What Bible Really Says Wednesday, December 13, 2017

I started reading a book titled "What the Bible REALLY Says." It is a collection of chapters written by different theologians, each on a different topic. The chapter titled "The Future" was written by James D. Tabor. I'm not familiar with him, but his work on the topic seems to be very thorough.

The reason I'm writing this is because there is scriptural justification for the belief that we go to the hereafter immediately after death, and also justification for the belief that we wait until "Judgment Day." In addition, there is justification for the belief that when you die, you die. Period.

Let's start with the first references to the hereafter in the Bible and work forward. The early Hebrew Bible says "when you die, you die." The Early Jews saw the universe as divided into three basic realms: the Firmament (Sky) or Heavens, the dwelling place of God and his divine angelic court, as well as the place of the sun, moon, planets, and stars. Here no mortal belonged. Then there was the realm of earth below, what the first chapter of Genesis calls "the dry land." It is the proper human place, shared with all the other forms of life -- a thoroughly mortal realm. The earth was seen as a flat disk; at the edges were the threatening waters of chaos, held back by the command of God. Finally, below the earth was the dark realm of the dead, which was called Sheol by the Hebrews and Hades by the Greeks.

The ancient Hebrews saw a particular order arise from this cosmological configuration. They saw the "proper place" of gods (Elohim) and angels as being in the heavens (inhabiting the upper heavenly realm and not subject to death). Such heavenly bodies were able to come down to earth in human form to visit (Gen 11:5-7; 18:20-21; Exod 3:1-6). But clearly the immortal beings, or "gods," belong in heaven -- it is their proper sphere, while they only visit the earth below. Conversely, humans are mere mortals, placed on the earth, with no idea whatsoever of any future in heaven. Their only permanent movement is down, to the lower world of the dead.

Basically, the ancient Jews, death was a one-way trip. There is no return. Job says:

But man dies, and is laid low; man breathes his las, and where is he? As water fail from a lake, and a river wastes away and dries up, so man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more HE WILL NOT AWAKE, or be aroused out of his sleep. (Job 14:10-12)

All dead go down to Sheol, and there they lie in sleep together -- good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free (Job 3:11-19). It is described in Psalms as the "land of forgetfulness," "the Pit," a region "dark and deep," cut off from God and human life above. It is clearly, in the mind of Job, a nothingness.

Deuteronomy, I Kings, and II Samual bear this same view of death. It is the "great equalizer." One could accurately say that the ancient Jews had no view of the future for the individual human person,

Eccliastes tells us the same thing:

For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust, again.

Scattered here and there in the Hebrew Prophets, a dramatically different vision of the future begins to emerge in later texts. This view is built around the vision of a restored Israel, but it also sets forth the hope of a transformed cosmos, extending from the heights of heaven to the depths of Sheol, and including all normal cycles of nature and human history. In this view, all that led the author of Ecclesiastes to cry out, "vanity of vanities, all is vanity." will be reversed. Isaiah describes a time when even the violence of nature, "red in tooth and claw," will end:

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leapard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them.

This transformation is like a second creation. Isaiah terms it "a new heaven and a new earth." Total peace reigns. The desert blooms. Death itself is swallowed up forever, suggesting a resurrection. But it is interesting to note that in this idealized version of a hereafter, all are still here on the same earth, albeit a transformed earth. This suggests a compressed cosmos where the three realms are all melded into one. The immortal heavenly realm above "comes down" to earth, and the world of death below is eliminated or "moved up" through resurrection. In this view, salvation is eschatological (connected to the afterlife, and not of this life). It comes at the end of history, through divine intervention in the affairs of this world, as the new transformed age is inaugurated.

During Greek and Roman times (the fourth century BCE to the first century CE), the view of the future was pictured as taking place "away from the earth," without any required end of history, with the soul leaving the body and the earthly realm at death and obtaining immortal life in heaven above.

The Book of Daniel paints a totally different view of the future. Following a succession of world kingdoms (Babylon, Persian, Greek, and Roman, as they were subsequently interpreted), an evil ruler would come, march into Palestine, defile the Temple at Jerusalem, persecute God's people for a very limited time (about three and a half years), then be completely crushed by the sudden intervention of God. The resurrection of the death and final judgment would follow. This scenario became the backbone of all the Apocalyptic accounts laid out in the NT.

Solomon saw no hereafter for the wicked:

Short and sorrowful. is our life, and there is no remedy when a man comes to his end, and no one has been known to return from Hades. Because we were born by mere chance, and hereafter we shall be as though we had never been;

because the breath in our nostrils is smoke, and reason is a spark kindled by the beating of our hearts. When it is extinguished, the body will turn to ashed, and the spirit will dissolve like empty air. Our name will be forgotten in time,

and no one will remember our works. (2:1-4)

But later, in 21-24, Solomon strongly supports a view that is the very opposite of Ecclesiastes:

But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. In the eyes of the foolish they SEEMED to have died and their departure was thought to be an affliction, and their gong from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace.

For though in the sight of men they were punished,their hope is full or immortality. (3:1-4

He goes on to say that at the time of their visitation they will "come forth" (be resurrected) and will end up governing and ruling nations in the Kingdom of God (3:7-8)

The NT goes a step further. The Sadducees held the position that when you are dead, you're dead, but Jesus refuted that position, arguing for some kid of continued existence after death as well as a FUTURE resurrection (Mark 12:18- 27) In Acts 23:6-10, Paul also makes a point of distinguishing his faith in resurrection of the dead from the view of the Sadducees.

What the early Christians meant by "resurrection," however, is not altogether clear. While the accounts of Jesus' resurrection suggest that he was literally resuscitated, walked among them, ate, drank, and presumably exercised all bodily functions, John 20-19 tells of this body coming through locked doors, and Paul defends the idea of some sort of "spiritual" body that is definitely NOT flesh and blood. REsurrecton, throughout the NT, is at the end when Jesus returns with the clouds of heaven to gather his elect people together (Luke 20_34-36, Matt 11-20-24; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; I Thess. 4:15-17; I Cor, 15:51-52, II Tim 4:1; Rev 11:18). The only exceptions appear to be when Jesus Himself rose from the dead, and the few times when He personally raised some people from the dead.

Paul prefers the image of the dead being "asleep" intil the Judgment Day, but he also believed that the "spirit" of a departed Christian went to "be with Christ" (Phil 1:19-26; II Cor. 5:6-10; I Thess. 4:14).

Several places in the NT we clearly find the notion that the dead are conscious, dwelling somewhere in the heavenly realms beyond, and awaiting, either in torment or comfort, the final judgment (Luke 16:19-31, 23:43; I Pet. 3:18-20; 4:6; Rev. 6:9-11; 7:9-12).

As you can see, ALL views of the hereafter are biblical, depending on which culture you choose to think "got it right." Those who say that when you die, you die, are merely echoing the views of the ancient Jews and, later, the Sadducees. If somebody who believes differently says that the humanists and atheists who hold that view are adopting a philosophy of despair, they are being critical of their own theological roots.

[Source: What The Bible REALLY Says, By Marilyn Burge]

Jesus Is Not God Nor The Literal Son Of God Monday, September 4, 2017

All four Gospels record Jesus as saying, “Blessed are the peace-makers; they will be called sons of God.”

