David I. Rudel's Blog

Introduction

The traditional Christian beliefs of the past have been challenged in recent years by a modern perspective. This modern perspective has been shaped by the changing social and cultural landscape of the 21st century. It has led to a re-examination of the traditional Christian beliefs and practices, and has opened up new ways of thinking about faith and spirituality. This article will explore some of the ways in which traditional Christian beliefs have been challenged, and how this has impacted the way we view Christianity today. It will also discuss the implications of these changes for the future of Christianity.

Examining the Role of Women in Christianity: How Far Have We Come?

The role of women in Christianity has been a contentious issue for centuries. While the Bible is clear that men and women are equal in the eyes of God, the Church has often been slow to recognize and embrace this truth. In recent years, however, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of women in the Church and a greater acceptance of their leadership roles. This essay will examine the progress that has been made in terms of the role of women in Christianity and consider how far we have come in terms of gender equality.

The Bible is clear that men and women are equal in the eyes of God. In the book of Genesis, God creates both male and female in His image and declares them both to be “very good” (Genesis 1:27-28). This is a powerful statement of the value and worth of both genders. Furthermore, Jesus Himself was a champion of women’s rights, treating them with respect and dignity and even going so far as to include them in His inner circle of disciples.

Despite this, the Church has often been slow to recognize and embrace the equality of men and women. For centuries, women were excluded from leadership roles in the Church and were often relegated to the sidelines. This was due in part to cultural norms and traditions, but also to a misunderstanding of the Bible’s teachings on gender roles.

In recent years, however, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of women in the Church and a greater acceptance of their leadership roles. Women are now being ordained as pastors and bishops, and are taking on roles of leadership in many churches. This is a positive step forward in terms of gender equality in the Church.

In addition, there has been a shift in the way that women are viewed in the Church. Women are no longer seen as second-class citizens, but rather as valuable members of the Church with unique gifts and talents to offer. This shift in attitude has been reflected in the way that women are portrayed in sermons and other church materials.

Overall, it is clear that there has been significant progress in terms of the role of women in Christianity. While there is still much work to be done, it is encouraging to see the Church recognizing and embracing the equality of men and women. It is our hope that this progress will continue and that the Church will continue to move towards a more inclusive and equitable understanding of gender roles.

Re-Examining the Bible: Is It Still Relevant in the 21st Century?

The Bible has been a source of spiritual guidance and moral instruction for centuries, and its relevance in the 21st century is still a hotly debated topic. On one hand, some argue that the Bible is outdated and no longer applicable to modern life. On the other hand, others contend that the Bible is still relevant and can provide valuable insight into the challenges of the 21st century. In order to determine the truth of the matter, it is necessary to examine the Bible’s teachings and how they can be applied to the modern world.

The Bible contains timeless wisdom that can be applied to any era. Its teachings on love, justice, and mercy are as relevant today as they were when they were first written. The Bible also provides guidance on how to live a moral life and how to treat others with respect and kindness. These teachings are just as applicable in the 21st century as they were in the past.

In addition, the Bible contains stories and parables that can be used to illustrate important lessons. These stories can be used to teach people about the consequences of their actions and how to make wise decisions. They can also be used to show how to live a life of faith and trust in God. These stories are still relevant today and can be used to help people make sense of the world around them.

Finally, the Bible contains prophecies that can be used to interpret current events. Many of these prophecies have already been fulfilled, while others are still being fulfilled today. By studying these prophecies, people can gain insight into the future and gain a better understanding of the world around them.

In conclusion, the Bible is still relevant in the 21st century. Its timeless wisdom and stories can be used to teach people important lessons and provide guidance on how to live a moral life. Its prophecies can be used to interpret current events and gain insight into the future. Therefore, the Bible is still a valuable source of spiritual guidance and moral instruction in the 21st century.

Conclusion

In conclusion, challenging traditional Christian beliefs from a modern perspective can be a difficult and complex task. It requires an open mind and a willingness to explore new ideas and perspectives. It also requires an understanding of the history and development of Christianity and its various denominations. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide how they wish to approach their faith and beliefs.

The post Challenging Traditional Christian Beliefs: A Modern Perspective appeared first on Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity].

Introduction

The psychology of religious belief is a complex and fascinating topic that has been studied for centuries. It is a field of study that seeks to understand why people believe in a particular religion, how religious beliefs shape their lives, and how religious beliefs can influence behavior. It also examines the psychological effects of religious beliefs on individuals and society. This article will provide an overview of the psychology of religious belief, including its history, theories, and research. It will also discuss the implications of religious belief for mental health and well-being. Finally, it will explore the potential for religious belief to be used as a tool for positive change.

Exploring the Role of Cognitive Biases in Religious Belief

The role of cognitive biases in religious belief has been a topic of debate for centuries. While some argue that cognitive biases are the primary factor in religious belief, others contend that religious belief is based on faith and not on cognitive biases. This essay will argue that cognitive biases play a significant role in religious belief, and that understanding these biases can help us better understand the nature of religious belief.

Cognitive biases are mental shortcuts that allow us to make decisions quickly and efficiently. They are based on our past experiences and our current environment, and they can lead us to make decisions that are not necessarily rational or logical. For example, confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out information that confirms our existing beliefs, while ignoring information that contradicts them. This bias can lead us to become more entrenched in our beliefs, even when presented with evidence to the contrary.

