A Cultural Bible

[Drew]

“Clearly, "God" is saying that the keeping of these food laws functions to separate the Jew from the rest of the world.”

Seems a little arbitrary on God’s part to me, if it’s only a matter of separation.

What, exactly, are we talking about? I suggest that there are separate issues here. I am very confident, despite widespread belief among the general Christian masses to the contrary, that the Biblical evidence is clear - the Law of Moses was given to Jews only and was to be followed by Jews only.

Now, you seem to protest this - raising the seeming arbitrariness of this. Well, that's a good question, but it is a different question. One can accept the Biblical record of a Law for Jews only and then raise the "why" question.

I have an argument as to why God did this, which I would be more than happy to provide as time allows.

 

[Drew]

That seems to be a good question. But Paul himself gave the answer:

Romans 2:
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
(NIV)

Apparently the idea of the Law written in the heart isn’t unique to Christians after all.

Not so fast, I politely suggest. You seem to assume that these Gentiles include non-believing Gentiles. I have studied this text and am convinced that the Gentiles that Paul refers to here are believers.

And, interestingly, this text also supports my assertion that the Law of Moses was given to the Jews only:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law,...

Now, the matter of the law is complex, since, in this same text, Paul speaks of Gentiles "doing the law". And while I understand that people would assume that this means that the law was given to them also, that simply cannot work with the statement about these Gentiles "not having the law".

Much more explanation is needed in respect to my particular position on this.

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

“You seem to assume that these Gentiles include non-believing Gentiles. I have studied this text and am convinced that the Gentiles that Paul refers to here are believers.â€

In my view, this refers to Gentiles period. In contrast to the Jews. Paul refers to Gentiles who have not the Law. Gentile believers at the time would most certainly know the Law being converted through Jewish believers who knew the Law. It seems that as per usual we are on opposite sides of the pole.

Just as my view of Rom 7 refers to Paul as a believer, while in your view it refers to Paul as an unbeliever.

Like I intimated, if I was a Christian, our respective Churches would each be subject to closed communion by the other Church. That is, if we actually were believing according to what our respective Churches believed. And if we’re both being honest with ourselves and God, that would probably be highly unlikely. That’s hilarious to my Atheist side. Very sad to my believer side.

Nevertheless, I am interested in hearing (metaphorically speaking) the expanded version of your view at your convenience.

FC

 

[Drew]

Just as my view of Rom 7 refers to Paul as a believer, while in your view it refers to Paul as an unbeliever.

Would you be willing to engage the argument that others have refused to deal with. It follows. By the way, I do not believe that Romans 7 refers to Paul the unbeliever, I believe it refers to Pauls' fellow, non-believing Jews (and, yes, I am aware that Paul uses the "I" pronoun").

Here is the argument:

1. The person described in Romans 7 is experiencing a "law" of sin that leads to death:

but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

2. The Christian in Romans 8 is described as having been set free from from this law of sin and death.

2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death

3. If the position that the person in Romans 7 is a Christian is correct, - then we have the following statements:

a. The Christian is subject to the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 7)

b. The Christian is set free from the law of sin that produces death (clear statement from Romans 8)

These statements are inconsistent. Therefore, assuming we agree that the statement from Romans 8 is about the Christian, the Romans 7 cannot be descriptive of the experience of the Christian - one cannot be both subject to the effects of a law and yet also released from its effect.

 

[Drew]

Drew

“You seem to assume that these Gentiles include non-believing Gentiles. I have studied this text and am convinced that the Gentiles that Paul refers to here are believers.â€

In my view, this refers to Gentiles period.

Here is an argument that challenges this position.

In Romans 2, there is a statement about the “law†being written on the heart of the Gentile:

13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Although this text is widely seen as suggesting that God’s “law†is written on the hearts of human beings in general, Paul here is instead describing the writing of the “law†on the hearts of believers (and in this context, specifically Gentile believers).

