Posts by TerryWalstrom

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

Jonathan Drake: However as it stands, they were a people affected by thousands of years of culture that wouldn't be undone just because suddenly it's okay. It would take time to include Gentiles without anyone wondering about it.

_______________________

Peter had received a direct revelation from God Almighty!

Even though, he had been inculturated by his tradition in Judaism, Peter had immediately begun living as a Gentile! Paul's fury was directed at the HYPOCRISY of living one way and teaching another. Why?

The question of Justification was at stake. This is a foundational orthodox teaching. Belief and acceptance either was or was not all a Christian needed for salvation. This was a huge apostasy in fundamentals.

And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy (2:13).

Peter's defection had a disastrous effect on the Antioch church. The reason for this is that all of the Jews in the church began to follow his example. Peter was a natural leader. No matter what he did, people would follow him.

When Jesus asked His disciples who they thought He really was, it was Peter who acted as their spokesman.

When the gift of tongues was given at Pentecost, it was Peter who addressed the crowd that gathered.

And when Peter decided to go fishing after the resurrection, the disciples were quick to follow him, even though they had been instructed to remain in Jerusalem.

Once again we see people following Peter. The entire Jewish-Christian community began to follow his example of separation from the Gentile believers. Even Barnabas was swept up in this separation. The result was a giant split in the church.

Even worse there was a split over the eating of the Lord's Supper. The one place where unity should have been the most evident had now become the scene of division. Paul calls this action "hypocrisy." They were saying and believing one thing while they were doing another. They were preaching the gospel but they were not living the gospel. They were preaching that faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation, but they were living as though Gentiles were second-class Christians.

Peter and Barnabas knew better than to act like this. But they had been intimidated. Peter was intimidated by the disciples of James. Barnabas and the other Jewish Christians were intimidated by Peter's defection. By running away from the problem, Peter had created a far greater problem.

Was this Apostacy on the part of Peter? If so, what could have been worse inasmuch as Peter had been the agent of false Gospel?

"But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all. . . " (Galatians 2:14).

Paul rebuked Peter's false teaching which had split the church. The General Truth of Justification: A man is not justified by the works of the law (Galatians 2:16)

_______________

What I find interesting is this, Peter was acting the way the Governing Body today does. By making door to door witnessing, obedience to the FDS and the Organization the core of salvation, they've made Jesus' sacrifice null and void.

_________________________

Jonathan Drake: Summarizing, the real standard is the first century example. Any and all writings or teachings developed by people who weren't of the first-century apostles is literally trash.

____________________________

Gulp! We DON'T HAVE any first-century manuscripts at all, Jonathan. We only have corrupt LATER approximations developed by people who weren't of the first-century. So, our discussion is pretty much moot 'trash.'

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

TerryWalstrom

Jonathan Drake: Peter never opposed the gentile mission, or any Gentiles. In galations the confrontation with Peter isn't abiut anything he said.

_____________________

Why then did God have to tell Peter THREE TIMES that it was permitted for him to enter a Gentile home and freely give the gospel to Gentiles? Jews who were still keeping the Law acted as though Gentile homes and Gentile meals were accursed. Conflict came to a head when Peter arrived in Antioch (the first place to use the term, "Christian" we are told.) Paul and Peter were not seeing eye to eye about Christian fellowship. In Antioch, there was epic confrontation between Paul and Peter.

I understand you don't see fellowship as anything other than a cultural problem rather than a matter of core identification of theology. But, the 'body of Christ' is an indivisible concept, is it not? Fellowship as the 'bride' is a symbol of purity and integrity because it is not tarnished in any manner (even cultural.)

Orthodoxy is 'right belief.' If Jesus' bride was divided into two classes (Jewish/Gentile) because of cultic paranoia, there is no 'rightness' to a 'house divided' which cannot stand.

The first canonical Gospel, Mark, does not have the story of the Virgin birth, and in fact, shows no clue that it is familiar with the stories of the Virgin birth. Mark does not narrate an account of Jesus’ birth. Mark never says a word about Jesus’ mother being a virgin. Mark does not presuppose that Jesus had an unusual birth of any kind. And in Mark (you don’t find this story in Matthew and Luke!!), Jesus’ mother does not seem to know that he is a divinely born son of God. On the contrary, she thinks he has gone out of his mind. Mark not only lacks a virgin birth story; it seems to presuppose that they never could have been a virgin birth. Or Mary would understand who Jesus is. But she does not.