When it comes to religious belief, cognitive biases can play a significant role. For example, confirmation bias can lead us to seek out information that confirms our existing beliefs, while ignoring information that contradicts them. This can lead to a reinforcement of our existing beliefs, even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Additionally, the availability heuristic can lead us to overestimate the importance of certain religious beliefs, simply because they are more readily available to us. For example, if we are exposed to a particular religious belief more often, we may be more likely to believe it, even if it is not necessarily true.

In addition to cognitive biases, religious belief can also be influenced by our environment. For example, if we are raised in a religious household, we may be more likely to adopt the beliefs of our parents. Similarly, if we are surrounded by people who share the same religious beliefs, we may be more likely to adopt those beliefs as well.

In conclusion, cognitive biases play a significant role in religious belief. By understanding these biases, we can better understand the nature of religious belief and how it is shaped by our environment. Additionally, understanding these biases can help us to better evaluate the evidence for and against religious beliefs, and to make more informed decisions about our own beliefs.

Examining the Impact of Socialization on Religious Beliefs

Religion is a complex phenomenon that has been studied by scholars for centuries. It is a set of beliefs and practices that are shared by a group of people and is often based on a shared set of values and beliefs. Religion is also closely linked to socialization, as it is often passed down from one generation to the next. This paper will examine the impact of socialization on religious beliefs and how it shapes the way individuals view and practice religion.

First, it is important to understand the concept of socialization and how it affects religious beliefs. Socialization is the process by which individuals learn the norms, values, and beliefs of their society. It is a process that begins at birth and continues throughout life. Through socialization, individuals learn the language, customs, and values of their society. This process also shapes the way individuals view and practice religion.

For example, individuals who are raised in a religious family are more likely to adopt the same beliefs and practices as their parents. This is because they are exposed to religious teachings and values from a young age. Similarly, individuals who are raised in a secular environment are less likely to adopt religious beliefs and practices. This is because they are not exposed to religious teachings and values from a young age.

In addition, socialization can also influence the way individuals view and practice religion. For example, individuals who are raised in a religious family may view religion as a source of comfort and security. They may also view it as a way to connect with their community and find meaning in life. On the other hand, individuals who are raised in a secular environment may view religion as an outdated and irrelevant practice.

Finally, socialization can also influence the way individuals practice religion. For example, individuals who are raised in a religious family may be more likely to attend religious services and participate in religious activities. On the other hand, individuals who are raised in a secular environment may be less likely to attend religious services and participate in religious activities.

In conclusion, socialization has a significant impact on religious beliefs and practices. It shapes the way individuals view and practice religion and can influence the way they interact with their community. Therefore, it is important to understand the role of socialization in shaping religious beliefs and practices.

Conclusion

In conclusion, understanding the psychology of religious belief is a complex and multifaceted endeavor. It involves examining the cognitive, emotional, and social aspects of religious belief, as well as the ways in which religious beliefs shape and are shaped by culture. It is important to recognize that religious beliefs are deeply personal and can vary greatly from person to person. As such, it is important to approach the study of religious belief with an open mind and an appreciation for the diversity of religious beliefs and practices.

The post Understanding the Psychology of Religious Belief appeared first on Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity].

Introduction

The intersection of Christianity and politics is a complex and often controversial topic. It is a subject that has been debated for centuries, and one that continues to be discussed today. Christianity has been a major influence in the development of political systems and ideologies throughout history, and its influence can still be seen in many aspects of modern politics. This intersection has been the source of much debate and disagreement, as different interpretations of the Bible and its teachings have led to different views on how Christians should engage in politics. This article will explore the history of the intersection of Christianity and politics, the various ways in which it has been interpreted, and the implications of this intersection for modern politics.

How the Bible Informs Political Decisions: Examining the Role of Scripture in Political Discourse

The Bible has long been a source of moral and ethical guidance for individuals and societies alike. As such, it is not surprising that it has been used to inform political decisions throughout history. This essay will examine the role of scripture in political discourse, exploring how the Bible can be used to shape and inform political decisions.

First, it is important to note that the Bible is not a political document. It does not contain specific instructions on how to govern a nation or how to make laws. Rather, it is a collection of stories, teachings, and moral guidance that can be used to inform political decisions. The Bible contains a wealth of wisdom and insight that can be used to shape political discourse. For example, the Bible speaks of justice, mercy, and compassion, which can be used to inform decisions about how to treat those in need or how to ensure fairness in the legal system.

The Bible also speaks of the importance of humility and respect for authority. This can be used to inform decisions about how to interact with other nations and how to ensure that leaders are held accountable for their actions. Additionally, the Bible speaks of the importance of caring for the environment and protecting the vulnerable, which can be used to inform decisions about environmental policy and social welfare.

Finally, the Bible speaks of the importance of love and forgiveness. This can be used to inform decisions about how to respond to conflict and how to promote peace and reconciliation.

In conclusion, the Bible can be used to inform political decisions. It contains a wealth of wisdom and insight that can be used to shape political discourse. By examining the teachings of the Bible, we can gain a better understanding of how to make decisions that are just, compassionate, and respectful of all people.

The Impact of Christianity on the U.S. Political System: Exploring the Influence of Faith on American Politics

The influence of Christianity on the U.S. political system is undeniable. From the nation’s founding to the present day, the Christian faith has had a profound impact on the development of American politics. This influence can be seen in the nation’s founding documents, the laws and policies of the federal government, and the political discourse of the nation’s leaders.

