A Cultural Bible

[westtexas]

Nonsense. There are letters from the Civil War that still exist today that were not written for you and me, yet we can learn from them.


Some things Paul wrote don't apply to us, just as the Law of Moses does not apply to us!


Declare yourselves victorious if it makes you, WestTexas, Free, and all the others feel better. I simply don't care.

I don't think anyone felt the necessity to feel victorious. Only the necessity to state that Paul's letters are much more than simply historical documents-as you seem to believe. They are scripture and were considered such by the early church.

I'm sorry for the loss of your friends, God bless, Westtexas

 

[Drew]

That's exactly the problem with the view many of you take to this issue: you say it's all "written to us" and then try to apply cultural norms and standards anachronistically! It's an absolutely ridiculous approach to any historical writing that anyone with an ounce of common sense would reject out of hand!

I agree with this statement as it is, although I have not read what other people have said. Therefore, let not my agreement with this statement of yours be necessarily construed as disagreement with what others here are saying.

One of the huge errors, in my view, that has resulted from failure to heed this principle you express concerns the meaning of "justification by works". When one fails to account for culture and context this gets interpreted as "justification by doing good deeds". I suggest, instead, the intended meaning is this: "justification by doing the practices of the Law of Moses".

Big, big difference with major theological and even pastoral implications.

 

[Former Christian]

Stormcrow

My condolences on the death of your friends.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

We currently have two issues on this thread that I initially thought didn’t have anything to do with one another. I was wrong.

First, is the matter of understanding the bible culturally. Whether the culture of the biblical writers or the culture of 21st century readers. Understanding perceived cultural differences would appear to be paramount in understanding a cultural bible.

Second, is the matter of a bible written only to those to whom the writers were writing. The idea that none of the bible is actually written to anyone living in the 21st century.

I think that Stormcrow has done us a service in that he has already taken the idea of a cultural bible to its logical conclusion. That we need to understand the bible culturally because none of it is actually written to us to begin with.

That certainly explains Christian denominationalism. Wherein each individual bible reader is taking away from the bible whatever is relevant to the individual. Wherein the only culture relevant to the individual is the culture known by the individual.

Just as every individual interprets the bible whether its owned up to or not, so also every individual interprets the bible according to his own frame of reference, his own culture, whether it’s owned up to or not. Even the cultural perception of the writers of the bible is influenced by one’s perception of personal culture. One can only see through whatever glasses one is wearing. Any attempt to read through the glasses of another, through perceived cultural references of the writer, will still ultimately end up an individual interpretation influenced by one’s own culture. Even one’s perception of the culture of the writers will in the end be influenced by the readers cultural venue.

Nothing supernatural need apply, nor is anything supernatural necessary. As the various religions in the world show, a religion doesn’t need the supernatural to be viable. Does the idea common to most religions and most philosophies, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you†really need a God before it can be practically put into effect? How does culture influence the understanding and experience of this idea?

The educated certainly have their views of the culture of various biblical eras. Doesn’t seem to help them to derive a singular point of view from the bible. Those who aren’t educated automatically intersperse their own cultural understanding into the text when they interpret it. No singular point of view there either. Being educated or uneducated doesn’t make any significant difference in the diversity of biblical views. Whatever works for the individual who reads is the only real basis for understanding the bible. And then the individuals gravitate towards communities of the like-minded, or as nearly so as is possible.

The only problem I have with a cultural bible that was only written to those in their own era, is that I can’t take it seriously. Such a bible has no practical value for me. Current culture and its philosophy would have more meaning. Since its where I am currently. And I see no reason to invoke the past to live in the present.

“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.â€
(The Life of Reason - George Santayana)

Nothing ever changes. People are the same. They do the same things today as they ever did. There has been no progress of any significance. Building a “better†mousetrap (technologically speaking) is hardly progress. Even the bible says something to that effect.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.
(ESV)

Apparent differences in culture has changed nothing really. Simply because human nature hasn’t changed. Cultural change comes down to saying the same things using different metaphors. That’s what a study of history and everyday life reveals. And that’s what makes a cultural bible a metaphorical bible. No wonder Christians don’t understand the bible alike.

Who knows what Jesus meant when he said agape God and one another? Everyone has their own ideas about what agape is, what it has to do with us, and what we’re supposed to do with it.

