Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

A Cultural Bible

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.”


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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the bible wasnt written in a vaccum. it has a first audience. we get principles that are timeless from it. god used men to dictate his word and men have cultural biases and influecences.

being jewish and looking into judiasm has made me understand my grandparents who are deceased better as i know understand their cultural background.

perhaps a thread on the chuppa and communion with a pic of my granddad under it will convey that point.
 
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.”


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.

Sorry, that understanding is far from me.

All of Gods Words are just as applicable today as the day they were spoken. Every jot and tittle.

The bulk of what I've been led to understand revolves around factual powers unseen that remain operating in our present environment that are presented in Gods Words and Gods continuing actions, tolerance and forthcoming exposure and eradication of same powers of darkness, all of that being the essence of the HOPE of the Gospel.

Don't know how you could have possibly derived 'culture limitation' from my posts. Perhaps to throw me into the mix to stir things up? It really doesn't matter. However we view Gods Words He Alone both sends and performs same regardless of what we think about same.

I know for example that you do not believe your own mind is subject to the temptation of an entity that is not you, that being the tempter. I consider such views as a form of blindess imposed by the tempter and even allowed and tolerated by God.

Isaiah 55:11
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

s
 
Everything that is written or said occurs within a culture, context, time and language. This includes the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, the Divine Comedy, the Upanishad, the Q'ran, Shakespeare..and yes, the collection of writings commonly known as "the bible."

Not to mention the Art of War, the Communist Manifesto, the Origin of Species, etc.

The question is, are there 'truths' that we consider timeless contained within any or all of these- and who gets to decide?

The notion that Jesus was a "product of his time" comes with the presupposition that He was nothing more than a man, however. Christians maintain otherwise.
 
A cultural bible. A bible influenced by culture. This idea would not only apply to Jesus, but to every writer in the bible.
[...]
I perceive that much of what is believed regarding the content of the Bible would be greatly influenced by this idea.

...Jethro Bodine, do you also subscribe to this idea?

FC
Only to a small degree. I'm actually surprised at how non-culturally biased it's truths are, and how truly timeless and applicable they are to all people groups in history. I honestly think all the cultural understanding you really need is secured by reading the OT. Anything beyond that is just gravy (or icing, according to your favorite analogy).

To me the Bible is a stand alone book of truths. The bulk of my learning comes from my 1975 NIV. Learning that has been honestly tried and tested by me by various other interpretations and beliefs about God and found to be very much representing the real truths about God and his plan for his people (people who have faith in God).

I'm with you insofar as that it is improper interpretation of the scriptures that has led the church to where it is today. But I'm not in agreement with the idea that proper interpretation would take us back toward a Jewish kind of culture and mindset.
 
The error that I see is not so much interpreting the Bible culturally, but interpreting it culturally to an improper extreme. The western mindset (if there really is such a thing) pulls it too far into western thinking. The Jewish mindset pulls it too far into Jewish culture and thinking. The truth is somewhere in between...and honestly, prolly more on the western thinking side of things.

Knee jerk theology and doctrine...it's a real problem among us mortals. I think a good dose of Rodney King theology and doctrine would do us some good. Which means understanding and appreciating and respecting others views and taking the truths represented in all the extremes and pulling them together so we can 'all just get along'. I've done this personally and I feel a lot smarter and wiser and closer to the truth for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Smaller

“Don't know how you could have possibly derived 'culture limitation' from my posts.â€


It seems to fit naturally with the idea that the bible can only be understood by interpretation, as it does with Drew and Stormcrow. Now, if you don’t believe that either, I’ve managed to confuse you with someone else.


“I know for example that you do not believe your own mind is subject to the temptation of an entity that is not you, that being the tempter. I consider such views as a form of blindess imposed by the tempter and even allowed and tolerated by God.â€


I don’t disagree with that idea without reason.

