Things for which Jesus said there is no forgiveness and for which dying on the cross would have been therefore beside the point

 

The religious ideas in the following stand in sharp contrast to the idea that Jesus gave his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45), which is the idea which won thanks to Paul's "other gospel" (I Corinthians 15:3 "Christ died for our sins"): 

Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

-- Mark 3:28ff.

But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

-- Matthew 6:15

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. 

-- Matthew 12:31f.

And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

-- Matthew 18:34f. 

But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. 

-- Mark 11:26

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.  

-- Luke 12:10

In Adam all die

 The serpent with me Persuasively has so prevail'd, that I Have also tasted. -- John Milton

The funny thing about Acts 1 is how there are about 120 "disciples" of Jesus after the "ascension", but only 2 are candidates to replace Judas because only they were witnesses to the baptism of John and to the resurrection

And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

-- Acts 1:15

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

-- Acts 1:21ff.

Yet Paul claims Jesus was seen resurrected by more than 500 "brethren":

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

-- I Corinthians 15:6f.

By the time of Acts 1, the twelve disciples of Jesus have become the (almost) twelve apostles, and the not quite disciple followers of Jesus have now been promoted as it were to full disciples.

But Acts poses far fewer "disciples", now more broadly conceived, than Paul's even more broadly conceived "brethren", who were witnesses to the resurrection.

The key to apostleship according to Acts is NOT simply the terminus ad quem of Paul (And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time -- I Corinthians 15:8), but the terminus a quo involving the ministry of the Baptist AND the terminus ad quem of the resurrection.

This is why Paul's apostleship was considered illegitimate during his lifetime. He was part of the more expansive group associated with the 500, not with the more restrictive group associated with the 120.

The deal breaker was the missing link to John the Baptist.

Him he knew not.

Paul's insistence on the "apostleship" as a gift of the Spirit (I Corinthians 12:28) is an expansive interpretation based on his own ecstatic conversion experience, which in the final analysis is the basis for his gospel and his claim to be an apostle. Everything about it hangs on his claim to have experienced "seeing" the Lord, simply the "back end" of the deal. It has absolutely nothing to do with seeing the historical Jesus from the time of Jesus' baptism at the hands of the Baptist right on through all the events to the end and witnessing his actual resurrection. Which, in fact, he utterly eschews.

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

-- I Corinthians 9:1

Paul an apostle--not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

-- Galatians 1:1, 11f.

Christianity as we know it today is based entirely on this, and it is sinking sand.

Luke strangely tells us all about an appearance of the resurrected Jesus to the two traveling to Emmaus, but nothing about one to Peter on the same day

No gospel at all bothers to tell us about this important appearance to Peter, which Paul puts at the head of his list (I Corinthians 15:3ff.) with the one to himself last.

Luke tells us Peter finds no body in the tomb on the first day of the week, but by the end of this same day Peter is matter of factly said to have had his own encounter with the risen Jesus distinct from an appearance to the eleven, which quickly follows in its turn, as does Jesus' ascension into heaven. There is no appearance to Mary at the tomb, and instead of an appearance in and ascension from Galilee as in Matthew Luke has all this in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

The compression of events by Luke is noteworthy for its similarity to the summary quality of the other accounts. It's almost as if there is a felt need of discomfort by all to get the story over with as quickly as possible. Perhaps because it's so uncertain? 

Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. ... And certain of them which were with us [the Emmaus travelers] went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. ... And they [the Emmaus travelers] rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, [who said], The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.

-- Luke 24:12, 24, 33-34

Paul's other gospel

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 

 

--  1 Corinthians 15:17

This statement would have come as quite a shock to the many people whose sins Jesus actively forgave in his own lifetime according to the Synoptic tradition, who never once heard Jesus conditioning God's forgiveness of them on Jesus' own future death and resurrection. They might have been forgiven for thinking Paul's casuistry made him one of the Pharisees.

The Passion Narrative shows strong evidence of having been reworked from the later standpoint of this theology of the cross, but elsewhere hardly so thoroughly as that. 

On the contrary, the Synoptic tradition preserves a Jesus who conditioned God's forgiveness not on some once for all sacrifice whose efficacy was to be proven by resurrection, but rather on faith and its reciprocal human action which demonstrated the sincerity and efficacy of the individual's repentance. Faith is not yet a system of dogma, but a description of the right relation and interaction between God and men and men with each other in relation to God.