Is the Law of Moses only for the Jews? The Law consistently says “I am Jehovah your Godâ€. Showing that if the Law is only for the Jews, then Jehovah who is the God of that Law is also only for the Jews. One example:

Leviticus 19:34 The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home–born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were sojourners in the land of Egypt: I am Jehovah YOUR God.
(ASV, emphasis mine)

Is Paul trying to change the Law?

Romans 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yea, of Gentiles also.
(ASV)

Who knows what Paul meant culturally when he was expounding on Justification? There are several views of the matter in Christianity. You can take whatever choice makes sense to you. Or make up your own choice. If taking the Law (of Moses or of God, whichever you prefer) out of the equation makes sense to you, then run with it. Who’s to tell you you’re wrong?

The dead writers whose writings are included in the bible certainly aren’t going to care what you think of their writings or their culture.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Jasoncran

note to all.

the way the nt was put together and accepted was done similiar to way the tanach was put together.
different men in the sanhedrin as time went on and things happend and were recorded added them books. king david was such a man.
with the nt it was by oral tradition as each book could be checked with the oral recalling of the events for accuracy. meaning if the dispicles lied the whole church would know and rebuke them for that.
that too is a jewish thing. oral traditions is something i may get into im more depth, the torah has both aspects too it as moses gave oral commandments then wrote them down.

If men compiled the bible, men must have the authority to do so. Just like if men interpret the bible, men must have the authority to do so.

The idea of a bible authoritatively canonized by men, like the idea of a bible authoritatively interpreted by men, proves the validity of the Roman Catholic view. Certainly not the Protestant view that the bible alone is the only authority for all faith and practice. A bible canonized and interpreted by men has an authority over it in the authority of those men who have canonized it and interpreted it. And if this proves the validity of the Roman Catholic view, how much more does it prove the validity of the Jewish view that existed prior to the Roman Catholic view.

Whenever I hear of a Protestant going along with the idea of biblical canonization, and as I watch them interpret the bible, I have to laugh. They’ve not only created a dichotomy in their own view, they’ve nullified it. Then I have to wonder why they continue to rebel against the Church of their Fathers that is so obviously right according to their own dichotomized nullified view.

FC

 

[smaller]

I would think that Gods Words expressed in His Son would bear a little more import than letters from the civil war. Is that supposed to be some equal measure of any sort? lol

s

 

[zeke]

Whenever I hear of a Protestant going along with the idea of biblical canonization, and as I watch them interpret the bible, I have to laugh. They’ve not only created a dichotomy in their own view, they’ve nullified it. Then I have to wonder why they continue to rebel against the Church of their Fathers that is so obviously right according to their own dichotomized nullified view.

FC

Can you provide your definition of "the Church" and "their Fathers"?

 

[Former Christian]

Zeke

The Church or the ekklesia?

The term Church is defined by Christianity. The term can refer to the building used for worship. Or to a Christian organization with its own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrines. Or to Christians gathered together for worship. Some Christian denominations actually refer to the leadership of the organization as the Church in the sense of an epitome standard.

Most agree that the Church is divided into two aspects: universal and local. The universal aspect being synonymous with the Body of Christ. The local aspect being the local expression of the universal aspect.

Roman Catholicism believes it is “the Churchâ€. In the sense of universality and locality. It claims that this Church has existed for two millennia and was started by Jesus Christ and that Peter was its first leading elder. The Pope is in the direct line of Peter, and those who lead with him are in the direct line of the other Apostles. The Church, in the person of the Pope and those leaders around him, today called the Magisterium, is the only true authority for all faith and practice. That’s why the Pope is called the Vicar of Christ. He is the representative of Jesus Christ on earth today, as they claim Peter was in the first century after the ascension. Thus they emphasize history and the progressive development of doctrinal understanding as being part of the progressive development of the bible and as authoritative. In practicality, more authoritative than the bible since the bible must be understood according to the accepted interpretation of the Church.

Protestantism, originating through Martin Luther, basically has the same view of the Church. Some Protestant denominations believe they are the true Church on earth today. Such as the Churches of Christ, the Church of the Latter-day Saints (Mormons), The Jehovah’s Witnesses. Other Churches think the same thing, but would never claim it, such as the Churches of the Recovery started by Witness Lee. But in the main, Protestantism claims that the bible is the only authority for all faith and practice. In a dichotomous sense. Because they took something with them when they left the Western Church as it existed in the sixteenth century. They took with them the practice of biblical interpretation. So rather than the bible being the authority as claimed, the interpretations are the authority. Just like Roman Catholicism, their interpretations are more authoritative than the bible, practically speaking. But they lack historical continuity. Even though that continuity exists through the Church of the West, just as assuredly as it does for Roman Catholicism. But the continuity divided after the sixteenth century as Roman Catholicism together with Protestantism has created a variety of doctrinal expressions. Ergo Christianity reveals itself today in an ultimate sense its own human nature and its own denominational character.