The word ‘son’ cannot be accepted literally because in the Bible, God apparently addresses many of his chosen servants as ‘son’ and ‘sons.’ The Hebrews believed God is One, and had neither wife nor children in any literal sense. Therefore, it is obvious the expression ‘son of God’ merely meant ‘Servant of God’; one who, because of faithful service, was close and dear to God as a son is to his father.

Christians who came from a Greek or Roman background, later misused this term. In their heritage, ‘son of God’ signified an incarnation of a god or someone born of a physical union between male and female gods. This can be seen in Acts 14: 11-13, where we read that when Paul and Barnabas preached in a city of Turkey, pagans claimed they were gods incarnate. They called Barnabas the Roman god Zeus, and Paul the Roman god Hermes.

Furthermore, the New Testament Greek word translated as ‘son’ are ‘pias’ and ‘paida’ which mean ‘servant,’ or ‘son in the sense of servant.’ These are translated to ‘son’ in reference to Jesus and ‘servant’ in reference to all others in some translations of the Bible. So, consistent with other verses, Jesus was merely saying that he is God’s servant.

Additional problems with Trinity

To a christian, God had to take human form to understand temptation and human suffering, but the concept is not based on any clear words of Jesus. In contrast, God does not need to be tempted and suffer in order to be able to understand and forgive man’s sins, for He is the all knowing Creator of man. This is expressed in the verse:

‘And the Lord said: ‘I have surely seen the affliction of My people that are in Egypt, and I have heard their cry because of their taskmasters; for I know their pains.’ (Exodus 3:7)

God forgave sin before Jesus’ appearance, and He continues to forgive without any assistance. When a believer sins, he may come before God in sincere repentance to receive forgiveness. Indeed, the offer to humble oneself before God and be saved is made to all humankind.

‘And there is no God else beside Me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside Me. Look to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else.’ (Isaiah 45:21-22, Jonah 3:5-10)

Biblically, people can receive forgiveness of sins through sincere repentance sought directly from God. This is true at all times and in all places. There has never been a need for the so-called inter cessionary role Jesus plays in attaining atonement. The facts speak for themselves. There is no truth to the Christian belief that Jesus died for our sins and salvation is only through Jesus. What about the salvation of people before Jesus? Jesus’ death brings neither atonement from sin, nor is it in any way a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

Christians claim that in the birth of Jesus, there occurred the miracle of the incarnation of God in the form of a human being. To say that God became truly a human being invites a number of questions. Let us ask the following about the man-God Jesus. What happened to his foreskin after his circumcision (Luke 2:21)?

Did it ascend to heaven, or did it decompose as with any human piece of flesh? During his lifetime what happened to his hair, nails, and blood shed from wounds? Did the cells of his body die as in ordinary human beings? If his body did not function in a truly human way, he could not be truly human as well as truly God. Yet, if his body functioned exactly in a human way, this would nullify any claim to divinity. It would be impossible for any part of God, even if incarnate, to decompose in any way and still be considered God. The everlasting, one God, in whole or in part, does not die, disintegrate, or decompose: ‘For I the Lord do not change.’ (Malachi 3:6)

Did Jesus’ flesh dwell in safety after his death?

Unless Jesus’ body never underwent ‘decay’ during his lifetime he could not be God, but if it did not undergo ‘decay’ then he was not truly human.

Bible says that God is not man

• ‘God is not a man’ (Numbers 23:19)
• ‘For I am God, and not man’ (Hosea 11:9)

Jesus is called a man many times in the Bible

• ‘a man who has told you the truth’ (John 8:40)
• ‘Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.’ (Acts 2:22)
• ‘He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed’ (Acts 17:31)
• ‘the man Christ Jesus’ (Tim. 2:5)

The Bible says that God is not a son of man

• ‘God is not a man nor a son of man’ (Numbers 23:19)

The Bible often calls Jesus ‘a son of man’ or ‘the son of man.’

• ‘so will the son of man be’ (Matthew 12:40)
• ‘For the son of man is going to come’ (Matthew 16:27)
• ‘until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.’ (Matthew 28)
• ‘But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority’ (Mark 2:10)
• ‘because he is the son of man’ (John 5:27)

In the Hebrew scriptures, the ‘son of man’ is also used many times speaking of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6-8; 3:1-3). Since God would not contradict Himself by first saying He is not the son of a man, then becoming a human being who was called ‘the son of man’, he would not have done so. Remember God is not the author of confusion. Also, human beings, including Jesus, are called ‘son of man’ specifically to distinguish them from God, who is not a ‘son of man’ according to the Bible.

The Bible says that Jesus denied he is God

• Jesus spoke to a man who had called him ‘good,’ asking him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.’ (Luke 18:19)
• And he said to him, ‘Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’ (Matthew 19:17)

Jesus did not teach people that he was God

If Jesus had been telling people that he was God, he would have complimented the man. Instead, Jesus rebuked him, denying he was good, that is, Jesus denied he was God.

The Bible says that God is greater than Jesus

• ‘My Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28)
• ‘My father is greater than all.’ (John 10:29)

Jesus can not be God if God is greater than him. The Christian belief that the Father and son are equal is in direct contrast to the clear words from Jesus.

Jesus never instructed his disciples to worship him

• ‘When you pray, say Our Father which art in heaven.’ (Luke 11:2)
• ‘In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever you ask of the Father in my name.’ (John 16:23)
• ‘The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him.’ (John 4:23)

If Jesus was God, he would have sought worship for himself

Since he didn’t, instead he sought worship for God in the heavens, therefore, he was not God.

Jesus worshipped the only true God

• ‘that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.’ (John 17:3)
• ‘he continued all night in prayer to God.’ (Luke 6:12)
• ‘Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve’ (Matthew 20:28)

How did Jesus pray to God?

• ‘he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, ‘My Father’ (Matthew 26:39)
• ‘During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.’ (Hebrews 5:7)

Who was Jesus praying to when he fell on his face?

Was Jesus crying in tears to himself pleading to be saved from death? No man, sane or insane, prays to himself! Surely the answer must be a resounding ‘No.’ Jesus was praying to ‘the only true God.’ Jesus was the servant of the One Who sent him. Can there be a clearer proof that Jesus was not God?

The Quran confirms that Jesus called for the worship of the Only True God

“It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.” (Quran 3:51)

Disciples did not believe Jesus was God

The Acts of the Apostles in the Bible details the activity of the disciples over a period of thirty years after Jesus was raised to heaven. Throughout this period, they never referred to Jesus as God. For instance Peter stood up with the eleven disciples and addressed a crowd saying:

‘Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.’ (Acts 2:22)

For Peter, Jesus was a servant of God (Confirmed In Matthew 12:18)

• ‘The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.’ (Acts 3:13)
• ‘God raised up his servant’ (Acts 3:26)

When faced by opposition from the authorities, Peter said, ‘We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus’ (Acts 5:29-30)

The disciples prayed to God just as they were commanded by Jesus in Luke 11:2, and considered Jesus to be God’s servant.

• ‘they raised their voices together in prayer to God. ‘Sovereign Lord,’ they said, ‘you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.’ (Acts 4:24)
• ‘your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.’ (Acts 4:27)
• ‘of Your holy servant Jesus.’ (Acts 4:30)
• ‘I am indeed a servant of God.’ (Quran 19:30)

The Bible says that Jesus was God’s servant

• ‘Behold, My servant, whom I have chosen, in whom My soul is well pleased.’ (Matt 12:18)

Since Jesus is God’s servant, Jesus can not be God.