Prov 3:
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

That would be impossible for me to do if I agreed with your idea. I would always wonder if the LORD I’m trusting is actually somebody else, Satan or even myself. And knowing with even reasonable certainty what is truth would be impossible. I could never really tell when I’m being deceived. And certainly I wouldn’t have a clue as to my state in relation to the supernatural, even if I presume a supernatural exists. How could I trust in a supernatural that I can’t see if I can’t trust in the natural my natural eyes can see? Faith? Faith in what? Faith in who? Faith merely means to be convinced in the verity of something or someone. How do I know that my faith in the supernatural and its inhabitants isn’t a matter of deceit. Indeed, what’s deceiving me? How do I know the faith that I have isn’t a deception? After all, many Christians would tell you that with regard to what I believe, where it disagrees with what they believe, I’m the one they consider deceived.

FC
 
Justified not Petrified

“Everything that is written or said occurs within a culture, context, time and language.....â€

Jasoncran said the same thing this way, “the bible wasnt written in a vaccum. it has a first audience. we get principles that are timeless from it. god used men to dictate his word and men have cultural biases and influecences.â€

I ask you with Jasoncran. If that’s true, why should anyone think that the bible is any different than any other writing of men? The “timeless truths†in the bible, are only considered timeless by those who for whatever reason agree with them.


“who gets to decide?â€

Yes. That’s the question isn’t it? Are you familiar with the song called “Nights in White Satan�


“The notion that Jesus was a "product of his time" comes with the presupposition that He was nothing more than a man, however. Christians maintain otherwise.â€

Sounds like you just contradicted yourself. If what has been written about Jesus was written by men in a cultural setting, then surely Jesus must be considered a product of his time. Could you please explain your position further?

FC
 
Jethro Bodine

“To me the Bible is a stand alone book of truths.â€

Do you think that would still be true if the biblical writers were influenced in any way by their own culture and time?


“But I'm not in agreement with the idea that proper interpretation would take us back toward a Jewish kind of culture and mindset.â€

I’m assuming you are saying that is my intent. Not at all. I only hold that the culture described in the bible transcends every other culture due to its source, including that of the Jews. And that in the bible, the whole bible, not just the OT or just the NT, is the culture that God has approved and should be conformed to by all believers. I don’t think God intended for any believer to be like the Jews in the sense of culture, or to desire, as did the Jews, to live according to the culture in which they find themselves or are around them. Paul says that believers have a different citizenship than unbelievers. Peter says that believers are travelers through, not part of, the cultures around them. Most Christians see that in part. Even when they decide the Law isn’t for the Christian, they still maintain that a part of that Law, the moral part, is for the Christian. I understand it’s because some of the ten commandments were restated in the NT. But not all were. It’s just a pick and choose idea in my estimation. Some Christians are more logical about that than others. The homosexual Christians for example. They can interpret away Romans 1. But the only way they can interpret away what’s actually said in the Law about the matter is to reject the Law as being applicable today. The ideas of the ten commandments aren’t so unusual in non-Christian cultures. For example, murder in all cultures is generally reserved for the powers that be, not individuals.


“The error that I see is not so much interpreting the Bible culturally, but interpreting it culturally to an improper extreme.â€

I think I understand what you’re saying. That Western culture has interpreted the bible too much according to it’s own culture. But you shouldn’t be surprised at that. Christians in Japan, in Africa, in South America, tend to interpret the bible according to their own culture. In fact cultural interpretation in South America has been often considered extreme when compared to the interpretations that are influenced by Western culture.


“Which means understanding and appreciating and respecting others views and taking the truths represented in all the extremes and pulling them together so we can 'all just get along'.â€

I’m quite capable of respecting different Christian views. But appreciating them is quite a different matter. I can’t appreciate what I don’t believe is true. For me respect comes in a far different form than it has for you. I think that we are one in Spirit, not in doctrines. So unity should be on the basis of what we are in Christ and what we can be through the Spirit. Thus I’m tolerant of all Christian views no matter how diverse. My twist on the philosophy of cultural Relativism. However, Christian doctrines are too diverse and philosophical for me to pull them all together into a coherent whole. More power to you if you’ve accomplished that.

I’ve known people who have managed to do that with the world religions. And quite effectively. It’s an ability I’m in awe of, but don’t possess myself. Perhaps because I had no reason to learn that ability when an Atheist, and was never associated with Christians who had that ability. Even Liberals, who claim to be so open minded, don’t have that ability. I think I’m much more open minded than most Christians because I do respect different Christian views even when I can’t appreciate them. I respect, for example, that most Christians hold to the view that the Law, with the exception of most of the moral law, is not in effect today. But I can’t appreciate that view because I simply don’t agree with it.