The first thing to realize is that the English term Church comes from a Greek phrase that means the Lord’s house. It doesn’t in any way come from the NT Greek word ekklesia. Yet the English bibles interpretively translates the Greek word ekklesia as Church. That’s the first confusion that results in misunderstanding the true nature of the ekklesia. The terms ekklesia and Church are synonymous in Christianity. It’s part of Christian Tradition.

The second thing to realize is that the Greek word ekklesia was originally a secular term. The literal meaning of the Greek word refers to those who are called out. It referred to a group of people called out of a city population to take care of the affairs of the city. Something like a city council in America today. The NT writers used this word in a similar way. A group of people called out of a city population. To take care of the affairs of God in the city. To be an expression of the Body of Christ (Eph 1) and an expression of the residence or Temple of God (Eph 2) in the city. This is one of the New Covenant changes. One no longer needs to meet in Jerusalem to gather together as a people to meet with or to worship God.

The third thing to realize is that the ekklesia are only local city expressions that are referred to by name of the city in which they exist (Rev 2-3). The ekklesia are NOT universal expressions, as denominational Churches are in Christianity. When Jesus referred to the ekklesia (Mat 16, 18) He was referring to the ekklesia in Jerusalem. Not to some universal ekklesia as Christianity or one of its denominations. Peter indeed became the rock in that ekklesia, as was foretold, and that was necessary at the time. Peter was not the primary leader of a universal Church, but a pillar of strength in the ekklesia in Jerusalem (Acts 1-15). It is his faith expressed by agape that is in view. As in John 21.

Each ekklesia is local according to city, and is intended to be an earthly expression of that which is universal: the Body of Christ, which in turn is the expression of Jesus Christ himself as the head. Just as our own bodies express the head in which our personalities are housed. We can lose an arm or a leg and still express the head. If we lose our head..... In the ekklesia, the first step is losing its first love, which can progressively become a loss of the head, the result of which will be the non-existence of the ekklesia (Rev 2).

I have no doubt that there are cities in which there are Churches of Christianity, but as a religious expression only or a social club, because there are no persons there who are in Christ. Only Christians. And being a Christian and being in Christ is not synonymous, though there are Christians who are in Christ. It is unfortunate that too many who are Christians and in Christ tend to emphasize being a Christian over being in Christ. And many Christians, whether they’re in Christ or not, will claim that the two are synonymous.

One could say that Christianity has lost its head. But it’s not really so. Because Jesus Christ has never been its head. He has been Lord to individuals who are a part of Christianity and are also in Christ. Christianity began as something different from the ekklesia in the first century. My personal opinion is that Christianity began through the Judaizers. Not easily seen in Protestantism. It’s easier seen through what Roman Catholicism says today about its affinity with Judaism, and even easier to see in Eastern Orthodoxy. Modern Judaism is in the direct line of the Pharisees. Christianity and modern Judaism began from those elements that existed in the first century. Both are spoken against in the NT.

That realization is why I’m a former Christian rather than a Christian today. When I was a Christian and after I saw the denominational character of Christianity, I initially thought Christianity was just degraded into a Corinthian type expression. Then I saw the situation is far worse than what was in the Corinthian ekklesia. The Corinthian ekklesia was internally divided. No division had authority in itself. They were merely sectarian in the sense of following men. Division in Christianity is outward into different denominations each with its own authority.

Today I realize that Christianity is a man-made religion that has existed since the first century. It’s unity is doctrinal and has been overtly so since at least the fourth century, as seen in the Council of Nicaea. The unity of the ekklesia is Spiritual (Eph 4). It is a unity of life through those who are in Christ, because life is in Christ. Jesus Christ is Lord in the ekklesia. Not a human leadership, as in Christianity.

More to follow.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Zeke

The question is, where are the ekklesia today? Christian apologists will say that what I refer to as ekklesia are the Churches as they existed in the first century. So in that sense they don’t exist today. The only expression that exists today are the Churches that exist today in the 21st century. There is no recognition of the difference between the Churches of Christianity and the ekklesia that are described in the NT.