The entire discussion turns on the Greek word that has been translated here in the NASB as “instinctively†in verse 14. I am going to argue that this rendering does not properly express Paul’s intent. I will argue that Paul basis assertion is not this:

“when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively do the things of the Law…â€

…but instead this:

“when Gentiles who do not have the Law by birth, do the things of the Law….

The reader should note that while the first rendering indeed suggests that pagan Gentiles have a form of law written on their hearts, the second rendering in no sense preferentially supports such a reading over a reading where it is only believing Gentiles that have the law written on their heart (the position that I hold).

The greek root word at issue is “fuseiâ€, which is often translated as “by nature†(although not in the NASB rendering of 2:14 where it is rendered as “instinctivelyâ€). The western reader should be careful to understand this properly. Paul uses this very same word, in other contexts, to denote what is true of someone by virtue of the circumstances of their birth. One example is Ephesian 2:3:

We are Jews by natureand not sinners from among the Gentiles[/COLOR]

Clearly, Paul means "by birth" here. He is not asserting that Jews are born with fundamentally different inner constitutions than Gentiles.

Perhaps more tellingly, we have this same root “fusei†used just a few verses further on in Romans 2:

27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?

The same Greek root “fusei†is rendered here as “physically†and as “instinctively†in verse 14. Note how the word is rendered in the YLT translation of 2:27:

and the uncircumcision, by nature, fulfilling the law, shall judge thee who, through letter and circumcision, [art] a transgressor of law.

Clearly the term “fusei†should be understood as having a “by birth†meaning here in verse 27 – being uncircumcised is a circumstance of birth for the Gentile. It seems only reasonable that Paul uses this same greek root in the same “by birth†sense only a few verses back in 2:14.

Thus, it is highly plausible that what Paul is saying in about the law in verse 14 is that the Gentiles do not possess it by the circumstances of their birth, and not that the unregenerate Gentile has an innate, or instinctive sense of the law.

In fact, note how Jeremiah, uses very same “law written on the heart†concept:

But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people

Note how the prophet uses “law written on the heart†language to describe something that will happen in the future and will which will be effective only for believers. Paul is deeply knowledgeable of Old Testament concepts and would more likely thn not use “law written on the heart†language in the same way it was used in the Old Testament.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Da Jesus Book -

And speaking of "Cultural bibles" (from Wyclyffe Translators):

http://www.pidginbible.org/Concindex.html

John 3:
16 “God wen get so plenny love an aloha fo da peopo inside da world, dat he wen send me, his one an ony Boy, so dat everybody dat trus me no get cut off from God, but get da real kine life dat stay to da max foeva. 17 You know, God neva send me, his Boy, inside da world fo punish da peopo. He wen send me fo take da peopo outa da bad kine stuff dey doing. 18 Whoeva stay trus me, God no goin punish dem. But whoeva no trus me, garans God goin punish dem, cuz dey neva trus me, God's ony Boy.

I use it occasionally when I teach Sunday School - partially for the "Shock value" of it, but often because of it's "In your face" presentation of the gist of the Word.

 

[Tina]

Former Christian,

Pls use the "Reply with Quote" tag below posts if you need to quote posts ....

.... much easier to read your posts that way ....

 

[westtexas]

Re: Da Jesus Book -

John 3:
16 “God wen get so plenny love an aloha fo da peopo inside da world, dat he wen send me, his one an ony Boy, so dat everybody dat trus me no get cut off from God, but get da real kine life dat stay to da max foeva. 17 You know, God neva send me, his Boy, inside da world fo punish da peopo. He wen send me fo take da peopo outa da bad kine stuff dey doing. 18 Whoeva stay trus me, God no goin punish dem. But whoeva no trus me, garans God goin punish dem, cuz dey neva trus me, God's ony Boy.

Folks in Glenn Heights really talk like that?? Can you understand it??? There ain't enough "y'alls" in it for me to understand. The only pidgeons we got out here-we feed em to the cats.