“I honestly think all the cultural understanding you really need is secured by reading the OT.... I've done this personally and I feel a lot smarter and wiser and closer to the truth for it.â€

To what extent do you think the bible has been culturally influenced? I ask that because you seemed to hedge a little, as if you’re purposefully trying to be a middle of the roader, or at least to include the idea as somewhat bona fide.

Could you give a couple of examples as to how you feel you’re closer to the truth by pulling extremes of Christian philosophies together?

FC
 
Smaller

“Don't know how you could have possibly derived 'culture limitation' from my posts.”

It seems to fit naturally with the idea that the bible can only be understood by interpretation, as it does with Drew and Stormcrow.

Only in your interpretation...:yes

I don't practice elimination of the Word via cultural in time application.


And I've pointed out that your own heart is reflective of subjective interpretation as well. Whether you see anything or nothing it is a subjective reflection.
Now, if you don’t believe that either, I’ve managed to confuse you with someone else.

Yeah, pretty much.

I don’t disagree with that idea without reason.
Interpret the fact all you want.
That would be impossible for me to do if I agreed with your idea. I would always wonder if the LORD I’m trusting is actually somebody else, Satan or even myself.
Good idea. Text doesn't present that our thoughts are only our own.
And knowing with even reasonable certainty what is truth would be impossible.
Perhaps so, if it was only you there in your head.

I could never really tell when I’m being deceived.
Really? You never have stray thoughts and if you do you don't question or interpret them them?
And certainly I wouldn’t have a clue as to my state in relation to the supernatural, even if I presume a supernatural exists. How could I trust in a supernatural that I can’t see if I can’t trust in the natural my natural eyes can see?
Eyes are NOT really equipped for thought assessments.

Faith? Faith in what? Faith in who? Faith merely means to be convinced in the verity of something or someone.
Faith works through love. If you believe God loves you, that would be faith in that matter. If that is meaningless to you I'd venture your heart would seek it regardless.

How do I know that my faith in the supernatural and its inhabitants isn’t a matter of deceit.
Depends on whether or not you perceive what is going on within. Not all matters are perceived solely on an external or physical basis of values.

Indeed, what’s deceiving me?
Indeed.

How do I know the faith that I have isn’t a deception?
Depends on how you interpret it eh?

After all, many Christians would tell you that with regard to what I believe, where it disagrees with what they believe, I’m the one they consider deceived.
FC
And I don't see anybody as just themselves. But then again I don't use my eyes to make that estimation.

s
 
Last edited by a moderator:
understand the jewish mind and be led by the spirit.

the jews were given there culture by god, that is why a jew is only fully jew when he is in christ and or in the days of the torah when he was faithful.

our god is a jewish one and our faith is jewish one. jews dont do history nor even had that word. they borrow that word from the greeks(historia).

when you read genesis from their view it will make sense, they teach their stories way different then us,. they dont care for details only that it did happen

we read about the feasts and what god did for them, they recite it and also renact it.

ie passover, the feasts. and also when doing the exodus renactment they take pots and set them up with water and also do walk in them to remind them of the early isrealites.

when i did channukah it was as if was in that days of the temple cleansing and i learned a lot on the menora and what it means.

we do church., they live it daily, they gather as a family.

we do church, they say that when ever the jews teach the torah god is there.

hmm sound familiar? it should where there are two or three gather there are three. we say we go to meet god at church, they teach god is always there., you see him in the torah, the feasts and in nature.

we dont often really say that. when you understand that then you will see little has changed. we are to be just like that. we dont have feasts today but communion and also the commands to be one in the spirit is exactly like that.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/433240/jewish/What-Is-Gd.htm

this nearly says what i just said. we dont see god that way from our western perspective.

417 Comments




What Is G‑d?