The Bible says that Jesus could not do anything by himself

• ‘The son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees his Father doing.’ (John 5:19)
• ‘I can of mine own self do nothing.’ (John 5:30)

The Bible says that Jesus did not consider himself equal with God and that God performed miracles through Jesus & Jesus was limited in what he could do:

• ‘But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.’ (Matt. 9:8)
• ‘a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst.’ (Acts 2:22)
• ‘he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.’ (Acts 10:38)

If Christ was God, the Bible would simply say that Jesus did the miracles himself without making reference to God. The fact that it was God supplying the power for the miracles shows that God is greater than Jesus.

Also, Jesus was limited in performing miracles

• One time when Jesus tried to heal a blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (Mark 8:22-26).

Once a woman was healed of her incurable bleeding. The woman came up behind him and touched his cloak, and she was immediately healed. But Jesus had no idea who touched him:

• ‘At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, ‘Who touched my clothes?’ (Mark 5:30)‘
• He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.’ (Mark 6:5)

Quite obviously, someone with such limitations can not be God. The power of miracles was not within Jesus.

The Bible says that at times of weakness angels strengthened Jesus

God, however, does not need to be strengthened. Human need to be strengthened; God does not because God is All-Powerful. If Jesus had to be strengthened, he must not be God.

• ‘An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him – in the garden of Gethsemane’ (Luke 22:43)
• ‘Then the devil left him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him’ (Mark. 1:13)
• ‘And he was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to him.’ (Mark 1:13)

The Bible says that Jesus wanted God’s will to be done

• ‘not my will but Yours be done.’ (Luke 22:42)
• ‘I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.’ (John 5:30)
• ‘For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me.’ (John 6:38)

Are some members of the coequal Trinity subservient, and less than equal, to other members? Even though they have different wills (‘I do not seek my own will’), do they obey without question the others’ commands (‘the will of Him who sent me’)? Jesus admits to subordinating his own distinct will, yet according to the Trinitarian doctrine they should all have the same will. Should one of the triune partners have to forgo his own will in favor of the will of another member of the Trinity? Should not they all have the exact same will?

The Bible says Jesus regarded himself and God as two

• ‘I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father.’ (John 8:17-18:)
• ‘Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.’ (John 14:1)

If Jesus was God, He would have not have regarded God’s testimony as separate from his own.

The Bible says that Jesus is subordinate to God

• ‘Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.’ (1 Corinthians 11:3)
• ‘When he has done this, then the son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.’ (1 Corinthians 15:28)

Bible says that Jesus grew in wisdom & learning

• But God is All Wise & does not need to learn: Jesus grew in wisdom, but God is all wise ‘Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.’ (Psalms 147:5)
• ‘And Jesus increased in wisdom.’ (Luke 2:52)
• God does not need to learn, but Jesus learned: ‘Although he was a son, he learned obedience’ (Heb. 5:8)

Jesus had limited knowledge, but god’s knowledge is infinite. Since Jesus did not know, he was not all-knowing, and therefore, he cannot be the God whose knowledge is all-encompassing.

• 'No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the Father.’ (Mark 13:32)

Bible says that Jesus was tempted, but God cannot be tempted

• ’tempted in every way – just as we are’ (Heb. 4:15)
• ‘for God cannot be tempted by evil’ (James 1:13)

Since God can not be tempted, but Jesus was, therefore, Jesus was not God.

Bible says that Jesus’ teachings were from God, not from himself

• ‘So Jesus answered them and said, ‘My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me.’ (John 7:16)

Jesus could not have said this if he were God because the doctrine would have been his.

Bible says that Jesus died, but God cannot die

The Bible teaches that Jesus died. God cannot die. Romans 1:23 and other verses say that God is immortal. Immortal means, ‘not subject to death.’ This term applies only to God.

Bible says that Jesus lived because of God

• ‘I live because of the Father.’ (John 6:57)

Jesus cannot be God because he depended on God for his own existence.

Bible says that Jesus’ powers were given to him

• ‘All power is given unto me.’ (Matt 28:18)

God is all-powerful, no one gives God His powers, otherwise He would not be God because He would be weak. Therefore, Jesus could not be God.

Bible says that Jesus was taught & commanded by God

• ‘As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things,’ (John 8:28)
• ‘The Father, who sent me, he gave me a commandment.’ (John 12:49)
• ‘I have kept my Father’s commandments.’ (John 15:10)

No one can teach God, otherwise God cannot be All-Knowing and would owe His teacher. Since Jesus was taught and commanded by God, Jesus cannot be God himself. The teacher and the student, the commander and the commanded are not one.

Bible says that God made Jesus ‘Lord’!

• ‘God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ.’ (Acts 2:36)

‘Lord’ is used in many ways in the Bible, and others beside God and Jesus are called ‘Lord.’ For example:

1. property owners (Matt. 20:8)
2. heads of households (Mark 13:35)
3. slave owners (Matt. 10:24)
4. husbands (1 Pet. 3:6)
5. a son called his father Lord (Matt. 21:30)
6. the Roman Emperor was called Lord (Acts 25:26)
7. Roman authorities were called Lord (Matt. 27:63)

‘Lord’ is not the same as ‘God.’ ‘Lord’ (the Greek word is kurios) is a masculine title of respect and nobility used many times in the Bible. If Jesus was God, then for the Bible to say he was ‘made’ Lord would make no sense.

Bible says that Jesus was lower than angels

• ‘But we do see him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus.’ (Hebrews 2:9)

God, the Creator of angels, can not be lower than His own creation, but Jesus was. Therefore, Jesus was not God.

Bible says that Jesus called the Father ‘my God’

• ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?’ (Matt. 27:46)
• ‘I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’ (John 20:17)
• ‘the temple of my God the name of my God the city of my God comes down out of heaven from my God.’ (Rev. 3:12)

Jesus did not think of himself as God, instead Jesus’ God is the same as ours.

Bible says that God cannot be seen

• But Jesus was seen by others ‘no man has seen God at any time.’ (John 1:18)

Bible says twice that Jesus was accused of being God

But he denied it: According to the Bible, on only two instances the Jews opposed Jesus on the basis that he pretended to be God or equal with God. Had Jesus, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, claimed to be God, he is likely to have been opposed on this basis more frequently.

Because in these two instances, when charged, in the one case, with making himself God, and in the other, with making himself equal with God, he denied the charges. In reply to the charge of being an equal with God, he says immediately:

‘The son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do’; and directly after ‘I can of mine own self do nothing.’ (John 5:19, 30)

In answer to the charge of making himself God, he appeals to the Jews in substance thus: Your own Scriptures call Moses a god, and your magistrates gods; I am surely not inferior to them, yet I did not call myself God, but only the ‘son’ of God '(John 10:34-36).

This is unlikely to have been Jesus’ actual response. Hastings in ‘The Dictionary of the Bible’ says, ‘Whether Jesus used it of himself is doubtful.’ Grolier’s encyclopedia, under the heading ‘Jesus Christ,’ says, ‘it is uncertain whether the Father/Son language (Mark 18:32; Matt. 11:25-27 Par.; John Passim) goes back to Jesus himself.’ A University of Richmond professor, Dr. Robert Alley, after considerable research into newly found ancient documents concludes that:

‘The (Biblical) passages where Jesus talks about the Son of God are later additions. what the church said about him. Such a claim of deity for himself would not have been consistent with his entire lifestyle as we can reconstruct. For the first three decades after Jesus’ death Christianity continued as a sect within Judaism. The first three decades of the existence of the church were within the synagogue. That would have been beyond belief if they (the followers) had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus.’