The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are all documents that reflect the influence of Christianity on the nation’s political system. The Declaration of Independence, for example, contains references to “Nature’s God” and “the Creator”, both of which are references to the Christian God. The Constitution also contains references to God, including the phrase “in the year of our Lord”. The Bill of Rights, meanwhile, contains the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, which is a direct reference to the Christian faith.

The influence of Christianity can also be seen in the laws and policies of the federal government. The United States has long been a nation that values religious freedom, and this is largely due to the influence of Christianity. The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion, and this right is often cited as a cornerstone of American democracy. Additionally, the federal government has long recognized the importance of religious organizations in providing social services, and has provided funding for such organizations.

Finally, the influence of Christianity can be seen in the political discourse of the nation’s leaders. Many of the nation’s presidents have been open about their Christian faith, and have used their faith to inform their political decisions. For example, President George W. Bush often spoke of his faith in God and how it guided his decisions as president. Similarly, President Barack Obama often spoke of his Christian faith and how it informed his views on social justice and other issues.

In conclusion, it is clear that Christianity has had a profound influence on the U.S. political system. From the nation’s founding documents to the laws and policies of the federal government, Christianity has been a major force in shaping the nation’s political landscape. Additionally, the political discourse of the nation’s leaders has often been informed by their Christian faith. As such, it is clear that Christianity has had a significant impact on the U.S. political system.

Conclusion

The intersection of Christianity and politics is a complex and often contentious issue. While there are many different opinions on the matter, it is clear that Christianity has had a significant influence on the political landscape of the United States and other countries around the world. As Christians, we must strive to be informed and engaged citizens, and to use our faith to guide our political decisions. Ultimately, we must remember that our ultimate allegiance is to God, and that our political decisions should reflect our commitment to Him.

The post The Intersection of Christianity and Politics appeared first on Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity].

Introduction

Christianity is one of the world’s major religions, with over 2 billion adherents worldwide. It has a long and complex history, stretching back to the first century CE. Examining the historical roots of Christianity can help us to better understand the religion and its development over time. This article will explore the origins of Christianity, from its beginnings in the Middle East to its spread throughout the world. It will look at the major figures and events that shaped the religion, as well as the various branches of Christianity that exist today. Finally, it will discuss the impact of Christianity on the world and how it has evolved over time.

Exploring the Early Church Fathers and Their Contributions to Christianity

The Early Church Fathers are a group of influential Christian theologians and writers who lived in the first centuries of the Christian era. Their writings and teachings have had a profound impact on the development of Christianity and its doctrines. This essay will explore the contributions of the Early Church Fathers to Christianity and argue that their writings and teachings have been essential in shaping the religion as we know it today.

The Early Church Fathers were responsible for preserving and developing the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. They wrote extensively on the topics of theology, philosophy, and ethics, and their writings have been essential in forming the core doctrines of Christianity. The most influential of the Early Church Fathers were St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory the Great. These four men are credited with developing the foundations of Christian theology, including the doctrine of the Trinity, the concept of original sin, and the idea of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

The Early Church Fathers also played an important role in the development of Christian liturgy and worship. They wrote extensively on the topics of prayer, liturgy, and the sacraments, and their writings have been essential in forming the core practices of Christianity. St. Augustine is credited with developing the concept of the Eucharist, while St. Ambrose is credited with developing the concept of baptism. St. Jerome is credited with developing the concept of the Mass, and St. Gregory the Great is credited with developing the concept of the seven sacraments.

The Early Church Fathers also played an important role in the development of Christian art and architecture. They wrote extensively on the topics of art and architecture, and their writings have been essential in forming the core aesthetic of Christianity. St. Augustine is credited with developing the concept of the basilica, while St. Ambrose is credited with developing the concept of the icon. St. Jerome is credited with developing the concept of the mosaic, and St. Gregory the Great is credited with developing the concept of the stained glass window.

In conclusion, the Early Church Fathers have had a profound impact on the development of Christianity and its doctrines. Their writings and teachings have been essential in shaping the religion as we know it today. From their writings on theology, philosophy, and ethics to their writings on liturgy, worship, art, and architecture, the Early Church Fathers have left an indelible mark on Christianity and its practices.

Investigating the Influence of Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophies on Christianity

The influence of Ancient Greek and Roman philosophies on Christianity is undeniable. Throughout the centuries, Christianity has been shaped by the ideas of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and this has had a profound impact on the development of the religion.

The ancient Greeks and Romans were the first to develop philosophical systems that sought to explain the world and the human condition. These philosophies, such as Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Platonism, provided a framework for understanding the world and the human experience. This framework was adopted by early Christian thinkers, who used it to interpret the teachings of Jesus and the Bible.

The Stoic philosophy, for example, was influential in the development of Christian theology. The Stoics believed in a single, all-powerful God who was the source of all things. This concept of a single, all-powerful God was adopted by early Christian thinkers and became a cornerstone of Christian theology.

The Epicurean philosophy was also influential in the development of Christianity. Epicureans believed in the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. This idea was adopted by early Christian thinkers, who used it to explain the importance of living a moral life and avoiding sin.

The Platonic philosophy was also influential in the development of Christianity. Plato believed in the existence of an eternal, perfect world, which he called the “Forms.” This concept of an eternal, perfect world was adopted by early Christian thinkers, who used it to explain the existence of Heaven and Hell.

In addition to these philosophical systems, the ancient Greeks and Romans also had a profound influence on Christian art and literature. The works of Homer, Virgil, and Ovid were all influential in the development of Christian art and literature. These works provided a framework for understanding the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, and they were used by early Christian thinkers to explain the importance of living a moral life.