The Not-thing

By Tzvi Freeman
spacer.gif
1039.jpg
Question
Somewhere along the way, I misplaced G‑d. The other day I realized that I hadn't seen G‑d in quite a while--probably not since childhood. And it's not just that I can't find G‑d--I also seem to have lost my sense of what G‑d is... Why did this happen? If I had Him when I was a child, why shouldn't I have Him now?
Answer
You've got one clue, but you missed the other. It has to do with your language. Call it "thing-fixation."
That's probably the main disaster of your childhood --not being weaned, not leaving behind pampers for underpants, not sitting in a desk in first grade --but when you learned about things.
The entire world has been reduced in our minds to a mass junkyard of thingy stuff. So even G‑d gets defined as a thing... I don't mean, "you learned about things of the world." I mean, you learned the idea of things. You learned that the world is made of stuff, objects, material goomp that's just "out there". Later in life, you started running after those things, accumulating them, amassing more and more mounds of things to fill your home, your backyard and your driveway. By now, the entire world has been reduced in your mind to nothing but a mass junkyard of thingy stuff. So even G‑d gets defined as a thing --and you're trying to find the place where He fits. Because, after all, all things fit in places.
When you woke up to life as a small child, it wasn't like that. There were no things. There was just the experience of being. Of sensing, of living, of breathing and doing. Screaming, nursing, burping. Those were all real. Those are life. Things are not real. Things are fiction. They don't exist. We made them up.
The Birth of Thinginess
How did things come to be? Here's my catch on it.
In the beginning, there were no things. All of humankind knew life as does a small child, even as they grew older and wiser. But then someone got it into his head to draw pictures of all the stuff he had. Eventually, pictures became glyphs, a nifty device for esoteric communication. Glyph-lovers--such as the cult-priests of ancient Egypt--created thousands of glyphs to represent all the stuff Pharaoh was accumulating. Soon the idea seeped into the spoken language, as well: the idea of a "thing"--a static snapshot of a distinct whateveritis in a frozen moment of time. Stuff was born. And the world was never again the same.
In Hebrew, verbs rule Evidence? Because in ancient, biblical Hebrew, there is no word for stuff. Or thing. Or object or anything similar. In raw, primal Hebrew, you don't say, "Hey, where's that thing I put over here?" You say, "Where is the desired (chefetz) that I put here?" You don't say, "What's that thing?" --you say, "What's that word?" That's the closest you can get to the idea of thing: a word. All of reality is made of words. Look in the creation story: The whole of heaven and earth is nothing but words.
In fact, in ancient Hebrew, there aren't really any nouns, either. In languages like English, nouns are the masters and verbs are their slaves, with adjectives and associated forms dancing about to serve them. In Hebrew, verbs rule. Big, little, wise, foolish, king, priest, eye, ear--all of these sound like things, but in Hebrew they are forms of verbs. In fact, according to Rabbi Yeshayahu Horowitz (1560?-1630), author of the classic Shnei Luchot HaBrit, everything in Hebrew is really a verb. Everything is an event, a happening, a process --flowing, moving, never static. Just like when you were a small child.
In Hebrew, there is not even a present-tense. There are participles, but the idea of a present tense only arose later. In real Hebrew, nothing ever is--all is movement.
That fits, because Hebrew was not written in glyphs. Hebrew was the first language we know of to be written with symbols that represent sounds, not things. With the Hebrew alphabet--the mother of all alphabets--you don't see things, you see sounds. Even the process of reading is different: when you read glyphs, the order doesn't matter so much. You just sort of look and everything is there. Even modern Chinese glyphs can be written in any direction. With an alphabet, sequence is everything. Nothing has meaning standing on its own. Everything is in the flow.
Get The Flow
Things are not real. Things are fiction. They don't exist. We made them up. The flow is real. Things are not real. Ask a physicist: the more we examine stuff--what they call matter--we see that it's not there. All that's really there is events: waves, vibrations, fields of energy. Life is a concert, not a museum.
Think of writing music, as opposed to painting a portrait. The portrait artist stands back and beholds his art, his still rendition of a frozen moment--and he beholds it all at once. Then he politely asks his model to please return to the pose of that which has now become the prime reality, the portrait. A portrait of that which is but never was.
A composer of music cannot do this. You can't freeze a moment of music--it vanishes as soon as you attempt to do such. Like the fictional stuff they call matter: Frozen to absolute zero, without energy, without movement, it no longer exists. Because, in truth, all that exists is the flow of being.
The Name
The flow of being: now you have found G‑d The flow of being: now you have found G‑d. In fact, in Hebrew, that's His name. G‑d's name is a series of four letters that express all forms of the verb of all verbs, the verb to be: is, was, being, will be, about to be, causing to be, should be --all of these are in those four letters of G‑d's name. As G‑d told Moses when he asked for His name, "I will be that which I will be."
In our modern languages that doesn't work. We quickly slip into the trap of thingness again. Who is G‑d? We answer, "He is One who was, is and will be."
There we go with the "thing that is" business again. No, G‑d is not a thing that is or was or will be. G‑d is isness itself. Oy! The frustration of the language. We need new words: Ising. Isness. Isingness. Isifying. Isifier. In Hebrew you can conjugate the verb to be in all these ways and more. Perhaps in English one day we will do the same. Until then, we are like artists using pastels to imitate Rembrandt; like musicians trying to play middle-eastern strains in tempered C Major.
And the proof: We ask questions that make sense only in English, but in Hebrew are plainly absurd. Such as, "Does G‑d exist?" In Hebrew, that's a tautology, somewhat the equivalent of "Does existence exist?"
There is no need to "believe" in this G‑d--if you know what we are talking about, you just know. You will know, also, that there is nothing else but this G‑d--what is there that stands outside isness?
Think simple: You wake up in the morning and, even before coffee, there is As for faith and belief, those are reserved for greater things. Like believing that this great Isness that isifies all that ises cares, knows, has compassion, can be related to. In other words, saying that reality is a caring experience. Which reduces to saying that compassion is real, purpose is real, life is real. That's something you have to believe. But G‑d's existence--like most ideas that men argue about--that's just a matter of semantics.
Think simple: You wake up in the morning and, even before coffee, there is. Reality. Existence. Not "the things that exist" but existence itself. The flow. The infinite flow of light and energy. Of being, of existence. Of is. Think of all that flow of isingness all in a single, perfectly simple point. Get into it, commune with it, speak to it, become one with it --that is G‑d.