Assuming Jesus did say that he was ‘son’ of God. What did it mean? We first need to know the language of his people, the language of the Jews to whom he was speaking.

The Bible says God had many ‘sons’

First, most people think there are no other verses that contradict or give equal divine sonship to other persons in the Old or New Testament.

For Jesus to be called son of God, does not make him a true son of God, otherwise Adam, Jacob, Ephraim and many more should also be considered as been sons of God as such they should be worshiped too according to such method.

1. Adam: ‘Adam, which was the son of God.’ (Luke 3:38)
2. Jacob is God’s son and firstborn: ‘Israel is my son, even my firstborn.’ (Exodus 4:22)
3. Solomon: ‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son.’ (2 Samuel 7:13-14)
4. Ephraim: ‘for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.’ (Jeremiah 31:9)
5. Is God’s firstborn, common people are called the sons of God: ‘Ye are the children of the Lord your God’ (Deuteronomy 14:1)

[Suorce: Adenino Otari | The Deen Show]

The Jesus Of The Gospels Sunday, August 13, 2017

The Jesus of the Gospels 

The Jesus of the Gospels is hardly the character that Christians like to present, eg. he used violence - John 2:15 (and apparently encouraged it; before his arrest he told his disciples to buy a sword; this was used immediately afterwards - Luke 23:36,49-50; if he was the omniscient Son of God, he would have known this was to happen). 

• His purpose was to break up families - Matthew 10:34-35, Luke 12:51-53. He taught the gospel was not available for certain races - Matthew 10:5-8, 15:24. 
• He was ignorant of the Scriptures he quoted - Mark 2:26 (In fact the priest was Ahimelech, not Abiathar - see 1 Samuel 21:1,6). 
• He was cruel to animals - Matthew 8:1-4 ('the offering' Jesus commanded was a bird being sacrificed - Leviticus 14:2-5), 8:28-34. 
• He treated his mother with contempt - John 2:4, He suffered fits of temper, not justified by the situation - Matt 21:18-19, 23:13-33 (In the John 7 outburst, in John 7:37, the Greek is 'to screech like a raven'). 
• He was hypocritical - Matthew 5:22 (Compare his action in Matthew 23:17), Matthew 6:14 (Compare Matthew 10:14-15), Matthew 7:1 (Compare John 5:30, 8:26). 
• He lacked sympathy for other people's suffering - Matthew 8:21-22. He rejected his own family - Matthew 12:46-50, Mark 3:32-35. He had contempt for other religions and their adherents - Matthew 12:30, 23:2-33, John 8:44,55. 
• He deliberately taught in a way so people would not understand him (and therefore be saved from going to eternal hellfire)- Mark 4:9-12. He encouraged people to desert their families - Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29. 
• He taught people to hate* their families - Luke 14:26 (*The Greek here means 'active ill-will' or 'persecuting spirit'). He taught that suffering was to show God's glory - John 9:1-3. 
• He ignored a woman pleading for his help: only after she asked him three times did he condescend to help - Matthew 15:22-28 (Here he alludes to Gentiles as "dogs"). 
• He taught that ill-health and human suffering was the result of sin, or for the purpose of glorifying God - Mark 2:5,11,12, John 5:8-14. 

And furthermore, he clearly seemed to have thought that his second coming/the end of the world, ie. the final judgement (etc, etc) was only a short time away, eg. he told the high priest that he would see his return - Mark 14:61-62, he told three disciples that they would see his return - Matt 16:28, he told the disciples he would return before they had preached throughout Palestine - Matt 10:23.

Furthermore, when Jesus told his disciples about the end of the world (Mark 13:3-27), he told them that the generation living at that time (ca. 30 AD) would still be alive when "all these things", (ie. the Second Coming, the Final Judgement, the end of the world, etc, etc) took place (Mark 13:30). Despite saying all this, only seconds later he then told the disciples that no one - including himself - knew when the end would come (13:32).

Also, he foretold that he would be buried for 3 days and 3 nights in Matthew 12:40 - but Friday evening (Mark 15:42-46) to before Sunday daybreak (John 20:1-2) is not 3 days and 3 nights. Mark 15:42 states he was buried after sundown on the Friday, ie. the sabbath (this is Saturday in Jewish reckoning - something quite impossible to have happened anyway).

The Gospels repeately say how Jesus' death etc 'fulfilled' the Old Test scriptures (eg. Luke 24:27), but nowhere in the Old Test does it say the messiah is to be killed, buried and resurrected after 3 days.

With regard to the end of the world etc, Jesus stated that there would be an "abominating sacrilege" (Matthew 24:l5, Mark 13:14) which would cause a tribulation (Matt 24:16-28, Mark 13:15-23) and IMMEDIATELY after this (Matthew 24:29), he would return to usher in the Final Judgement (Matthew 24:29-31).

Now Luke has in the parallel passage, the "abominating sacrilege" as the Fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20; as can be seen by Luke 21:21-23, the author of Luke does equate "the abominating sacrilege" with Jerusalem's destruction). However, Jerusalem's destruction (particularly as described in Luke) occurred in 70 AD - isn't Jesus' return (which was supposed to occur "Immediately" afterwards), somewhat overdue ?

And its on a clown like this that Christians base all their hope - and expect others to do likewise!

[Source: HolySmoke.Org]

Once Upon A Time

Christian fundamentalists dismiss as liberal nonsense any interpretation of scriptures that is based on the existence of myths and legends in the biblical text, yet they themselves often take doctrinal positions that reflect a fairy-tale view of the Bible.

An example would be the miracles-have-ceased doctrine that is taught by all but the charismatic (Pentecostal and Holiness) churches. The New Testament describes a first-century church in which Christians could speak in tongues, prophesy, heal the sick, and even raise the dead. Such charismatic practices were apparently so commonplace in the early church that the Apostle Paul saw the need to regulate them in 1 Corinthians 14.

Bible fundamentalists generally reject the claims of the charismatic groups who teach that miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit still exist. No inerrantist would say, however, that such gifts were not given to the early Christians; they simply say that they no longer exist. They even have a scripture to quote in support of their position: quot;Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away quot; (1 Cor. 13:8-10). Fundamentalists who quote this passage to prove the cessation of miraculous gifts would argue that quot;that which is perfect quot; was the completely revealed word of God or New Testament, which has now come, so the miraculous gifts present in the early church have now ceased. In this, they betray their fairy-tale mentality, because they believe that miraculous gifts existed once upon a time but that now they don't.

Except for the charismatics who believe that miracles still exist, if a modern day fundamentalist experiences an illness, he will seek medical advice. However, this was not the way it was done in New Testament times. Jesus went about casting out devils that presumably possessed people and caused all kinds of physical and mental ailments. Those who were mute (Mt. 9:32), blind (Mt. 12:22), epileptic (Mt. 17:14-18), and mentally ill (Mk. 5:1-16) were thought to be demon-possessed, and Jesus healed them by casting out the demons.