The influence of Ancient Greek and Roman philosophies on Christianity is undeniable. These philosophies provided a framework for understanding the world and the human experience, and they were adopted by early Christian thinkers to explain the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. The works of Homer, Virgil, and Ovid were also influential in the development of Christian art and literature. As such, it is clear that Ancient Greek and Roman philosophies had a profound impact on the development of Christianity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Examining the Historical Roots of Christianity is an important and fascinating topic that can provide insight into the development of the religion and its impact on the world. It is clear that Christianity has had a profound influence on the world, and its roots can be traced back to the earliest days of the religion. By examining the historical roots of Christianity, we can gain a better understanding of the religion and its impact on the world.

The post Examining the Historical Roots of Christianity appeared first on Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity].

I’ve been meaning to blog regarding my thoughts on Christ’s words in Matthew 7:6,
Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before swine; otherwise they wll trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.In my experience, people have taken this as an excuse for not trying to persistently teach the unresponsive about God. The idea being that the “pearls” are “pearls of wisdom,” and that certain people are simply not capable of appreciating them.

You can read something of this typical interpretation here and here. Just google “dogs pearl swine” to find more.

The thing is, when read in context this really does not make much sense. Look at what is going on in the passage. Jesus is winding up His Sermon on the Mount. At the time, the Jews thought Jesus was a gifted rabbi who was reinterpreting the Torah. This happened from time to time, and such people were said to speak “from authority” [see Matthew 7:29]. In reality, we can see this as Jesus giving a portion of the new covenant’s law. Moses brought the old covenant’s law (the 10 commandments) down from mount Sinai, and Matthew portrays Jesus giving new commands on a mountain.This sermon was mostly a discussion of commandments for God’s people, but it also included reproaches upon the Jewish leadership who had warped God’s law (Matthew 5:20 being a pretty clear example). This is what we read in the verses immediately coming up to Matthew 7:6. In Matthew 7:1-5, Jesus lambasts those who among the Jewish leadership who would attack people for breaking some of the lighter parts of the Law when they themselves were neglecting the “weightier points” of mercy, protection of the weak, and faithfulness (see Matthew 23:23 for another such example).

So, given this context, why on earth would Jesus be giving advice about whom to speak wisdom to? Everything in the context suggests Jesus does not see His listeners as having much in the way of wisdom. He just got through saying they had a plank in their eye! Evangelicals, in their quest to turn everything into a discussion of getting people into heaven, sometimes say Jesus is talking about spreading the gospel to people who are not receptive…how could Jesus possibly have that in mind here? The people listening to Jesus just thought they were hearing an enlightened teacher, and not even his disciples had been told of what would happen to Jesus in the future. No, this is not about evangelism.

There are several clues that point to what Jesus has in mind. First, He speaks of not giving what is holy to dogs. We have managed to bastardize what the term holy means, and Jews rightfully chide us for doing so. Holy does not mean perfect or sinless. Holy means set apart. It means special or dedicated to a particular purpose. The Jews were to be a Holy people because they were to be dedicated to God.

And “dogs” was a standard epithet for non-Jews. Jesus uses the term in this way in Matthew 15:26, and understanding this usage is the key to understanding the Parable of Lazarus.And what about “pearls” and “swine”? Matthew would later relate a parable where a pearl represents the coming Kingdom, and swine is, of course, yet another way of referring to those who were outside Judaism. Pigs are the standard example of an unclean animal, an animal only Gentiles would eat. Jews would not even eat at a table on which pork was served.When we put these together we see that Jesus is not merely giving some random wisdom about how to divvy up our words to different people. We’ve turned His words into that because we are trained to ignore the crucial Gentile-Jew issues pervading apostolic Christianity.No, Jesus is warning the Jews that their special place as God’s chosen people is in danger. His words are an admonishment presaging what would ultimately occur later when the Gentiles are allowed in due to the unfaithfulness of the Jews (Romans 11:20, and Romans chapters 9 through 11 in general). This is the same fate Jesus would later describe in Matthew 21:33-46 and Matthew 22:1-14.It turns out that this notion of Jesus warning the Jewish nation is further verified if we go back to the original passage and read further. What does Jesus say after this pearls before swine verse? Matthew 7:1-11 recounts Jesus’ exhorting the Jews to “Ask, Seek, Knock,” with the promise in 7:11

If you then, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask Him?

But what does the “good gifts” refer to? People today assume this passage is about praying for things we need and having God give them to us. But the word “gift,” (as I described in a recent blog entry) was the term that referred to the Holy Spirit, the sign of the new covenant!

Once again we see Jesus pleading with the Jews to repent for the Kingdom is at hand (just as He did in Matthew 3:2). He is asking them to seek the inclusion in the new covenant by turning back to God.You probably think this is all just a little shaky… interpreting this “good gift” as the Holy Spirit here… and you will probably think that up until the time you read the parallel passage in Luke 11:13!

If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will {your} heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?

In Christ, God was reaching out to the unfaithful people who had spurned the Almighty for so long. The new covenant is about to commence through the power of the Spirit. This blessing is the birthright of the Sons of Jacob. However, they were in danger of rejecting that gift without realizing it through their lack of faith.

The post Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity]: April 2009 appeared first on Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity].

I was asked by the church I attend to write a short study/meditation for the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount. It was part of a larger, 14-week study the entire congregation had been doing.Having just finished it, I wanted to post it here in case anyone is interested. Each day was supposed to have some specific reading, either from the Sermon on the Mount itself or from a separate passage relating to it. The guide was supposed to also offer opportunities for meditation, reflection, and response.

