Hard Bible Questions #6: "Paulistianity": If it wasn't for Paul, the Gospel Wouldn't Go to the Gentiles

 Howdy, howdy. Here's the next argument point from a convo I had with my father.

The argument, paraphrased from memory:

"Paul-istianity. I don’t like Paul. The only reason gentiles got the gospel was because Paul spread it. If anything, Christianity should be called Paul-istiantiy, because if it wasn’t for Paul, it’d still be only Israelites believing it."

 

My reply: I can understand how you’d think that on face value, but this is simply, respectfully, untrue. Jesus Himself calls His disciples to go to the ends of the earth, and Peter himself, one of Jesus’s closest disciples is one of the first to minister to gentiles.

As for Jesus only witnessing to the Jews and not Gentiles in general: maybe at first, yes. He came first to Israel, but again, then later told them to Go and share the Good News to the ends of the earth. Despite that, during Jesus’s ministry, a Samaritan woman wanted something from Him and He dismissed her at first, but she persisted, and He granted her a miracle because of her “great faith.” He heals a Roman soldier’s servant. He traveled through Gentile regions and witnessed in Samaria, which was considered a SERIOUS no-no back then. In John, He talks about getting other sheep from other pens, after His whole ministry he refers to Israel as His sheep and being the Good Shepherd and encouraging them to stay in Safe Pasture. And then later, after He tells His disciples to Go and spread the Good News of His coming across the ends of the earth, in Acts, this is when we see Peter go to Cornelius and teaches other Jews to minister to Gentiles as well, not just Israelites. Even in Matthew (near the end of the book), we see Jesus calling His disciples to spread the word of the good news of His coming to everyone, not just the Jews. It is not just Paul who spreads the gospel to the Gentiles, even though he may have been a main driver of it.

In the Bible, my favorite, most-reliable books I’d say (though I believe them all to be) are the four gospels, as well as Acts, 1 John 1-3, and 1 Peter (I love some of Paul’s letters, too, but I won’t list them, as I know you don’t like or credit Paul much). I put a heavy amount of reliability on Luke and Acts given the association of the author with the direct disciples following Jesus’s death and resurrection, and all the other historical fact-checking that has been done about the New Testament, though I know you might not, given that Luke was a companion of Paul and you dislike Paul. The reliability for what they are though is pretty strong, and Paul Himself was not a stranger to the original disciples.

 

All this to say: even if Paul was the main driver of the gospel reaching Gentiles (like me and you), I do not think that that discredits God’s work or use through Paul. In the books of the NT, it also goes back to the fact that God can and does use folks for His purposes. Ever since His ministry on Earth, He linked up with folks people would not expect: tax collectors, prostitutes, thieves, etc. He doesn’t hang with them and “let them do them;” He hangs with them and calls them to righteousness, to turn away from their old ways, and teaches them how to overcome their sin. But it does not surprise me that the person He’d use to spread His gospel to the world would yet again be someone the world would not expect: a former prosecutor of the Christians. If anything, what a big IMPACT that would have, instead of relying on someone already known to be fervent?

 

After all, what ELSE would someone have to experience to make them flip 180 like that? Either they are fickle as crap and want what benefits they can get (but that wasn’t Saul/Paul– he LOST everything to become a Christian and follow Christ. Went from the top of the top the lowest of the low), or something seriously real and crazy happened (folks change all the time after Near Death Experiences, etc, for a weaker example, and there are several accounts happening today in 2024 where folks in the Middle East are having visions and dreams of the Biblical Jesus after having never read the Bible and in some cases, never heard OF Him, yet their accounts align with the Bible’s. He reaches many, across many ways and avenues and methods.). Also: some people may discredit Paul because his name was changed from Saul. But not only are people allowed to grow and learn and change (repent), but God changes people’s names ALL the time, across the OT and NT. Abram to Abraham. Sarai to Sarah. Jacob to Israel. Simon to Peter. Saul to Paul. And there are more I can’t recall (lol, that rhymed). A name change back in the ancient Near East was indicative of a role change, a perspective change, a change of heart and of purpose and a calling given etc. It is not unusual, to me, as a believer, that He did this or used who He did.

(Bonus fun fact: “Saul” means “asked for from God,” and “Paul” means “humble.”)

Lastly, I will again grant that most of the gentile preaching might have derived from Paul, but again, it was also called for by Jesus Himself, done so Himself, and His disciples were some of the first to witness to gentiles. But even if that wasn’t true (it is), if Jesus did not want the gospel preached to the gentiles, His disciples (who were very much alive and active and traveled with and along and passed by Paul often) would have stepped up and fought to defend against it as they did throughout their ministries until their deaths, and they didn’t; if anything, they participated in it and encouraged it, beginning with Peter and Jesus Himself.

I hope this helps and hope it helps you rest in the reliability of Paul’s letters alongside the gospels themselves as the most studied and cross-checked documents in history today. Please feel free to reply/provide a counter argument/question/etc. God bless!

Mark 16

Matthew 10

Acts 8

Matthew 28

Acts 1

1 Peter 5

Luke 24

Hard Bible Question #5: Jesus never claimed to be God.

Hey guys! Just continuing on with these questions. In life, I'm juggling clients at the gym, managing my high-maintenance but wonderful asthmatic/allergy cats, working on the rough draft of my second book, and celebrating this beautiful fall weather.

This next question is more of a claim made during a conversation I was having: 

Jesus never called Himself God.

My reply (the shortest so far!) is below:

Respectfully, yes, He did.

Jesus did call Himself God, but in different words.

In Exodus, God calls Himself the I AM. His name (Yahweh/YHWH) was so reverent, they’d say Addonai or “the LORD” because they didn’t even want to risk mispronouncing His name. Blasphemy was punished by immediate death.