Again with the possible exception of ultraconservative charismatics, Christian fundamentalists today do not believe in demon possession. Few would even consider taking a deaf, blind, or epileptic child to an exorcist to cast out the devils causing the affliction. They do, however, believe that demons were active in human affairs in New Testament times, a position they must take or else risk making their blessed redeemer look pretty foolish. In this, their fairy-tale mentality is very much in evidence again. Once upon a time, devils possessed human beings but not anymore.

This hermeneutic approach to the Bible becomes a convenient catch-all solution to many problem situations in the Bible. In Genesis 9:13-17, for example, we are told that after the flood, God put a rainbow in the sky as a sign of his promise never to destroy the world again by water. To the prescientific minds of the time when this was written, it probably sounded pretty convincing. We know today, however, that rainbows are caused by the refraction of sunlight by rain or mist. Knowing this, the modern mind quite naturally is inclined to ask how the rainbow in Genesis 9 could have in any sense been understood as a sign of God's covenant with Noah, because many rainbows must have been seen in the sky before the flood.

Bible fundamentalists have a once-upon-a-time explanation for this problem. They argue that it had never rained on the earth until the flood. How then did crops grow and people obtain fresh drinking water? The answer is in the Bible, they tell us. quot;There went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground quot; (Gen. 2:6), but rain as we know it simply didn't exist until the flood. So once upon a time, we are assured, it didn't rain on the earth. One wonders just how the sun shined on the earth for so long without causing that mist on the ground to evaporate and form clouds that eventually brought rain, but to the fundamentalist this is nothing to fret about, because anything can happen in fairy tales.

Modern medicine, despite all the progress it has made in recent years, can give us a lifespan of only 70 some years. Just a relative few live beyond the century mark. Biblical characters, however, routinely lived much longer than the rare centenarians of our time. The patriarch Abraham lived to be 175 (Gen. 25:7), and his son Isaac 180 (Gen. 35:28). Jacob lived 147 years (Gen. 47:28), Levi 137 (Ex. 6:16), Kohath 133 (Ex. 6:18), and the list could go on and on. These ages, although incredibly long by modern standards, were quite short compared to the ages that the Bible attributes to their ancestors. The Genesis 5 genealogy contains a list of patriarchs who routinely lived over 900 years. Methuselah, of course, lived 969 years (v:27), whereas his son Lamech died a mere youngster at the age of 777 (v:31).

If you ask a Bible fundamentalist if these were literal ages, he will tell you without even batting an eyelash that they were. In quot;The Bible, Science, and the Age of Patriarchs, quot; an article in the May 1992 issue of Reason & Revelation, Dr. Bert Thompson discussed various attempts to assign figurative interpretations to these ages but concluded that they were intended to be understood as literal ages. Dr. Thompson didn't attempt to explain why people lived so long in those days when it is a medical struggle for people in modern times to live even a tenth as long, but this is apparently no problem for the fundamentalist mind. Once upon a time, people routinely lived for 900 years; now they don't.

We have to consider too the frequent appearances that God made in biblical days. He was always dropping in unannounced to chew the fat with Abraham (Gen. 15:1-17; 17:1-21; 18:1-32) and the other patriarchs (Gen. 28:10- 15; 35:1; 46:2-4) or even to do a little wrestling (32:24-30). God appeared to Moses in a burning bush (Ex. 3:4) and again on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 19:20-22). If we accept the Bible at face value, divine appearances in those days were almost as common as dirt. We could fill a page with scripture citations that tell us God appeared to so-and-so in a dream. If someone today claims that God has appeared to him, we try to get psychiatric help for him. If someone 3,000 years ago claimed that God appeared to him, we believe him and call him a prophet.

Inerrantists have a response to all this. They tell us that God had a plan that he was working on in biblical times that required him to appear to people but that now his plan is complete, so he doesn't need to do this anymore. However, it all amounts to the same kind of fairy-tale hooey: once upon a time God appeared to people but not anymore.

In an earlier article (quot; If It Walks Like a Duck..., The Skeptical Review, Autumn 1991, pp. 2-6), I said in reference to the sons-of-God / daughters-of-men issue in Genesis 6:1-4 that if a story looks like mythology, sounds like mythology, and reads like mythology, one is safe in concluding that it is mythology. The same principle is true of the once-upon-a-time mentality so characteristic of fundamentalist attempts to explain away serious problems in the Bible text.

Once upon a time happens in fairy tales but not in real life. We can only conclude, then, that much of the Bible does not reflect what happened in the real life of the times that we read about in it. After all, if the emissary of an allegedly inspired book like the Avesta, the Koran, or the Book of Mormon could resolve contrary-to-fact problems in his quot;inspired quot; text only by telling us that once upon a time it was this way but not anymore, who in our society would believe him? Why then should we accept the same intellectual insult from those who want to sell us the far-fetched idea of an inerrant Bible.

[Source: ONCE UPON A TIME | From The Skeptical Review Pages 7-9: summer 1993 | By Farrell Till]

Commentary on Petrin Epistles Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Estimated Range of Dating: 80-110 A.D.

Text

• American Standard Version
• King James Version
• World English Bible

Resources

• e-Catena: References to the New Testament in the Church Fathers
• Patristic References to 1st Peter, Chapters 1 2 3 4 5
• Edgar Goodspeed: The First Epistle of Peter
• Catholic Encyclopedia: Epistles of Saint Peter

Offsite Links

• Perseus NT (English/Greek/Latin)
• More Precious than Gold: An EasyEnglish Commentary
• NAB Introduction
• Daniel Wallace's Introduction
• NT Gateway: 1 Peter
• An Introduction to the New Testament: The First Epistle of Peter
• The Apostle Peter on Civil Obedience: An Exegesis of 1 Peter 2:13-17
• Soft Difference: Theological Reflections on the Relation Between Church and Culture in 1 Peter

Books

• Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? : The Making of the Christian Myth (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1996), pp. 208-210.
• Raymond Edward Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 705-724.
• Udo Schnelle, translated by M. Eugene Boring, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 398-415.
• Andrew Chester, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude (Cambridge Univ Pr 1994).
• Recommended Books for the Study of Early Christian Writings

Information on 1 Peter

Paul J. Achtemeier writes: "The letter, therefore, beginning with a carefully crafted exordium whose purpose was to win the attention of the audience, followed by a series of topical discussions and concluding with a peroration, shows elements of judicial and epideictic structures, but seems to reflect most closely the deliberative rhetoric of its Hellenistic age. Whether or nto the author set out deliberatively to craft a letter that included such elements of formal Hellenistic rhetoric is difficult to say, although it would be equally difficult to deny him all acquaintance with formal rhetoric in light of the shape of the letter itself." (A Commentary on First Peter, p. 6)

Eric Eve writes: "Despite 1 Pet 1:1, the author is unlikely to have been the apostle Peter. The cultured Greek of the epistle makes it perhaps the most literary composition in the NT. The apostle Peter probably knew some Greek, but 1 Peter does not look like the product of an unlettered (Acts 4:13) Galilean fisherman. It employs a sophisticated vocabulary incorporating several NT hapax legomena, and its author appears to have some command of the techniques of Hellenistic rhetoric. He is also intimately acquainted with the OT in the LXX, whereas we should have expected the Galilean Peter to have been more familiar with an Aramaic Targum or the Hebrew." (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)