What to make of this? Simply, there were differing views of the Christian experience by different writers and believers. Is this a 'big deal" or not?

All I'm asserting is that the cultural, historic context is important when examining early Christianity. By the time Constantine tries to pull all the Christian ecclesia together, you practically have a series of fistfights, according to Eusebius. Why? How? Where is the basis for solidarity?

It is a question worth contemplating.

As to scholar Hurtado, I haven't read his book, but it certainly sounds remarkable! I read a few reviews online.

http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/review_Hurtado.pdf

"One of the less convincing features of Hurtado’s book is his tendency to accept critical orthodoxy throughout. For instance, he includes his chapter on Q before consulting the Synoptic Gospels. Placing Q before the Synoptics is a rather strange procedure since the nature of Q is keenly debated, and some scholars question whether it even existed. Even if Q did exist, the document (or oral tradition) has never been unearthed, and so we do not know (contrary to the confi dent assertions of some!) what was actually contained in the alleged document. Therefore, it is rather speculative to write about the Christology found in Q to say the least. Perhaps Hurtado’s purpose is to demonstrate the plausibility of his theory even if one adopts a Q hypothesis, since he argues that even Q does not point to variant form of Christian belief regarding Jesus Christ. In any case, reading this chapter on Q reminded me that biblical scholars who complain that those who do systematics are guilty of too much speculation should look carefully in the mirror."

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

TerryWalstrom

Justin Martyr wrote, “And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus.”

The pagans during the 2nd century thought of Perseus’s birth as a virgin birth, and considering the “celestial intercourse” between the mother and the god, similar to Mary and the Holy Spirit, this would make sense. It would make sense that Danae WAS a virgin because her father kept her locked up because he didn’t want her conceiving any male children. In today’s contemporary age, when we read Greek mythology, it’s never emphasized that Danae was a virgin, not in the way Mary’s virginity is emphasized, so it never occurs to readers, “Perseus was born of a virgin,” but that doesn’t mean that the pagans back in the day didn’t emphasize that idea more, and this quote by Martyr gives an indication that Perseus was thought to have been born of a virgin.

_________________

The ongoing absorption in Jewish Messianic Christianity of Greco-Roman pagan influence seems a no-brainer. The first Gospel in the canon, Matthew, jumps right in with the pagan-influenced 'virgin birth."

Was there a battle going on in the New Testament period over orthodoxy? Sure. It wasn't settled, except in the minds of those wishing (and insisting) it were.

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

TerryWalstrom

Paul started churches among former pagans in Galatia, probably in several different cities. The gospel he converted them to was the one we know from this letter and others, such as Romans. A pagan who wants to be made right with the one true God needs to abandon his/her worship of other gods and believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus for their sins and be baptized. The person does not, and should not, convert to become Jewish. Jesus’ salvation extends to both Jews and Gentiles equally, by faith.

After Paul left the region other missionaries came with a different gospel message. They insisted that Jesus was the Jewish messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish law, so that OF COURSE following Jesus meant being Jewish. Jesus, for these people, was the fulfillment of the covenant promises God had made with the father of the Jews Abraham; the sign of that covenant was circumcision; and when God gave circumcision as the sign to Abraham, he called it an “eternal covenant” – -meaning that it would never change. To be an heir of the covenant that God had given, and to fulfill the plan that God had set out long ago, a person has to do what God demands of his people. Males have to be circumcised; males and females have to keep the law. To follow Jesus a person has to adopt the ways of Judaism.

These other missionaries insisted that Paul has corrupted the original gospel of Jesus’ disciples in Jerusalem. The original apostles agree that the law must be followed; Paul is a maverick.

Paul can be very angry and sarcastic about the prejudices in other congregations' idea of pure worship. For instance, in Galations 5:12, when he is referring to the missionaries advocating another gospel. (This is more graphically portrayed in the Greek.). Literally Paul says that “Would that those who are unsettling you would be cut off.” But what he’s saying is – to give the idiomatic translation, “Would that those who are unsettling you, when they themselves undergo circumcision, the knife slips and they cut off the whole thing.”

These are examples of a rift or divergence from "settled" true teaching, are they not?

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

TerryWalstrom

Let's take a look at the process.

A Pagan is not circumcised. A Jewish Christian is horrified. Peter argues against accepting the Pagan.

Paul prevails. Circumcising was the Law to a Jew. The explanation (the mcguffin!) is a 'vision' was sent

making it 'okay.' Ha!