The Upshot: Concluding the Sermon on the Mount

Day 1: Matthew 7:7-28

What do you expect at the end of a sermon? We all give sermons to others, or at least we imagine giving them occasionally. How do you finish yours?

Matthew 7:24-28 is not really the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount. It is the conclusion of the conclusion. The larger passage from 7:7-28 is the conclusion of the sermon. In the body of the sermon (5:21 to 7:6), Matthew reports specific teachings and admonishments, the commands Jesus mentions in 5:19. The conclusion, though, includes no such specific requirements and possesses a different texture.

Does Matthew 7:7-28 incorporate the aspects you expect in a sermon’s conclusion? How?What do you consider the basic purpose of the Sermon of the Mount (either in Jesus’ ministry or in Matthew’s presentation)? Does your reading of the conclusion support this view or ask you to alter it?

Day 2: Matthew 28:18-20

What common themes can be found by comparing the end of the Sermon on the Mount (verses 7:24-29) to the end of Matthew’s gospel (28:18-20)?What imperatives are given in both? What justification is given for the commands discussed in both?How does the wording of Matthew 5:19 connect the introduction of the Sermon on the Mount to the conclusion of Matthew’s gospel?

Jesus asks Peter, John, and the rest to make disciples of all nations. What does this word mean to you? Is this meaning reflected in the passage? Are there ways you see yourself fulfilling the call to make disciples? Are there endeavors you are considering that would fulfill Jesus’ call to make disciples of others?

What aspects of the conclusion of Matthew’s gospel (28:18-20) do not appear to have counterparts in either the introduction to the Sermon on the Mount or its conclusion?

Day 3: Luke 11:9-13

Comparing Matthew 7:7-11 to Luke 11:9-13 reveals something interesting. The “good things” that the Father will give according to Matthew’s gospel are rendered as “The Holy Spirit” in Luke’s account.How does this relate to the conclusion of Matthew’s gospel mentioned in yesterday’s meditation? In particular, how does it relate to those aspects that might not have obvious parallels in the introduction or conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount?

Very rarely, a rabbi would arise who was said to have “authority” (Jewish term: semikhah, though many other transliterations are possible.) Such a rabbi had the right to promulgate new interpretations or rabbinical traditions. These teachings would then be passed down to later rabbis. This practice maintained a certain degree of consistency among the teachings of Judaism since rabbis were not generally free to make up their own interpretations.

But occasionally someone received special revelation for a short time and would do or say things while being “in the Spirit.” We normally think of this in terms of prophecies, but often it was for instruction. An utterance made while “in the spirit” was cherished and given special authority. The biblical writers use this idiom in Matthew 22:43, Luke 2:27, and Acts 19:21 to describe actions or words provoked by God’s call. The idea that the Spirit of God would be available to everyone all the time was probably incomprehensible, and it is unsurprising that the apostles spoke in such humbled terms of the Spirit’s availability. It is called the “gift” and the realized “promise” multiple times in Acts, and chapters 13-16 of John put the Spirit in the spotlight as well.

If we temporarily set aside the mental pictures Matthew 7:7-11 plants in our Western, individualistic minds, we can grope for how Jesus may have intended this message on a community-wide scale. The Sermon on the Mount repeatedly speaks of the “Kingdom of Heaven” that the Jews were expecting to come upon them as God’s people. The Jews of Jesus’ day commonly prayed for their national salvation. If Matthew 7:7-11 is an allusion to that, we see in the conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount the first hints at one of the most amazing nuances of the coming Kingdom: that it would be a revolution by spiritual revelation. Instead of suggesting his Jewish brothers ask for an army to bring about their deliverance, he asks them to pray for the Spirit to come.

Just imagine living in a faith society where the Spirit of God had been almost silent for centuries, very rarely possessing anyone and only for short periods of time. How amazed early Jewish Christians must have been to find the Spirit pervading their community and touching all believers! That which was once desperately rare had become abounding, as though diamonds were falling like rain.What role does the Spirit have in your life?

Day 4: Matthew 7:1-6 and Romans 11:11-21

In the sermon’s conclusion, Christ discusses the twin dangers of following those who should not be followed and failing to follow those who should be.

Christ’s final admonition, Do not judge lest you be judged, leads into this conclusion by suggesting the Jews in general are not being a good example to others. He tells them to remove the plank from their eye so they can see to remove the specks from their brothers’. And he follows that up with a curious statement: Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs, otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.

When this phrase is quoted today, people often think Christ is saying “don’t waste your time on those unreceptive to your message,” but there is nothing anywhere near Matthew 7:6 that suggests he has this in mind. It would be rather strange for Jesus to ascribe pearls of wisdom to those he had just called hypocrites and accused of having planks in their eyes. Furthermore, the idea that we should not engage those we do not believe are receptive would go against Christ’s own model. He debated the scribes and Pharisees in his own ministry and even addressed the aristocratic Sadducees, who were probably even less receptive to his views. His later disciples would similarly engage all manner of people, not allowing their prejudices determine who was fit to hear the gospel.

Instead, Matthew 7:6 is probably a reference to the danger of God’s favor passing to the Gentiles [“pigs” and “dogs” were both Jewish epithets for Gentiles, the former emphasizing their living outside God’s law, the latter emphasizing their idolatry]. By continuing in disobedience, the Jewish nation risked having their inheritance retracted and given to someone else. This theme has already come up earlier when Jesus asks in Matthew 5:13 (the only other place where “trampled” appears in his gospel): You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled on by people. This concern shows up several times later as well, in Matthew: 21:33-41, 22:1-10, 23:37-39, and perhaps 25:28.