God bless y'all out there in Glenn Heights, Westtexas

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

Romans 2 and 7

Well, how do you think culture enters into the picture?

Frustrating question isn’t it? Doesn’t answer anything at all. LOL


I will say that I have a view. It’s not quite as analytical as yours. And I would bring up things that to you would probably be pretty far fetched. For example, in my view, the Jews didn’t have the Law written in their hearts, but the Gentiles did. That’s how the Gentiles were able to have a sense of the Law even when it wasn’t given to them. The Jews were chosen on purpose because they were a stiff necked people. The Egyptian Pharaoh wasn’t the only stiff necked person in the bunch. Jehovah wasn’t the God of choice for the Jews (which is contrary to the view that Jehovah is a cultural god). And they fought as a race against the God revealed to them constantly. They were given the Law, with consequences if they didn’t abide by it. Yet they rarely abided by it. Even the believing among them, such as David and Solomon, broke the Law. As a race the Jews didn’t keep the Law. Individuals sometimes did to a certain degree. The Jews were no witness to the Gentiles concerning the Law. Yet the Gentiles did keep parts of the Law. Because the Law was written in their hearts. But they couldn’t keep the Law perfectly either.

What was the problem? The flesh, pure and simple. I know Smaller would add the devil. But the real problem was the flesh. According to Job, the only thing that Satan can influence is outside the person. Except in those instances of total demon possession that we see in the Gospels and Acts. And none of those were believers at the time of their possession or before apparently. The Spirit hadn’t yet been given that fights against the flesh. For the one who is in Christ, it is God who fights against Satan. The one who is in Christ only has to walk by the Spirit and resist the devil. And he will flee. That red guy with the weird tail and pitchfork that sits on one side of the shoulder trying to tempt, exists only in the minds of men. The little angel that sits on the other side of the shoulder has the same source.

That leads us to Romans 6-8. Paul didn’t change gears in the middle to say something about unbelievers. But you have a lot of Christians on your side that say he did.

Romans 1-8 is very linear. Paul starts out with the condition of man. He shows how mankind can be Justified by the faith of Christ, redeemed through the blood of Christ. He shows how it’s a contrast between being in Adam and being in Christ. He shows how sin shouldn’t be a part of those who are no longer condemned because they are in Christ and Justified by virtue of being in Christ. Yet the ideal isn’t reached by the experience. Then Paul gives the whole crux of the matter. Life in Christ is walking by the Spirit. The ideal is experienced by those who walk by the Spirit. It’s helpful to see that what Paul is saying in Romans 6-8 is clearly repeated in Galatians 5.

Your analysis of the Greek word phusis is interesting but not complete. The root word is phuo. It means something that grows. Something that naturally grows. Something that grows according to its own nature. Thus the Greek word phusis is rightly understood to mean by nature. This is one of those cases where a good modern translation doesn’t quite fit the bill. The KJV is better in regard to the translation of phusis. It’s much more consistent.

The NASB apparently had two different translators for Romans. The first part translates the Greek word one way and that latter part a different way. Check it out. I think you’ll see what I mean. The Greek word is only used five times in Romans. The NIV appears to follow the NASB in this case. But in my opinion, there’s a big problem with translations, of the NT at least. I see it because I have some knowledge of the Greek. The problem is interpretive translation. If it gets the point across, I have no quarrel. But too often the point that is gotten across is an interpretation, rather than what is actually being said.

In my view, by nature is the correct understanding of the Greek word phusis. If Paul had intended to mean born he would have used the common Greek word that means born, gennao. Or a word derived from that Greek word.