Donald Guthrie objects that Peter would have made use of the LXX when addressing himself to Gentiles. But the problem is not simply that of citation from the Greek Septuagint but also that of the unconsious influence that follows from regular familiarity with the text. Paul J. Achtemeier writes: "The intimate acquaintance of our author with the Greek language is shown by the text of the OT which the author quotes and to which he alludes frequently: it is the LXX rather than the MT. Direct quotation is limited to two instances (gegraptai, 1:16; en grafh, 2:6), and there the text is rather clearly the LXX (1:16 from Lev 19:2; 2:6 from Isa 40:6-8, though with modifications); additional clear examples of quotation would include Isa 40:6-8 at 1:24-25 and Ps 33:13-17 (MT Ps 34) at 3:10-12, in both instances with modifications. In addition to quotations, allusions to the OT that contain LXX language occur in such places as 2:3, 7, 9-10, 22-25; 3:14; 4:14; 5:8, indicating that the author was saturated with the language of the Greek Bible. The absence of influence from the language of the Hebrew Bible or the Targumim on the one hand, and the clear influence of the LXX on the other, show that the author was at home in Greek rather than Semitic culture, and such is likely not to have been the case with Simon Peter." (A Commentary on First Peter, pp. 6-7)

W. G. Kümmel writes: "I Pet presupposes the Pauline theology. This is true not only in the general sense that the Jewish-Christian readers, the 'people of God' (2:10), are no longer concerned about the problem of the fulfillment of the Law, but also in the special sense that, as in Paul, the death of Jesus has atoned for the sins of Christians and has accomplished justification (1:18 f; 2:24). Christians are to suffer with Christ (4:13; 5:1), obedience to the civil authorities is demanded (2:14 f), and the Pauline formula en xristw is encountered (3:16; 5:10, 14). The frequently advanced proposal that I Pet is literarily dependent on Rom (and Eph) is improbable because the linguistic contacts can be explained on the basis of a common catechetical tradition. But there can be no doubt that the author of I Pet stands in the line of succession of Pauline theology, and that is scarcely conceivable for Peter, who at the time of Gal 2:11 was able in only a very unsure way to follow the Pauline basic principle of freedom from the Law for Gentile Christians." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

Donald Guthrie writes: "There has been such widespread assumption that Peter's epistle is but an echo of Paulinism that it is refreshing to find an increasing tendency to mark the individual contribution of Peter in the field of New Testament theology. There is both an absence of such Pauline doctrines as justification, law, the new Adam, and the flesh, and the presence of highly characteristic methods in Peter's own presentation, such as his copious use of Old Testament citations and moral codes, his church-consciousness, historic consciousness and Christ-consciousness. Peter's teaching cannot be systematized into a theological school of thought, but there is enough distinctiveness about it to differentiate it from Paul's approach. The most notable contribution is the doctrine of Christ's descent into Hades, which in its focus upon the resurrection of Christ stands in direct relationship to Peter's emphasis on the resurrection in the early Acts speeches. As an eyewitness of the risen Christ Peter would never forget the profound impression which that stupendous event made upon his mind, and the doctrine of the descent, however obscure it is to modern minds, would surely be more natural as a part of primitive reflection upon the significance of the resurrection than as a later development, or as a peculiar fancy of a pseudonymous author." (New Testament Introduction)

Eric Eve writes: "It is not clear that similarities between 1 Peter and, for example, Romans and Ephesians require literary dependence, but at first sight the letter does have a deutero-Pauline feel. Yet many distinctive elements of Pauline theology (e.g. justification by faith) are entirely absent from 1 Peter, and even where characteristic Pauline expressions, such as 'in Christ' are employed, they are hardly used in a distinctively Pauline manner (see 1 Pet 5:14). The epistle also shows some affinities with non-Pauline writings such as James, Hebrews, and 1 Clement. This suggests either that all these writings are drawing on common traditions, or that at least some of them were sufficiently well known to our author to have influenced his language (in favour of literary dependence, see Beare 1970; in favour of common catechetical and liturgical traditions, see Selwyn 1958; Achtemeier 1996). Knowledge of any of these writings would point to a date later than the apostle Peter is meant to have perished, in the Neronian persecutation (c. 66 CE). Indeed, the thought and tenor of the epistle would seem to place it towards the end of the first century" (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)

W. G. Kümmel writes: "Many scholars have sought to weaken both these arguments on the ground that 5:12 dia eigouanou umin. . . egraqa assumes that Silvanus is the real author to whom Peter gave the responsibility for the actual writing. Some think that they can prove that clearly common elements in language exist between I and II Thess, I Pet, and Acts 15:29, which indicates a common authorship by Silvanus. But these linguistic contacts are much too insignificant for much weight to be attached to them, and furthermore the distinction in style between I and II Thess and I Pet is important. No one has yet proved that grafw dia tinos can mean to authorize someone else to compose a piece of writing. Furthermore, if this were the case, then Peter would not be the real author of I Pet in any sense." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

Indeed, other occurences of the phrase in Acts 15:23, the letters of Ignatius (Rom. 10:1; Phil. 11:2; Smyr. 12:1; Pol. 8:1), the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 14:1, Martyrdom of Polycarp 20, and the subscripts at the end of letters by Paul (in the Byzantine text tradition) confirm that the Greek is used of the carrier of the letter. Wayne Grudem adds: "Moreover, the fact that Peter calls Silvanus a faithful brother as I regard him, argues strongly for Silvanus as the bearer (note Paul's similar commendation of the bearers of his lettersin 1 Cor. 16:10-11; Eph. 6:21-22; Col. 4:7-9; Tit. 3:12-13). And though Tertius mentions himself in Rom. 16:22, no New Testament author ever explicitly mentions or commends an amanuensis elsewhere." (1 Peter, p. 24)

Grudem avoids the conclusion that Peter did not write the letter by pointing out that Greek (koine Greek) was used in Palestine to facilitate trade and by speculating that the apostle made an extraordinary development in his Greek literary skills during his missionary career, without a formal education, citing John Bunyan (author of Pilgrim's Progress) and Joseph Conrad (author of Lord Jim).

Paul J. Achtemeier writes: "The type of Greek found in 1 Peter reveals that whether or not the author was born a Greek, he had enjoyed some level of formal education, if not an 'advanced' education in rhetoric or philosophy, at least a 'middle' education that would have included, along with geometry, arithmetic, and music, a reading of such classical authors as Homer. While one may surely presume some facility in Greek even among Palestinian fishermen in the first century who lacked formal education, the kind of Greek found in this epistle was probably beyond such a person, and hence the language was in all likelihood not given its present form by Simon Peter." (A Commentary on First Peter, pp. 4-5)

J. R. Michaels writes: "The notion that Peter had help in the composition of this letter does not stand or fall with the theory about Silvanus. If 1 Peter is, as it appears to be, an encyclical on behalf of the church at Rome ('Babylon') to a wide circle of churches on the frontiers of the Roman Empire in five provinces of Asia Minor ('Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,' 1 Pet 1:2), then the author would likely have had scribal help with vocabulary and style, and his helpers would likely have remained anonymous." (Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments, art. "1 Peter")