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. 

 

-- Matthew 6:14f. 

 

Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

 

 -- Matthew 10:8

Both things can't be true. Either forgiveness of sins is a fundamentally social matter or it is not. 

The reasoning of Paul sometimes makes a mockery of the life and teaching of Jesus, whose many pronouncements of forgiveness and salvation during his public ministry become not simply relativized by Paul, but of no real effect. They become pointless episodes in a pointless life finally given meaning only by death. Paul even boasts of not knowing that Jesus, the Jesus of the flesh.

It is sick when you really think about it, but it explains much about the conflicted mind of Paul, who is possessed of a morbid fascination with death and who also owns a history of lashing out born of unresolved inner hostilities, both before and after his conversion.

We would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 

 

-- 2 Corinthians 5:8 

 

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If it is to be life in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. 

 

-- Philippians 1:21ff. 

 

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 

 

-- Galatians 1:8ff. 

 

If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema! Maranatha! 

 

-- 1 Corinthians 16:22 

 

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 

 

-- Romans 9:3 

 

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it. 

 

-- Galatians 1:13

Being "in your sins" seems to have been a topic of debate in early Christianity after the death of Jesus. Apparently forgiving one another was no longer thought to be a sound basis for right relation with God and with each other. While Paul sought to make forgiveness of sins contingent on an "historical" datum, the resurrection, the Fourth Gospel made it contingent on simple belief in the Good Shepherd, the Light of the World, etc. 

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. ... Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 

 

-- John 8:24ff.

This is an otherwise unremarkable passage, fully in keeping with The Fourth Gospel's focus on the Divine Logos who descends from heaven in the Incarnation and ascends back up to heaven in the Resurrection. Forgiveness of sins depends entirely on belief in this person who did this. It is an entirely vertical conception. There is no social dimension to it. Gone is the "sell that ye have and give to the poor" basis of the call to discipleship found in the Synoptics (Matthew 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 12:33).

Except this must have caused offense at this point in John's narrative to some of the scribes, knowing the Synoptic tradition as they might have. Accordingly it is remarkable that some of them inserted before this section of John 8 the famous Pericope Adulterae, where Jesus forgives the woman caught in adultery. Nowhere else in John do we encounter this Jesus who goes about forgiving the sins of the people like we do in the Synoptics, demonstrating the horizontal faith relation which is ubiquitous there.

But even at that Jesus does not go out looking to do this in John. The woman, caught in the act of adultery, is brought to him as he's teaching in the Temple, early in the morning. And the social aspect is wholly negative compared to the positive, other-directed examples found in the Synoptics. In John the accusers simply melt away under the withering challenge of Jesus, so that no one is left. It is just the woman and Jesus alone.

Is there a more vivid image of the new gospel of the solitary individual in relation to his god?

Think of it as one of the unintended consequences of Jesus' impact.

And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men."

 

 -- Matthew 22:16

The NIV, the unhappy translation which can lead one into Christological error similar to Bill Johnson of Bethel Redding

To paraphrase Dick the Butcher, the first thing we do, let's kill all the Bible translators.

If Paul meant in Philippians 2:7 that Jesus set aside his divine "nature" as the NIV translation unhappily implies ("being in very nature God . . . he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant"), Paul would have been contradicting himself.

Paul states clearly elsewhere that there is a qualitative difference between the human First Adam and the human Second Adam, so that the former is entirely earthy, that is, made from a pile of dirt, while the latter is literally "from heaven":

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven." -- 1 Cor. 15:47.

As is so common in Greek, the action of the main verb in Philippians 2:7, "he emptied himself", is defined straightforwardly by the modifying participle supplied by Paul, so that there can be no question about what he meant about emptying: "taking the form of a slave".

There is no setting aside of anything going on, but rather taking up, adding on.

Paul means to say in Philippians 2 that the divine Son was so secure in his divinity that his equality with God would not be diminished in the slightest by condescending to take on human nature to accomplish the work of salvation for sinful man. Moreover the whole context is exhortation of believers to imitate the divine Son's example, not doctrinal instruction.

The NIV is irresponsible for introducing "nature" into Philippians. If Paul meant to do that he could have used Greek φύσις, as he does elsewhere.

Shameful business, that.

Off with their heads!

The ruling authorities: Placed there by God but also by the devil

Paul in Romans 13.1 says there are no governing authorities except those from God and placed there by God:

οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν.