You noting the contrast between the law of sin and the law of spirit is more than most Christians see, in my experience. But there is more in view. The Law is in view. And no doubt you understand the first part of Rom 7 to bolster your view that the Law is only for the Jews. As Paul continues he brings up the law of sin in the members. And though Paul would delight in the Law of God (the Law of Moses to you), the law of sin gets in the way. Eventually Paul reveals the answer to the dilemma. The law of the Spirit of Life. Not just the law of the Spirit of Life. But the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus. It is this law that makes us free from sin and death. Some would say that is a future event. In my view it’s intended to be the experience for all who are in Christ, today. Today as in the sense of an ongoing present. “For what the law could not do†(8:3 KJV). Which law is that? The Law of God, the law of sin, or the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus? All kinds of interpretations crop up to answer that question. In my view, the Law of God is being referred to here. The flesh is the problem. Not the Law of God. So God sent his Son in the likeness of sin and flesh to condemn sin in the flesh. God always does things with a purpose in mind.

Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
(KJV)

This isn’t a works thing as Roman Catholicism would say. This isn’t an osmosis kind of thing or a Judicial kind of thing as Protestants would say (depending on which Protestant you ask). It’s something experiential. If we will just walk by the Spirit, the righteousness of the law, the Law of God, is fulfilled in us. Does that imply perfection? Yes indeed. So long as the one who is in Christ walks by the Spirit, that person is living without sin, just as Jesus himself did. The encouragement to be as perfect as God is perfect isn’t just an idle encouragement, an impossible ideal, an ideal that’s impossible to the believer in this life. And that being my view, it will no doubt bring many a Christian knocking on this door.


Anyway, you get some idea of my view on Rom 2 and 7, and on 8 as a bonus.

So how DOES culture enter into this, anyway? (chortle)

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Bob Carabbio

Now there’s a real honest to goodness cultural bible.

FC




Tina

I compose posts on a word processor than copy it over. Quote feature doesn’t work that way.

FC





Westtexas

“Preachers no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell--Pope John Paul IIâ€


Always did like that guy. Always said what he believed, always did what he believed. Even though he was a man of his own culture. The Roman Catholic culture.

FC

 

[WIP]

Tina

I compose posts on a word processor than copy it over. Quote feature doesn’t work that way.

FC

A little off topic but I'll address this here in case others don't know this. When you want to put something in the quote box just type [Quot] in front of the text and then add [/Quot] behind the text, except spell "quote" correctly. I left he "e" off so it wouldn't quote what I'm typing here.

Now when you copy/paste what you've written using your word processor, the section between the two 'quote switches' will be encased in the box.

 

[Former Christian]

WIP

Quote A little off topic but I'll address this here in case others don't know this. When you want to put something in the quote box just type [Quot] in front of the text and then add [/Quot] behind the text, except spell "quote" correctly. I left he "e" off so it wouldn't quote what I'm typing here. quote

Test

FC

 

[Former Christian]

WIP

Let me try it a little more exact.

A little off topic but I'll address this here in case others don't know this. When you want to put something in the quote box just type [Quot] in front of the text and then add [/Quot] behind the text, except spell "quote" correctly. I left he "e" off so it wouldn't quote what I'm typing here.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

WIP

Cool! OK, I got it. Have to use the marks [] and / exactly as you wrote it. Sorry you had to tell me twice. Being just an ordinary man, sometimes it's hard for me to get things right off.

Interestingly, when I quote it back to my word processor, it doesn't copy as a quote. Just normal as if it wasn't quoted.

Thanks

FC

 

[Drew]

Drew

Romans 2 and 7

Well, how do you think culture enters into the picture?

Frustrating question isn’t it? Doesn’t answer anything at all. LOL

Not sure I follow you. I suggest my general position is both easily understood and, if I say so myself, probably correct.

My position is this: We must make the effort to read the Bible through the "eyes" of a person who lived in the cultural matrix in which the stuff was written.

For example: To properly understand the gospels, we need to try to think like 1st century Palestinians, not like 21st century Americans.

I do not think this is really much of an insight - each book of the Bible was written by someone embedded in a particular culture. To understand that book, we need to understand the relevant culture.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Re: Da Jesus Book -

"Folks in Glenn Heights really talk like that??"

