Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not see
Although I liked this definition of faith, I think it's missing the word, "believe" or "belief' in our God almighty and the belief in Jesus Christ, our savior. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it for this one passage, since it's eluded to elsewhere.
While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed,
Is this an example of "low Christology?"
although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized
I've always thought this interesting. Jesus "empowered" his disciples to baptize and heal others while he still walked the earth-- more than just the empowerment of sending the Holy Spirit after his death and ascension. Yet it's interested that in mainline Christian denominations you have to have credentials to baptize others in the name of Jesus. Just saying..
My hour has not yet come
Jesus seems to say this a lot and yet he usually does something divine right afterwards, nonetheless. Does he mean his "time" is when he's betrayed and crucified? Or it' not his time to glorify God will his divine abilities? And if it's the latter-- he does so anyway. Thoughts?
“Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” ’
This passage always resonates with me since we humans often try and bargain with God.. "Lord, if you grant this for me, then I'll do that." It's certainly an immature sign of faith, but to me it's a form of a "test", not unlike Satan's testing of Jesus.
herefore, keep awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn
It's interesting that the Gospel clearly states (and I think in another synoptic gospel) that nobody will know when Jesus will return again and yet there seems every few years there is some kind of hype from radical Christians that Jesus is coming on... "May 12th" or whatever. I suppose they are just attention seekers.
Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32
I never realized that Mark had three places in which there is a "Passion prediction"-- per Ehrman.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. 8He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light.
Is this more from the oral traditions?
“Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.” 12Even tax collectors came to be baptized, and they asked him, “Teacher, what should we do?” 13He said to them, “Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you.” 14Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what should we do?” He said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages.”
This is the only Gospel that seems to record John preaching mercy, compassion and hospitality, am I right? where else? So-- he must be preaching Jesus' message? no?
“I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
So the story goes that John is Jesus' cousin-- did they talk, mix and mingle as adults or just early childhood? don't recall reading much about Jesus and John as adults until that crucial point of John baptizing Jesus.
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” 3This is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said, “The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’”
So--- if John was this oddity and strange, do we ever hear how he got this "word" from the kingdom of heaven? In a dream? voice of God? People followed and believed John, so whatever he did/said certainly was compelling-- no matter how he looked.
I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. 8I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
So is Mark (or whoever the actual author is) saying that it's been told/heard that John actually said this? This is an admission of submission to Jesus-- but again-- hearsay?
Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband
A husband should LOVE his wife; a wife should RESPECT her husband. Is there any meaning behind those choice of words? Was there a translation issue? Why can't BOTH husband and wife LOVE and RESPECT one another? I guess I'm reading into this too much with 21st century lenses.
Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven.
This passage is almost identical in Ephesians.
both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.
This is interesting that is the same paragraph showing support for slaves, the readers are reminded that God sees us all the same. Clearly, we know the context of "slavery"-- what that means and what that looked like, may be very different (I hope and pray) that what our American history demonstrated with slavery.
God gave them a sluggish spirit, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”
I've always struggled with verses like this-- does God really purposefully keep people from hearing, seeing, feeling, witnessing Him? Or is this just a way to describe hardened, stubborn people?
For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness.
How did Paul determine WHO was a "false apostle" (aka Super Apostle)? Even in today's time, people can be deceived by those who are "of God" and actually are not. Ultimately only God knows what's in one's heart.
Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that.
Is this another example of Paul speaking of the end of times? Like, no need to be married if the world is ending?
For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ.
This passage reminds me of Jesus' words: whoever is first shall be last and whoever is last shall be first. When we humble ourselves before the Lord and relinquish control, then we are free--- being a "slave of Christ" is a follower of Christ succumbing to His power and strength.
God will bring with him those who have died. 15For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. 16For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.
I never realized this passage was in 1 Thes. I find this passage very comforting and a beautiful visual. It's especially poignant to me since my father is very ill with stage 4 cancer. Although he may have only weeks, months or God willing, year+, we've had some serious talks about the next phase of our Christian lives and how we will see one another again in a new everlasting life.
suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5He asked, “Who are you, Lord?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”
I don't know but I'd call this.. and how Saul/Paul responded afterwards a "conversion" as well as a "call". I know there was some discussion in Eisenbaum's book that he wasn't necessarily "converted" to The Way, because Paul would always retain his "Jewishness", but perhaps I have a different definition of conversion. I think one can convert a disbelief to a belief (in Jesus Christ as the Messiah) and yet still retain some core fundamental beliefs and laws on one's life long faith (Judaism and The Law). Today they are called Messianic Jews.
the Way
I've always liked this reference to "Jesus follower". Back in that day, "Christian" wasn't a term but "The Way" was the reference to what later would be called "Christian" (if I understand it correctly). THE WAY that leads to life eternal.
reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me
I find this somewhat arrogant, no? I mean in some scripture accounts it says Paul did converse with some of Jesus' disciples. I get Paul's passion and empowerment to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ, but why wouldn't you also want to talk to other Apostles of Jesus--- where's the community? Collaboration? willingness to learn and share with others who've had similar experiences? Does Paul think this would diminish his experience if people knew he spoke to other Jesus followers? Or maybe he just felt so strongly that his experience was more "real" or genuine if not slanted by or shared with other human perspectives-- like his experience is more pure or holy.