But Luke 4.6 has the devil claiming otherwise, that the authority of the kingdoms of the whole world belongs to him and to whomever he wishes to give it:

Σοὶ δώσω τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἅπασαν καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν ὅτι ἐμοὶ παραδέδοται καὶ ᾧ ἐὰν θέλω δίδωμι αὐτήν.

Despite claims to the contrary in Matthew and John that Jesus now has all authority in heaven and on earth and over all flesh, Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor.15.25 and elsewhere that governing authority (v. 24) persists in opposition as an evil enemy until the end, until which time Christ must exercise his rule in a process of subjugation:

δεῖ γὰρ αὐτὸν βασιλεύειν ἄχρις οὗ ἄν θῇ πάντας τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ.

The idea that the enemies still remain enemies at the end of the world (εἶτα τὸ τέλος) means that this remains a mythological worldview which characteristically deals in conceptions which are both absolute and not absolute at the same time, allowing proponents of this thinking to traffic freely in logical contradiction. 

Christ reigns, but not thoroughly. The authorities are appointed by God, but some of them still follow the devil. 

To inherit eternal life Jesus wanted people to do something, but Paul wanted people to believe something

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? ... Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

-- Matthew 19:16, 21

And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? ... Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

-- Mark 10:17, 21

And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?... Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

-- Luke 18:18, 22

Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

-- Acts 16:29ff.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

-- Romans 10:9

. . . it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

-- 1 Corinthians 1:21

By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

-- 1 Corinthians 15:2

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

-- Mark 16:16 (from the longer ending verses 9-20, clearly not original but in keeping with the apostolic emphasis)

Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

-- Luke 8:12 (the last clause is missing in the versions by Matthew and Mark and is perhaps evidence of the influence of Paul et alia upon Luke)

Joel Osteen and the irony of a typo

Joel Osteen, quoted here:

“I think in general the scripture talks abut how there’s earthquakes and famines and wars and you know you’re close to the end times. Well, we see a lot of that happening today. Does that mean a hundred years, a thousand years, or ten thousand years? Well, I don’t know. My thing is let’s make the most of this day. God’s given us this day and it’s a gift and we may not have tomorrow, but let’s be our best today and be a blessing to someone else and live it in vain.”

"Live it in vain"? Surely that must be a typo, leaving out the "not" before the "live" (the reporter also left out the "o" in "about").

Ah, but the irony of that omission.

The $56 million preacher who reportedly says Mormons also are Christians can't be accused of looking into things too deeply. The kindest way to say it is he isn't overly familiar with how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, nor with how he flirts with the "wisdom" of a hedonism which was warned against by both Paul and Isaiah:

"Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die"(1 Cor.15:32/Isaiah 22:13).

Well before the career of Christ, who preached the end of the age, the prosaic idea of the priority of now was reported for ubiquitous wisdom among non-Jews.

So Strabo (Geographica, 14.5.9f.):

'Then to Zephyrium, which bears the same name as the place near Calycadnus. Then, a little above the sea, to Anchiale, which, according to Aristobulus, was founded by Sardanapallus. Here, he says, is the tomb of Sardanapallus, and a stone figure which represents the fingers of the right hand as snapping together, and the following inscription in Assyrian letters: 

"Sardanapallus, the son of Anacyndaraxes, built Anchiale and Tarsus in one day. Eat, drink, be merry, because all things else are not worth this,"

meaning the snapping of the fingers. Choerilus also mentions this inscription; and indeed the following verses are everywhere known:

"[Well aware that thou art by nature mortal, magnify the desires of they heart, delighting thyself in merriments; there is no enjoyment for thee after death. For I too am dust, though I have reigned over great Ninus.] Mine are all [the food] that I have eaten, [and my loose indulgences,] and the delights of love that I have enjoyed; but those numerous blessings have been left behind. [This to mortal men is wise advice on how to live.]"'

Osteen's megachurch is the largest in the country. 43,500 attend weekly to hear the spermologos.

Paul's idea of the kingdom of God would have been foreign to Jesus and John the Baptist

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

-- 1 Corinthians 15:50

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

-- Matthew 5:29f.

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

-- Matthew 18:8f.

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched . . . And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

-- Mark 9:43, 47

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

-- Matthew 24:22

And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

-- Mark 13:20

And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

-- Luke 3:6