Not really - but since Glenn Hts is about 50% Black, and just south of DeSoto, TX which is now 85% Black, there is some presence of "Ebonics" which seems to be vaguely similar.

"Can you understand it???"

Most of it, there are some unfamiliar terms in it Fo' Shua.

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

Well, how do you think culture enters into the picture?
Frustrating question isn’t it? Doesn’t answer anything at all. LOL
Not sure I follow you.

LOL means it was a joke. The real meat of that post was between two jokes. Nevertheless, I should give my view of the idea of a cultural bible. It’s time. And surely those who know me already surmised my view. Doesn’t mean I have no interest in alternate views. The best way to better understand one’s own view is to understand it in relation to alternate views. Which means that the alternate views must be understood, not a straw man facsimile of same.

I suggest my general position is both easily understood and, if I say so myself, probably correct.

Well, naturally speaking, I think that’s how it must be. If we can’t trust our own view of things, who’s can we trust?

My position is this: We must make the effort to read the Bible through the "eyes" of a person who lived in the cultural matrix in which the stuff was written.
For example: To properly understand the gospels, we need to try to think like 1st century Palestinians, not like 21st century Americans.
I do not think this is really much of an insight - each book of the Bible was written by someone embedded in a particular culture. To understand that book, we need to understand the relevant culture.

Excellent. As usual we’re on opposite sides of the pole. I love consistency. Don’t you? (he asked with an enigmatic smile)


Your view is common to Christianity. It’s considered a part of the “proper†way to interpretively understand the bible. And as such would be easier to understand by most Christians. The unfamiliar is harder to understand.

Have you considered all the different views regarding the culture(s) of 2000+ years ago? Have you noticed that the further back one goes, the more diverse the views become?

Just concerning the NT alone, were the writers influenced strictly by Jewish culture? And which Jewish culture, the Jewish culture of the first century or further back? Mustn’t Jewish culture between the eras of Malachi and Matthew, and thus the writings considered Apocryphal by Protestants, be considered? Were the NT writers influenced by Greek philosophy, being as there were many Greek philosophies floating about at the time? Were they influenced by Roman culture? And there were other ideas out there. Were they influenced by Mithraism? Gnosticism? The Judaizers? How did other Gentile cultures influence the NT writers. No doubt some cultural ideas filtered in through Roman conquest and the greater ability to travel during those days.

We know the believers were scattered after a certain point. Paul traveled extensively. But then again, how much do we really know from the NT alone? Just like many say, that the bible isn’t a textbook on science, so also it isn’t a textbook on Sociology. At most there’s only a glimpse of first century culture(s) in the NT. The first century was a very diverse era culturally.

Seems to me, culture isn’t so easy to understand. Think of the education one has to go through just to make even close to a decent judgment on the matter. But interpretation is certainly necessary if the bible is a cultural bible.

And the idea of a cultural bible says a lot about God. When Jesus said seek and you shall find, he wasn’t kidding. It would take a life-time of studying the bible just to see if one even wants to believe it or not. And some would probably die before completing their studies. But then, God knew that, didn’t he? And one would have to wonder what Jesus really meant when he claimed that his yoke is easy and his burden light. Maybe he was just referring to the Jews of the first century, who had all kinds of picayune additions to the Law to contend with.

Apparently, the bible alone is very hard to understand. Especially if what came out of the bible alone idea is any indication. There’s controversy on what the Gospel is, how to be saved, how to be Justified, how to be Sanctified, and what baptism has to do with the matter, water or otherwise. There’s even differences of opinion on the nature of God and who God is, not to mention the same concerning Jesus Christ. What and where’s the true Church? And which denomination of Christianity best represents that true Church? And that’s just the basics of what the NT talks about.

And now the only way we’ll ever be able to come close to figuring it out hinges on culture? How we understand past culture(s)? How past culture(s) relates to modern culture, whichever culture one may be in? I’ll retire to bedlam.