During Jesus’s ministry, He calls Himself the I AM: “Before Abraham was, I AM.”

In John, He says, “I and the Father are one.” And in the same book, when He is speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well, she says “I know that the Messiah is coming,” and He says, “I, the one who is speaking to you, I am he.”

In Luke, when the Pharisees tell Jesus to tell those worshipping Him to stop, He tells them that if they stopped, then the rocks would cry out instead (harking back to Pslam 19 and Genesis where it says all of God’s creation sings of His glory).

When John the Baptists asks if He is the Messiah, He says in Luke 7, “Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the gospel preached to them. Blessed is he who does not take offense at Me.” This harkens back to where it is prophesied that this would happen back in Isaiah.

In John and elsewhere in Matthew and others, Jesus repeatedly tells His disciples about things that will happen to the Son of Man and what must happen to the Son of Man, while simultaneously, in the same breath or paragraph or exchange, mention what is to happen to Him. I.E., the first communion as a radical teaching, He says “this is My body, this is My blood,” and then promptly says, “Unless you eat and drink of the Son of Man…” Explanation as to how this means He is claiming to be God: To the ancient Near Eastern Jews, the Son of Man was a title of God, and is used to predict the coming of the Messiah; it is Messianic language (Daniel, Isaiah, Micah, among others), and Jesus likened Himself to the Son of Man many times throughout His ministry.

Furthermore, in John, He directly likened Himself to being the Son of God, which was a direct claim to deity, in addition to the examples above, and others not listed.  We can be assured of this claim because not only of His words, when applied to context, but to how the Jews took it. They wanted to immediate take and stone Him for blasphemy, and it wasn’t because He was a raving madman, but He called Himself God in their own Messianic language and terms.

Some today might say, “why wouldn’t He just say He was God?” but even I myself admit that I would probably write someone off immediately as mad if someone said that to me, and when you are trying to appeal to someone who believes themselves to be right, it is better to show them piecemeal and bit by bit so they can see for themselves, for, as my earthly father likes to say: a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. When looking in context and applying Jesus’s claims for Himself against Messianic prophesy (which context and proper application are crucial in historical documents as well as should be in religious documents which could have massive implications to our lives), there is no doubt that Jesus knew Himself to be the Messiah and God on Earth, and outwardly claimed so.

Alright! I hope all of these are blessing you. I have a few more to go, and then I'll be out of these and petition for more, as the world needs and God calls.

Let me know any follow-up questions you have!

xo,

Jess

Hard Bible Questions #4: Jesus didn't abolish the Law, so why don't we follow it?

Hey again guys!

Here's the next hard Bible question [reframed]:

Original: Jesus did not come to abolish the OT. (Was more of a statement)

Reframed: If Jesus didn't abolish the Law, shouldn't Christians/why don't Christians follow the Law like the ancient Jewish people did?

~~

You are correct that Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law, but no, that does not necessarily mean we must follow the Law to the letter. When He came, He established a new covenant, finishing the old one, and enacting a new one. His ministry worked to reveal the PURPOSE of the Law, down to its roots: our hearts, our intentions, and THEN our actions as a reflection of what lives within us (love or hate, pride or selflessness).

Jesus in Matthew 5 says specifically that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, and He also admonishes His followers throughout His ministry to better follow the Torah than even the Pharisees and He chastises them for not doing so. Simultaneously, however, He calls us to follow the law in a deeper sense. For example, regarding the Sabbath (Honor the Sabbath and keep it holy, and also do not works, neither you nor your servants, etc), Jesus picks food to eat and heals a lame man and tells him to walk (all of which are huge no-nos if you’re going to actually follow the Law to the letter). When confronted by the Pharisees, He tells them that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Over and over across Jesus’s ministry, He calls out the Pharisees and Sanhedrin, calling them whitewash tombs, saying they look good on the outside, but it isn’t about works and appearances but about what’s on the inside (of our hearts) that matters. Several times, the Pharisees try to catch Him up with this. They ask Him about what the most important of God’s laws is, practically leading the conversation, trying to walk Him into a contradiction, and He calls them out, and basically summarizes the purpose of the Law in the word “Love.” (Because, if you look at the Laws and follow them down to their roots, they’re grounded in Love and are for our good [like any good parent, who gives their children disciplinary guidelines for their safety and security and their good/joy].)

Jesus ramps up the meaning of the Law to address the root of the issue: Humankind’s hearts, not actions. In Matthew 5-7 on the Sermon on the Mount, He takes everyone’s understanding and ENHANCES IT (i.e. it ain’t just wrong to murder, even hating someone counts as murder in God’s eyes, because it’s a sin within your heart, and what comes out of your mouth and what we do with our bodies is a reflection of what lies within us. It ain’t just wrong to cheat on your spouse, just looking at another person with lust equates to adultery, etc). He takes the teachings of the Law and makes them MORE than the empty rote actions the Pharisees et al were applying them (where, for example, you could do good works but do it only for the accolades you get or only for how it benefits you vs the actual good it is meant to do. It’s all about you, not others, all about praise and recognition, not love and self-sacrifice). Basically, Jesus says we’re doing the work, sure, but we’re missing the whole point. We’re missing WHY it matters, which therein makes the work matter. The why behind the what is crucial, essentially.

So does this mean we get to just chuck out the OT? Eh. Not quite, but at the same time, it is not applicable today as it was then for a couple reasons.

