A Cultural Bible

[jasoncran]

no, the jews dont do history as facts as we do.

and no the catholics arent all like joe. sorry. i know alot of them here and my family on my mom's side aren nothing like him.

whiles its true that the catholics do have that life around the church thing that i speak off but they go where the jews wouldnt or a christian ought not too.

and you are assuming that i listen to the modern jews, yes that link is from a rabbi but im talking about the sages that predate jesus on this earth and also oral traditions that he neither condemned.

ie channukah is a talmudic holiday, the jews have commentaries and its is those and no i dont care for shoeder. as he is taking science over the genesis account. he is an old earther and appears when i did read his statements to go into the kabbalah.not that all of that is bad as that article has the a kaballic influence

modern judiasm doesnt all do the law, some are reformed others ultra othorodox and orthodox and also consertive.

 

[Justified not Petrified]

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.

Indeed. Now take what you said and replace "bible" with Q'Ran, Origin of Species, A Brief History of Time, the writings of Nietzche, The New York Times opinion section...
I don't subscribe to the rationalistic notion that the 'bible' has to be or can be proven in the manner that one can prove that sodium bicarbonate poured in water produces CO2. Wrong category. You will have to take that argument up with another rational positivist.

“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

I'm missing the contradiction. Again, Christians BELIEVE that Y'shua Ben Y'seph was both God and man. Ergo, in some respects He transcends culture time and language. This is why He challenged the culturally held Hebrew beliefs about women, the poor, and the interpretation of Torah.

These are, of course, items of belief. They commend themselves as well to empirical testing as does your belief that chocolate ice cream is better than peach.

 

[smaller]

What is fact to you isn’t fact to me, and vice versa.

God expressed Himself in Jesus Christ as His Own Image. Fact?

The tempter tempts us in mind. Fact?

I'm not asking you to quantify these matters from your own perspective, but from a measure of the text, which is what we are largely engaged in here.

I'd consider the above two facts from text, and they also bear out as truth in reality to 'me.'

Which means that interpretation has nothing to do with it. Just two different ideas as to what’s factual.

Well, one quickly sees that if numero dos above is a fact, the whole matters get much more interesting.

A common occurrence in humanity. A common occurrence in Christianity that reveals its true nature.

Like I said before, no one reads the text alone in heart according to the text. I'm not requesting an external verification from you.

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

Appears you missed the point.

I accept the fact of text that none of us see in full, therefore my place is relegated to that fact. Kinda puts things in perspective for me. I also accept deception as a fact from the text. That really hits hard, but it too is a fact. A man's pride likes to lead him to think he knows it all, but that's assuredly not the case. I also expect 'everyone' to reflect or interpret differently. To me that's kinda in the vein of creation. No two things are created exactly alike. That's just a fact as well, that testifies to the intimacy of God with each person.

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?

The text should tell you no differently than your own heart. Good and Evil reside therein. We are to look to Good and not be captured by evil. It's not only good common sense, but Divine. No sense making it any more complicated than it is. My own parents taught me the Gospel when I was very young.

Treat others as you want to be treated.

Life will teach you soon enough that many don't travel that way, but that really is the Gospel.

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?

Not saying it's outside. Temptation is assuredly an 'internal' matter. I accept it to be a fact that where the Word is sown, the tempter enters to steal same from the heart. Why do you think it is we all go continually around in circles? :yes

Either way how could anyone be certain of anything?

Uncertainty is a test of faith. If you knew automatically you'd be rewarded for doing good that wouldn't be much fun. We'd all be like Pavlovian mutts. If you do good and get punished for it, that really hurts, but scripture says the rewards of the heart are much greater for the latter. I would agree with that principle. Over time it seems good for the heart to do good only for yourself i.e. your own internal integrity.

Seems to me there has to be certainty in order for there to be any faith for love to express.
FC

I don't think so. Hope is part of the parcel. We'll all find out soon enough anyway.

s

 

[smaller]

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.

You surely understand that those who seek elimination or eradication of Gods Words via cultural context applications only are pretty far off the whack Free? There are several such that post here.

Jesus said man will live by every Word of God. That means EVERY regardless of cultural, historical, time applications. And yes, that does make understanding a difficult matter. I just don't find elimination a valid approach. The text itself represents multilayered meanings. Even a common Muslim understands their own text as having multiple levels of understandings.

In my own engagements with Jews, they tend to be almost pure literalists.

To me the simplicities of text are always applicable. A good conscience toward God in Christ and shunning evil in heart, word and deed. These are not matters of cultural context, but of heart.

s

 

[Free]

You surely understand that those who seek elimination or eradication of Gods Words via cultural context applications only are pretty far off the whack Free? There are several such that post here.

I can't recall seeing any posts on here where anyone has tried to 'eliminate' or 'eradicate' God's words "via cultural context applications."

Jesus said man will live by every Word of God. That means EVERY regardless of cultural, historical, time applications. And yes, that does make understanding a difficult matter. I just don't find elimination a valid approach. The text itself represents multilayered meanings. Even a common Muslim understands their own text as having multiple levels of understandings.

No one is denying there are several layers of understanding.