Daniel Wallace also suggests Peter's use of an anonymous scribe, indeed a companion of Paul, nominating Luke as one candidate. While it may be impossible to disprove such an idea, Eric Eve writes: "One cannot save Petrine authorship by arguing that Peter employed a secretary. If one argues that this secretary was Silvanus, the travelling companion of Paul (e.g. Selwyn 1958) or an anonymous amanuensis of the Roman church (Michaels 1988) the letter then becomes the product not of Peter, but of the secretary, since it is the latter's language that the epistle exhibits (see Beare 1970)." (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)

W. G. Kümmel writes: "I Pet contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the 'sufferings' of Christ. It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

Donald Guthrie writes: "It is further maintained that an apostolic author such as Peter would have reflected in his writing far more reminiscences of his personal contacts with Jesus, and of his knowledge of the sayings of his Master. But this objection cannot be regarded as serious since the presence of such reminiscences in the case of 2 Peter is regarded by some as an objection against apostolic authorship, and there is no sure canon of criticism which can pronounce on the validity of either." (New Testament Introduction)

Paul J. Achtemeier writes: "An argument often cited against the authenticity of 1 Peter is the lack of personal reminiscences from the life of Jesus, something one would surely expect in a letter from one who had accompanied him from Galilean ministry to resurrection. In defense of Petrine authorship, a variety of indications have been cited taht are held to represent such reminiscences. For example, the alteration of first and second person in 1:3-9 is claimed to show that while the readers have not seen Jesus (v. 6), the author (by implication) has (v. 3). Again, the reference to 'witness' in 5:1 is taken to mean Peter is calling himself an eyewitness to the passion of Jesus, a witness reflected supremely in 2:22-25. The difficulty with finding assurances of the report of an eyewitness is that these verses are patently drawn from Isaiah 53, and hence may owe more to the author's demonstrable reliance on the OT, and even to a notion of the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus, than to the reminiscences of an eyewitness." (A Commentary on First Peter, p. 9)

Udo Schnelle writes: "In 1 Pet. 1.1 the author describes himself as apostolos (apostle), but in 1 Pet. 5.1 as sumpresbuteros (fellow elder). One who was a member of the original circle of the Twelve, an apostle, the one to whom the risen Jesus first appeared, need hardly have resorted to this title that appeared late in the development of early Christian ecclesiology." (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 400)

Donald Guthrie writes: "That Peter would not describe himself as a fellow-elder . . . is by no means as self-evident as has been supposed. Quite apart from the fact that the term 'elder' seems to have been used as late as the time of Papias as a description of apostles, and therefore could not have been regarded in the primitive church as an inferior title, the context almost demands such a description for the exhortation of the elders to have its fullest effect. It could be seen as an expression of modesty on the writer's part. It is even more an evidence of his sympathy with his readers." (New Testament Introduction)

W. G. Kümmel writes: "The situation of persecution of those addressed can be understood only as occurring at the beginning stages of civil persecution (see pp. 418 f). According to the unanimous tradition of the early church, the first persecution of Christians on more than a merely local basis (cf. 5:9) took place under Domitian. But that, of course, takes us beyond the life-span of Peter." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

Raymond Brown writes: "If one thinks the work is pseudonymous and written about 90, the references could be to imperial harassment in Domitian's time . . . A more recent tendency has been to refer I Pet's suffering/trial language not to imperial persecution but to local hostility wherein non-Christians spoke badly of Christians, treating them as evildoers (2:12), defaming their conduct (3:16), vilifying them (4:4), and insulting them because of their belief in Christ (4:14). Christians would have constituted a new cult, exclusive and, to outside eyes, secretive and subversive—suspect of immorality or even of atheism because they did not participate in the public cult and thus insulted the gods. On the one hand, 'trial by fire' (4:12) might seem overly hyperbolic for such treatment; on the other hand, this explanation accounts very well for the atmosphere of alienation that pervades the letter. The strong stress on the dignity of Christians and their status would be meant to encourage a group being ostracized by their countrymen, a group that can be addressed as homeless and sojourners (2:11; also 1:1,17). They are like Israel in the exodus on the road to the Promised Land; they should not look back to their former status as did the Israelites (1:14), but press on to their imperishable inheritance (1:4). Although they may have been accepted by their neighbors before, they were then 'no people' in God's eyes and had not received God's mercy (2:10 echoing Hos 1:9, 1:6); now they are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people (I Pet 2:9)." (An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 713-714)

It is generally agreed that "Babylon" in 1 Peter 5:13 is a cipher for the city of Rome. The great city in Mesopotamia was no longer such in the first century. Diodorus of Sicily (56-36 BCE) writes: "As for the palaces and the other buildings, time has either entirely effaced them or left them in ruins; and in fact of Babylon itself but a small part is inhabited at this time, and most of the area within its walls is given over to agriculture." (2.9.9) Strabo, who died in 19 CE, writes: "The greater part of Babylon is so deserted that one would not hesitate to say . . . 'The Great City is a great desert'." (Geography 16.1.5) Also, no church other than Rome was claimed in ancient times to be the resting place of Peter. The Sibylline Oracles (5.143-168; 5.434), the Apocalypse of Baruch (10:1-3; 11:1; 67:7), 4 Ezra (3:1, 28, 31), and Revelation (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2-21) also refer to Rome as "Babylon." There was a reason for connecting the Babylonian and Roman empires, as Norman Perrin writes, "Rome is called Babylon because her forces, like those of Babylon at an earlier time, destroyed the temple and Jerusalem" (Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom, p. 58).

Udo Schnelle writes: "1 Peter contains no direct information about its place of origin. However, both the list of addressees in 1 Pet. 1.1 and the adoption of material that has been shaped in the Pauline tradition point to Asia Minor as a possible setting for its composition. Moreoever, the specific admonition and encouragement offered by 1 Peter presuppose that thea author knew the actual situation of the churches in Asia Minor very well. Ont he other hand, the letter presents itself as having been sent from Rome, as indicated by the expression aspazetai umas h en babulwni suneklekth (your sister [church] in Babylon sends you greetings) in 1 Peter 5.13. After 70 CE Babylon was used as a code name for Rome (cf. Rev. 14.8; 16.19; 17.5; 18.2, 20, 21), a clear signal for the initiated reader. In addition, the fact taht the Petrine-Pauline tradition was located in Rome (cf. 1 Clem. 5.4; IgnRom. 4.3) and the points of contact between 1 Peter and 1 Clement are other indications that the world capital was the point of origin for 1 Peter. For all that, 'Babylon' in 1 Pet. 5.13 still documents only 'that 1 Peter wants to present itself as having been written in Rome, and does not necessarily prove that it was in fact written there.' In a pseudepigraphical writing, the location as well as the author can be fictive. And finally, why would the author use a pseudepigraphical name, if the letter were in fact written in Rome? While a firm decision is not possible, it seems to me that the list of addrsesees speaks more for Asia Minor than for Rome as the place of origin. In addition, the history of the reception of 1 Peter needs to be considered: it was first known in the East (cf. Polycarp Phil. 1.3; 2.1-2; 5.3, 7.2, 8.1-2, 10.2; Papias), where the description of Babylon as Rome also originated." (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, pp. 401-402)

Eric Eve writes: "To be sure, once doubt is cast on the authorship, doubt may also be cast on the identification of Rome ('Babylon') as the place of origin, since this could be part of the mechanism of pseudepigraphy. But the affinities of 1 Peter with 1 Clement, together with its possible echoes of Romans, tip the balance in favour of a Roman provenance for this letter." (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1264)

