising upon Zebulun and Naphtali (Isaiah 8:22-9:1) is fulfilled in Jesus' residence at Capernaum. The territory of these two tribes was the first to be devastated (733-32 B.C.) at the time of the Assyrian invasion. In order to accommodate Jesus' move to Capernaum to the prophecy, Matthew speaks of that town as being
in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali(Matthew 4:13), whereas it was only in the territory of the latter, and he understands the sea of the prophecy, the Mediterranean, as the sea of Galilee.
It seems the author of Matthew stretched things quite a bit, huh? How can you really say a prophecy is fulfilled
when the author isn't even correct? (That it was only in one of the two territories.) Or, if by region
the author
means, in the general area
... it doesn't seem that remarkable, does it?
Then the LORD said to Abram:
Know for certain that your descendants shall be aliens in a land not their own, where they shall be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years. ...
But I will bring judgment on the nation they must serve, and in the end they will depart with great wealth.
Why did God wait 400 years? Why did roughly sixteen generations have to suffer? Only so we might get the point,
Good things come to those who wait in suffering?
That point really doesn't apply when you realize all those (during
the 400 years) who died without seeing an end to the anguish of their enslavement.
... You, however, shall join your forefathers in peace; you shall be buried at a contented old age. ...
What did Abram do to earn such special favor? Rather, why did God choose him? These questions also raise the question: Does there have to be a reason? If not, then why are we so strongly bound by the desire for order and reason?
... In the fourth time-span the others shall come back here; the wickedness of the Amorites will not have reached its full measure until then.Footnote: Time-span: the Hebrew term dor is commonly rendered as
generation,but it may signify a period of varying length. Neither this passage nor the statement about the four hundred years has any value for determining how long the Israelites were in Egypt.
And why is that? Because, if read literally, it contradicts the passage of time as we've recorded it? (If
that's the only reason, it's not a very good one.) If it is because each dor
may be of varying time, then
why did they incorrectly
translate the previous line 400 years
? And who are the Amorites, as well as all the other -ites listed in
Genesis 15.19-21? I assume the latter are of
no importance, although I still don't understand why it's okay for God's people to take resources from other people,
especially if God still loves those other people and earthly misfortune is not recompense for sin.
Since Lot was afraid to stay in Zoar, he and his two daughters went up from Zoar and settled in the hill country, where he lived with his two daughters in a cave.
The older one said to the younger:Our father is getting old, and there is not a man on earth to unite with us as was the custom everywhere.
Come, let us ply our father with wine and then lie with him, that we may have offspring by our father.
So that night they plied their father with wine, and the older one went in and lay with her father; but he was not aware of her lying down or her getting up.
Next day the older one said to the younger:Last night it was I who lay with my father. Let us ply him with wine again tonight, and then you go in and lie with him, that we may both have offspring by our father.
So that night, too, they plied their father with wine, and then the younger one went in and lay with him; but again he was not aware of her lying down or her getting up.
Thus both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father.
The older one gave birth to a son whom she named Moab, saying,From my father.He is the ancestor of the Moabites of today.
The younger one, too, gave birth to a son, and she named him Ammon, saying,The son of my kin.He is the ancestor of the Ammonites of today.Footnotes: [30-38] This Israelite tale about the origin of Israel's neighbors east of the Jordan and the Dead Sea was told partly to ridicule these racially related but rival nations and partly to give folk etymologies for their names. [37] From my father: in Hebrew, meabi, similar in sound to the name
Moab.[38] The son of my kin: in Hebrew, ben-ammi, similar in sound to the nameAmmonites.
If the story is not true, then why bother including it as religious canon? Okay, so it's not read in the Catholic church, but why even bother printing it if it has nothing to add but confusion for those who take it as historically accurate? And if these events actually occurred: what the hell?
If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?
So do not worry and say, 'What are we to eat?' or 'What are we to drink?' or 'What are we to wear?'
All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.
But seek first the kingdom (of God) and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides.
Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.Footnotes: [30] Of little faith: except for the parallel in Luke 12:28, the word translated of little faith is found in the New Testament only in Matthew. It is used by him of those who are disciples of Jesus but whose faith in him is not as deep as it should be (see Matthew 8:26; 14:31; 16:8 and the cognate noun in Matthew 17:20). [33] Righteousness: see the note on Matthew 3:14-15.
What does that last sentence mean, Sufficient for a day is its own evil
?
(When finished reading the footnote, you can click your browser's Back button to return to the previous page position.)
the Church, I will always refer to the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). It always sounds silly to me when I hear Protestants say
the Churchand they instead refer to Christians around the world. I learned to associate
the Churchwith the RCC long before I heard Protestants use it, so in my mind it's as if they're trying to take the phrase and make it mean something else, like the words queer, gay and straight. Also, to refer to Christians around the world as
the Churchis nonsensical: I have no direct communication or impact at all with a Lutheran in Zimbabwe. You might as well claim that I'm a member of a community with people living in Taiwan and Mumbai because we have brown hair. While it may be true that we are
brothers and sisters in Christ through the Holy Spirit, to refer to such a community as
the Churchdoesn't make sense because a church has procedures, rules and governing principles; that is, it is an organized entity. The community of
brothers and sisters in Christ through the Holy Spiritseems little more than a relation or a description, not an entity with an organization or a hierachy.
The sun is hot!
Well, I disagree!
Well, you can disagree all you want, but you're still wrong.
Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible with Revised New Testament and Revised Psalms © 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.
This page was last modified Friday, 04-Jul-2008 13:30:44 EDT.