The Skeptics' Overrated Bible on Colossians
as analyzed by
Sheila Rangslinger
Colossians is pretty short; I'm sure SAB needed the rest. I mean, as stupid as they've been getting they sure do NEED to give it a rest. Just look at this, fer Peek's sake:
1:1 Although Colossians claims to have been written by Paul, most scholars think it was written later by one of his followers. Dude, come on. Like SAB's done any kinda analysis on how to figure out who authored a document, like say, Tacitus' Annals -- the evidence for which is a LOT worse than for Paul being involved in Colossians. You want to see a real case made, not just some belched-up footnote to Ehrman (who's a specialist in textual criticism, not authorship of ancient documents -- and even on textual criticism, he likes to leave out info that hurts him and blow up nothing into problems that don't exist) -- go here.
1:14 God bought us with someone else's blood. Yeah, so? Is SAB "bloodophobic"? Does he get all squirmy when he bites into a rare hamburger?
1:15 The invisible God? But lots of folks have seen him! (Gen.18:1, 32:30; Ex.33:11; 1 Kg.22:19) See here and here. SAB also adds a two cent blurb on the problem of evil, see here.
1:16-17 NWT inserts the word 'other' four times in these two verses That's nice. We'll skip it since we're not JWs defending the NWT, or even ex-JWs with psych problems.
1:19-20 God makes peace through blood. SAB has bloodophobia and can't explain why.
1:23 Paul claims that "the gospel ... was preached to every creature under heaven." This is of course untrue since most of the world was unknown in Paul's day. This of course is standard ancient hyperbole since the gospel was also not preached to lizards.
1:24 The suffering Jesus was not sufficient to satisfy God's wrath, so the Paul (or whoever wrote Colossians) had to make up for what as lacking with his own sufferings. Say WHAT? I dunno how SAB gets this out of this verse; nothing is said about God's wrath. Paul is sayin' that he anticipates more suffering for himself in the future as he preaches the Gospel, which ain't news.
2:2-3 These verses imply that Jesus knows everything. Yet Jesus said (Mt.24:36, Mk.13:32) that he didn't know when the end would come, and according to 1 Kings (3:12) Jesus was no match for Solomon. See here. SAB still does not explain how these verses "imply" any such thing -- and of the resurrected, ascended Christ at any rate.
2:8 Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. SAB, being ignorant, does not know that "philosophy" referred in this day also to things like sorcery, as well as what Paul was actually talking about; see here.
2:9 This verse implies that Jesus is God, but other New Testament verses imply otherwise. This verse fits just fine with Trinitariansm and Jesus as Wisdom.
2:10 Is circumcision required? SAB misses that this is described as a circumcision "without hands" -- that is, metaphorical and not literal.
2:12 Who raised Jesus? SAB places this and other verses against John 2:19-21. As Jesus refers actually to his body, it makes no difference: that meaning lies as a figure behind the literal reference to the Temple, so that the self-referent would have to be used.
2:16 Paul says it's OK to break the Sabbath, contrary to the Old Testament's clear teaching (Ex.20:8, 32:13-17, 34:2-3; Dt.5:12-14; Is.56:2). Too bad. see here.
3:1 Jesus can't be God if he sits next to God, can he? No, but he can be God's Wisdom as the Bible reports. See link just above. Poor confused SAB.
3:18 Avoid anger, wrath, and malice.
3:18 Don't lie.
3:12-13 Be merciful, kind, humble, and forgiving toward one another. SAB likes these three previous lines, apparently.
3:18 Wives, according to Paul, must submit themselves to their husbands. Disgraceful, no? See here for a series that includes a study on this.
3:19 "Husbands, love your wives." But he does like this, even as agape in this day meant selfless self-sacrifice that would make the "submission" above a matter of simple respect.
3:20 Paul says that children should obey their parents "in all things." This verse must be a favorite for Christian parents who abuse their children. It's also a favorite for people who don't grasp proverbial language. As if "all things" included stuff like, "jump into an alligator pit." So when Mark says Jesus explained "all things" to the disciples, does SAB think that includes the mating habits of sea slugs?
3:21 "Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged." He likes this one apparently.
3:22 Paul who, unlike Jesus (Mt.4:10, 23:10), sees nothing wrong with slavery, orders slaves to obey their masters "in all things." Too bad, slavery was not the same thing back then -- mostly voluntary, in fact -- see here.
3:25 Does God respect anyone? This verse says he doesn't, but others say that he does (Gen.4:4, Ex.2:25, Lev.26:9, 2 Kg.12:23, Ps.138.6). Try here.
4:1 Paul's instructions for slave owners: It's okay to own slaves, but you should try to treat them well. That's right. See link above.
4:6 "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." Good advice for both believers and skeptics. SAB has yet, however, to educate himself enough to give answers, salted or unsalted.
4:16 Apparently God intended to include the epistle from Laodicea in the Bible, but it was lost somewhere along the way. There were several letters that claimed to be the lost epistle (and one of these was often included in Latin medieval bibles), but they are considered forgeries today. Who put SAB's ear to God's mouth about intentions I don't know, but given how ancient letter collections were done it was more likely Paul himself or one of his students like Luke who left Laodecians out.