Drew
by Former Christian
In the view I present, as a non-Trinitarian no less, Jesus was not a product of his times and culture. He was taught of God, not his culture.
I suggest the evidence is against you here, even if common sense is not.
Well then, I want to know this evidence. If you’re right, I’m being deceived. By my own mind. Because the only logical conclusion, if you’re right, is that the bible isn’t what I thought it was. And that would be common sense.
Given that Jesus was obviously a man, and given that He had to communicate to his listeners, what other sensible option is there except to speak to them in terms with which they were familiar? Would you expect Him speak as a 21st century American? Or a 14th century Norwegian? I hope the point is clear - given the need to communicate to a particular people in a particular time, Jesus had no choice except to speak to them appealing to concepts and cultural ideas that they, as first century Palestinians, were familiar with.
OK, I’m playing devils advocate from here on.
Assuming that Jesus is a man that needed to communicate to his listeners. He failed miserably didn’t he? And he spoke in parables so that only certain listeners could understand him. Even his disciples had to have the parables explained to them, and they still didn’t understand half to most of the time.
You do seem to be fixated on Jesus not speaking 21st century American. Let that go with reference to me. I agree. I’m not saying the idea is far-fetched. But that he wasn’t speaking according to 1st century culture either. I think of something Peter wrote where he said something like (don’t know where it is), the prophets were saying things they couldn’t understand because it was written to the era of Peter’s time.
And one of these cultural ideas was the use of "end of the world" language to actually refer to socio-political change. This is not speculation on my part - it is well established both Biblically and historically that this is how the Jewish people used such language. Therefore, when a first century Jew hears Jesus say "The law will not pass away until heaven and earth pass away", there is every reason s/he would hear this a metaphorical way of asserting that the law will only pass away when when significant political change takes place.
And such change did indeed take place in 70 AD.
OK, I follow that idea. But I don’t see what that’s got to do with anything as far as the Law is concerned. So the Law ends sooner than some people think. How does that change anything one way or the other? It doesn’t imply that the end is as soon as Jesus or as soon as Paul. One could conceivably say it ended somewhere between the 2nd and 21st century. And is a prophetic matter. What I’m trying to say, is that this isn’t that important an issue. At least to me.
If you are saying that Jesus did not appeal to the symbols, concepts, and images of His own culture, then this implied comparison of John and Herod is acoincidence.
Given that Jesus made a whole whack of other shrewd political statements, this seems incredibly unlikely.
Not at all. So he knew the political climate of his era. Like I say we need to let this go. Even if Jesus is just a man this is quite possible. A god needn’t be involved at all. This argument isn’t persuasive to me.
Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius. 20And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's.â€
So while Jesus is, on the surface, saying “pay the taxâ€, His more fundamental point is that Caesar’s regime is a blasphemous nonsense and that one day God would overthrow it.
Interesting speculation. But knowing Jesus, he was probably just saying what was evident in the text. Give to Ceasar what belongs to him and to God what belongs to him. And the question didn’t really involve your speculation. The question was,
17 "Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?" (Matthew 22: NASB)
1. You appeal to a deeply unrealistc "all or nothing" idea re how we take the scriptures. One enounters this idea all the time - "you either have to take it all literally or take none of it literally".
As it happens I do understand the bible literally. Even when Jesus spoke in parables, I understand the parables to literally be parables. But that wasn’t my point. My point was, who determines what is literal and what is metaphorical if we consider the idea that Genesis is a book that contains metaphors? In the case of Evolutionism, the Evolutionists are determining the matter because it’s the Theistic Creationists or whatever who are changing the literal view into a metaphorical view in an attempt to conform the bible to Evolutionism.
And you didn’t catch what I said about the rest of the bible being based on what’s in Genesis. So that if Genesis is metaphorical, then there’s no reason to believe that the rest of the bible isn’t just as metaphorical. It becomes a matter of who is determining what the bible is or is not. So that if you say the bible is metaphorical and I say the bible is literal, it’s just a matter of your word against mine.
Things are nowhere near as simple as you imply. The Bible is a complex, sprawling account embodying many literary devices as well as much "literal" truth. It is an egregious simplification to try to force it into a mold where its either "all literal" or "none of it is literal".
LOL Well, if it’s as complex as you imply, then it has nothing to do with where I’m at right here in the 21st century. If god is only going to save the hardest seekers, the ones who dig the farthest into history and the writings of the “Church Fathersâ€, then I guess that’s not going to be me. Maybe it’s more true than I realized, that it’s better to go to hell since all my friends will be there. Even my Catholic friends don’t go that far.
Well, that's obviously true, but acknowledging this as true is not a reason to take everything in the Bible literally. We know that the Bible uses metaphorical language - "the mountains will clap their hands" and "the trees will sing". Is it my "personal opinion" that these texts are not to be taken literally and are instead a metaphorical way of saying that it will be good news when God sets the world to rights? Of course not!
The obvious problem with your argument is this: just because there may be a host of "incorrect" metaphorical readings of a certain text does not mean that the author is not intending us to interpret the metaphor a certain way.
Metaphor is a powerful literary device and the writers of scripture were not afraid to use metaphor to make certain important claims. No doubt, these authors are spinning in their graves (yes, this too is a metaphor!) when 21st century westerners muzzle their texts by forcing them into a strictly literalistic framework.
Do you think that what a metaphor truly means might in fact be self-evident? Apart from all the historical research and such?
I am not sure I followed the rest of your argument. Here is my position in miniature:
1. The Law of Moses was given to Jews and was for them only;
2. The Law of Moses was retired in the first century;
3. This, of course, does not mean that its OK (i.e. not sin) to murder, commit adultery;
4. It is patently incorrect to argue that if the Law of Moses is retired, then all other laws are entirely arbitrary.
I understand that. But my question is, who then determines what sin is, since there is no biblical Law to reveal it to us? Why should we say that murder or adultery is sin? What Law tells us that? What is sin to you may not be sin to me. Do you see my problem?
And regarding the idea that we are told what is sin by the Spirit. It is part of the view I present. But so also is Jesus Christ and the bible, including the Law. The problem I have is that saying the Spirit tells us, period; really begs the question. In Christianity, the Spirit is saying all kinds of things, but not the same things to different people.
FC
2