To me the simplicities of text are always applicable. A good conscience toward God in Christ and shunning evil in heart, word and deed. These are not matters of cultural context, but of heart.

You cannot ignore cultural context. Proper understanding necessarily includes cultural context.

 

[smaller]

I can't recall seeing any posts on here where anyone has tried to 'eliminate' or 'eradicate' God's words "via cultural context applications."

Believers always try to 'eliminate or eradicate' Gods Words of LAW for example based on cultural applicability only to O.T. Jews. You are in fact in this camp if I recall.

No one is denying there are several layers of understanding.

Exactly. While there are certainly aspects of Gods Words fulfilled, that does not automatically equate or follow that those same Words don't speak to other matters as well.

You cannot ignore cultural context. Proper understanding necessarily includes cultural context.

That is exactly the argument you yourself apply to eliminate Gods Words of the O.T. as 'inapplicable' to N.T. Christians and applicable only to O.T. Jews (or whatever.)

I don't find the view of elimination of Gods Words via cultural/in that time only applications credible whatsoever.

s

 

[Free]

Believers always try to 'eliminate or eradicate' Gods Words of LAW for example based on cultural applicability only to O.T. Jews. You are in fact in this camp if I recall.

Yes, because the Bible is clear on that. But let's not get into it as that is not the topic. What needs to be understood is that it is not at all about eliminating or eradicating God's words. That is a misrepresentation of that position, a strawman.

Exactly. While there are certainly aspects of Gods Words fulfilled, that does not automatically equate or follow that those same Words don't speak to other matters as well.

Then I fail to see you have any argument against my position above.

That is exactly the argument you yourself apply to eliminate Gods Words of the O.T. as 'inapplicable' to N.T. Christians and applicable only to O.T. Jews (or whatever.)

I don't find the view of elimination of Gods Words via cultural/in that time only applications credible whatsoever.

No one is eliminating anything. It is about coming to an understanding of how words that were written for a specific group of people for a specific purpose are applicable to us.

 

[smaller]

Yes, because the Bible is clear on that. But let's not get into it as that is not the topic. What needs to be understood is that it is not at all about eliminating or eradicating God's words. That is a misrepresentation of that position, a strawman.

You are certainly welcome to repeat or clarify your position on O.T. Law, but I do recall you stating that it was inapplicable to N.T. believers and only applicable to O.T. Jews.

Then I fail to see you have any argument against my position above.

I don't find elimination of Gods Words using cultural in time applications. Pretty simple. Jesus did not present such a thing nor did the Apostles whom taught predominantly from the O.T.

No one is eliminating anything.

You are welcome to clarify your position on this matter.

It is about coming to an understanding of how words that were written for a specific group of people for a specific purpose are applicable to us.

I maintain that attempts of eradication of applicability across the spectrum of any of Gods Words using cultural in time applications are false methodologies.

There are factually other matters that can be viewed by not using eradication via elimination of Gods Words using cultural in time applications.

That methodology is severely faulted if it lands on ELIMINATION of Gods Words.

How's that?

s

 

[Drew]

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.

So we should be stoning adulterers?

 

[smaller]

So we should be stoning adulterers?

That's part of the problem with your views Drew. In your mind such Words of God ONLY run through a physical understanding sifter.

That is NOT the case with Gods Words.

ANY of them. And the difficulty with such hearers is only that THEY DON'T HEAR.

s

 

[reba]

So we should be stoning adulterers?

Yes if he is my husband

I just couldn't resist totopic

 

[Free]

You are certainly welcome to repeat or clarify your position on O.T. Law, but I do recall you stating that it was inapplicable to N.T. believers and only applicable to O.T. Jews.

I do not want to turn this into a discussion on the Law as there are several threads on that already. You are correct about my position but was not what I was addressing. My point was that you are misrepresenting my position by stating that I am eliminating or eradicating God's words. But that is not at all the case, hence, strawman.

I don't find elimination of Gods Words using cultural in time applications. Pretty simple. Jesus did not present such a thing nor did the Apostles whom taught predominantly from the O.T.

As you stated: "While there are certainly aspects of Gods Words fulfilled, that does not automatically equate or follow that those same Words don't speak to other matters as well."

Clearly then, using your statement above, the Law can be fulfilled and not directly applicable to Christians, yet we can glean certain applicable truths from them. Your own statement shoots down your argument against my position.

You are welcome to clarify your position on this matter.

There is no need to. I amtelling you that I am not eliminating or eradicating anything, so don't say that I am.

I maintain that attempts of eradication of applicability across the spectrum of any of Gods Words using cultural in time applications are false methodologies.

There are factually other matters that can be viewed by not using eradication via elimination of Gods Words using cultural in time applications.

That methodology is severely faulted if it lands on ELIMINATION of Gods Words.

How's that?

That's fine if someone was trying to eliminate God's words but no one is.

 

[Drew]

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.

I am happy to try to expand on my statement.

I think that many modern Christians bring unexamined assumptions to the Bible, and these assumptions strongly influence "how" the Bible gets read.