By fulfilling the Law, Jesus was the final Lamb, the Lamb of God, the final sacrifice needed to atone for sins and reconcile us back to God as we were in the Garden. He even called His followers to obey the Law to the letter and not to discount it. And yet, simultaneously, with His coming, He fulfilled the Old Testament (another word to use it: the old covenant, the old promise God had with Israel and His people) and establish a new covenant (or new testament) with new promises. Not that the others were unfulfilled or scrapped or thrown away or discarded, but that they were **given, fulfilled, finished** and now here’s a new one, built upon the old. This harks back even to Jeremiah, where God proclaims that He will be making a new covenant with Israel that will not be the same as the old one. In Hebrews and Luke and several of Paul’s letters also profess this. Furthermore, all throughout Hebrews, it shows there is a “built in” end-time of the old covenant when the new order comes. When you take all of what Jesus said, did, the prophesies He fulfilled, His words, and the Law and expectations of the ancient Near East with the Torah, TaNaK, etc, then it is clear that Jesus came, finished the old covenant (“it is finished” as He hung on the cross), and initiated a new order. All this to say: following many rules and laws of the Torah is wise and can gives us good lives, but it is no longer the requirement for our salvation and sanctification. This said, you will know them (us/Christians) by their works. Faith without works is dead. Because with true faith, your actions will reflect the belief.

Now, many Christians today study the OT, because without the OT, the NT means nothing, because the OT is on which the NT is based and makes why what Jesus did special and amazing. And while the OT was once dismissed as old school, modern Christians are realizing that it is NOT obsolete (and that was a misinterpretation of scripture), and now realize that given the new order and the new testament with the coming of Christ, the OT enhances our ability to know and understand the character of God. And if anyone desires to follow the Law, THAT'S FINE. It's however God calls you to exhibit your faith, but what matters is the purity of your heart and your faith in Christ as the new covenant. Your faith is what saves you; but your works reflect the fruit, the byproduct, of such belief.

Lastly: even some modern Jews who are NOT messianic Jews, when discussing the prophecies and what would need to be fulfilled in order for the Messiah to come, they admit that there’s only one person who would’ve been able to fulfill them today, and they admit it is Jesus. So given that, it just makes one wonder: do you not believe because you don’t believe that Jesus is the Messiah, or do you not believe, because if you did, then that means everything changes and has greater implications on your life? And at the heart of it all: we want what we want and want to live life our own way. So the proof is in the pudding on this one, yet many still won’t eat, because they just don’t want to submit to any other authority than their own, even if it’s for their good.

xo,

Jess

Hard Bible Questions #3: How Do You Reconcile the OT Old Testament God and the NT New Testament God?

 Hard Bible Question #3 comes from my father dearest. Dad, you know I ramble, but I hope this answers your question!

"How do you reconcile the mean OT God with the loving NT God?"

 

Simply put: They are the same God. God of the OT has always been one of love, but also of justice and righteousness. Over and over again does He call the Israelites to a certain standard of living, not simply in deed by the Law and 10 Commandments, but to trust Him, follow Him, obey Him. And over and over again do the Israelites disobey, distrust, doubt, reject, and follow other gods, and sometimes even when God is right in front of them (see Exodus). And God tells them to come back to Him over and over again and they don’t, and after a while, He disciplines them, just as any good parent does to their child.

But it isn’t simply a matter of discipline; God is Good. Not that He is good as in good as a characteristic; everything and anything we know of defined as “Good” is of God. God IS Goodness itself, Justice itself. Righteousness itself. Such a being cannot, by the laws of nature He created, mix with unrighteousness. Good cannot mix with Evil/Bad and still be called Good. Consider such things a stain. A pure white blanket, one splattered with ink, is not pure anymore. It can be one droplet of ink (a “small sin,” as we call it, or “no big deal,” like a white lie or a small theft) or a whole bucket of ink (a “large sin,” or how we’d classify rape or murder etc), but where Righteousness is concerned, a stain is a stain is a stain, regardless of how large or small. This is why our sin (intentional wrongdoing even though we know it's wrong) and even incidental sin/mistakes separate us from God; because He is all-good and we are not (we fail even to live up to our own standards of good, let alone God’s… See my answer to Hard Bible Questions #2). And yes, on Judgement Day, all evil will have to answer for its actions. But that is a good thing. It is not good to let evil go unchecked or rectified. That, by definition, is unjust.

Some also say that the idea of the “Cost of sin is death” seems a little high, but when folks wrong US, who are mere mortals, we will say things that they deserve to die or suffer, or be burned, or shot, or run over, whatever punishment we think fits the crime at the time (I’d heard some doozies which made me question even the morals of those hurting). We need to remember that the punishment to the crime is not ONLY the matter of the crime itself, but TO WHOM the crime is done unto. I.E. If I hit you, that’s bad and I’ll get in trouble. If I hit the KING, I could die for it. Now if I hit GOD… how much worse is THAT? Except, “in His mercy” God stepped into our place via Jesus so Justice could still be rendered while we were still forgiven.

But back to the Old Testament. In many of the situations in the OT, i.e. with the god Molek, children were being outright sacrificed among other evil acts. Now, while some say “not all” people in the society were doing such things (and other evil acts across different societies), the fact of the matter is that in many cases, even if someone wasn’t doing the act themselves, they didn’t try to stop it; they didn’t stand up against it. They knew it, they saw it, and they did nothing, or even worse, pretended like it wasn’t happening. And that in and of itself is evil, even if they don’t “pull the trigger,” to use modern analogy mixed with an OT example.

But! When people focus on the God of the OT, they tend to only pay attention to when an “entire people” are decimated, but they don’t usually take into context the behaviors and mannerisms of those people and the fact that the entire people engaged in evil acts (again, such as brutal child sacrifice to the god Molek). This is ironic in the sense where, today, folks call God out for permitting evil to exist in the world and demand that He step in to stop it, correct it, or punish it, yet when they read about it in the OT or elsewhere, they shun Him for being an “evil” god. “Why doesn’t your God do anything about the evil in the world?” straight to “Why would your God do this if He was good?” Seems He is, for lack of a better phrase, “damned if He does and damned if He doesn’t,” and folks seem to negate the fact that He only eradicated evil peoples after giving them quite a long time to turn themselves around. He was very patient; it isn’t like He flew off the handle one day.

Furthermore, there are several examples in the OT where God is shown to demonstrate exceptional mercy and patience with the rebellious Israelites and even Gentile societies, Edomites, among others. And there is even a section in Genesis where Abraham ensures that God will not smite a city even if there is only one righteous person within it. Additionally, many of the warnings God gave were not necessarily punishments, but warnings against the consequences of one’s actions. When applied to context of the times and how people traditionally interacted with their gods, it is not difficult or hard to twist it to recognize it as akin to a parent telling their child “Don’t touch the stove, or you will get burned.” It is not the same as “Do not touch the stove or I will burn you.” God in the OT says the first (or you will get burned) but folks often interpret what He says as the second (I will burn you). Although, I’ll admit there are some times where God DOES say “do this or else I’ll do that,” but a good way to apply it contextually to how we think is: “Don’t cheat on me or I will leave you.” But even then, while God says such things, He also immediately says, “Don’t cheat on me or I will leave you… but *if you turn back to Me* all is forgiven as though it never was and I will give you all the blessings I have already given you in the past and more.”

Critics of the OT often tend to forget about this merciful part of God, when, in our human lives, if, for example, someone cheats on us one time, we leave them and often crap on their name, or I’ve even heard some people I know profess a desire for their former partner to die or get a disease or get disfigured or suffer for eternity for one slight. But God patiently called us to love only Him, then is patient when we start going astray, not once, but over and over again, and not even in secret, but while being blatant and unapologetic. And being that God is Good and Just and Righteous and Pure, the only way we can be with Him is to be the same (because again Good and Evil cannot mix and Good still be called Good; see my response to my Hard Bible Questions #2). God’s answer was coming down and doing it Himself, by stepping into our place as not only Judge but Jury, and even the Convicted. And all we need to do is recognize who we are in comparison to God (good relatively to each other, but to an all-Good God, we can never be clean enough to survive being in His presence), accept His gift on our behalf (“propitiation,” a standing in in our place), and follow Him/make Him the Lord of our lives.

Lastly, sometimes there are simply consequences for actions. Which I know is very unpalatable to hear, but it is the truth. We have free will and we sin (do wrong even though we know we should not), and there are side effects to such actions, good, bad, or otherwise, and unfortunately, we are not the only ones who suffer the consequences of our free will. Others also suffer or benefit from our actions.

Anyhow. That’s how I reconcile the OT/NT God. I see them both (i.e. Him, one God) as a loving, just, good, merciful God having an abundance of patience for his wayward children who do nothing but ask Him for things then revile Him and “cheat” on Him, who forget His good gifts even immediately after receiving them, is patient to give people time to repent and turn away from their sin, who will still punish evil (which it is good for evil to be punished), and yet will also provide a way for us to do the impossible through His Son Jesus Christ.

I hope that answers your question. I went over this so many times because I started getting into the weeds. I left it as long as I did, because I think it’s important to understand the nature of God and how He can be the same person in both the OT and NT. Let me know any follow-up questions you have!

xo,

Jess

Hard Bible Questions Pt2: Hell and Why Would God Create the World if He Knew it Would End?

Hey again! Time for more Hard Bible Questions.

Question number two:

"If God knew the beginning from the end, and therefore knew He would destroy earth and create a new heaven and earth in the end, why did He create this one? What is His purpose here?

Also, when Satan is bound by a great chain and thrown into the abyss in Revelation 20, and it is known that he must be set free after a thousand years one last time, what is God's purpose there?"

My answer:

I was speaking about this with one of my friends recently at my Small Group, and she put it very eloquently. There are essentially two answers to the first question, but the first comment is why God would make such a world if He knew we would fail at keeping His commands, and that is simply: Love. It might be ironic to say so, but the second part of that question about making THIS world specifically is again: Love.

God is Love. That not He is just LovING, but He is Love itself. Love Incarnate. And from the Biblical understanding, God is three Persons in One. He is simultaneously alone and has never been alone and the only reason we can really see why He’d create us is because He wanted us. He wanted to share Himself and His love with others, and He chose to create us.

But here’s the thing: If God is Love itself, it is NOT Loving to give someone free will but then NOT give them another option. In order for us to experience Love in its fullness, we have to choose it. Love is emotional, yes, but it isn’t only an emotion. It is a choice, an action, a commitment, a submission to another in the fullest since of the world which enhances not only their existence, but yours. But this love is ONLY possible if there is the option to not choose it.

In order for us to know love, God had to create a world in which there was the opportunity for us to choose Love, which means we also need to have an option to choose not to love. Likewise, in order for us to know Goodness, there unfortunately has to be a way for us to know what a lack of Goodness is and means and feels like. It isn’t that God created Evil. God could not create evil. He is Goodness itself. But because He is Goodness itself, that stands to reason that anything not of God is… well, not Good.
This all goes back to the Love. In order for us to know God and know Love and know Goodness, in order for us to experience true love, there has to be a choice. And as it stands, there are only two choices: God (and ergo Love, and ergo Goodness) or not God (and ergo Hate, ergo Evil/Wrongness). Kind of like Darkness; darkness doesn’t exist outside of Light. If there was no light, there would be no darkness, because it is only by having the Light do you even know what darkness is in the first place.
And if someone’s going to choose to love you, and choose to spend time with you, and love you for who you are, you cannot force them to love you, you cannot force their hand and then call it love. That is manipulation, that is puppetry, that is evil. That is not good and it is not God. It is good to choose God. But it is also good to be able to choose. Because it is only by Choosing that we can even have true love at all.

As for the question regarding Revelation: Lort hap merceh, lol, who can ever truly understand Revelation?! It is quite an awesome book. I have studied it only once, and I desperately wish to study it again. But I’ll give this my best shot. Keep in mind, when it comes to Eschatology (study of end-times), there are a myriad of different opinions and views and interpretations of this book. But I think it behooves us to remember that Revelation is an apocalyptic, which by ancient Near East definition, is a literary style full of allegory and metaphor, and there are disagreements between certain metaphors and how to interpret and apply them. All this to say… I personally find the topic fun and interesting and the discussion as a whole isn’t really foundational for my belief in Christ (I say this ironically, as 2020 plus joining a Biblical church covering Revelation at the same time was one of the strongest solidifying factors of my faith lol).

Okay, but to the question:
The devil being bound for 1000 years and then released. To be honest, I am not sure. It says in the NIV that after the thousand years of the saints reigning with Christ is over, the devil will be released to deceive the nations in all four corners of the world (Gog and Magog are culturally representative of oppressive rulers). To be honest, I am not sure why this would be the case. God is God; Satan acts not by His will but by His permission, and once the end of times comes… there really isn’t a battle. Satan isn’t a match for God. He is not equal to God and nor can he stand against God. So when God says, “yeah, we’re done here,” it’s going to be done. Over. Poof. If there is any sort of stand off, it’ll be more for us, to remember Who God is and Glorify Him in His power over evil, but not because there is actually going to be any legit battle going on. (In my opinion. I do not think it’ll be this epic battle of good and evil for the reasons I already expressed: Satan cannot light a torch to God and he is not God and it is only by God’s “permission” that he’s even still around at all]).

I do think this goes back to Eschatology and whether or not you or I believe we are already in the thousand years or not, or if you are pre-post- or a-millennial. I personally… *deep breath* I don’t know how to say this without sounding dismissive, but I don’t really care where we are. I know who “wins”: God. The ending and victory is already written because there is no actual battle to be had. If we are already in the millennium and Satan is already bound (which I personally kind of think he is, in a way, because he doesn’t and hasn’t and isn’t permitted to act in the way he used to prior to Christ’s coming as we see in the OT, and there’s argument to be had that Christ and His followers are spiritually reigning today), then… well, he’ll probably be released because the end hasn’t come yet, and God’ll let him round up the last of the non-believers for Him before He brings on judgement day. If Satan is not yet bound and we aren’t in the millennium, then as for why Jesus would let him go before just throwing him in the lake of fire… well. I don’t know. And I honestly don’t care either. It’s not that I don’t care. I do care. I love conversations like this and books and podcasts and documentaries and discussions, etc, but I don’t know enough. Given the literary genre of the Book and the fact that folks can spend a lifetime studying such things, I think ultimately: it’s a fun conversation to try to guess and be like, “Oh, snap, I was right!” or whatever about how God is going to ultimately, finally eradicate all evil and bring on the New Jerusalem, I do not think the reality of it matters, and so I don’t really give much more thought to it than that.

So. I apologize I don’t have a more fully-fleshed answer, but I don’t think the point here in this book is to be able to fully figure it all out. It is a word to keep the Body focused on what matters, to remind us there is hope at the end of the trials, and to remind us the cost of freedom, and God’s unrelenting willingness to offer chance after chance. Given the craziness that is Revelation: I still think I got pretty succinct lol.

*** I had a follow-up question on the post. This was the question and this was my long-winded answer.

"I have a question for your answer. I agree with you that without a choice, you would be manipulating someone to love you. Does that mean you believe there is still a choice in heaven? Could someone change their mind once they get there if they wanted?"

This is my knee-jerk reply (though I did spend some minutes thinking about this beforehand and did read it over before submitting, though it’s long and I touch on some things that I was hesitant to post. Of course, this is a reply I did just now, without having days to think on if I forgot something etc. Feel free to ask anything else, and if I can’t knee-jerk reply, I’ll tag you in the reply when I post it. And thanks so much for a follow-up question. I love having to think about such things to truly have a grasp of what we know and believe and think and why etc.
The short answer to your question is: I don’t know and I don’t think anyone here this side of heaven could, but even if you couldn’t, I don’t know why you would want to, given that God is literal Goodness.

Now for the long answer: Given the nature of your question, my answer might be mostly my opinion. But! What I do know is that God is Love, Goodness, Justice, Mercy, Righteousness, etc. He is everything that is good. If you can imagine something as Good, it is of God, given who He is and His nature. As my response above says: He IS Good, not that He just has good attributes. So, my reply to you is that: what would you be going to?

In order to reach heaven (which, in simple terms, is God’s kingdom and eternity with God, which is everything good), we are made righteous by accepting Jesus’s gift of salvation and following His ways. And because our sin/wrongdoing is covered in Him, we won’t combust (lol; for lack of a better word) in His presence. (There’s a reason angels and messengers of God and Yahweh Himself in the OT always start with “Fear not!” If we actually came face to face with God, the reality of our imminent destruction is obvious. Not, as my reply said, because God is going to smite us for the sake of smiting us, but because in His holy and completely Good nature, NOTHING anti-Good can exist, even in the slightest.)

In general though, I would say firstly: If you are in heaven and with God in what is wholeness and completion and goodness, my follow-up question to your follow-up question would be: WHY would you want to go? I, as a limited, finite human, cannot tell you if you will be able to change your mind later. Maybe? But where would you go? You’d be living everything you can imagine as Good. It’s not like heaven is some white-washed place where all we do is stand around and sing praises lol. That is an extremely faulty image of heaven and what it’s like to be in God’s presence. If you harken back to Eden, it is essentially what we all crave: lush, beautiful harmony between Man and Nature, nothing has to die for other things to live, there is no hate or fear or bitterness or death or sickness, there’d be PEACE, mentally and logistically, etc. So everything we crave right now in this world, that we yearn for, we had before the Fall. And after we die, being with God through Jesus is a restoration of that. So, if you get there, why would you want to leave? What would you be leaving the ultimate goodness and wholeness FOR?

But. That also makes me wonder if the answer is yes. Because you cannot force love, you must choose it, and Adam & Even sinned and chose to turn away before turning back (and that’s the beauty of God, because He let them [how much less have others sinned against us, and we struggle to forgive them, and all they might’ve done is lie to us?]). But then the damage was done, so God could no longer be in their direct presence…but it was for their sake, not His.

But let’s say you do want to leave, or let’s say you don’t want God in the first place: God WILL NOT make you stay with Him if you don’t want to be with Him. Many folks know Him and reject Him, and then ask why would he said what WE call good people to Hell? (Oh man, I’m getting into a tangent. I might have to make another post…). But therein lies another misunderstood principle. Hell is the absence of God. It isn’t that He is necessarily SENDING folks to Hell, at least in so far as I can understand it (though yes, there is talk in the Bible about the unrighteous being judged, because [this could be another post], God is also JUST, and the ONLY want to be Just is to have evil be atoned for; God would not be Just if He didn’t punish evil; He would not be Good if He did not punish evil; we would say it is evil to NOT punish evil, to always let bad actions go unpunished and for people to get away with every bad thing they’ve done). But by being unrighteous, we are already on the way there. (This is why we say Jesus “saves” us.)

Now, on this, some say it’s “unfair” that God would set a standard of goodness we couldn’t meet, but it is more nuanced than that (and that isn’t even touching on the definitions of our morals or what they are or how we got them). In our striving to be good, we keep failing *even to uphold our OWN standard of Goodness*, let alone God’s.

Even if you took God’s perfect Goodness away, we’d still fall flat. Most folks would say good people don’t steal, lie, cheat, demean, belittle, say bad things, wish bad things on others, cheat on their loved ones, harm their loved ones, but if we are all honest, we’ve all done that to some extent at some point, sometimes knee-jerk, many times intentionally and sometimes we don’t even care that, in our pain, our desire for revenge (which revenge is not justice), we don’t even care if it sounds mean or evil, because the other person “deserves it” or we “deserve” something else. The irony here is that we do not meet even our own standards of Good let alone God’s. But that’s why Jesus comes to save us, and that’s why we even say he “saves” us. Because if God is all good, then anything outside of Him is the opposite of Good, and we just can’t get there on our own (else this world wouldn’t be broken like it is. This isn’t pessimism; this is just looking and acknowledging things for what they are. If we could all do what we all know we “should” do, there’d be no crime or hurting hearts or fear or wars, etc).

So. I basically touched on something else which is serious and sensitive and even offensive to many, because we do not like to be told what to do or how to do it. But I’ll wrap up with this: as for if you could change your mind in heaven after this life, the answer is I do not know, but I know God will not force you to stay there if you don’t want to be there. Which ultimately leads me to believe that, while that might be an option given who God is and how Love works, I do not believe anyone who ends up in heaven with God would have desire to leave. Why would they?

Hard Biblical Questions #1 of... Many: Why would slaves believe in Christianity if their slaveowners did, too? (And oh yeah. Hi.)

 Hi. It's been ten years. No biggie. Here's a post like I never left:

The other day, I asked my FB for some of their hardest questions for Christians. I received a few from FB and few from my father, and elsewhere. I wanted to have a place to put them to record them for the long haul and while I have a blog for my book(s) that wasn't specifically my author blog. (Oh, hey, yeah; that book I said I was writing: I wrote it. I edited it. I revised it. I had folks read it and then I did it all again. And again. It's ready to be professionally edited then published, but I'm taking my time and writing a second book before I go down that rabbit hole. So. If you want to check out ANOTHER neglected blog, but one on which I plan to be more active as I develop this second story and finally start some type of online following, go ahead and check it out here. But I tell you. I'm not current over there, either. I just... these things just aren't my forte man... [fun fact: one of my clients told me today "forte" is actually pronounced "fort." Hunh].)

Anyhow. Here's the first of the Hard Biblical Questions. There will be the person's comment/question, followed by my response:

"How do black folks whose ancestors felt forced to convert, possibly out of fear or manipulation or desperation, by white missionaries, justify practicing Christianity today? Though I respect anyone’s religious choice I have always been baffled by this. 

Update: I did look into it a little bit, and white slave owners actually were afraid of their slaves converting because they were afraid they would see themselves as equal, and they actually forbade them from going to church in many cases. But nonetheless, I still have a hard time understanding how folks today (not the slaves, and many I’m sure did not convert) don’t dissect this more. I do understand culture and traditions are passed down, and their children and their children’s children may not have been subjected to the hypocrisy and contradiction of it like their ancestors. It’s a really interesting topic to me.

My question wasn’t regarding how slavery is viewed/explained by Christian theology/philosophy, but rather how African Americans justify their Christian practices/beliefs/traditions today knowing the history. Less of a theological question more of an anthropological question  Was hoping someone with an interesting perspective on being a black Christian would chime in!

Thanks for responding!"

My reply:

Thank you for your question!

First, let’s dissect your own question. You ask how modern-day black Americans (or black people in general) can be Christians when their ancestors were forced to convert by white people during the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, correct? You are not questioning how the Bible defines slavery or addresses it, but how modern-day folks can believe something when the history of it seems so contradictory and hypocritical.

Assuming I have this question right, here goes:

Again, I thank you. I will speak directly for sake of clarity.

To address the first issue: Christianity being passed down or forced upon their slaves by white people.

               Christianity itself goes back to 0 A.D., the death of Christ, to the Man who split time in two (before/after his death; modern folks try to take Him out of it with using B.C.E. and C.E. but His death is still the historical event which denoted this separation). Christianity was originally called “the Way,” and the term Christians came about derogatorily by non-Christians, mostly by Romans and others who considered them a nuisance as they gathered to worship Jesus and celebrate love and forgiveness and encouragement in the face of oppression, and later the name was taken on by the believers themselves, but technically, early-Christians are better called “Messianic Jews,” for Jesus is their Messiah. As Christianity grew, it bled outwards west towards Egypt and south into Africa before spreading up to Europe and beyond.

Christianity, by its roots, is NOT a white-man’s-religion, but an ancient Near-Eastern, Middle-Eastern, if you will, neither black nor white. While yes, there have been some movements and wars and enforcing of this belief that utterly and completely contradicts what Jesus and the Bible teaches, we must remember to separate GOD and Jesus and the Bible from Humankind and its tendency to enslave, oppress, and belittle each other. This fact, that humanity has done such horrible things and Othered people since the dawn of time, does not mean it is okay or should be accepted or brushed off. But we need to remember that, while we all have moral rules and laws which govern our lives, we are and still remain human. We strive to do our best, sometimes we succeed, but many times, our own desires or self-interest gets in the way, and we fail.

The blessing of Christ: this is where the beauty comes in. Slaves (both during the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade [which again, only lasted about 150 years, whereas the slave trade in general had been going on for hundreds and thousands of years before Africans were involved] and earlier slave trades like the Arabic Slave Trade) were forced into a horrible existence. As for how they could be Christians when it was also the religion of those who owned them, that goes into who Jesus is and what having the Holy Spirit does for someone. He is the Comforter, our Counselor. They did not accept Jesus because it was forced on them (there are many practicing “Christians” today who are not actually followers of Jesus, but follow the lifestyle and culture… that doesn’t make them true believers). The reason behind African-Americans who were in the slave trade, many of the oppressed peoples today in China, in Africa, in the Middle-East, Indonesia, and across the world today (of which about 7,000 people or more are annually being killed for their Christian faith today in 2024), the reason all these people are Christians and follow Christ is because of WHO He is, what He does for them (gives them a hope, a future, not just in this life, but in the one beyond). Christianity is the only religion that has stood the test of time in regards to scientific, historical, philosophical, and social scrutiny. Jesus gets a bad wrap from a lot of people presuming to know who He really is, when they haven’t even met Him or read His words. I understand this part might come across a bit weird, because many who do not believe in Jesus think of Christianity as merely another religion, no different than another, when to us believers, He is a Person, not an idea. But the difference is that, in other religions, you must DO something to achieve your salvation or reach nirvana or become one with the universe. You go to God, in whatever form and method that means. With Christianity, God comes to YOU. You only need to admit that you keep making mistakes, aren’t perfect and can’t be, and accept His gift of salvation by trusting in Him and obeying Him (which sounds scary, but if you read His words, it’s like Mom saying “don’t play in the street because you’ll get hurt.” The guidelines are for our good, not our oppression). THIS is why I know—not just believe, but know—why descendants of slaves and other modern people believe and follow and rely on Christ as their Saviour. Because they met Him, gave Him a chance, and in the bleakest of days, in the darkest of nights, when their world was full of so much pain and darkness and when life’s meaning seemed empty or fruitless or ultimately unnecessary… He gave them a Light in the darkness, hope, and a life that extends beyond their (our) present circumstances and into an eternity of true, deep-seeded Peace, Love, and Joy.

Sources: the Bible (duh) [But seriously: If you haven’t yet, read the Gospels and Hebrews, then jump back and check out Exodus and see how God leads the Israelites out of slavery and delivers them into their new land, and then jump to Isaiah and how He shows up there. He’s pretty cool, this God).

Google: TransSarahan Slave Trade (dates back to 1500 or more, prior to Trans-Atlantic), OSU articles about Mediterranean/Trans-Atlantic/Faith slavery, JSTOR arab slave trade, Barbary slave trade (all this can be googled; I looked at too many lol), and more.

 

And even though it wasn’t the basis of your question: just because something is in the Bible does not mean it is condoned by God. God addresses things as they are and then instructs how they ought to be. In regards to slavery, most slavery in the ancient Near East was more of a form of indentured servitude, where you could “sell” yourself in order to pay back what you should have rightly been able to pay, but even then, it does not condone poor treatment. There are laws in Leviticus which outline the proper and good and just and kind treatment of such people, and there’s even a 7-year jubilee where all debt etc was void come every 7 years and all slaves and servants, etc, were released from their agreements. Just because people have failed in obeying God’s law or have even twisted it for their own purpose does not mean God’s law itself is flawed or permissive until evil acts. God, by His nature, is completely counter to all things evil, even in the slightest.

I would still encourage you to ask a Black Christian this question and see what they say. You may be surprised 😊

___

Alright! Well, there's that. I hope it blesses you.

And... we'll see if I keep this up. Who knows. I'm promising nothing.

But life is still good, God is still grand, I'm still a writer, and while the two cats I had when I last posted have passed, as well as have my grandfather, my mother, and my maternal grandmother (lots of pain and loss these last couple years), I have three other kitties who own my heart, and there's the goodness of God everywhere I look, and His joy suffuses me daily.

God Bless,

Jess

"Finding" Jessica

The question of who someone is tends to plague people's minds for a majority of their lives. First, when young, adults ask children what they want to be when they grow up. Do they expect the children to know a definitive, set-in-stone answer? Of course they don't. But nonetheless, the more often a child is asked, the more ingrained into their mind is the idea that they should know and be able to answer that question rather confidently by the time they reach what society recognizes as "adulthood" -- which we all should know that 18 years of age is far from being what one should consider "grown up". And yet, despite the repetitve questions of Who and What they want to be, should be, could be, the youth are typically then told something along the lines of, "Oh, don't worry about it -- you're young! You have plenty of time."


But as the cliche goes: time flies. Next thing they know, they're in their mid-twenties, fresh out of college after having chosen a pathway they belived themselves to desire based on which classes they enjoyed in high school and their first years at university, or based on what they've loved outside of scholastic studies, and -- now what? Studies show that most people don't even begin to have an idea of what they are truly interested in doing as a career until their mid/late-twenties, regardless of where their hobby-like interests lie.


This is what happened to me, but unlike the average child who will profess with absolute certainty that they want to be a veterinarian when they grow up, or an astronaut, or a police officer and then as life progresses, it inevitably changes - I was able to profess, with absolute certainly, that I wanted to be a WRITER . A novelist, to be exact. Screw history, screw geography, screw art - though it was fun - and definitely screw math! The written language is what I cared about. That and the stories that could be spun with them. I professed to be a writer, and so I have thus become.


Ah, but here's the funny thing. I still love to write. I write often, and read just as frequently if not more so, and am currently editing my first fantasy novel -- quite large, if I'm being honest. I was surprised when it was more than 700 pages, typed (although double-spaced) in size 11 font. Impressive no? Yes, well, now the real work begins. But I'm loving it! Truly, truly, I am. And you can certainly believe that I am continuing to read authors I admire for positive influence.


But back to that funny thing - Life. Oh, yes. As children and teens, we LOATHE our homework and our having to go to school, having to work in the evenings or on the weekends if we are "lucky" enough to have a job alongside our studies. But we had it SO GOOD. What was the biggest worry, do you remember, of being a teenager? Hell, of being a young adult in college? I'll tell you what mine was: does this shirt match with this skirt? Man I sure do love these shoes, but I swear I'll break my ankle. Does anyone REALLY know how to walk well in these monsters?! And the biggest worry? I sure as hell hope I chose the right field. I can get a job with this degree, right? I know this is what I want to do (my BA is in English Writing), but can I really make a living from it? People say English degrees are a waste. Are they? No. No they aren't. You can do anything with an English degree. You can also do nothing with an English degree... I won't do nothing. I'll be the next J.K. Rowling, by God! Oh whatever. The shirt looks fine.


I'd love to go back to those worries. Even when I was in school, I was still living on my own, paying bills, enjoying the freedom that adulthood provided without my mother's rules or curfew. But now I'm in my mid-twenties. And the irony is that although, YES, I LOVE TO WRITE AND ALWAYS WILL, and YES, I am currently writing/editing my FIRST (you better believe it won't be my last!) novel, my CAREER interests have taken a VAST CHANGE.


I used to hate science. I used to LOATHE health studies. Blah. Who cares. Now? I eat it up like candy. In the last 4-5 years, I've become a fitness fanatic, a health/nutrition/preventative wellness NUT, and I have my friends flocking to me for advice.


Great. Wish I knew back then that I'd love health sciences back when I was... oh... that was only two years ago that I graduated. Well, damn. Missed that mark, did I?


Oh, but it's never too late! Never too late to go back. And so that's what I'm going to go do. Maybe not as a full-time student - life won't allow that with those bills and student loan debt. (Not sure you all know this, but after 6 months of graduation, they want that money back.) But as a part-timer, maybe one or two classes a semester until I can get either another associates or a certification in nutrition/fitness/whatever.


I didn't make a bad decision. I made definitely, without a doubt, the right decision of which degree to get FOR ME. Too bad SOCIETY doesn't always agree with what you want. BUT. At least I've been able to find a SECOND passion. One that not only I love and obsess over, but that the world is (slowly) eager to embrace as well.


For years -- and I mean years... like, at least ten -- I stressed about what I wanted to do and if I was making the right decision and worried about "finding myself" in this crazy, so-many-options-to-choose-from world. But I'm over that. I never cared what people thought of me, but now I've grown tired of me worried about who I won't become. One tip I've learned so far in my short life: you'll never FIND yourself. You CREATE who you want to be. If you know you love something, but don't have a definitive answer on what, that doesn't mean you don't "KNOW." Start doing activities that fall alongside what you THINK you want and enjoy. I guess that's where the term "find yourself" came from in the first place, because your interests evolve. Well. I'm done seeking. I've searched this long, and even with years of real-life experience under my belt, I still couldn't find me. Because I already knew me, knew what I wanted, but I had let society dictate what I SHOULD do and SHOULD want. Screw them (no offense). :)


We'll see how well society accepts this version of me -- the real me -- without sway of what anyone else (even my loved ones) think or believe or recommend. All I can tell you so far is that my stress level has drastically gone down. I've always been happy, always been carefree and go-lucky, but with life and responsibilities, there's always that money thing, or that other thing, or maybe this other thing, hanging over your head. The things are still hanging. They still may fall on my head, but they're smaller now. What was a boulder that could possibly knock me out is now maybe just a small rock. I'm not using this decision as an excuse to not pursue things that I may not feel like doing at the time, but I know what I want to pursue, and I know what's worth my effort, worth my time (which I'll never get back), and what isn't.


It's exceptionally exhilerating, and makes life that much more so. I've never slept so well, and haven't felt this "light" in a long time. Welcome back, Jessica. I've missed you.