We might think that his concern for the Jews is an academic one, irrelevant to us today. However, Matthew saw fit to capture this concern (as did Luke) in gospels many believe were written long after the Jewish leadership rejected Christ. How do Paul’s words in Romans 11:11-21 interpret the loss the Jewish nation suffered? Do Christians run the same risk?Do you see the modern Christian church prone to dangers like those Christ and Paul warned their audiences against?

Day 5: Luke 6:46-49 and Exodus 23:20-32

Luke’s version of the conclusion to Christ’s sermon (note how Luke 6:37-49 matches up with Matthew 7:1-27 if verses 6-14 are omitted) can aid our interpreting of Matthew’s account. Fitting together Luke 6:46-49 with Matthew 7:21-27 suggests that Luke 6:46, Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and don’t do what I tell you? is Luke’s version of Matthew 7:21-23.How does Luke 6:46 guide your interpretation of Christ’s words in Matthew 7:21-23?In addition to comparing Matthew’s version to Luke, we can compare it to the scripture Matthew undoubtedly had in mind when portraying Jesus preaching laws on a mountain, an obvious reference to Moses on Sinai. The commandments given there composed the statutes for the Mosaic covenant, a “lease” of sorts between God and Abraham’s descendents for their occupation of the promised land.Covenants between rulers and vassals in ancient times shared a common structure. After the stipulations describing what was required of the vassal came a set of blessings, a set of curses, and provisions for the ongoing validity of the covenant. In the case of the Mosaic covenant, the stipulations were the Mosaic Law (e.g. Exodus 20:1 – 23:19) and a short version of the blessings, curses, and continuity provisions can be found immediately afterward (Exodus 23:20-32). (A longer version can be seen in Deuteronomy, where the Laws span from chapter 5 through 27, the blessings, curses, and provisions for the continuity are found in chapters 28-32.)The body of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21-7:2) parallels the commandments given on Sinai, the stipulations for Israel’s occupation. It is unclear if the conclusion of the sermon is intended to be analogous to the blessings, curses, and provision for continuity typical for a covenant. Still, there are interesting parallels between Exodus 23:20-32 and Matthew 7:7-29.What points of contact do you see between these two passages?In the Exodus passage, the Israelites were told to destroy the altars of their pagan neighbors, and God promised to drive those idolaters from the land. How does this apply to us today? What altars are you called to smash down? What do you yearn for God to drive out from within you?

Day 6: Matthew 5:13-20

A common formula for public speaking is “tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them what you told them you would tell them, and then tell them what you told them,” referring to the introduction, body, and conclusion of a speech. So far, we have looked at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount as its own entity, in comparison to Matthew’s conclusion to his gospel, in comparison to Luke’s account, and in comparison to the account of Moses giving the Torah. The final place to look for confirmation that we understand the sermon’s meaning is in its introduction.How do specific sections of Matthew 5:13-20 match up with Matthew 7:1-29?We tend to read the Bible in a piece-meal fashion, often remembering just a verse or short passage that speaks to us without reference to what part it plays in the writer’s overall design. When we see individual passages as relating to common themes in a letter, it can change our views on a passage’s intended meaning. Verses we assumed meant one thing we can find were really aimed at a different objective entirely. For each match-up you find, explain how seeing the introduction and conclusion in parallel modifies how you have viewed/interpreted the individual parts.

The Sermon on the Mount is a well known phrase. Many people have heard of it without being able to identify any particular part, other than perhaps the Beatitudes. If you overheard a group of people in a coffee shop laughing about how they all knew the phrase “Sermon on the Mount” without really knowing anything about it, what would you tell them?

The post Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity]: 2010 appeared first on Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity].

It took a while, but I finally finished E.P. Sanders “Palestinian Judaism and Paul” text. The first portion of it was fantastic, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in Christianity. The second half was not nearly as good. Perhaps I was not an ideal audience for the 3rd quarter (on Qumran) because I had already been reading a bunch on the dead sea scrolls, so I didn’t see much new in Sander’s book. The last portion, on Paul, was mostly frustrating because the author ended up just repeating himself over and over again in ways that did not further substantiate his argument.

One point that the author made very early was that Paul’s letters could not possibly be seen as refuting the Jewish understanding of salvation because he never discusses repentance. It was one of those “why didn’t I see that earlier” moments. Repentance is the most important aspect of practical salvation in the Jewish ethos, so a discussion that so clearly omits any mention of it cannot be primarily meant as a critique against Jewish salvation-theory. It would be like a Soviet political theorist criticizing the entire American system of government without ever mentioning democracy or separation of powers.

Another thing I took from Sanders was a nice way to articulate an idea that I have had for a long time but could not put eloquently. It is related to the point made in the last paragraph. Christians often present the Law as a false path to salvation…that is to say a path that:

Someone might believe to lead to salvation

 and
The problem with this is the first statement, the presumption that the Jews actually suggested that the law was a path to salvation. In reality, the Jews saw salvation as something that was already promised to them. The intention to keep the Law functioned as a marker of who was within the scope of that promise, but not because it made someone righteous. Rather the intention to keep the law indicated that the person accepted Israel’s God as the rightful King of creation. If someone disavowed the Law, he could lose the inheritance promised to Israel not because he became unrighteous but because he failed to recognize God as the genuine article and thus was no longer part of the covenant.