One of these assumptions is that the Bible is a set of "timeless truths". It would be nice and easy if this were so, but I believe the evidence suggests otherwise. The Bible, instead, is an evolving narrative of God at work in the world. This means that it matters "where" one is in the story - we in the 21st century are "further along" in the story than was the prophet Isaiah, for example. And for this reason, one cannot simply "copy" Old Testament material into the present and apply it directly.

Let me put things this way:

The common approach to applying the Bible to our lives = "read the text, look for some kind of 'moral', and then apply it"

The better approach (in my view): "read the Bible as an evolving narrative, figure out the part of the 'plot' that lies in the past as well as the part of the plot that lies in the future, then figure out to advance the story from where it is now to where it is going."

This position needs more explanation, and I am certainly not denying that there are 'moral' guidelines in the Bible.

But, for example, we should not be following the Law of Moses - that part of the story clearly lies in the past. Paul bends over backwards to point this out, chiding his Jewish readers for reverting to the Law of Moses. This is apparent in Galatians where Paul argues against Peter, the latter wanting to keep on observing the kosher food laws.

 

[Drew]

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.

I disagree - we can perfectly well maintain that Jesus was both "God in the flesh" and also was a man who related to His immediate world using the matrix of the local culture.

If you would explain precisely why you believe otherwise, perhaps I could expand on my position.

 

[Drew]

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

If this is so, what about the command to stone adulterers? Is this a "timeless truth", something we should seek to do in the present? To be fair, my question here may be based on a misunderstanding of exactly what you were attempting to communicate.

 

[smaller]

I do not want to turn this into a discussion on the Law as there are several threads on that already. You are correct about my position but was not what I was addressing. My point was that you are misrepresenting my position by stating that I am eliminating or eradicating God's words. But that is not at all the case, hence, strawman.

That's precisely why I requested a clarification. IF you claim you make NO SUCH eliminations then logically those same Words do bring other views to the table that ARE applicable to N.T. Christians without and apart from the use of TOTAL ELIMINATION via cultural applicability ONLY, the 'topic' of this thread.

As you stated: "While there are certainly aspects of Gods Words fulfilled, that does not automatically equate or follow that those same Words don't speak to other matters as well."

Clearly then, using your statement above, the Law can be fulfilled and not directly applicable to Christians, yet we can glean certain applicable truths from them. Your own statement shoots down your argument against my position.

I certainly can't say that the matters are shadows fulfilled in Christ. That does not mean that the shadows are ONLY concerning Christ as they also clearly deal with SIN and LAWLESSNESS in the heart.

Does any of that have to do with physical ritual only? No. There are many shadows therein that point to HEART realities in relationship to SIN and LAWLESSNESS as well.

There is no need to. I amtelling you that I am not eliminating or eradicating anything, so don't say that I am.

Applicable or not? Eliminated via cultural context or not?

That's fine if someone was trying to eliminate God's words but no one is.

Applicable then? y/n?

s

 

[smaller]

Yes if he is my husband

I just couldn't resist totopic

How about if he just thought about it?

s

 

[John 8:32]

So we should be stoning adulterers?

What you are saying is a misrepresentation. In Israel, an adulterer/ess was brought before the legal system of the day. In the mouth of two or three witnesses established the guilt. Then the guilty was executed by stoning.

In our nation today the accused is brought before the legal system. If found guilty by a jury with evidence from witnesses, (circumstantial evidences generally will not win a conviction on a capital case, but expert witnesses, i.e. DNA etc. will) then capital punishment is exacted by lethal injection, firing squad (Gary Gilmore) or even Old Sparky.

Should Adultery be a capital crime? God says yes, it cost Jesus Christ His life.

Israel's system never included viligantes.

 

[Drew]

Here are but two examples of the problem with directly transporting Biblical material into the present without carefully understanding the cultural setting in which it was written:

1. The Bible uses "end of the world" language. People read this, take it literally, and jump to all sorts of incorrect (in my view) theological conclusions. Such language, in fact, was commonly used in the Hebrew world as a literary device to invest socio-political events with their significance - there is no intent to describe the end of the world. Much like someone today might say "If my girlfriend breaks up with me, the world will come to an end". We would laugh at anyone who took this seriously. And yet we make the same mistake when we take apocalyptic language in the Bible literally. It is metaphor, not literal truth.

2. Paul talks about the error of believing in justification by "works". Because we in the 21st century are inheritors of the reformation tradition, we automatically assume that Paul is talking about how it is a mistake to believe that "doing good deeds" will save you. That is the reformers saw things, and that is how we see things, if we do not take care to examine our assumptions. I suggest (and I will not try to make the actual case here) that Paul is really teaching about the error of believing that justification is limited to Jews - those who do the "works" of the "Jew-only" Law of Moses. Big difference.

So I hope it is clear how an understanding of the cultural specificities of the environment in which the Biblical texts were originally written are indeed a possible issue when it comes to proper interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Drew]

Should Adultery be a capital crime? God says yes, it cost Jesus Christ His life.

I am at least glad you are willing to state publically that you believe adulterers should be put to death. I suspect few will stand with you, but at least you are being consistent.

I suggest that Jesus would ask how it is that executing someone is consistent with "loving your enemy".

But that's another debate.