as an athiest if i recall correctly, this is why you dont understand this. im sorry. but that doesnt mean im all that. i have spent months pondering this and thinking why we dont get it often and also how my family does know. sadly many christians think that the jewish commentary are off but if you did read this. often many christians that are praising the lord will say things of that nature.
 
the bible wasnt written in a vaccum. it has a first audience. we get principles that are timeless from it. god used men to dictate his word and men have cultural biases and influecences.
Agreed.


smaller said:
All of Gods Words are just as applicable today as the day they were spoken. Every jot and tittle.
No one is saying otherwise but we must understand what was meant when the words were first written in order to properly apply it to today. And in order to understand what was written must take into account the cultural context. There is much error, or at least incompleteness, taught because the cultural context largely goes ignored.
 
Smaller

Don't know how you could have possibly derived 'culture limitation' from my posts.â€

It seems to fit naturally with the idea that the bible can only be understood by interpretation, as it does with Drew and Stormcrow.
Only in your interpretation...

LOL


“And I've pointed out that your own heart is reflective of subjective interpretation as well. Whether you see anything or nothing it is a subjective reflection.â€

Well, at least I got that part of your understanding right.


“I don’t disagree with that idea without reason.
Interpret the fact all you want.â€

What is fact to you isn’t fact to me, and vice versa. Which means that interpretation has nothing to do with it. Just two different ideas as to what’s factual. A common occurrence in humanity. A common occurrence in Christianity that reveals its true nature.


“How do I know the faith that I have isn’t a deception?
Depends on how you interpret it eh?â€

Appears you missed the point.



But to return a little closer to the subject at hand, how does your idea of interpretation fit in with how the bible is to be understood? Wouldn’t interpretations be related to personal cultural background? And thus force the bible into the position of being a culturally understood book?

Saying for the moment that your idea of outside influences is valid, wouldn’t that in itself influence interpretation as much or more than personal cultural influences?

Either way how could anyone be certain of anything? Seems to me there has to be certainty in order for there to be any faith for love to express.