The post Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity]: Paul appeared first on Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity].

What is the point of the Garden of Eden story? Many Christians believe the point of the story is to explain how humanity fell into sin. While there may something to that, it must be always kept in mind that NONE of the New Testament evangelism even mentions the fall of Adam. If the Garden of Eden is a key part to the story of Christina salvation, you would never know it from reading the Gospels and the many evangelistic sermons in the book of Acts. In fact, I claim the text makes clear in flashing neon lights what the story is about, and we only fail to see it because we have been taught to read Protestant theology into the story.

It is true that the Garden of Eden story is linked to man’s mortality (which is different from his damnation), but not in the way people often are taught. Even after sinning, humanity could have had immortality had Adam eaten from the tree of the fruit of life. [Genesis 3:22] and the principal reason God kicks Adam out of the Garden is that (for whatever reason) God did not want Adam to both know the difference between good and evil and be immortal.

But the story answers other questions as well. For example, it explains why snakes have no legs [Genesis 3:14], more importantly it explains where our conscience, our ability to determine right and wrong, comes from [Genesis 3:5-7, and Genesis 3:22 again].

Most importantly, it acts as a key lead-in to Noah’s story!!

Yes, I believe it is not an over-estimation to say that the single most important theme of the Garden of Eden is that it acts as a prequel to Noah’s work. It does not appear that way to us because we focus on the least important aspect of Noah and miss a key point to the Garden of Eden story. When you think of Noah, you think of the flood. And when you think of the flood story, the conclusion everyone remembers is the rainbow as a proof that God will not destroy the Earth by flood. To us Americans living in the land of plenty, where true poverty and hunger are extremely rare, the dramatic story of the flood and the destruction it wrought on the Earth is the key point. But to the Israelites/Hebrews reading the story of Noah, the flood is not the real point. When we look at the passage where God makes a covenant with Noah [8:21-22] we note two blessings given to Noah. The one everyone knows (the rainbow, etc.), and another one “I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the intention of his heart is evil from his youth.”

Recall that in Genesis 3:17-19 the ground is cursed because of Adam’s sin. Prior to this curse Adam was still expected to work in the garden and tend it [Genesis 2:15]. The curse made the work much harder. Indeed, Noah gets his name because he was appointed to reverse this curse: Genesis 5:29 reads “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands.” [The Hebrew word Noah sounds like the word for “bring us relief” and there are several puns made on this in the ensuing story of the flood.]

This reference to agriculture is also found in Noah being the first person to plant a vineyard.  In fact, Noah more than reverses the curse because not only does God remove the curse on the ground, but for the first time God allows humanity to eat animals rather than only plants. [Genesis 9:3] This is another reason why the curse on the ground was so onerous: humanity depended completely on agriculture rather than ranching. So I think the most significant part of the Garden of Eden, at least for the original readers, was its role in the general drama of sustenance. Before the garden, no plants were cultivated because it had not rained and there was no one to tend them. Adam is made and put in the garden to tend the plants there. Adam’s sin causes the ground to be cursed, making life hard. Noah gets his namesake from the hope that he will break the curse, and sure enough that is what happens. He more than breaks the curse because the ground is no longer cursed and humanity can now eat animals as well. How very different we read the story.

The post Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity]: Curse appeared first on Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity].

Think about “the Gospel” for a moment. Whatever that means to you.

Now, remove anything related to Christ’s death and resurrection. [[Note, this is a thought experiment, I’m not actually advocating that we remove such things from the gospel. Just work with me a bit…]

Now, remove anything related to Jesus being the Messiah.What do you have left?I think for most Christians the answer is “not much.”I’d like to challenge those Christians and everyone else to ponder a bit the gospel message of Jesus and His apostles.The Bible indicates a wide variety of instances where Jesus and others spread “the Gospel” prior to His death. This includes John the Baptist preaching “the Gospel” before Jesus’ public ministry. It includes Jesus preaching the Gospel throughout His three years of ministry on Earth [the word “Gospel’ is not used in John’s account, but “Word” is more or less his equivalent.] The disciples are sent out partway through Jesus’ third year of ministry to preach the gospel to the surrounding areas.What were these people preaching…and why is it called “The Gospel”?At this point you might be looking at me like I have a third eye or a “I love Twisted Sister” tattoo on my forehead. But I’m serious…what do you think Jesus and His disciples preached as “The Gospel” during that time?

The reason why this is an interesting question is that no one knew Jesus was going to Die. Of course Jesus knew He was going to die, but the disciples didn’t. Luke 24:26-27 and John 20:9 makes very clear that none of His disciples had realized that He was going to die, so what kind of Gospel were they preaching if no one had figured this out?

Note, I’m not saying Jesus never alluded to His coming death. It’s sad I have to write this disclaimer, but you would not believe how many people read the last two paragraphs and immediately attack me for saying that Jesus never said He was going to die. I’m not saying Jesus never alluded to this event, I’m saying that it could not have played a role in the Gospel He and His disciples taught because no one understood His teaching.We are told of many people who “believed” the message Jesus gave, and the apostles took that message to everyone else…which means whatever that message was, it couldn’t have anything to do with Jesus’ death. It would be hard for disciples to take a message to everyone that they themselves did not know!Furthermore, whatever this message, this “Gospel” was, it couldn’t have anything to do with Jesus being the Messiah either. It was not until rather late that even His own disciples identified Him as the Messiah, and that was not due to Jesus’ instruction but by divine intervention [as Matthew 16:17 makes clear.] Furthermore, after Jesus verifies this, He tells them not to tell anyone!!