If the ekklesia don’t exist today, then neither does that which was associated with them. If I thought that, I would be a non-Christian rather than a former Christian. I would have either taken on a different religion or reverted to Atheism from which I came.

If Jesus Christ was resurrected and exists today at the right hand of the Father, then it stands to reason that his expression on earth would still exist on earth today. Christianity, of course, considers itself to be that expression. Or more accurately, each denomination of Christianity considers itself to be that expression, practically speaking.

In the view I present, in every city wherein those who are in Christ reside, there is an ekklesia. If there are those who are in Christ in Los Angeles, there is an ekklesia in Los Angeles. So also every other city in the world. There is only one ekklesia in Los Angeles. Not to be confused with the more than one meeting places of those who are a part of the one ekklesia. Again, this is in contrast to the practice of Christianity. Wherein in each city many denominational meeting places may exist.

Now the question becomes, where are the ekklesia? Why aren’t they visible? Where do we go to meet with this ekklesia? No one has to go anywhere. It’s not like Christianity where one has to go to a Church building to meet. When ever those who are in Christ gather together, they are meeting as the one ekklesia in their own city. In homes is the ideal presented in the NT. But even if they meet in a Christian Church or other building, if their purpose is to meet as the ekklesia, they are meeting as the ekklesia. What doesn’t exist today are pure meetings as the ekklesia. Those who are in Christ today have been influenced by Christianity thinking. So they will meet more according to a Christian denomination than as ekklesia. If there is even any thought of meeting as the ekklesia. They will even have a leader that leads the meeting showing the Christianity influence. Is Jesus Christ resurrected and living today? Is Jesus Christ Lord? Is he sufficient to lead? Is the Spirit sufficient for Jesus Christ to lead through? Christianity by its practice says no. And that is right so long as the influence of Christianity continues.

But the primary thing to see is that by its organizational practice that is its Tradition, Christianity denies the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christianity has the words, but they are without substance. Not only is the power missing, but so is the life. Whatever Divine Life exists in Christianity, it is found in those who are in Christ. Generally hidden under the basket of Christianity.

Originally, this is how the NT believers met:

Acts 2:
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.
44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.
45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
(NIV)

They met together daily (vss. 46-47). DAILY. You’ll find that to be an inconvenience in Christianity. To meet at every opportunity as one is able was normal back then. It had to do with more than just a religious practice. They didn’t just meet on “the Sabbathâ€. Saturday or Sunday. Meeting daily was one of the true New Covenant changes in regard to ritual. The Lord’s Table instead of the Tabernacle ritual is another. What Christians little realize today is that in order to understand the Lord’s Table, they must understand the Tabernacle ritual that explains it. Those especially who believe the Law to be abrogated have no chance whatsoever in that regard.

According to vs. 42, they followed the Apostles’ teaching.

The Apostles’ teaching included the OT (Law and all) and what the Apostles (along with others who were a part of the Spiritual “giftsâ€) were presenting at the time (today seen in written form in the NT writings). Christianity has obvious differences of opinion with reference to the Apostles’ teaching. There should be only one opinion. And that is that the Apostles’ teaching is the bible itself as taught by Jesus Christ through the Spirit apart from the interpretations of men.

The Greek word translated “fellowship†actually means sharing. Since physical sharing is referred to in vss. 44-45, it must refer to a Spiritual sharing. Verse 42 is in reference to meeting together. Paul describes this Spiritual sharing in places like 1 Cor 12-14 and Eph 4. Those who say that which is perfect has come, referring to the bible, have no use for or understanding of what Paul said in those two portions. The Law isn’t the only part of the bible considered abrogated in Christianity.

The use of the phrase “breaking of bread†is interpreted by most in Christianity to refer to anything except the Lord’s Table. But that is the only thing it can refer to considering the context of meeting. Paul refers to this matter in the latter part of 1Cor 11.

Prayer, according to the Greek word used, doesn’t mean the same as supplication (asking for things). The difference can be seen in Philippians 4:6. The word used here carries the meaning of adoration.

You’ll note that singing isn’t mentioned here. Yet it is. It’s a part of prayer. under the Old Covenant. The Psalms were used in their Temple Worship. And originally the believers met in the Temple. The Psalms was their hymnal.

The Psalms do include supplications and every other kind of situation common to the believer. But primarily, whatever else is true of the Psalms, they represent an adoration of God in every situation.