FC
 
Jasoncran

“the jews were given there culture by god, that is why a jew is only fully jew when he is in christ and or in the days of the torah when he was faithful.... our god is a jewish one and our faith is jewish one. jews dont do history nor even had that word. they borrow that word from the greeks(historia).â€

Now this is an intriguing idea. But don’t you think that one has to differentiate between modern Judaism and OT Judaism? There is a definite difference if one is open minded enough to see it. Modern Judaism is directly related to the Pharisees, the ones whom Jesus referred to as the holders of the Traditions of men. So long as you recognize the Spiritual difference, I suppose you will be spared becoming simply a Judaizer.

I find your reference to the Jews as not doing history to be a strange claim considering that so much of the bible, OT and NT, is history. Of course, you may be referring to modern Judaism. But even in modern Orthodox Judaism, there seems to be a sense of history.


“when you read genesis from their view it will make sense, they teach their stories way different then us,. they dont care for details only that it did happenâ€

I don’t think I’ve read anything about Genesis from the Jewish view. I only know of the creation idea of the Jewish Physicist Gerald Schroeder. An intriguing idea, by the way. If you’re interested. I would be interested in a few words about the general idea of creation and the flood from the viewpoint of the Orthodox Jew. I’m curious to know whether or not they take a metaphorical view. Assuming that your reference point is that of the Orthodox Jew.


“we read about the feasts and what god did for them, they recite it and also renact it.
ie passover, the feasts. and also when doing the exodus renactment they take pots and set them up with water and also do walk in them to remind them of the early isrealites.â€

This is exactly the same idea as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. A recitation and a reenactment. Not so much in Protestantism, except perhaps in Anglicanism and Lutheranism. Most of Protestantism take a more symbolic view of the Lord’s Table. Personally, I take a more experiential view.


“we do church., they live it daily, they gather as a family.â€

Actually, currently in Protestantism there is much more of an emphasis on a relationship between Church and family. Something that is still very evident in both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.


“as an athiest if i recall correctly, this is why you dont understand this. im sorry.â€

I understand more than you realize. Atheists are often caricaturized as being these ignorant people who couldn’t understand religion even if they tried. I would never caricaturize any of my Atheist friends in that fashion. They can understand just fine. The fact that Atheists don’t believe it doesn’t change them into bumbling idiots. The sooner Christians understand that, the sooner more Atheists will begin to believe, or at least be more tolerant through a true understanding. Like anyone, Atheists tend to have a negative reaction to arrogance directed toward them.



The article you copied is quite interesting, even if a little hard to understand at times. The English, not the ideas. I had forgotten that the Jews don’t like to speak the word God (G-d) any more than they like to speak the name of God in Jehovah, or Yahweh.

You have a narrow view of Christianity. You have apparently only the experience of Protestantism. Surprising, considering your length of time on this forum and if Francisdesales is a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism has made an issue of noting the relationship between Roman Catholicism and Judaism, OT and modern, since the era of the Vatican II Council in the 1960’s. They take the relationship between the Eucharist or Lord’s Table and the Passover as well as the Tabernacle ritual very seriously. And I have read where at least one Roman Catholic apologist added the Synagogue ritual to the mix as well.

Holidays or holy days in the West are referred to as Feasts in Eastern Orthodoxy. Roman Catholicism is progressive and has developed quickly into a slightly different direction than its more conservative sister Eastern Orthodoxy. If you want to see a primitive form of Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy is the one to check out.

It’s only in Protestantism that the relationship between modern Judaism and Christianity is not often considered. Even though it’s not that long ago that secular culture was influenced by religion, rather than the other way around. I think a more rounded view of Christianity would be as beneficial to you as your renewed interest in Judaism.

I would be interested to hear the reaction of others to your idea of the cultural nature of the bible.

FC
 
Free

“There is much error, or at least incompleteness, taught because the cultural context largely goes ignored.â€

What constitutes the cultural context in your view?

FC
 
Free

“There is much error, or at least incompleteness, taught because the cultural context largely goes ignored.â€

What constitutes the cultural context in your view?

FC
The history of the Israel, Roman rule, the expectation of the Messiah and how he would do away with the enemies of the Jews, to name just a few of the things relevant to the 1st century context within which the NT was written.
 
Free

What constitutes the extent to which this context affected the dissemination of the revelation by God of objective truth?

FC
Would you be able to reword that please? I'm overtired and can't quite make out what you're asking. :help I think I know but I want to be clear before I answer.
 
Back
Top