Friday, 2. February 2007, 13:42:46
doctrine, Satire, church,
...
As I do whenever I get the world-veiw weekend (hereafter WWW) newsletter, I read it. It really is a combination of sick curiosity mingled with a touch of hopefulness (see earlier posts on this note). This week discussed the all important question of
how to find a church. And by discussed, I mean, the author gave you a typical authoritative answer
obviously based on the bible.
Following his simple guidelines, you can be assured that the church you attend will not challenge any of your white, middle class, conservative, christian views. What if you don't fit that catergory? I guess WWW doesn't give a damn about you. Thanks again WWW; I really appreciate your concern for my eternal well being. Thanks so much for your desire to make sure I don't end up at one of those churches that preach equality, or God's grace, or so much as entertain ideas that aren't on your "dogma" list.
Thank goodness they decide who is going to
hell (ironic isn't it).
Thanks again, your teaching without nuance has again changed me to become a better person!
Cartoon Taken from: "The Parking Lot is Full," January 30, 2000;
http://plif.andkon.com/archive/archive.htm
Sunday, 28. January 2007, 19:24:33
Heaven, doctrine, king, kingdom
...
The Biblical language that speaks of the "kingdom of heaven" is usually interpreted by twenty-first century readers simply as Heaven. This is an innacurate reading. Before discussing why, we have to understand the function of heaven, or "the heavens" in ancient literature in general and the Jewish Bible in particular. Since much detail in this particular forum would bore, suffice it to say that the realm of heaven, or "the heavens" was God's realm and only God could be there. Apart from those directly attending God (other elohim (heavenly hosts)), anyone else entering "heaven," would have been seen as an affront to God's reign (see Job and Satan's entry).
The kingdom of heaven then, was specifically God's perfect reign coming to earth (see here also the Lord's prayer ("your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"). When Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven (and illuminatingly "Kingdom of God" elsewhere) was among us or coming etc., he was referring to God's reign, glory, power and grand design being brought to bear on his creation.
The grand misnomer that everything that Jesus said was referring to heaven can be plainly seen, rather everything he was doing and saying was to function as fulfilling God's plan for this earth and his people newly created in Jesus.
Nevertheless, this is not to downplay Jesus' message of "not yet." There definitely was an element of a transcendent eschatology in Jesus' message. Yet, it was not the same message of "heaven" that is preached from the pulpits today.
Monday, 18. December 2006, 16:28:23
religion, heresy, doctrine, evangelical
...
What is the nature of the relationship according to the biblical literature that the "son of god" had with his father? If I was Catholic, this question could be answered quickly by a nod to tradition and the church fathers. Since I come at this question without that kind of easy answer (read protestant) I feel that it is appropriate to look at what the bible says on this topic:
The first and most relevant question is how language in biblical literature discussing this relationship would have been understood by the Jews, Romans and Christians of the first century. Simply quoting the last few verses in Matthew and saying that it provides a clear and concise, complete understanding of a modern trinitarian view is exactly the kind of misreading that needs to be avoided.
Before moving on to specific verses (in a future post), it will be important to address the idea of monotheism. To say that monotheism was central to Judaism might even be an understatement. Yet at the same time to take the bible seriously, one has to square with the old testament treatment of other gods. The word used in the old testament (elohim) simply meaning divine being was given to the "elohim of your father abraham" as well as other divine beings, many that we discount as non-existent gods. But the words need to speak for themselves and in the old testament there is no linguistic differentiation when discussing the elohims of other cultures and that of the creator elohim of the Israelites. One quick and extremely important note: there was only one way to differentiate the gods in the texts and that was through adjectives describing the word elohim. This was the clear way that the Israelites differentiated their elohim among the hosts of others.
None of that material is controvertial, it is simply how the texts work, but what is controversial is the interpretation of this treatment of elohim (and later in the n.t. Greek "theos"). The common conservative line is that though there are many gods discussed, there is still only one God (or one existing god). Thus every time that the word elohim/theos is speaking of a god other than the creator god, the god must really not exist. There are a few main difficulties with this, the main and most obvious being that the texts don't warrant that distinction. The other point that militates against this dichotomous reading is the other divine beings and angels that attend the Lord God or "yhwh elohim." These divine beings like the archangel Michael as well as even satan are also referred to as elohim.
Now we have to modify the traditional understanding to include Michael and Satan and the rest of God's host of elohim/theos that obviously did exist in the Jewish mindset even in the first century. Nevertheless, we could still hold firmly to the belief that all other elohim/theos spoken of do not exist. But the question remains, is that simply a convient reading based on our preconceived biases?
Next Post look for Jesus as "elohim," or Jesus as "yhwh elohim?"
WIDGETIZE