At least Roman Catholicism makes it easy. Maybe too easy. They say, “just trust us and you won’t go wrongâ€. Yeah right. Just like any of the other myriad denominations of Christianity. Especially the ones that make the same exact claim.

No offense. But I think you’ve taken the harder position. Harder to defend, harder to implement. And it’ll keep you occupied for life, just to gain a semblance of certainty on the most basic things. Like the Roman Catholics, you’ll never really be certain about your own salvation until you get there. Or don’t.


My view is infinitely simpler than yours, but not as simple as the Roman Catholic view. I won’t say “trust meâ€. I’ll say “trust Godâ€.

In my view, the bible has it’s source in God alone, not in God and the biblical writers. That in itself precludes cultural influence.

The New Testament writers, when they made any claim at all, claimed that what they wrote was the mind of God or of Jesus, and that what they wrote came through the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that Paul and Peter were both clear that the OT wasn’t from any personal idea. And they claimed they followed the OT as if a true document. And thereby, what they wrote, wasn’t from any personal idea either. They didn’t interpret the OT or the situation they found themselves in. Even Paul, who quoted the OT the most, being a Pharisee, didn’t interpret what he quoted. He merely applied what had been said to the situation he found himself in. Nothing was changed. Fulfilled, not retired.

If the NT writers were writing according to culture, they were writing according to their own understanding of what they thought God’s idea was. In other words, what they wrote is their own idea. In which case the bible is nothing more than dead letters written by long dead writers. Whether or not any of it is actually God’s idea is up to the opinion of each individual. And on the say so of a bunch of long dead writers, even with pro interpreters of same? Wouldn’t be enough to convince me. If the bible is written within the venue of long dead cultures? I would rather live in the culture in which I find myself. At least that culture is alive and I can understand it, being as it stares me in the face daily, all day long.

In my view, because God is the source, it’s not just appropriate in its own time, but equally in every era. What applies then still applies now. And fulfillment of the Tabernacle ritual doesn’t change that fact. Even that ritual still applies to us today. Not as a ritual. But as a description of what the ritual typified, the reality in heaven AD. Something that speaks of better things than the killing of, no, the slaughter of, innocent animals to atone for the sins of a guilt-ridden nation.

The question I would ask is, if the bible has a culture of its own, why aren’t Christians living it? Why do they live according to cultures surrounding them or of their own making?

The bible alone is nothing special. It’s just dead letters. Fodder. Especially for religious interpreters. There’s a need for something to give the dead letters life.

Roman Catholicism claims that the Church as it has existed for two millennia, the RCC itself, is the something that gives the bible life. They even go so far as to claim they gave Christians the bible in the first place.

Protestants of various hues claim that it’s the reader of the bible and his interpretations that gives the bible life

In my view, it is God who gives the bible life. If anything, interpretations are feeble attempts to give the bible life that kills the bible for personal use. And the only life interpreters have when they interpret the bible is their own life.

Initially, when one who is open minded reads the bible, it is God who comes to that person and enlivens the bible. If such a one believes God and is put into Christ, the situation changes. Jesus comes to that person and teaches, enlivening the bible. If the teaching is ultimately interpreted, it’s as if Jesus taught nothing at all.

There is one common factor. When God comes to the person and when Jesus comes to the person, it is through the Holy Spirit. It’s through a connection between the Holy Spirit and the person’s human spirit. And the thinking of God and his Son Jesus Christ is the same.

I’m not one who believes that the human spirit is dead and must be reborn. The human spirit is merely a functioning organ that continues to function after the fall. To the open minded is the basic sense of the verity of the supernatural. There are many people who’s human spirit is sensitive to the Supernatural. Not all of them Christians. It’s not that hard to be influenced by cultural religious ideas and personal interpretations. One only has to look at Christianity to see how hard it is. The bible constantly alludes to it.