Hymns, as they exist today in Christianity, are generally versions of doctrinal standards in the form of singing. They can be thought of as the Christian’s second bible, along with their Creeds.

No denomination is represented when the Psalms are used. The Psalms are as God-breathed as the bible itself. No hymn has that distinction. And a greater expression and range of the human condition and the relationship of humanity to God is represented in the Psalms, then in any Christian hymnbook. God knows us better than any hymn writer. One only needs a bible, instead of a bible and a hymnbook.

Christians little understand today that chanting is a form of singing. It’s a simple form that is ideally suited to singing of the Psalms, and no harder to learn than the music found in hymnbooks. It’s a form of singing that is beyond any cultural form of singing. Developed in the atmosphere of monasteries where their primary purpose was to follow the Spirit. Of course, to those Christians that are culturally minded, needing the comfort of the music of modern culture, or hymnbook music, this will be of no value. And those who are put off by monasticism, simply because it is related to Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism, will also find this of no value.

Peter refers to the matter of ekklesial meeting in 1 Pet 2:1-10, through his description of the nature of those who are in Christ in a communal sense. It fits naturally with Acts 2:42.

Originally believers met in the Temple. They also met in their homes. After the Temple was destroyed and the believers were scattered, the believers only met in homes. This was necessary to show the believers in a practical way that the New Covenant Temple isn’t in a building, but rather in the believers themselves. But eventually, Christianity reverted to meeting in buildings built for the purpose of worship. The use of buildings built for the purpose of meeting is a degradation, a organizational convenience, common to Christianity. It’s simply a part of their organizational Tradition. It’s a hindrance to seeing the nature of the ekklesia. It’s good to remember that in the beginning of the NT community, homes were sufficient to meet in. In the first century ekklesia, gathering together was a life-style, not a religion.

Christians interpret the bible so they can believe and do according to their own preference. Christianity as it is today reflects that. If you are influenced in your thinking by Christianity, until there is some renewing of your mind, what I have just written will seem like just a personal interpretation or opinion to you. Or worse. It will do me no good to assure you of its biblical basis.

In the view I present, the more profound the differences become between the NT ekklesia and the Christian Churches, and those differences become more profound daily, the nearer the ultimate realization of the salvation of those who are in Christ becomes than when they first believed.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Zeke

The Fathers

Again, it is Christianity that defines who are the Fathers of the Church. Christianity generally understands the Church Fathers to be “early Christian theologians (in particular of the first five centuries) whose writings are regarded as especially authoritative” (Oxford Dictionary).

Practically speaking, anyone who is considered worthy of following, in writing or speaking, in the past or today, these are considered Fathers of the Church. The Father of the Lutheran Churches is practically speaking Martin Luther primarily, and those who write or speak according to the interpretation given by Luther secondarily. And Luther is considered at least one of the Fathers of Protestantism. Roman Catholicism considers primarily certain authorized writers of the first few centuries of the first millennium to be their Fathers. From only the view of history, Roman Catholicism has the better argument when regarding itself as the true Church.

In the view I present, Jesus is the head of the ekklesia and all life flows into the ekklesia from him through the Spirit. There are still those who are Spiritual “gifts” in the ekklesia. Nullified or degraded by the influence of Christianity today. If those who are in Christ have anything like Fathers that resemble those who are considered Fathers in Christianity, it would be the NT writers. Christianity didn’t look back far enough for their Fathers.

One can’t go so far as some Protestants and say there is no such thing as Spiritual Fathers. The NT simply doesn’t say that anywhere. Nor can one go so far as to say that any authorized and educated leader is a Father, as in Roman Catholicism. Nor can one say that there needs to be a balance.

In the ekklesia, anyone of experience who points the ones with less experience directly to Christ, can be considered in that sense a Father. In what I am writing here, I’m not a Father. I’m merely answering a question. But if I say that no matter what Christianity or any one in it says, turn to Jesus Christ, listen to his teaching, trust in God and not in your own understanding, walk by the Spirit, and if you need help, I will walk with you; then I’m being a Father to you if my experience is greater than yours. If our experience is the same, then I’m being a brother to you. Either way it’s agape in action, and that is the primary consideration of Jesus Christ in our relationships with one another. To agape one another as he has agapied us.

In the bible, is the Apostles teaching and its example, for all with an open mind who can hear what the Spirit is saying to the ekklesia.

FC