And that brings up another great question. It’s easy to see why the gospel the modern Christian church preaches counts as “good news.” But that message more or less disappears once you remove any reference to Jesus’ death…that means that not only do we have to wonder what the message Jesus and His disciples taught was, but we have to wonder why it was good news (which as most know, is what “gospel” means)!

To add to the bizarre state of things, we see that even the message Jesus tells His apostles to take to “all nations” is not at all like the gospel Christians teach today. If you read Matthew 28:18-20 carefully, you’ll note that Jesus is not saying “Go tell everyone about me in order to save them from Hell.”

Instead Jesus says “Go teach them to obey the commands I have already given you, because I have been made Lord over Heaven and Earth.”

It is worth pointing out here that these apostles that were told to make disciples of all nations only went to the Jews. No one preached to the Gentiles until nearly ten years after Jesus’ resurrection. Anyone who believes the original Gospel was about “saving souls” is instantly making villains out of Peter, John, and the other apostles. Do we really think these holy men of God desired to abandon all gentiles to Hell? That is the logical deduction one is led to if we believe the early Gospel was about “saving souls from Hell.”

But that isn’t what the early Gospel was about. In fact, the word “hell” doesn’t even appear in all of Acts. Not one time. Acts is the most abundant repository of early teachings to new believers by the original apostles, and the word Hell never even comes up in the nearly 20 passages describing their teachings in Acts.

So, regardless of what we teach as the Gospel today, we owe it to all Christians and anyone else to point out the original apostles never thought they were “saving souls” in the way the Gospel is described today. While we’re at it, it might prove worthwhile to consider what the Gospel Jesus and His apostles preached really comprised.

The post Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity]: November 2008 appeared first on Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity].

I’m reading David Flusser’s “The Sage from Galilee” and a verse was pointed out that I find incredibly important.Micah 2:13 speaks of the Messiah leading God’s people out of a gate after having the strength to break it. The interesting part of the verse is its emphasis on the Messiah going out before them, in advance. John 10:4 holds much the same idea.This is important to me because I claim the earliest Christians saw Christ as a “trail-blazer” or “pioneer,” giving proof of blessings available to them by experiencing them first. Christ was baptized. Christ received the Holy Spirit. Christ put his trust in God (“He who judges righteously” in 1st Peter 2:23) rather than call on angels to save Him, providing an example of how Christians should live. And then Christ was resurrected with a transformed body. These are the elements of Christian salvation as understood by the early Christians (in particular the receipt of the Holy Spirit and then resurrection with a transformed body).This idea of “trail-blazer” or “pioneer” for the purposes of providing example is, in fact, what the Greek word “archēgos” means. The one used in Acts 3:15, Acts 5:31, Hebrews 2:10 and Hebrews 12:2, but most translations do not convey the notion of “trail-blazer” or “pioneer” because there is a general interest in under-playing Christ as an example or seeing Him as the first Christian martyr.Instead, the word is translated as “Prince” or “Author” in these verses [the other two meanings according to Thayer’s Lexicon.

This discussion of the first verse is linked to another verse shown to me when reading a completely different book. I am also reading the apologies of Justin Martyr. He pointed out a verse commonly used by early defenders of the faith to refer to the idea of Jesus submitting to unjust death out of confidence that God, being good, would not allow a righteous man to be ashamed. This is the idea found in the 1st Peter 2:23 verse I mentioned earlier, but is found throughout that letter.

A crystal clear OT prophecy of Christ submitting to suffering for that purpose is given in Isaiah 50:5-7 !

I really love this aspect of Christ’s submission. It really speaks of Christ’s faith rather than merely His faithfulness to God’s plan. If we think of Christ as merely going through the whole suffering and death for purposes of fulfilling God’s plan, it really speaks nothing at all about faith. Faith is confidence in something unseen. If we picture Christ as being absolutely certain of the aftermath [in the way that the Almighty Father was], there is nothing to have faith in because there is nothing unseen to rely on.

However, if we allow Christ to have the dimension of a righteous follower of God who believed so strongly that the Father, being righteous and good, would not allow the extremely shameful crucifixion to be the end of the story, then we see Christ having faith in the unseen…faith in God’s attributes. This is exactly the kind of faith Christ calls for in others: “you believe God is powerful, cares about the poor, and is inclined to reward those who do His will…then why don’t you act like it?”

I could see that the above depiction of Jesus might seem a bit too humble for some. A “middle road” would be that Jesus had been told by God what would happen and then we see Jesus not having faith in God’s attributes but rather God’s willingness to do what He said.

However, I think the above is both absurd and very close to what might be reality: Christ had faith in God’s Word as shown in the Old Testament. He believed the sketch portrayed there was authentic and could be trusted. Note that this is precisely the kind of faith He attacks His disciples for not having in Luke 24:25-27.

Given that Jesus is the incarnation of God’s Word, it would be (in some way I cannot fully wrap my head around) fitting for this latter type to be the kind of faith Jesus had.I realize this whole discussion may grate on some people who feel it makes Jesus too human by claiming there were things he did not know [in the sense of have evidence for rather mere confidence in.] But He has no problems evincing His ignorance of some aspects of the Father’s plan in Mark 13:32 (and note Luke 2:52).

P.S. The content of this passage is not meant to suggest that the only reason Christ submitted to death was for purposes of example.

The post Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity]: October 2009 appeared first on Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity].