Fall 2025 - Winter 2026
APSE Community Bible Study

Full Presenter's Notes of the Bible Study

Date of First Class: October 1, 2025

Last Updated: February 21, 2026

February 11, 2021

This was quite the class. Rape. Dowries. Marriage - arranged marriages. Read the notes and see if you can make sense of it!

“The class that proves Jim’s fallibility beyond a shadow of a doubt.” In my journey trying to understand the amazing and profound Word of God I have made 2 errors that need corrected. Dowry. And the Deuteronomy passage on must rape victims marry their rapist. I humbly proceed…

Prove you are smarter than me: What is a dowry? property or money brought by a bride to her husband on their marriage.

Must rape victims marry their rapist?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Note the highlights: A virgin. Different rules here for a virgin than a non-virgin or married woman. Remember: VIRGIN. Very important in Orthodox Judaism.

A young daughter, emphasis on young, would be married off by age 14 at the latest? Certainly no later than that. Why? Dad has gone to the expense of raising a child that is low on the value scale. Boys, especially the oldest son, have value. Carry on the family name. Work the family business, be it a small struggling farm or a large profitable business. Women could do grunt work. But their real value lay in their wombs. The daughter’s womb is an asset that the father can SELL. Into slavery. And he did.

Or… the father has invested in this daughter. Maybe to age 12 - 14 tops. Now he is marrying her off. Getting her off his expense sheet. Included in this blessed event is a DOWRY. A payment, not as I thought, a payment to the father for the permission to marry the daughter (I’m not that bright!), but a payment from the father to the husband to be held in reserve in case he struggles and cannot provide for his new wife. (Ew boy, just think of the scenarios where this can go wrong…)

So if his daughter was raped, it is not so much that his precious child was violated, it was more that the father has suddenly been saddled with “damaged goods.” Does the pot of dowry money need to be sweetened? ***Reality is going to surprise us in a few later paragraphs.

Does ANY man want this woman, period. Do any good respecting Jewish parents be willing to match their son up with a “soiled woman?” IS DAD STUCK WITH THIS YOUNG LADY FOREVER?

Hence, the fine was not paid TO THE DAUGHTER, it was paid TO THE FATHER.

And if the rape was NOT DISCOVERED? Is she anything but a whore? A worthless piece of trash? Would ANYBODY want her?

Advice to women: Maybe it’s a good idea to stick close to the house. Maybe it’s a good idea to travel in packs of women.

Did the daughter HAVE to marry the rapist and live with him her entire life? In reality, probably in most circumstances NO.

First, remembering with a population that was rather rural, transportation options extremely limited - a commitment to walk into Warren from North Warren let alone Russell or Scandia, communication limited, literacy almost non-existent, how many Jewish people actually followed the Mosaic Laws anyways?

AND wasn’t that Jesus’ beef with the Pharisees all throughout the Gospels? “You’ve got people starving here. Life stinks. We’re being robbed blind by the Roman government. We are taxed to death. They are stealing our land by trumping up debts we cannot pay. God assigned you as priests TO HELP THE PEOPLE. US! And you priests do everything but.

The Saduccees are in cahoots with the Roman Government. And you Pharisees are running around like the RELIGION POLICE enforcing these STUPID Mosaic Laws that no one probably EVER followed except to accuse enemies and rivals, to gain power, or to make MONEY. Oh how familiar that sounds like today’s religious leaders!!!

Secondly, I would think the girl wouldn’t want to. But hey, at least she had a means of survival. Maybe she could bleed him a shekel at a time and make his entire life miserable. Then again, would a 12, 13, 14 year old girl be this wise with an older man? A man who raped her?

Third, on the other hand, perhaps this was a great way for a miserable letch to get a wife he really wanted but neither she nor her father was willing to accept. “If I rape her, she is mine.” By law. By Mosaic Law.

Fourth, In reality the father probably said: “No you can’t have my daughter. BUT… the 50 shekel thing isn’t gonna be enough. 500 shekels. 1000 shekels. Then we forget the whole thing.” *** At some point we have to believe some fathers had some love for their daughters. Jiminy, even wild animals care for their young in most aspects. We love our kids, male and female. I don’t think that’s really a new phenomenon. A daughter snuggling in the arms of dad had to have had SOME effect on at least SOME dads.

Fifth. A couple was actually in love.

You see the conventional thought (and one I took hook, line, and sinker myself) is this was an early attempt at women’s rights, albeit in a very ugly form. As bad as this law was, at least a woman had a means of survival.

That really is NOT the gist of this law. A woman is still an afterthought. There is no love here.

This law is about money.

BUT NOT AS I HAD ORIGINALLY THOUGHT… (proving Jim is no genius!)

Originally I thought it was about protecting an asset of the father. He has raised this woman (girl, actually) and in this culture she is an asset he can and will SELL to her prospective husband. The rapist has soiled and ruined his asset. No one wants to BUY her now. So the rapist is fined. 50 shekels. And he is stuck with her forever. Unless he agrees to pay MORE, and then the loving father will take her back and use the money to keep her fed until hopefully some loser comes along and agrees to pay for a degraded asset.

I was wrong. It’s the dowry. And money goes the other way. Dad to new hubby.

So let’s look again at the dowry.

Perhaps a large dowry increases a woman’s DESIRABILITY since she comes with hard assets - FINANCIAL assets. Perhaps to make up for her lack of beauty, luxurious hair, and a hot body.

A dowry may seem nice, but it reinforces gender inequality and reduces a woman’s perceived worth.

A daughter is a “financial burden” on her family. Now she has been raped. Soiled. Damaged goods. NOW what’s it gonna cost me to get rid of this girl?

So no. It is not about protecting an asset. It is about reducing the chance a father has of ridding himself of the cost of raising a daughter. Will he have to continue to raise her now since she is “soiled?” Is he stuck with her forever?

EXCEPT IT’S THE OPPOSITE!!!!! The KETUBAH. In Jewish law a virgin bride is ENTITLED to a HIGHER monetary payment as compared to a non-virgin. So a prospective hubby not only gets a “soiled woman,” the non-virgin bride comes with a LESSER pile of cash. Again, is dad ever gonna get rid of this girl???

Sons can work. Earn. Be an asset. Women can’t. Except for the one job always open for a woman - prostitution.

And why is it so difficult for women to hold a job? Good old menstruation. 20-25% of the time they are as untouchable as a leper. What the heck is this mess? Dunno. But you are UNCLEAN.

Of this whole mess: What’s love got to do with it? Maybe some? Maybe a lot? Maybe nothing?

(At least Tina Turner got a song out of it…)

February 4. 2026

Where did sex become such a "hot topic." A sin. A no-no. Such a big deal. It's not Leviticus and Deuteronomy. It's certainly not Jesus. Perhaps we can hang some of this on Paul's epistles. He did have to try to get the Gentiles (Greeks and Romans) into the community of Christians - and deal with the Jewish Christians a the same time. Quite a tightrope walk.

But the main influence on the "evil" perception of sex came from a man long after the Bible books had been written. A man named Augustin. Saint Augustine.

Where did we end up last week: Paul says man should remain celibate unless one cannot contain his (do hers even matter?) natural desires (sexual), then he should marry so he can meet his needs and desires within a family. These desires seem to be to relieve the pressure, NOT to procreate.

3. Which now begs the question: What is a natural desire? Is attraction to someone of the same sex a natural desire? Is a person pre-wired to be attracted to someone of the same sex? (Who defines what a natural desire is, anyways???)

What might be considered an “unnatural desire?” Polyamory (group sex). Pedophaelia. Bestiality.

Is homosexual sex to be lumped in with heterosexual sex (in a marriage or outside of a marriage) or should it be lumped in with sex of “unnatural desire?”

And here is a really good question: Does NATURAL heterosexual sex require the sex to be CONSENSUAL? Look again at the article: I was raped every month for a year. Orthodox Jews would say this man is fulfilling his role as a monthly producer of sperm for procreation. From the wife’s point of view it is rape. Does that sound natural to you?

AND FINALLY… Who really has influenced the position of sex being BAD. Surprisingly, a good portion of our sexual mores don’t come from the Bible at all. No, they come about 300 years later. Who is the one giving us all the bad vibes, the guilt trips, the fears and trepidations of SEX? Good ol’ Saint Augustin himself.

Saint Augustine. A man whose influence has been greatly unrecognized in what we consider the morality of a Christian.

CAVEAT: “Beware of the reformed sinner…” What he - or she - needs to do to atone for their guilt is to heap it mightily upon YOU!”

Saint Augustine was…

A misogynist. Women were inferior. By a lot. They are all pretty much good for nothing but child bearing and housework. “They are all promiscuous. They are nothing but sexual lures to men. They are all sluts.”

No surprise. Augustine was Anti-sex as well. Sex for pleasure? A one way ticket to hell.

What’s with this guy? Very simple. Mommy issues.

His mother wanted Augustine to become Catholic. Augustine wanted no part of it. He was a skirt chaser. All he wanted was SEX! A lot. He was OBSESSED.

But just before his mommy died he saw the light. Guilt? Maybe. Regardless, he was all-in. A monk. Sex was bad. Sex was evil. It had been destroying his life. It was a perversion for him, so now it is a perversion for you. (Nothing worse than a reformed sex addict.)

And the people bought it. Well, some of them did. Seems a lot of clergy didn’t think it applied to them. But it did to their flock. A great way to raise money (pay your way out of sin) and persecute enemies. (Of course we have to burn him/her at the stake. He’s a rake. She’s a slut.)

That pattern still seems pretty popular today.

Mommy issues: Let’s look closer at St. Monica, the mother of St. Augustine.

St. Monica’s parents gave her in marriage to a Roman pagan in the 300s. They had three children. One of her children, Augustine, was raised Catholic but as he grew older he fell away. Monica’s husband died when Augustine was 17. At this time Augustine was in Carthage studying as he had an exceptional mind. An unfortunate story occurred years later when he was back home and told his mother he was going to say goodbye to a friend but he actually set sail for Rome to teach.

Monica, heart-broken, went to Rome after her son only to find that he had already gone to Milan. She then went to Milan. During this time of Augustine’s life, he was promiscuous and chasing after the pleasures and honors of the world.

During all these years Monica loved her son, prayed for him, and authentically lived out her faith. (Which was what? Attendance at mass? Daily Eucharist? Vow of poverty? Celibacy? What defined a good Roman Catholic widow?)

In Milan, Augustine had a conversion and returned to the Catholic faith. Shortly after, Monica died. In Augustine’s autobiography, The Confessions, he wrote about one of the final conversations he had with his saintly mother before she died. Monica said, “Son... there was indeed one thing...and that was that I might see you a Catholic Christian before I died. My God has exceeded this abundantly.”

Augustine went on to become a Catholic priest and then a bishop.

How much did Ste. Monica influence Augustine? Given the guilt rides I experienced from a conservative Baptist mother, I am speculating that Augustine had some serious “mommy issues.”

According to Augustine: Sex isn’t evil. (Phew!) Lust is. (Oh boy…) But in order to stimulate the man for intercourse sexual lust must be involved due to the fall of man in the garden. Hence love may be good but it doesn’t stimulate the man. Lust does, and lust is evil. Hence sexual intercourse is evil.

Obviously, extramarital sex is all evil. Augustine should know. It seems he had plenty of experience with it… So avoid women at all costs. Think of baseball again. 24/7.

So marriage presents a problem. One assumes the husband and wife live together. Sex within marriage is not evil, but it can only occur because of lust, and what gives you lust LIVES IN THE HOUSE WITH YOU!, so sex in a marriage IS EVIL, although it is not evil. Yeah, right… (I’m getting dizzy…)

The only way to abstain from lust is to abstain from marriage. (REALLY? LUST RESULTS FROM MARRIAGE? Marriage results from LUST? Just what did Monica lay on you, brother Augustine?)

On the other hand rape victims are innocent of any evil because they did not intend to sin and they didn’t enjoy the act either. I’ll bet that made them feel better… According to Augustine, before the fall sex was a passionless act. It just happened. Like scratching an itch. But after the fall the whole sex thing was let loose. Men got erections when they didn’t even want one, for Pete’s sake!!! Having unwanted children and letting them die or having an abortion of an unwanted child EXPOSED THE SIN OF MAN!!!! (Hormones hadn’t been invented yet…) I assume birth defects are also a result of the sin of man.

Augustine thought Adam as guilty as Eve in the original sin. Remember we said Saint Augustine was a misogynist. This second reference thought Augustine actually had respect for women. (As long as they did the dishes. Certainly not to be a priest. Or bishop. Or deacon. Oh, and the house need vacuuming and sheets need changed…)

January 28, 2026

Keep this in mind. Paul had a thorn in his flesh. He mentions it only ONCE, a “messenger of Satan,” he never dwelt on it. He never complained. Nor did he name it (on purpose? So we can relate ANY of our afflictions?). Was the thorn a sexual issue? A lust? A one time event that weighed on his mind every minute of every day? Who knows. (none of us…)

Some questions.
1. Paul says man should remain celibate unless one cannot contain his (do hers even matter?) natural desires (sexual), then he should marry so he can meet his needs and desires within a family. These desires seem to be to relieve the pressure, NOT to procreate. Who has the desire to procreate more than 6-8 times in a lifetime? Unless it is the husband in the article of a 20th century Jewish life of monthly rape.
There are couples who are interested in sexual relations 2-3 times a week and think nothing of it. There acts other than conventional intercourse.
Does this destroy the argument: If the parts don’t fit.. (you must convict???)
2. Good ol’ Pastor Mike of Bibletalk.tv Is Paul giving the go-ahead for Pastor Mike’s opinion?
There is no limit to the creativity that occurs in the marital relationship. Huh? Like doing WHAT? Like sex for pleasure? Like certain sex acts that do not involve procreation? Like certain things homosexuals would do? That God has given sex such pleasure that you can explore what you want? As long as you are married…
In the Old Testament God wanted ENTIRE PEOPLES to be wiped out because they were unholy and would pollute the Israelite people. They did sex acts and unholy acts.
The only sexual fantasy should be for your marriage partner. God says ENJOY YOURSELVES!!!! “Let her breasts satisfy you AT ALL TIMES!!!”

January 21, 2026

(Note: January 21 was cold. And snowy. Attendance was understandably low, but some classmates needed some catching up. And we had another great discussion. So the notes aren't very extensive. But next week... LOOK OUT!!!

So I consider you not students, but CLASSMATES. Last week I was really motivated by our discussion. A real epiphany that made Jesus’ teachings that much more relevant to me and Bible references that make more sense. We’ll get to that when we discuss RAPE, maybe today, maybe next week.

First, I received feedback from my 2 closest sources. “When are you going to stop with the sex stuff?” Let me explain. I am not obsessed with the Bible’s references to sex, but there sure is a lot of it in there. Enough to get it banned from many bookshelves and households - but it is not.

My mission is to not save the world. Certainly not to march alongside those who feel they are in the exclusive club of saved souls and the rest of the world is going to rot in hell - and they are happy about that.

No, my mission is to reach out to those the church has assessed, judged, and condemned. Those who don’t fit in the small box, those who have the audacity confront the few rules that automatically exclude you from the club.

And the biggie is sex. Specifically GAY sex. Which everyone assumes homosexuals are having because every same sex couple is condemned just by being a couple.

I have referred to my friends’ children. They left not only the Catholic Church, they left ALL churches, and they left religion. At least ORGANIZED religion.

They are still good people. They still love and respect others. They are kind. They are generous. They are still Christian in my mind. But they want no part of any church or religion that condemns week after week, day after day, their beloved aunt.

Then there is Charlie Kirk who said stoning people having same sex relations “sounds about right.” But realize Charlie was a baiter. He didn’t say Leviticus was gospel, that we all should follow. He was sucking you into a debate on why people follow some of Leviticus and ignore others. People pick and choose. Charlie wanted that reaction from you. Because it swung you away from his true belief. Gays are disgusting. Gay sex is an “abomination.” Charlie really hates gays and wouldn’t mind if they were stoned (meaning killed).

So what is the truth? Do these statements really involve sex acts or are they metaphors for events and lessons in Israel? And what did Paul say? And was it really Paul who said them?

So, sorry, a little more on sex… and rape.

And that will lead us right into misogyny, and then slavery. Woo-hoo!

Paul added his 2 cents to sexual mores and behaviors in his attempt to define the uniqueness of a Christian. Mosaic laws, Levitical laws, defined a Jew. Paul now wants to define a Christian, understanding MUCH HAD CHANGED. Now influenced by Greco-Roman Period Judaism. “Sex is a basic urge of the flesh that should mostly be repressed unless for procreation. Some even went as far as to say NO ONE - even the man - was to enjoy sex, even sex for procreation.”

Paul goes further. No sex. Period. I’m celibate. You should be too. Another period.

Don’t have kids. No time. Jesus is coming. So sex is not to be enjoyed (that was the downfall of so many cities Paul visited, especially the seaport town of Cortinth. Corinth actually had 2 ports, north and south, on different gulfs.) Sex is only for procreation. Since Christ will be returning soon, your kids will not have a chance to grow up. So don’t bother having them.

But… Paul is dealing with Gentiles. Greeks. Romans. They knew lust. They knew desires. And they knew how to relieve them. So Paul says OK, have your sex, but only with your wife. Period. But stay holy. Don’t enjoy sexual activity like the Greeks who don’t know God. Stay away from passion. Think about baseball if you have to (apologies Naked Gun Frank Drummond).

In Romans Chapter one Paul rails against the Greeks telling them what sinners they are. They have no laws like the good Jews do. Just as the Jews swell with pride, in Chapter 2, Paul tears into them telling them that living by the law is worthy but impossible. Quit judging the Greeks, the Jews are just as good at sinning as the Greeks.

Paul accuses the Greeks of trying to understand God by “knowledge” and creating gods out of animals and statues and idols. THIS is why God gave them over to shameful lusts (that some seem to limit to homosexuality, perhap so they can enjoy their pleasures which happen to be HETERO sexual.

January 14, 2026

NOTE: We are looking at the social and societal norms of ancient Israelis. They can be hard to understand. Perhaps easier to understand if we recognize some of these behaviors continue today. For reference read Referenced Articles 2 The Apostle Paul page 57 Forced Marriage. Note: This is situation of a woman in a conservative Orthodox Jewish society. Certainly these rules do not apply over the entire population of Jewish people. Which begs the question: Were Mosaic Laws followed equally over the entire Israeli populace in the times they were written? Did the poor family scraping by on an acre farm with a few sheep and couple goats worried about getting a good price for their daughters? Dominance in the bedroom? Social standing or dominance in the community? Read on:

An aside: To be a cynic: Would prohibiting sexual activity between two consenting adults as a means to address a public health issue be a violation of their rights? Like having to wear a mask in public during an outbreak of an airborne disease? Or mandating someone to have to get a vaccination?

So we have looked at some Mosaic Law about food and sexual behaviors. Meant for health reasons, meant for religious reasons - becoming righteous with God, or a combination of both.

We looked at what Jesus said, which isn’t much besides condemning adultery and forbidding divorce except in cases of adultery. Which in his day perhaps refers to the stability of the family and continued support for the mother who would have little option or means to support herself. And perhaps a justification for divorce because the philanedering spouse may have brought an STD into the household. Is disease the reason? Is the stigma of infidelity? Or is it a bit of both?

I was going to move on to Paul and his statements on women that rightly get many folks into a tizzy. But I came across two issues that I want to address first to help us understand what the Levitical Laws were about why Jesus and Paul said and wrote what they did.

I thought I had a grasp on how different life was in 1500 B.C., 1000 B.C., and in the 1st century A.D. I thought I had set the stage. After study this week I realized I wasn’t even close.

The two issues are related: One historical and the other some information in Deuteronomy that is quite interesting.

So first, we sometimes have difficulty putting ourselves back in historical times, especially 2000 and 3000 years ago. Just think how many people think the 1950’s and 1960’s were the defining years of American history. Most everyone was Christian, almost everyone went to church, we read the Bible in school, we recited the Lord’s prayer or Psalm 23 in school. We didn’t know any Muslims. There weren’t that many Jews and we kept them under control. If they got too power hungry we were good at shutting them down. Race was separate but equal (actually unequal) and we were good at squashing any attempt to change that.

And this was all justified by OUR interpretation of the Bible.

So how accurate do you think the VERBAL version of the Books of Moses were over 1000 - 2000 -3000 years amongst the copies and translations written by church groups and governments that had their own agendas…

To wit: There have been over 100 new translations of the Bible IN ENGLISH ALONE in the 1900’s and over 120 new translations in English since 2000. Do you think the message may have changed? Did these translations come from scholars who looked at early Hebrew and Greek sources? Or were they spun to fit the 21st century? Or spun to fit someone's agenda?

To understand these are the words of God, we need to see how they fit in with what we know about the Middle Eastern area from history. Let’s look. At sex.

The act of sexual intercourse was not necessarily an act of mutual love. Author Dan McClellan’s opinion is that the overwhelming sexual liaisons had nothing to do with love, but more with DOMINANCE of the “active sexual agent” to a “passive sexual object.” It was a one-way act. The passive object had no say in the matter. Sex was not done in private. The acts themselves were a matter of social hierarchy of dominance.

Remember that when discussing rape in a few moments. There may have been some consequences to raping a virgin, but once she marries and maybe has her first kid or two, it seems bagging a babe in public didn’t bring a man shame, condemnation, or criminal charges, it may have actually have increased his standing in social circles. It also indicates bagging a MAN in public may do the same as long as the man gets the top position. (Think this is nuts? Toilets were in public as well. Outdoors. No walls. No stalls.)

The bottom participant was the dominated one. Be it man on woman, woman on man. And the problem with man on man is NOT because it was homosexual sex. It is because one of the participants was “on the bottom,” hence a man being under a man was no worse than a man being under a woman. It made the man “weak.” In fact if a man is found on the bottom he would lose his vigor and spend the next month “without his personal god.”

Homosexual sex was bad not in the sense that it was man with man. Homosexual sex was a way to demean a man.

Example 1: Judges 19:22 The story of the man and the concubine: Bring out the man who came to your house so that we may have sex with him. Not for the pleasure of it, but for the means of humiliating him. Judges 19 is a study on its own. And it is bizarre and ugly. Suffice it to say, they shove the concubine out the door and the mob was fully satisfied with raping her to death. She was great for sex. They wanted him for the humiliation.

Example 2: Sodom and Gomorrah. Sodom. The very basis for the term sodomy. It’s about sex. Gay sex. The city was destroyed because everyone was having gay sex. Except it isn’t. It’s about gang rape.

A group of male outsiders want to rape 2 angels sent by God to check out the city. Angels are male. Raping males is upsetting social structure. Lot tries to rectify the situation by sending out his daughters to be raped. It was his way of honoring the ancient way of protecting a guest under one’s roof. Evidently a guest is more important than a woman even if the woman is one’s own daughter.

But actually it means the men want to HUMILIATE the angels who represent GOD. Sodom is evil not because of gay sex. Sodom is evil because they are rejecting God, IN THE MOST HUMILIATING WAY POSSIBLE. Sodom’s sin is a bunch of men figuratively wanting to put God, via his angels, ON THE BOTTOM.

Lot’s daughters are rejected. They are not there for sex. They are there for humiliation. They aren’t going to achieve that by raping a couple worthless WOMEN.

AND… the story needs to preserve the 2 daughters of Lot. They are the ones who get Lot drunk, have sex with their own father, and become the lines of Ammon (the Ammonites) and Moab (the Moabites), perpetual enemies of the Jewish people.

So for male - male penetrative gay sex: The exact verse (note: it has undergone some transformation over the years):

Leviticus 18:22 “and with a male, you shall not lie the lyings of a woman. That is an abomination.”

In Dan McClellan’s opinion here is the abomination:

The submissive one receives no judgement here. He is considered a victim of the act.

The abomination lies in the judgement of the dominant man who does the act. Not that the ACT itself is detestable - presumably the same act with a woman is just fine and dandy. The issue is that societal hierarchy has been disrupted. A male has been put in a submissive role by another male. And THAT is the abomination.

The punishments? Social ostracism. Prohibition from the temple. Execution. Or perhaps a little procedure to end the progeny line - castration.

Just 2 chapters later the rules change.

NOTE: THE RULES CHANGE. Can rules from God change? Did God say man on man sex is an abomination for the top guy, then 50 years later decide, “Well, I changed my mind. Now they are both an abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13 “a man that lies with a man the lyings of a woman, the TWO of them have done an abominable thing.”

I guess they decided the submissive male may not have put up enough fight, maybe none at all. So society cannot be cleansed unless we get rid of BOTH of the participants. Again. Not the act. They upset social hierarchy.

Woman on woman sex? No big deal. Go for it. There is no penetration. Top-bottom? Who cares? They are both women. Turn sumersaults if they want…

BUT… there is one taboo. Bestiality. No sex with animals. NOT because it is disgusting as an act. Oh, no. It’s because the woman could assume the top, dominant position. THAT is the abomination. That is also Gross.

One final note: Our group was perplexed. Even in the time of 2500-3000 years ago, were people that uncaring? Was money powerful a draw to EVERYONE. Did the average family adhere to these laws? Did a family scratching out a living with a small plot of land and a few goats and sheep really care about bagging the neighbor to put them in their place? Were people that low? Did they even have time for such pettiness?

IS THIS JESUS’ message while on earth. Pharisees, quit making life miserable with these absolutely STUPID IRRELEVANT LAWS and let people live their lives. Love the Lord your God, Love your neighbor as yourself, Treat your neighbor THE WAY YOU WANT THEM TO TREAT YOU, and ENJOY THE LIFE GOD CREATED YOU FOR!

Kife is tough enough. Don’t deny yourselves some pleasure now and then. Just don’t hurt anyone else in the process.

January 7, 2026

Back to something more upbeat: STDs!!!

I’m beginning to think STDs had a major impact on the Bible. Yet is it mentioned? Leviticus 15:32 (NIV) This is the law for one who has a discharge, and for him who emits semen and is unclean thereby, -or- (KJV) This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth from him, and is defiled therewith; (The issue is Gonorrhea???) That’s it. All these laws. Possibly? Probably? Based on the STD of gonorrhea? Why didn’t they say so? Easy. BECAUSE NOBODY KNEW WHAT IT WAS! I assume the people in Biblical times were as horny as any other generation. They had hormones. They had thoughts. They had desires, both noble and primal. They spread disease. And they had no idea what it was, but it came after sexual activity. They had only one cure. PREVENTION. I wonder if it was any more successful than our Birth Control by abstinence today? The question is: Are we basing our lives on knowledge of 2000+ years ago? Should we? Are we losing good people from the faith because of measures used rightly or wrongly 2000+ years ago?

See Leviticus 15:2-3 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When any man has an unusual bodily discharge, such a discharge is unclean. Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean.

This is consistent with the diseases of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and urethritis.

Other purity laws address “blood flow” which would refer to abnormal menstual cycles (I assume including miscarriages and UTI’s).

So now we come to the man lay with man as one does with a woman.

Is this a law from God that the act is WRONG - a SIN? Or is this a medical recommendation that this act may lead to spread of disease because homosexual realtionships are not monogamous and multiple partners will lead to spread of disease.

Would man lay with man be acceptable if the situation was monogamous?

Is this why young slave boys were the desire of Greco-Roman men? Perhaps “virginal” there would be much less a likelihood of contracting an STD. The young boys would be groomed. Identified as “MY POSSESSION.” For ME ONLY. Yes I have my fun, but I am not spreading disease. Because the conquering armies were probably doing a bang up job at it.

Does this sould disgusting to you? Why? Because it involves a same sex arrangement? Because concubines were sex toys of the wealthy. That had been practiced and ACCEPTED for years. Take Abraham himself. Sure he was married to Sarah, but Hagar was his slave woman and he obviously had sex with her. It created the Isaac - Ishmael tension that still rocks our world today.

What does Jesus Say? Can this be true?

Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 Jesus heals the “servant” of the Roman Centurion. Serious spin or really deep hidden clues? Let’s look at this miracle healing in the context of the history of the Roman Army. (Traveling. Conquering. Having their way with the conquered. Spreading STDs as they traveled.)

Matthew 8:5-13 When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion (A Professional Officer commanding 100 men +/-) came forward to him, appealing to him, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

First of all, what’s a Roman Centurion coming to Jesus for? This is not just an oppressive soldier meant to maintain order, he is THE LEADER of a bunch of oppressive soldiers. He begs Jesus to heal his beloved “servant.” But the ORIGINAL Greek word was PAIS, a boy, a son, a beloved son. It was used culturally to mean a “younger male beloved by an older male.” Hmmm. Soldiers were an all-male club. Dependent on each other. Nudity was common. Think sporting events. Could it be that there were relations amongst them? Could this be the context here? Roman officers left their wives at home but brought along a personal servant, for more than keeping his wardrobe clean. Gay sex was ok as long as you weren’t the one being penetrated. That was the role of the young slave boy. The Roman and Greek Empires were fine with it.

Is this why the Centurion said: Hey, no need to come see who you are healing. (Like, I don’t want you to know the specific circumstances. Might be embarrassing. You might not want to heal him.) Just heal him remotely. The Centurion believed. Jesus knew what was going on. Jesus healed him. Jesus will heal any one. Even the boy lover of a hated, oppressive, Roman Centurion. Maybe?

December 17, 2025

So I have tried to build a theory here that Leviticus was a compilation of knowledge gathered by a people who were “inspired by God” perhaps through the spirit that THEY were to be the chosen people. Why “chosen?” Because they wanted to be a people of better health (genetics - no in-breeding), better hygiene (better diet - eliminate the foods that gave stomach distress (whether they knew those stomach issues were due to parasites or not), and also sexual purity laws to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Were Jews CHOSEN BY GOD or did the Jews decide to be the CHOSEN PEOPLE OF GOD by taking all the medical, societal, and ethical knowledge of the day and making laws that, if adhered to, made one “righteous” in the eyes of God. The only population that was truly righteous, hence the only true “PEOPLE OF GOD.”

It’s sort of important, BECAUSE IF that is the case, why should any other population not set ideals and standards by which they can call themselves a chosen people of God. It has always struck me that Muhammed’s vision and writing of the Q’uran is simply taking a semi-plagiarized version of the Torah and making Ishmael the favored son. Hence, the Muslims are the chosen people.

Is that what we, as Christians, believe? We were Gentiles, believing in many Gods. We now have our messenger, Jesus, who has made us the chosen peoples - no one comes to the Father but by me.

Are the god(s) of the Native Americans - if it leads to love of “God” and love of neighbor - able to make them a chosen people of God? Same for Hindu? Buddha?

Is there a difference in that the Jewish people do not evangelize? What constitutes a Jew anyways? Our friend is 3% Jew. How did they figure that out? (Ancestry.com, 23 and me, all do a statistical analysis of the genetic code and compare it to a data base of a population. I.e. Joyce had 3% of her genetic code in common with 2 or 3 known populations of known Jewish peoples - the Ashkenazi (Central/Eastern European), the Sephardic (Iberian/Mediterranean), and the Mizrahi which (Middle Eastern Jewish people.) Maybe Joyce isn’t as Jewish as she thinks? Or maybe she is MORE Jewish?

We sure know both Islam and Christianity have been aggressive in evangelism over the years - at the point of a spear if necessary. Christianity still is active in evangelism - some via good works of health care, nutrition, and education especially by women - and some by preaching, and others by force or threat of eternity in hell.

So why am I digressing this week? Australia, unfortunately. The killing of Jews by a father and his son, evidently influenced by ISIS, a Muslim group.

The Hebrew Book of Samuel says “Kill them all.” 1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” Guess where the Amalekites lived? The Negev Desert. A territory “administered” by Israel. Guess what that region borders immediately to the East?? Gaza. And in Gaza that is pretty much what they are doing.

Does the Q’uran tell Muslims to kill all the Jews? No. Jews and Christians are “People of the Book” and are granted special protection under Islamic law as they share a monotheistic heritage. EXCEPT Q’uran 60:8 states

Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair. I guess that throws the “special protection” out the window…

And the Hadith is a different story. Supposed additional sayings of Muhhamud. Someday the Muslims will kill all the Jews: “The hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: “O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

Don’t expect the news headlines to change anytime soon…December 10, 2025

Leviticus 19:29 “‘Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.”

Shouldn’t our first thought be for the daughter? Is she "expendable?" It’s the community we are worried about? Is this really about a daughter becoming a prostitute or is it an allegory that if the people in the community start to go bad - say drift away from the true God Yahweh - then the entire land will drift away as well? Are we reading way too much into these Laws of Moses?

So a brief recap to bring us up to speed.

Dietary laws because of parasites: protozoans (amoebic dysentery. Don’t drink the water, drink the Boone’s Farm Strawberry Hill and the Budweiser), worms - tapeworms, round worms, and flukes. More common in pork products (pigs eat garbage - does that make them unclean?) and bottom feeders of the sea (shrimp, lobster, etc. - they eat the waste that drifts to the sea floor - does that make them unclean?) Did Mosaic Law come from a lightning bolt from God? Or is Mosaic Law a wise observation by the CDC of the early Israelite people?

What is the strangest of the Levitical Laws of Moses? Did you ever think of this one?

Take Leviticus 18:23-28 23 ‘“Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

Why? Read further…

24 ‘“Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

One other item that caught my eye this week. (Wally?) The minotaur. A creature of Greek mythology. The body of a man and the head of a bull. The mother was Queen Pasiphae and a divine bull.

Which got me thinking. Because many of the laws of the Israelites were in response to what the Egyptians did. If the Egyptians did it, then we reject it. Many gods? No, one God, Yahweh. Elevation of ethics. Moral character, justice (justice? Leviticus 24:17-22 an eye for an eye - death for a murderer, etc.), mercy for the vulnerable (widow, orphan, stranger). Unique civil and ritual law - here we find the dietary sacrificial, and Sabbath Law.

But what influenced those?

What were the Egyptian Gods?

Now that is interesting because guess what most of the gods of the Egyptians were? You got it, part animal, part human.

So IF the dietary laws were meant to prevent “defiling the country” by keeping the populace HEALTHY by forbidding the practices of the Egyptians - a healthy populace is a HOLY populace, is it possible the inclusion in “the LAW” of no sexual relations with animals a similar way to break with the practices of the Egyptians?

Are these PURITY laws or laws used to differentiate from the practices of the Egyptians?

Or is it BOTH?

I mean having some suspect sexual practices may affect the small (I hope small) number of people who have sex with animals, but the sex with animals leading to “false gods” of half man - half animal (and the suspect practice of FORCING a woman to perform this act as part of a religious ritual, well THAT could destroy a nation. Definitely destroy a nation in the eyes of God.

So let’s go back to the SEXUAL PURITY laws.

Yes, hormones existed.

Yes premarital sex existed. Perhaps frowned on but not as condemning for a male - unless it was a virgin. Then he had some problems. And if it was rape.

But it WAS a big deal for the female. The virgin. A girl. Because she was to be married by age 14.

Yes, sex occured outside the husband wife relationship.

Not with a family member - I assume incest had the same visible results then as now.

Maybe so because they pretty much nailed this one. Leviticus 18:6-26 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord. “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you. And so on…

So was this a lightning bolt from Adonai? Yahweh? God? Because Gregor Mendel didn’t invent genetics until the 18th century…

BUT…

Perhaps Levitical Laws were in response to the Egyptians of whom they had just fled.

"Cleopatra's ancestors were big fans of incest (the 16 roles of her great-great-grandparents were filled by just six individuals), and members of the Ptolemaic dynasty had a reputation for being...odd-looking. Cleopatra, reportedly, was above-average-looking compared to others in her family, but according to historians like Plutarch, the general consensus was that 'her beauty…was in itself not altogether incomparable, nor such as to strike those who saw her.'"

This ancient Egyptian tradition of inbreeding continued until the very last Egyptian pharaohs, the Ptolemaic royal family. The historically infamous queen Cleopatra married her 10-year-old brother, Ptolemy XIII at the age of 18. Ironically Cleopatra wasn’t even Egyptian. There's some speculation that Cleopatra may have had some Syrian blood from several generations prior, but she was almost entirely Greek.

She was the first of the Ptolemaic dynasty to actually learn how to speak Egyptian, which was notable.

So now let’s visit the BIG one in the Levitical Laws: Homosexuality

First: Is the Evangelical concern with a gay couple the Man-Man or Woman -Woman love for each other and the co-habitation that may result. Or the civil union, or the marriage. Or is it the SEXUAL ACTIVITY part?

PERHAPS this why homosexuality was lumped in with sexual immorality? Gay sex was not included in a “monogamous marriage.” By definition the sex was not limited to a single partner (although it could have been). Were sexual immorality rules and laws for ethical reasons, spiritual reasons, and religious reasons? Or a very rational medical attempt to limit a widespread epidemic of gonorrhea?

Next week we talk about it.

December 3, 2025

Leviticus 19:29 “‘Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.”

Shouldn’t our first thought be for the daughter? Is she expendable? It’s the community we are worried about?

Short review from last week: Jesus shatters the norms of his day (and ours as well?) by including women in his ministry.

1. Those who traveled with him and provided financial resources for him. Mary (Magdalene we assume), Joanna, and Susanna.

2. The woman at the well. HE spoke to HER. Don’t you know who she is? Yes, a human being created by God, the one we are to forgive and love just like God does.

3. Mary and Martha. Women are good for more than babymaking and household chores. They too can sit at the feet of Jesus and learn.

4. The woman with the blood flow. Good old Leviticus. All kinds of rules. The Sabbath was made for man, NOT man for the Sabbath. Flexibility and compassion over rigid adherence.

Why study Paul? My study was driven by a comment by Bill Maher, of all people. His comments upon dissing Christianity and the Bible: “Just start with the racism, the misogyny, the slavery. And that’s enough.”

ACTUAL QUOTE: “When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say, really? Well besides wars, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot - blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan.” Bill Maher

Back to Paul:

Is Paul drawing a distinction between this plethora of “sins against the body” and sexual sins in these verses in 1 Corinthians 6?

1 Corinthians 6:18-20. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. (But still, don’t smoking, drinking, drug use, harm “INSIDE THE BODY?” If having sex with a prostitute means you are soiling Jesus himself with the prostitute are you not also getting Jesus DRUNK if you get drunk?)

So again: Is Paul drawing a distinction between this plethora of “sins against the body” and sexual sins in these verses in 1 Corinthians 6?

Well, It sure seems so. Is this why the “evangelicals” dwell so much on “sexual immorality.” Oh, we admit we do the “little sins,” but we ask for forgiveness and on we go with life. It’s those SEXUALLY IMMORAL people that are the REAL sinners. Could it be possible to cover their own behinds the “scholars” have narrowed sexual immorality to HOMOSEXUALITY? Looking at you, Doug Moo.

So for kicks and giggles, let’s use some science to analyze WHY SEXUAL SINS WERE EMPHASIZED SO PROMINENTLY IN JEWISH LAW AND PAUL’S EPISTLES? (Less so by Jesus himself, although his major issue was ADULTERY. Was there a reason why Jesus was so wrapped up in adultery?)

1. Sexual immorality: IF our hypothesis is correct and dietary laws were meant to address parasitic infections (that had devastating consequences, by the way), is there an analogous rationale for sexual purity laws?

STDs perhaps? Sexually transmitted diseases. How prevalent were they in Biblical times? Did they influence the purity laws of Judaism? Jesus? Paul? My research indicates: Prevalent. Yes. Yes. And yes.

UTIs? You betcha. Did they have cranberry juice in Biblical times? Because they sure didn’t have Macrodantin…

But let’s discuss the big two in STDs. Syphilis and Gonorrhea.

Syphilis was likely NOT present. The debate whether Columbus and his crew brought it back from the Americas is ongoing. Perhaps another reason we ought not celebrate the valiant Italiano. 15 years ago it was thought yes they did. As of last year, maybe not.

Gonorrhea. A different story. It was rampant. With 2 reasons. Prostitutes. Warfare. Society contributed to both. Women with no education had little option for survival if the cards didn’t fall right. Soldiers had a tough life and took the spoils of war to include the women of the lands they conquered. (Some things never change. Is that the mark of a military conquest? You get to have your way with their women? IS JESUS’ ACCEPTANCE OF WOMEN AS MORE THAN A SEX TOY EVEN MORE REVOLUTIONARY THAN I THOUGHT? If so the armies of the world seem to have forgotten about it,,,)

November 26, 2025

Leviticus 19:29 “‘Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.”

Shouldn’t we care about the daughter first?

Possible additional discussion on Jesus, the Champion of Women’s rights:

From Separation of Church and Hate.

Page 90 JESUS: The BIGGEST FEMINIST IN HISTORY.

The sermon on the Mount - the opening line. You shall not commit adultery - which given arranged marriages and loose restrictions on divorce was hard to pin down in its own right. But Jesus goes on: Matthew 5:28 If you even LOOK at a woman lustfully you have committed adultery with her “in your heart.” (Does the “in your heart” soften the severity of the adultery crime a bit? Still not good but at least you didn’t carry out the physical act.)

I remember Jimmy Carter admitting in front of the entire nation: I have looked at women lustfully. Oh the humanity! God forgive me! I’m a sinner. And also remember - this was in a time AFTER hormones had been invented… Is THIS what Jesus meant?

Or is Jesus bringing women “out of the stone ages.” Essentially saying: Is that all you think a woman is good for? A sex object? You can’t carry out a mature conversation with a woman? You think she doesn’t have a brain? You don’t even say hello until you have checked out the legs, the butt, the boobs, the face, the hair? Forget the Lustfulness part. It’s ok to admire a beautiful woman. But women are more than sex objects, and that is ALL MEN THOUGHT THEY WERE GOOD FOR. Groundbreaking. EARTHSHATTERING. Women’s rights are born. By Jesus. Amazing.

Page 91 Shattering more norms, a bunch at a time. The Samaritan woman. Jesus, this PERFECT man, speaks to the detestable Samaritan woman. The hated Samaritan woman. A 5 time loser with men, although we don’t know who dumped who and we don’t know if they all involved marriage. It does hint she was intimate with earth one, however. And now she is shacking up with a 6th man. Damaged goods. An outcast.

So norms Jesus is shattering: 1. HE spoke to HER. 2. A JEW spoke to a SAMARITAN. A FOREIGNER. 3. He asked for a DRINK from an OUTCAST (dare I say A SLUT? I don’t, but Jesus’ disciples would.) 4. He talked to her ALONE. Women usually traveled in groups, but she was ALONE. In all likelihood she was shunned by other women (the slut thing).

Jesus didn’t shame her. Jesus didn’t condemn her. HE OFFERED HER LIVING WATER. He offered her FORGIVENESS and UNDERSTANDING.

No rabbi would have come near this woman let alone speak to her. Jesus did. In fact this outcast is VERY PERSON he came out of the closet with. She asked if he had heard the news going around about the messiah. He didn’t laugh, didn’t belittle, didn’t scoff. No, he replied: Yeah. That’s me.

The disciples show up and ask: What the heck are you doing talking to that slut for? (See. I told you the disciples would use that term.) Don’t you know who she is?

Jesus replied: Sure. She’s a child of God. And I just revealed for the first time the biggest news in history to her.

Jesus didn’t judge. Why the hell are YOU?

Page 93 Martha and Mary. Jesus shows up at Lazarus’ house. Safe assumption it was his house. Women couldn’t own a house, could they? Anyway, Martha is doing the “women’s work,” the chores, cooking for the whole crowd. Mary balked at her duties. He was mesmerized by the rabbi. The teacher. She SAT AT HIS FEET - the place where the TOP STUDENT SAT! That’s a WOMAN. Not only LEARNING, but THE TOP STUDENT! How could a woman learn? WHY would a woman learn??? Child production and women’s work. That’s all they are good for. We have all felt sorry for Martha. Stuck with all the work. Jesus didn’t care about real food. He cared about spiritual food. Women have more value than just household chores and childbearing/child rearing. They have brains. They are to use them!!!

Page 94 The bleeding woman. Unclean. You can’t be touched. You can’t touch anything. Why are you even out of the HOUSE? She touches Jesus. Jesus feels the energy. Jesus does not rebuke. Jesus loves. Jesus heals.

Another norm broken. Women are real people. Women are more than sex toys and household servants. Women deserve attention. Women deserve RESPECT. Women deserve HEALTHCARE! Let that one sink in.

Page 95 A shamed woman anoints Jesus feet at the house of a Pharisee. She has an alabaster jar. So question 1, why a shamed woman at the house of a Pharisee? Visitor? Concubine? Pharisee’s plaything? A “plant” to “trap” Jesus? And where did she get an alabaster jar of perfume? She puts it on Jesus’ feet? An act of “anointing?” Anointing a “KING?” Anoint not the head but the feet? Not by a priest but by a shamed woman in the house of a priest? The priest tries to trap him by asking “ya know a messiah would know what kind of woman this is.” Jesus said yeah, a sinner. But I forgave her sins. She’s pretty thankful. You see, you are priests to the rich. I came to save the sinners. I came to SERVE these people. Cause you aren’t doing your job.

He looked at the Pharisee: Luke 7:44 Do you see this WOMAN? Do you see her as a human - a FEMALE HUMAN? Or do you just see a slut. Because Jesus sees her as a person. A person with potential, The Pharisee sees the bad stuff. Jesus always sees the good in a person. Always seeing the potential.

November 19, 2025

Who has a good memory? At 11:55 Will someone please remind me to give you a “thought for the week.” One verse I want you to roll around in your head this week. If someone has a REALLY good memory, remind me next week and we will open with it. Leviticus 19:29 “‘Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.”

Review:

1. Jesus was the greatest champion for women’s rights in history - he welcomed them, ate with them, traveled with them, and communicated with them - even LISTENED to them. WOMEN WERE MORE THAN SEX OBJECTS or BABY PRODUCERS. They were part of the team.

2. Dietary Laws. No shellfish. No lobster. No clams. No shrimp. No snails. No snakes or other reptiles (no gator bites). No birds of prey (scavenger birds - think eagles as mighty warriors? Only if they have to…) No octopi - bottom dwellers. No squid - they eat shrimp. No insects - Hear that John the Baptist?- except for certain locusts, maybe an exception for John the Baptist? Nor any fruit that may be infested with insects. THESE LAWS ARE PRUDENT ADVICE FOR ANY POPULATION AT THE TIME. Perhaps the Israelites aren’t the “chosen people.” Maybe they are simply the ones who “chose TO BE HEALTHY!”

The kosher butcher. Meat must be drained of the blood. Another source of transmission of parasites. How well was meat cooked? Was it cooked at all? Was indigestion, parasitic infections, et. al. linked to eating bloody meat? So a law was made?

Chicken is ok despite our concern today of salmonella. But only if correctly slaughtered and only if prepared with utensils that have not touched non-kosher meat or ANY DAIRY PRODUCT. I assume cream of chicken soup would get you tossed from the club.

So were the dietary laws a lightning bolt from heaven? Or recommendations that became law by those who studied health and hygiene of the day and sought to keep their brothers and sisters healthy? (Hollywood Squares. I take Buddy Hackett for the win: What country has the most doctors? It has to be the country with the most Jews. I’ll say Israel. I’ll agree. Correct. It is Israel…)

7. Jesus - Jesus offered love and forgiveness with no judgment. (Or did he? He was ok with the Samaritan, ok with the Roman centurion, ok with the woman at the well, ok with the tax collector… Was he ok with the Roman government and their treatment of the average Jewish peasant (which was 90-95% of Jesus’ friends and neighbors)? Was he ok with the Pharisees and Sadducees? He kinda did a number on the temple.)

Paul - Laid out many structured and conservative rules on sexual morality, marriage, and social conduct. 1 Corinthians 6:7-20 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men (NOTE: This has been edited by those who have “written” the NIV including Doug Moo who stated “if you don’t see the sin in homosexuality then there is no hope for you… The KJV stated it differently: nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind… Methinks Dougie and the other NIV writers wanted it to explicitly say HOMOSEXUAL to match their agenda.), nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. (People were doing whatever they pleased. Hey, I was a sinner but confessed to Jesus and all was forgiven. Why not sin again? Do whatever I pleased. Just say a little prayer and get forgiven again. A lifetime of “get out of jail free cards.” “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” (Paul is meaning the food on earth and the body on earth. Both are temporary and both will pass away.) The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. (Meaning don’t defile your body with sexual sins. That will destroy the spiritual and eternal body that God has given us.) By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

Is this what I am hearing here?

Your body is a temple… (Oh, we sure heard it when we were growing up…)

You destroy your “temple” with: Drug usage. Drinking - Beer, wine. Really? In Jesus; and Paul’s time it was a “don’t drink the water” type of civilization. And the alcohol content of the beer and wine of Biblical times was shown to be not so different that what we drink today. Smoking. Drug use. Opium - the “joy plant” was used by the Sumerians way before Israel fled Egypt. Residue has been dated to 14th century B.C. Cannabis has been identified in residue dated to the 8th century B.C. Archeological evidence shows cannabis use by ancient Israelites. Were magic mushrooms used? For “visions?” For John on Patmos writing Revelation? Best evidence to date: This is FALSE.)

Let’s take this even further: If your body is a temple of God and you are to prevent this body from harm, what about obesity? Any dangerous occupation? Race car driving? Football? Any contact sport? Is ziplining a sin?

What about evangelism? Paul took plenty of beatings in his day. He sort of asked for it, riling up the crowds and all. Were the beatings and eventual beheading of Paul and the other apostles a sin against their bodies, a temple of God?

Or perhaps NOT. Is Paul drawing a distinction between this plethora of “sins against the body” and sexual sins in these verses in 1 Corinthians 6?

So again: Is Paul drawing a distinction between this plethora of “sins against the body” and sexual sins in these verses in 1 Corinthians 6?

Well, It sure seems so. Is this why the “evangelicals” swell so much on “sexual immorality.” Oh, we admit we do the “little sins,” but we ask for forgiveness and on we go with life. It’s those SEXUALLY IMMORAL people that are the REAL sinners. Could it be possible to cover their own behinds the “scholars” have narrowed sexual immorality to HOMOSEXUALITY? Looking at you, Doug Moo.

November 26, 2025

Leviticus 19:29 “‘Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.”

Shouldn’t we care about the daughter first?

Possible additional discussion on Jesus, the Champion of Women’s rights:

From Separation of Church and Hate.

Page 90 JESUS: The BIGGEST FEMINIST IN HISTORY.

Jesus didn’t shame her. Jesus didn’t condemn her. HE OFFERED HER LIVING WATER. He offered her FORGIVENESS and UNDERSTANDING.

The disciples show up and ask: What the heck are you doing talking to that slut for? (See. I told you the disciples would use that term.) Don’t you know who she is?

Jesus replied: Sure. She’s a child of God. And I just revealed for the first time the biggest news in history to her.

Jesus didn’t judge. Why the hell are YOU?

Another norm broken. Women are real people. Women are more than sex toys and household servants. Women deserve attention. Women deserve RESPECT. Women deserve HEALTHCARE! Let that one sink in.

November 12, 2025

6. Jesus - Held women in high regard. They were never named as part of the chosen 12 disciples, but were integral in his mission. They even bankrolled him. (Mary Magdalene. Some ancient texts list her as a daughter of a wealthy family. Read = CA$H.) (Joanna, wife of Chuza, financial administrator for Herod Antipas. Luke 8:1-3 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.

OK. So let’s think about this for a minute.

First, Susanna is the easy one. She carried the group's banjo.

Second, Mary Magdalene - -which means she is from Magdala. Some think the sister of Lazarus and Martha, probably NOT. But she was cured of 7 demons - any significance in that number? A demon for every day of the week? Actually 7 is a recurring number of “fullness or completion.” She was fully restored. Healed. Of an illness. Addiction (to sin?). Or whatever HER demons were.

Third, Joanna also was “healed?” Demon possessed? What the heck constitutes a DEMON? Mental illness? Unstable? Hippie? Women’s libber? Oppressed by a demanding husband? Was the husband the demon? Did Jesus merely get her away from an abusive husband? Did she have a different illness? Skin disease? Digestive disorder? Did Joanna have a tapeworm?

The 12 disciples traveled with Jesus. DID THE WOMEN TRAVEL WITH JESUS TOO? (It says they DID.)

This is a MAJOR break with the traditions, strict social divisions, and societal norms of the day. Did Joanna have to step down from her social position to travel with Jesus? Did she have to get DIVORCED? Didn’t Jesus say NO to divorce? Except for marital infidelity? Was Chuza an adulterer? (Would that surprise anyone if Roman aristocrats were philanderers?) Does this support Joanna “demon” being her husband?

Why were all the disciples male? 1. It was expected for the day. Men were of higher status, women were lower status with fewer rights (don’t shoot the messenger…).

2. Travel issues. Safety. Hygiene. Plus the stigma of appearing in public with men (social norms). (Which makes me admire Joanna all the more. The others as well.)

3. Opportunities for women to teach or lead in public. Women were not to be taught the Torah. 4. The 12 represented the 12 tribes of Israel - the 12 sons of Abraham. Being sons, they were all male. This was the re-founding of Israel. The new 12.

REGARDLESS, Jesus had NO PROBLEM breaking the norms. Women were welcomed into his club. The woman with the chronic blood discharge (can’t get any more unclean than that…) touched Jesus and he was pleased, honored, help me with a word here???, that this woman had the faith that by merely touching him her life would be changed. The temple priests would have had a fit. Women were welcomed to travel with Jesus. 5. MEN WROTE THE BOOK.

JESUS SAW WOMEN AS MORE THAN JUST SEX OBJECTS OR BABY MAKING MACHINES!!! (Reference Mike Pence: I would never have lunch or dinner alone with a woman unless “mother” was along. Seriously? Was I any better? I hope I am now.)

Paul - He gave specific instructions and restrictions on the roles of women. (Although the consistency of these rules were far from hard and fast.) Paul often offered praise and respect for women serving leadership roles in churches. He had his own group of women that he counted on: Priscilla, Phoebe (Paul called her a servant or “deacon”, the same Greek word Paul used for Timothy), and Jania to name a few. Not to mention Thecla. (Were his restrictions a response to his misogynistic Greek and Roman audiences?)

I used to chuckle when people, mostly women, pointed out how important women were in the Bible. Because there really isn’t much about them. Mainly because of the male dominated societies of the time - Israel and Greco-Roman societies. But I dare say looking at the original churches that Paul and his co-horts established it looks like women ran or played significant roles in many (most?) of them. Had the religion not moved on to include Gentiles would the church have allowed such a prominent role for women? If James had won exclusivity and Christianity would have been a mere offshoot of Judaism, would he have allowed women to be involved? Women were not to learn the Torah. (Recall: Women were in the club (Judaism) by producing children for their man as long as the man had his wiener snipped.) Would James have let them in the “Jewish Christian Church?”

November 5, 2025

Back to Paul:

3. Jesus - was RURAL. Poorly educated? Maybe? Poverty. Criticized.

Paul - was URBAN. Well educated. A Pharisee (probably). Wealthy (wealthier). Respected.

4. Jesus - Jesus focused on a close, personal relationship with God. Radical love, forgiveness, and social justice. (I recently read a statement: Jesus was NOT POLITICAL.

The Death of Politics by Peter Wehner. The real Jesus demonstrated a profound mistrust of political power and did not encourage his disciples to become involved in political movements of any kind. REALLY?

Really? Remember at the time: Jews were living under an oppressive Roman regime. Carry this a mile. Because I said so. Build this building, harbor, whatever. Because I said so. PAY THIS TAX. Why? Because I said so. AND the “control over the people” by the burdensome Jewish laws. Enforced by the “Temple Police” - the Pharisees. Always looking to find a sin and punishing with guilt at the very least.) Jesus set a path of peaceful resistance against BOTH the Roman occupiers and the corrupt temple priests.

Take Zaccheus. The wealthy tax collector. High taxes, not even FAIR taxes. Peasants had to borrow to save their homes, farms, vineyards. And high rates. They were defaulting at an alarming rate. Zaccheus called the loans. The land and farms were bought up on the cheap. The options: Sex a child into slavery. Let the entire family enter slavery. Sell the daughters as prostitutes. (See SOLD by Patricia McCormick.)

This was the audience for Jesus’ teaching. 5000 gathered one day. They were hungry. Jesus fed them, not by abra cadabra, but by asking each person to dig in the lunch bag. What did we find? Enough to feed everyone with 12 baskets left over. 12. One for each tribe of Israel.

What is Jesus teaching? Israel can survive. By loving, caring, and sharing with each other. Bypass the Romans. They will never treat Israel fairly. Win not by violence. Win with love.

Was Jesus political? He sure was.

Paul - Paul did not experience the extreme poverty that influenced Jesus’ ministry. (Nor did he have the experience of 2000 dead corpses lining the roads leading out of Sepphoris, the closest “town-city” to Nazareth. (Uprising led by Judas of Galilee in 4 B.C. - about the year Jesus was born.)

Paul focused on creating hierarchy, doctrines, order, and structure of a church. Much of this comes from the Books of Timothy and Titus, all 3 of which are suspect Paul even wrote them. At best it is likely they were written by Paul’s associates and Paul did have influence writing them. Regardless, Paul’s message in these books is far different from his earlier writings. (Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.) (So how is this verse spun to put women and slaves back in their place? Simple: In HEAVEN we will all be equal. While we are still here REMEMBER YOUR PLACE. No word on what the Gentiles are supposed to do.. Inferior to a Jew?)

1 Timothy 3:1-7 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to and slaves an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money (Looking at you, televangelists). He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church? Looking at you, Rev Hale.) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

Titus 1:6-9 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe] and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. (Question: Where are we coming up with this idea of celibacy? The disciples? At least some of them were married. (Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law.) If they gave up all they had to follow Jesus who provided for their families? Were they bad husbands? Did they get (horrors) DIVORCES?)

4. Jesus - Led a small grassroots movement. Was he “small?” Did he have a legion?

Paul - Created a globalized religion.

5. Jesus - Jesus stressed doing good works. Loving others. Helping the poor. Jesus is about honoring God.

Paul - The way to salvation is through faith in Jesus. …through faith, not works, lest any man should boast. Paul is all about salvation in Jesus.

Interesting contrast here: Susie and I both had the lecture from a parishioner in Florida ironically named Diana Ross.

October 29, 2025

Let’s go down the rabbit hole…

Page 139 Ruth 1:16-17 The verses so often read at weddings - weddings of a man and his wife. A male and a female. Like Adam and Eve. “Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.”

Wow. A lot could be read into this passage. Like, we can’t be separated even by death. If you die I must die? We all live a Romeo and Juliet life? Look for a healthy spouse? Couples need to share a tomb? What if my spouse is in the military? Front lines. Well, OK. Let’s go… Overreading into this? How literal is literal? Let’s leave that for another day.

Instead: The setting.

Emilech (Jew) and Naomi (Jew) lived in Bethlehem in Judah but moved to Moab to escape famine. (Were the Jewish people sinning? Again? Were they praying? Was God not listening? Did God not provide?) Land of the Moabites - descendants of the incest of Lot and one of his daughters, so obviously not good people. (Unlike the incestual children of Adam and Eve. Or the incestual offspring of Noah’s sons.) Their sons marry Moabite women. (HORRORS!) Because God warned them about this. Forbade it?

Deuteronomy 7:3-4 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. (Is that why they all died? Emilech and his two sons?)

Exodus 34:12-16 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going (there goes any chance for a two state solution or peace in the Middle East…), or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous (Elohim, Jehovah, Yahweh, El Shaddai, Lord of Hosts, now Qanna = JEALOUS?) is a jealous God. (Wait, Yahweh can’t even follow Commandment 10???) “Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. And when you CHOOSE some of their daughters as wives for your sons (the song “Love and Marriage” hadn’t been written yet…) and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

Regardless of the warnings, the sons (Mahlon {Mah-lon}and Chilion {KILL-ee-on}) marry Moabite women. One is Ruth. Everybody but Naomi and her daughters-in-law die off. (Again… Because they married Moabites??) So Naomi returns to Bethlehem to try to survive. A widow with no sons had a bleak future, if a future at all. The daughters in law tag along. Ruth warns them “YOU WILL NOT BE WELCOMED. Go back to Moab.”

Ruth’s sister in law takes her up on it. She goes back to Moab. No further mention of her in the Bible, but a “LEGEND” links her to Goliath. (Funny how some people, stories, events in the Bible must be accepted as literal fact and others can be spun as “legend.”)

So Ruth says these famous words of love to Naomi. I will go, I will stay in your land with your people. (Not sure what I will do if they don’t want me.) Your God will be my God. (What revelation caused this commitment in Ruth? The SPIRIT? Her (Selfish? Conniving? Prudent? Only chance for survival?) A survival motive or a religious one? A BIGGER QUESTION: Does GOD want her? She is a Moabitess after all. If God wants everybody in the Jewish tent why isn’t God ordering the Jewish people to EVANGELIZE??? The orders from God are to KILL all the pagans, not try to convert them. God so mistrusts his “chosen people” he orders the death of all the pagans because they won’t be able to resist the lure of the pagan Gods. So slaughter all the people because you have a weak relationship with God. Make sense? Is this a loving God?

Regardless, it all works out for Ruth and Naomi. Boaz redeems himself, marrying and supporting his brother’s daughter-in-law. And supporting Naomi. And, reportedly, became an all-around nice guy.

Moral: It is important to provide for the widow (and orphan). There are some Moabites worthy of saving. Some may even be good converts. Perhaps the Jews should EVANGELIZE! Nah… Well, Maybe - if she is beautiful. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Or worse - not Moabites this time but Midianites. Numbers 31 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder (and brought them to Moses and Eleazander the priest.) “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed (SEDUCED) the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man (the evil seductresses), but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Enjoy!) Question: Are the virgins “official” Israelites now through fornication? How about their children? Or are they just your toys?

Or maybe… There WAS hope for the Moabites. David was a thorn in their side, raiding and pillaging their villages for years with his merry band of bandits. But, turns out Boaz married one (Ruth) and their great grandson was a fellow named… David. Go figure.

Back to Ruth’s words. Funny thing. Ruth’s words are recited at weddings of man and wife. But Ruth did NOT say those kind words to Boaz. She said them to NAOMI.

Realize this: The vow which has been used to define the love of marriage at countless Man-Woman marriages was originally BETWEEN TWO WOMEN! (Poetic license, I guess.) dabaq is the Hebrew word used to describe the love between Naomi and Ruth. It’s the same word they use to describe the love Adam had for Eve.

Naomi and Ruth were saved by the understanding of responsibility and generosity of Boaz. What if Boaz hadn’t stepped up? What if Naomi and Ruth joined together and supported each other? After all, they “loved” each other. Was that a sin?

Today, we have a cousin who had cancer. Her husband was unable to deal with it. He worked, he helped with kids, but as far as supporting his wife he was MIA. She met a friend, a friend who stood by her every minute of her treatment. They fell “in love.” When she was pronounced cancer-free her husband wanted to go back to life as usual. She wanted to share her life with her new “love.” Sin?

October 22, 2025

How Christianity got to become anti-woman.

The truth behind the story of Sodom and Gomorrah

We’ve been fed a lot of baloney… None of this is CHRISTIAN in terms of Jesus.

Old Testament exploration: Oh Sodom. Oh Gomorrah. The cities destroyed because of - excuse me, A SPECIFIC SEXUAL ACT? Must be so, because that is where we get the term SODOMY.

Except Ezekiel tells us it's NOT? “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

What did he add to Christianity?

“Paul says some mighty strange things.” “I’m not sure I agree with a lot of the stuff Paul says.” “I’m a CHRISTIAN, not a PAULIAN.” “Paul is the most misogynist man who ever wrote.” HE IS NOT. “Paul is a male supremacist.” HE IS NOT. “Paul makes women second class citizens.” PAUL BRINGS WOMEN FROM 5th CLASS CITIZENS UP TO 2nd CLASS CITIZENS. “Paul is pro slavery.” HE IS NOT. “Paul is the reference for “the church,” for good - or for bad…”

Many of the people I hang out with, many I Read on social media, Keith Olbermann comes to mind, reference the anti-woman, pro-slavery, anti-gay material and walk out the door. When ACTUALLY:

“Paul is a champion of women’s rights” “Paul is a radical social pioneer.” “Paul is a peacemaker.” IF one considers the context of his writings.

One thing, however, is for certain: Paul was a servant of God who began the evangelism of the gospel to the world.

Introducing this radical, contentious, respected, loved, hated, disrespected, quoted, misquoted, understood, misunderstood, Jewish servant of Jesus who was missionary to the Gentiles and the world.

1. There is a big difference between Paul and Jesus. Paul was a Roman citizen and that afforded him certain rights, rights he sometimes denied - which led to floggings and jailings - and rights he sometimes used (Acts 22:25). No doubt Paul’s mission would have been much shorter had he not had the protection of Roman citizenship. Paul’s preaching of a new, non-recognized religion was every bit as subversive as Jesus’ teachings. Yet he was not crucified, very likely because of his Roman citizenship.

2. Jesus told people to keep his healings secret. Paul did no such thing. He advocated to proclaim the message of Jesus EVERYWHERE including public forums.

Paul’s birth town, Tarsus, was a favored City in the Roman Empire and had exemption from the heavy taxes Israel faced. Paul was a “city person,” learned. Jesus was a “country person,” perceived as dumb. Paul had privilege. Jesus did not. The caloric intake for a peasant Jew in Jesus’ time was 1400 calories, not enough to sustain weight. Hunger was everywhere and Jesus referred to it often.

3. We have seen the importance of “oppression” to Jesus' ministry (See APSE Study: The Life of Jesus). In contrast, Paul NEVER addressed the poor treatment of his fellow Jews by the Romans, instead saying in Romans 13: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God. Those who resist the authority that God has appointed will incur judgment, for rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to BAD.” Here comes Christian Nationalism…

Paul’s message was: “Don’t change society, just hang on. Jesus is coming soon.” But Paul was wrong. Were there ramifications? In the words of Sarah Palin: You betcha!

Sadly, as mentioned above, this position of Paul to not address social and political change led to years of Roman oppression with the people basically willing to accept the costs. That is until Constantine, when the radical faith of the oppressed became the official religion of the oppressor.

Discussion: Christianity wins? Maybe? Maybe not. Constantine’s use of religion in his governing mandate and social and political positions posed another whole set of problems - the use of religion to justify his every decision and act as ruler. “All of my decisions are correct because they came from God.” Now oppression can be justified because it came from God.

Is this relevant today? Is this what is driving Christian Nationalism?

This will be discussed again when studying Romans 13.

Summing up the differences between Jesus and Paul:

1. Jesus - Never stopped being Jewish.

Paul - Fully embraced the new religion of Christianity. (Really? Some say he never gave up his “Jewishness.” From 5 Myths of the Apostle Paul/Biblical Archaeology. 1. Paul was missionary to the Gentiles, not the Jews. But he, personally, remained a Jew.)

2. Jesus - Anyone can get to heaven. John 6:37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

Paul - Specific groups can never enter heaven. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (No mention of women who have sex with women?) (The King James version does not mention homosexuality, it states “effeminate.” The subtle shift from immorality to homosexuality in newer versions of the Bible are duly noted.)

October 15, 2025

Old Testament exploration: Say WHAT AGAIN?

Leviticus 18:16 “’Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.”

Deuteronomy 25:5-10 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals,spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

Whadya’ think? 1. Are brothers living together after they each marry a wife? Are they both married? Or does this refer to an unmarried brother of a married brither? Genesis 2:24 A man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. You evidently don’t need to leave your brother, who probably has a wife of his own? A big house? Or should I say a big tent?

2. Does this verse endorse polygamy? Multiple wives? No he will still be a brother in law. So the son doesn’t have a father?

3. Are you out of God’s good grace if you do not produce offspring (read SON) to carry on the family name? If one wants a family yet could not produce one wouldn’t the disappointment be enough? Do we need to bury the poor mother, father, couple on top of that?

You just checked in to the seedy hotel. Life has done you wrong. You don’t know where to turn. The Gideon’s have had you in mind. They have left a book for you. The Holy Spirit will guide you. You open the book. And this is the verse to lift your spirits. This is the verse that will change your life.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Who is the Apostle Paul?

Going in. Any thoughts? What is your opinion of Paul? Off the top of your head. Name something.

Anti women - misogyny

Where did he get his authority? The vision?

The conversion (resurrection) experience:

Acts and Paul differ on this account. In fact the 3 accounts in Acts all differ. (Acts 9, Acts 22, Acts 26) Of importance, Paul experienced the Lord. Paul saw Jesus AS THE RESURRECTED LORD. Paul is the only writer of the New Testament who states he SAW the resurrected Lord. (1 Corinthians 9:1b Have I not seen Jesus, our Lord? Does this mean he LITERALLY SAW THE RISEN CHRIST.)

Paul did not leave Judaism and become a Christian. Paul was always a Jew (until perhaps his final few days). Paul never suggests he was unfaithful to God when he was a persecutor. He was blinded by the Law, and he did what the Law said he should have been doing.

Note the correlation - First Paul was blinded by the Law; then he says he was blinded by God and when he was challenged by Jesus he saw the truth and then, when the scales fell away, could see the TRUTH IN JESUS. Paul met a power he did not recognize existed.

Source unknown: Why blindness? Acts 9:4 “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting ME?” Saul, later named Paul, was blind to the persecution he was inflicting on “me,” Jesus, a metaphor for “the people.” All people. Saul was healed not only from his physical blindness but also from his spiritual blindness. He could not see that the people he was persecuting were God’s people every bit as much as the Jews he was representing. In Galatians Paul stated God did not reveal His Son TO me, he revealed His Son IN me.

Source unknown: Follow this path to conversion. Is it not what we all go through?

1. Persecution of others: Paul, as a Jew, persecuted the new Christians. Though

he need not represent only the Jews. It could be any group of people who reject the Gospel.

2. Paul is “blinded” to the message. Paul cannot not see Jesus, the light. Paul needs help. He prays for an answer. He prays to be able to see the way. The “scales” on his eyes are taken away. Paul can see the truth. He gets the message. How long did it take??? In 3 days (always a significant number in resurrection, rebirth) Paul has been reborn into the faith in Jesus. Paul accomplishes in 3 days what we often need a lifetime to experience. In three days Jesus’ resurrection saved the world.

3. Just as Mary Magdalene responded to Jesus’ voice (she knew and trusted Jesus’ voice even though she did not recognize him), Paul also recognized Jesus’ voice: “Saul, why are you persecuting me?” “Who are you, Lord?” “I am Jesus whom you persecute.”

4. In those 3 days Saul is in “liminal space,” between two worlds, abstaining from food and water from the “old world,” and transitioning into the “new world” under Christ.

So is the blinded by the light story a true story or just an impactful allegory of Paul’s conversion to follow Christ?

Let’s go back a second: We said Paul felt NO REMORSE for killing Christians who were guilty of breaking OT law. You can’t worship someone who was hung on a tree. He was doing what he felt was right. But NOW he has literally “seen the light.” And he is going to OVERSEE THEM, JUDGE THEM, and TELL THEM what they are doing wrong and INSTRUCT THEM on how to do it right.

- How would YOU feel about that? If you were a Jew? As one of the 12 disciples of Jesus?

- As a Gentile as a Greek who is scrapping your culture’s entire roster of deity (all powerful icons, by the way, think Zeus, Poseidon, Ares) and replacing it with a Jew who let himself be hung on a tree like a common criminal? This all taught by a Jew who wants you to be Christian when most believe he himself remained a Jew.

- What happened to the 10 Commandments? Number 6 specifically. Thou shall not kill. Even use “MURDER.” IMO, Paul oversaw, if not actually participated in MURDER. And now he wants to lead the club? You ok with that.

October 8, 2025

Cleanup in aisle 3: The inerrant word of God by Johnny Palmer Calvary Baptist Church of Decatur, Arkansas.

The word did it all. The Wittenberg beer had nothing to do with it???

The Age of Enlightenment encouraged man to use his own reason (woman still couldn’t use her reasoning evidently). And they did. Coming up with the radical idea that the sun was the center of the solar system (heliocentrism). Galileo went to prison for it in 1633, released to house arrest only when he renounced the idea.

Original sin: Developed by St. Augustine - patron saint of brewers, printers, theologians, and sore eyes, among others… 354-430 A.D.

Everyone is born sinful. They are born with a built-in urge to do bad things and to disobey God. Sin is innate in all human beings, inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall.

Under enlightenment man is now deemed inherently GOOD, and now sits in judgment OVER the Bible, not under its authority. Doesn’t someone have to interpret the Bible and what it means? Isn’t that JUDGING the Bible? Who is the authority? The church? Pastor Johnny? Me? YIKES! How about the Holy Spirit?

Our verse(s) for the week: Luke 22:35-38

35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

The context of this teaching is part of a longer passage in Luke 22:35–38, where Jesus is preparing his disciples for his betrayal and arrest. He contrasts their past mission with their current reality, warning them that they will face hostility, whereas previously they were welcomed. (They were? See page 18 The Life of Jesus: Did both John the Baptist and Jesus and the disciples play a cat and mouse game with Herod Antipas north of the Sea of Galilee and with Pontius Pilate to the South?) The disciples' response, "Look, Lord, here are two swords," and Jesus' reply, "It is enough," is often seen as a significant moment of misunderstanding or a symbolic gesture of their limited comprehension of the coming events.

Note: The actual translation is KNIFE, not sword.

1. The instruction marks a radical change from the disciples' previous mission where they were told to travel without money or a bag, relying on hospitality.

2. The need to take money, a bag, and even buy a sword signifies an approaching time of hardship, opposition, and potential persecution for Jesus and his followers. (And Jesus will no longer be around to protect them? Could Jesus provide more than the Holy Spirit? Was Jesus’ physical presence able to provide more? Will this be restored when Jesus returns? Or did Jesus already return in the resurrection?)

3. This instruction is given in the context of fulfilling the prophecy that Jesus would be "numbered with the transgressors," indicating the coming trial for him and his disciples.

Luke 22:36-38 Regardless, the instructions to the disciples have changed. Carry a purse. Carry a sword. Does this mean: Has the message of Peace changed?

It’s gonna be rough out there: So get a backpack and some cash for your trip -- and even a sword, if need be. But do not let fear or threats deter you from this great Journey to bring salvation and freedom to a world in bondage. Jesus felt spreading the Gospel was worthy of his life, as did his disciples. So must we. (Are you willing to give your life for the Gospel? Should we be ARMED? For defense? Should we “shoot first?”)

(See article JESUS’ INSTRUCTIONS AFTER THE PASSOVER MEAL)

Does the answer lie in Luke 22:52b Jesus said when being arrested: Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with clubs and swords?

Judas betrays Jesus. They fear for their lives. One of the 12 strikes the ear of the high priest's servant. Jesus says STOP! NO MORE OF THIS! Matthew 26:52 “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword die by the sword.”

Violence has no place in the peace and message of Jesus Christ. Never. Ever. Jesus instructed you. (Do you agree with that?)

Note some additional clues: Jesus was LIFTED on to the colt. By the people. He didn’t have to climb up.

The people were for the New Covenant. They supported (lifted) him.

It was the Pharisees and scribes, and even more so the Sadducees, that sought to kill him. Not the people.

Jesus said bring your sword ONLY as an example. Peter cut off an ear. Ok. THAT DIDN’T WORK. Jesus’ way was NOT the expectation of the culture. No violence. Peace. Violence is to never be used again.

How are we doing?

Comparing/contrasting Jesus and Muhammad:

One might contrast, for example, the traditional narratives of the life of Jesus of Nazareth with those of the Prophet Muhammad. If we accept the Gospels as reliable historical sources, Jesus was a non-violent man better known for his command to “turn the other cheek,” rather than commit acts of violence even when seemingly justified. He rebuked the apostle Peter, for example, for daring to cut off the ear of a soldier who had come to arrest him. Moreover, so far as we know, Jesus never called for (much less participated in) a holy war against either the Romans, who forcibly occupied Jewish lands, or the Jews, who sometimes violently rejected his message. (And there were a lot of militant Jewish uprisings. Some leaders of these uprisings even called themselves “Messiahs.”)

Jesus is peaceful. So far, so good. Then we descend into the abyss…

This is not to say that Jesus never would have sanctioned violence under any circumstances. Indeed, the reason Peter was likely carrying a sword in the first place was because (as the Gospel of Luke states) Jesus commanded his followers to carry at least two of them (Luke 22:38). In other words, as this verse suggests, Jesus and his followers were armed as they made their travels during his ministry. Jesus may have objected to Peter intervening with his arrest, but that does not necessarily mean Jesus opposed Christians using force to defend others. (My opinion is this is not true. Jesus was being sarcastic when saying we can fight the battle with physical swords. Our sword is the word of God.) Christ, according to the Christian narrative, had to be crucified for the salvation of mankind. Peter was unthinkingly trying to prevent that. Other verses suggest Jesus could be prone to fits of anger. He famously, for example, violently over-turns the moneychangers table as he thought they were desecrating the Temple (Matt. 21:12), but so far as we know he did not harm anyone or shed blood during this incident.

Muhammud was, on the other hand, more like David. Dedicated to violence as evidenced by his 86 military campaigns.

How do we interpret this today?

Interpretation 1: Jerry Falwell, Jr. explains this is Jesus telling us to be armed so we can kill Muslims before they walk in on us (at Liberty Chapel).

Interpretation 2: Jesus had to look like a “transgressor” so he would be arrested. Perhaps why Peter cut the ear of Malchus, a servant of the High Priest during Jesus’ arrest. Jesus heals the ear. Indicating Jesus as a transgressor but also Jesus does NOT condone violence. Jesus is demonstrating the futility of using violence to spread the Gospel message.

Interpretation 3: Did Jesus have a sense of humor in his tense final hours?

Jesus informs his disciples things will be tough out there. You might even need a KNIFE! When they take him seriously he does an eyeroll and says 2 will be enough. Really? There aren’t enough knives in the world to protect Christians from persecution.

Sadly there aren’t enough knives in the world to protect NON-CHRISTIANS from Christians, either.

The Armor of God: Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with

1. the belt of truth buckled around your waist. Lock the truth in your body.

2. the breastplate of righteousness in place, Protect your core values and live a Godly lifestyle. (Who defines a Godly lifestyle? The Bible? Whose interpretation is correct?)

3. your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. Walk in the peace provided by God.

4. the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Protection from the acts of the wicked against you.

5. the helmet of salvation protect the mind from evil ensuring salvation

6. the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Scripture is your OFFENSIVE WEAPON.

No lethal weapons there.

One final thread to pull. John mentions the arrest of Jesus with 200-500 soldiers.

The Greek word spira means a “group of soldiers.” A manipulus (200 soldiers) or a cohort (500 soldiers). It appears the original texts pointed to the 500 size.

And Peter is going to fend them off with 2 swords? Was the soon to be denying Peter brave enough (or stupid enough) to cut off the ear of someone backed by 200-500 Roman soldiers???

More puzzling: If Jesus was betrayed by Judas as an insurrectionist and arrested by Roman soldiers, why did they let the 11 apostles get away scot free, especially if Peter attacked someone with a sword?

John says Jesus requested his disciples be turned loose. If Jesus was a treasonous king with real threats, WHY WERE HIS HENCHMEN ALLOWED TO GO FREE?

To fulfill Jesus’ own words? John 18:9 I did not lose one of those whom you gave me. Referencing John 6:39. But that says he will lose not one of those he gave me, BUT WILL RAISE THEM UP ON THE LAST DAY? Does that even make sense? What “last day?” AND… What about JUDAS??? Jesus lost him. He was a disciple.

Speaking of Judas, what did happen to him?

Matthew 27:5 He threw back the money and went and hanged himself (from the Judas tree). No mention in Mark, Luke or John, but in ACTS: Acts 1:18 Judas bought a field with his silver reward and fell headlong into it and his “all his bowels gushed out.” (He fell on his sword?) Two totally different versions.

October 1, 2025 Opening meeting. Discussion of topics for this year’s study.

A selection of verses each week to address a particular concern of a group, a church, or an individual.

Review and/or introduction of the Apostle Paul and then a discussion of the several epistles of Paul. What did he say? Why did he say it? Did his positions ever change? Are we to change and/or adapt to different times, expanded knowledge, expanded medical developments, and changes in culture.

Several Old Testament verses were reviewed discussing homosexuality, rape, and other Jewish laws of the Old Testament. We will certainly expand on these topics in the future.

Return to Top of Page

Return to Home

Fall 2025 - Winter 2026APSE Community Bible Study

Date of First Class: October 1, 2025

Last Updated: February 21, 2026

Fall 2025 - Winter 2026
APSE Community Bible Study