John H. Elliott writes: "An attempt to link 1 Peter and the Christian suffering it describes to a general persecution of Christianity initiated by Rome (Beare 1970: 28-38; Windisch-Preisker Katholischen Briefe HNT, 76-77) has justifiably been rejected by the majority of scholars. 1 Peter speaks of Christians suffering 'throughout the world' (5:9) but the first general imperial persecution of Christianity did not occur until 251 C.E. under Decius. Earlier anti-Christian actions under Nero in 64-65 (Tac. Annals 15:44; Suet. Ner. 16:2), possibly Domitian in 93-96 (Suet. Dom. 10-17), and Trajan (Pliny Ep. 10:96-97) were limited in scope to Rome or Pontus and were the product of sporadic local incidents rather than of universal legal proscription. Nor is a state persecution envisioned where respect for the emperor and civil law is enjoined (2:13-17) and a positive outcome of good behavior is anticipated (2:11-12; 3:13-17). The nature of the hostility encountered—verbal abuse and reproach (2:12, 3:16, 4:14), curiosity concerning Christian hope (3:15), anger at the severance of former social ties (4:4)—likewise makes the theory of a state-sponsored persecution both improbable and unnecessary. Details of the situation point rather to social polarization and conflict which was local, disorganized and unofficial in character (Selwyn 1947; van Unnik IDB 3: 758-66; Reicke James, Peter, Jude AB; Kelly Peter HNTC; Best 1 Peter NCBC; Goppelt Petrusbrief MeyerK; Elliott 1981; Brox Petrusbrief EKKNT). As strangers and aliens belonging to a novel cult and exclusive minority actively seeking adherents, these Christians were the victims of the harassment and discrimination regularly experienced by those suspected of posing a disruptive threat to local peace and prosperity." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, art. "First Epistle of Peter")

Kümmel comments on provenance and dating: "If by 'Babylon' (5:13) is meant Rome (see p. 422), then I Pet could well have been written in Rome, where presumably Peter died, and where early on appeal was made to his authority (I Clem 5:3 f). The fact that I Pet was known in the East as early as the time of Polycarp (Phil 1:3; 8:1; 10:2) and Papias, whereas in the West it is missing from the Muratorian Canon (though cited by Irenaeus and Tertullian), shows only that it was from the churches in the East that I Pet became known but proves nothing concerning its place of writing. The reign of Domitian should probably be taken as the time of writing, since the mention of the persecution 'as Christians' (4:16) is not sufficient ground for going down as late as the beginning of the second century or even to the time of the persecution under Trajan. 90-95 is therefore the most probable time of writing." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

John H. Elliott writes: "The vast scope of the letter's address (four provinces comprising ca. 129,000 sq. mi. and two provinces not reached by Paul [Bithynia-Pontus and Cappadocia]) requires the allowance of sufficient time for the spread of Christianity in this area subsequent to the mission of Paul. Moreover, the sequence of provinces given in 1:1 may reflect not only the intended route of the letter but also the alteration of these provincial boundaries undertaken by Vespasian in 72 c.e. (Elliott 1981: 60). Distance from the Pauline period and the early 60s is also indicated by the growth and coalescence of diverse traditions reflected in 1 Peter and the shift from an internal Jewish debate over the Mosaic law to a struggle of believers now labeled as 'Christians' with an alien and hostile society. An accompanying shift in political perspective from the positive view of Roman government expressed in Rom 13 to the neutral stance of 1 Peter (2:13-17) would be a consequence of Nero's pogrom against the Christians of Rome, including Peter (65-67 C.E.), as viewed from the distance of a decade or more. Though no longer under imperial attack, Christians had learned a sobering lesson about esteeming Roman officials as 'ministers of God' (Rom 13:6). . . . On the other hand, a date of composition no later than the early 90s is also likely. By the time of Revelation (ca. 95) the situation of Christianity in Asia, one of the provinces also addressed in 1 Peter, had worsened. In contrast to the conditions and political perspective reflected in 1 Peter, many believers had suffered martyrs' deaths (Rev 2:13; 6:9-10; 16:6; 18:24; 19:2) and the attitude toward Rome had changed to a thoroughly negative one (chaps. 12-18). Likewise, in Pontus, another province addressed in 1 Peter, Christian defections had begun by the mid 90s (Pliny, Ep. 10.96) and in Rome Domitian's 'reign of terror' (93-96) was underway. 1 Peter reflects none of these later developments; its situation rather presupposes an earlier Flavian period marked by a relative tranquility which encompassed imperial-Christian relations as well (Magie 1950: 566-92)." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, art. "First Epistle of Peter")

Raymond Brown writes: "At the upper end of the possible chronological scale I Pet is cited by or known to several early-2d century witnesses, e.g., II Pet 3:1, Polycarp's Philippians, and Papias (EH 3.19.17), and thus a date after 100 is unlikely. At the lower end of the scale, we need to posit a date after Peter reached Rome. Since there is no reference to Peter in the letter Paul wrote to Rome in 58, presumably I Pet could not have been written before the early 60s. If Peter wrote the letter, the possible range would be 60-65. If the letter is pseudonymous, written by a disciple, the range would be 70-100. One might doubt that the respect for the emperor inculcated in 2:13,17 would have been likely during the time of Nero's persecution which began after the fire of 64 (he was assassinated in 68) or in the final years of Domitian's reign (81-96), after the revolt of 89, when he let loose his hostility toward those of suspicious outlook (p. 807 below). Thus the two ranges can be reduced to 60-63 and 70-90. Pastoral care for Asia Minor exercised from Rome would be more intelligible after 70. Similarly the use of 'Babylon' as a name for Rome makes better sense after 70, when the Romans had destroyed the second Temple (n. 22 above); all the other attestations of this symbolic use of the name occur in the post-70 period. The best parallels to the church structure portrayed in I Pet 5:1-4 are found in works written after 70. All this tilts the scales in favor of 70-90, which now seems to be the majority scholarly view." (An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 721-722)

John H. Elliott writes: "These various factors taken together make it likely that 1 Peter was written from Rome sometime during the years 73 to 92 C.E. Consistent with this period of the Church's situation and theological development are further features of the letter such as the rudimentary mode of organization (4:10-11) and presbyteral leadership (5:1-5); the emergence of the household as ecclesial model (Mark, Luke-Acts, Colossians, Ephesians, Hebrews); a 'servant' christology (Mark, Luke-Acts) which was later abandoned; a christological motivation of moral conduct (contrast later appeals to apostolic authority in Jude, 2 Peter and Pastorals); absence of contention over gnosis and heresy; and a still lively apocalyptic eschatological orientation." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, art. "First Epistle of Peter")

If the letter is authentic, it was written between 60 and 66 C.E., with most who consider it authentic favoring the period before Nero's pogrom against the Christians. If the letter is inauthentic, it was likely written between 70 and 90 C.E., as argued by Elliott and Brown above. But some scholars such as W. G. Kümmel suggest the end of Domitian's reign (90-96 C.E.), contemporary with Revelation's supposed date (a time of persecution), while others such as N. Perrin believe it was written under Trajan (because Pliny's letter attests to persecution against Christians in Asia Minor then). In reply, the majority of scholars contend that the Christians being addressed were not enduring widespread persecution under Roman authority but rather harassment and ostracization by their neighbors.

[Source: Early Christian Writings]