So, in my view, the ones who are in Christ needn’t try to think like 1st century Palestinians, nor like 21st century Americans. They just need to trust God and think like God by hearing what the Spirit is saying to the ekklesia. THE EKKLESIA. The Spirit isn’t speaking to the Churches of Christianity. He only speaks to those who are in Christ. And among those who are in Christ, only those walking by the Spirit. For what the Spirit is saying is what Jesus is saying. And what Jesus is saying is what God is saying.


FC

 

[Stormcrow]

Drew

“Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this.â€


This statement is intriguing. A cultural bible. A bible influenced by culture. This idea would not only apply to Jesus, but to every writer in the bible. You, Smaller, and Stormcrow, and apparently Webb, appear to be operating on the same ground. A cultural bible. I perceive that much of what is believed regarding the content of the Bible would be greatly influenced by this idea. Perhaps you could expand on this idea. I wish to understand it. It seems to me that this idea deserves its own thread to unify the thinking on this matter. You may have to repeat some of what you have said before. Sorry.

John 8:38 and Jethro Bodine, do you also subscribe to this idea?

FC

I really don't know why this should surprise anyone (not saying you're surprised), when Paul himself tells us this:

{4} But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, {5} so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Galatians 4:4-5 (NASB)

{5} These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; {6} but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 10:5-6 (NASB)

{22} And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed." {23} But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us." {24} But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matthew 15:22-24 (NASB)

(He did heal the woman's daughter because of her great faith.)

{16} For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16 (NASB)

The gospel came through the Jews for the Jews first, so it should come as no surprise that all of the apostles were Jews and that what they wrote was grounded and centered upon Judaism. After all, Christ Himself was a Jew.

Clearly, the NT teaches that the gospel was extended to Gentiles, too, and so much of what is written in it can apply to us even though it was not written to us.

 

[Stormcrow]

In my view, the bible has it’s source in God alone, not in God and the biblical writers. That in itself precludes cultural influence.

Language is a cultural influence. The OT was written in Hebrew and most of the NT in Greek. This very fact alone belies your statement (highlighted above.)

Dress was a cultural influence. Food was a cultural influence. You cannot separate the words from the language and audience and therefore - by extension - the culture. Sound biblical hermeneutics and exegesis are lost when this happens and that's why there are so many utterly whacked out interpretations of virtually any biblical passage today.

Here's a perfect example of why this is important:

{17} "But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; Matthew 10:17 (NASB)

Now, given your approach to biblical interpretation, the word "men" would have no special meaning. But in order to understand why Jesus called the Jewish persecutors of the disciples "men", you must understand the cultural significance of its usage.


Again, when you separate the language of the Bible from both the culture in which it was written and from the audience to whom it was written, what's left is a meaningless mess.

 

[Former Christian]

Stormcrow

Language is a cultural influence. The OT was written in Hebrew and most of the NT in Greek. This very fact alone belies your statement (highlighted above.)

FC said:
If the NT writers were writing according to culture, they were writing according to their own understanding of what they thought God’s idea was. In other words, what they wrote is their own idea. In which case the bible is nothing more than dead letters written by long dead writers. Whether or not any of it is actually God’s idea is up to the opinion of each individual. And on the say so of a bunch of long dead writers, even with pro interpreters of same? Wouldn’t be enough to convince me. If the bible is written within the venue of long dead cultures? I would rather live in the culture in which I find myself. At least that culture is alive and I can understand it, being as it stares me in the face daily, all day long.

"But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; Matthew 10:17 (NASB)
Now, given your approach to biblical interpretation, the word "men" would have no special meaning. But in order to understand why Jesus called the Jewish persecutors of the disciples "men", you must understand the cultural significance of its usage.

If you wish to find special meaning in the bible, you will always find it by interpretation. If you need to know first century culture to understand the meaning of this verse that is very obvious by reading the context.....

Again, when you separate the language of the Bible from both the culture in which it was written and from the audience to whom it was written, what's left is a meaningless mess.

For those who are determined to teach themselves what the bible means by interpretation, that’s very true.

FC