Idolatry consisted of sacrificing food to pagan gods.

Paul had no problem with eating food sacrificed to false gods!

Now ask yourself, what was all the fuss about and who won?

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

TerryWalstrom

509 B.C.E. to 27 B.C.E.

In the years of Roman Republic, no man was called a god (or even a king). However, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (Emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of Romans of having a dictator. Surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval! An Emperor, surely was a son of a god, or 'divine.'

The Emperorship, with its divine trappings, was a new trend in the early days of Christianity. Pagan Christian converts brought this ‘divine’ terminology into their new Christian communities and applied these terms onto Jesus. Further, Christians used these terms to promote (“sell”) Jesus to potential pagan converts. Non Pagan congregations (Jewish Christians) had no inclination to absorb Pagan Gentiles, but Paul actually changed Christianity, by letting Pagans switch their allegiances from mythological or human gods to Jesus but continue their practices under a different label. This is easily demonstrated. When the Roman Pantheon was converted into a church, the Pagan idols were replaced by Christian idols; Pagan holidays became Christian, etc.

The Watchtower (bullshit) ‘scholars’ pretend it was creeping apostasy, after the death of the Apostles, which ‘corrupted’ pure Christian teaching. In fact, historically, there never was a pure Christian orthodoxy. Each congregation; each territory; each geographical instance of ecclesia; reflected local, syncretic, heterogeneous opinions.

Few Christian denominations today consider the external influences of pagan Roman converts, as being in many ways the driving force behind the development of a high Christology. (Divinity of Jesus) It is an important social—even political context—for understanding Paul’s language of Lord, Savior, Son of God, gospel, etc.

As Biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman has said: “Readers of the Bible who are not trained in history tend not to think in terms of historical context and so simply read the words of these ancient authors as if they were writing in twenty-first century America. But these authors were not American, and they were not writing in modern times. They lived in a different part of the world, in a different culture, with different customs, and different assumptions about the world and life in it. If you pretend that they were writing in our own context, instead of theirs, you take their words out of context. And anytime you take a text out of context, you change its meaning.”

If you are curious about 1st Century tendencies toward regarding remarkable men as supernaturally endowed, please consider the following.

From the beginning his mother knew that he would be no ordinary person. Prior to his birth, a heavenly figure appeared to her, announcing that her son would not be a mere mortal but would be divine. This prophecy was confirmed by the miraculous character of his birth, a birth accompanied by supernatural signs. The boy was already recognized as a spiritual authority in his youth; his discussions with recognized experts showed his superior knowledge of all things religions. As an adult he left home to engage in an itinerant preaching ministry. He went from village to town with his message of good news, proclaiming that people should forgo their concerns for the material things of this life, such as how they should dress and what they should eat. They should instead be concerned with their eternal souls.

He gathered around himself a number of disciples who were amazed by his teaching and his flawless character. They became convinced that he was no ordinary man, but was the Son of God. Their faith received striking confirmation in the miraculous things that he did. He could reportedly predict the future, heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead. Not everyone proved friendly, however. At the end of his life, his enemies trumped up charges against him and he was placed on trial before Roman authorities for crimes against the state.

Even after he departed this realm, however, he did not forsake his devoted followers. Some claimed that he had ascended bodily into heaven; others said that he had appeared to them, alive, afterward, that they had talked with him and touched him and become convinced that he could not be bound by death. A number of his followers spread the good news about this man, recounting what they had seen him say and do. Eventually some of these accounts came to be written down in books that circulated throughout the empire.

But I doubt that you have ever read them. In fact, I suspect you have never heard the name of this miracle-working “Son of God.” The man I have been referring to is the great neo-Pythagorean teacher and pagan holy man of the first century C.E.,Apollonius of Tyana, a worshiper of the Roman gods, whose life and teachings are still available for us in the writings of his later (third-century) follower Philostratus, in his book The Life of Apollonius.

Apollonius lived at about the time of Jesus. Even though they never met, the reports about their lives were in many ways similar. At a later time, Jesus’ followers argued that Jesus was the miracle-working Son of God, and that Apollonius was an impostor, a magician, and a fraud. Perhaps not surprisingly, Apollonius’s followers made just the opposite claim, asserting that he was the miracle working Son of God, and that Jesus was a fraud.

What is remarkable is that these were not the only two persons in the Greco-Roman world who were thought to have been supernaturally endowed as teachers and miracle workers. In fact, from the tantalizing but fragmentary records that have survived we know of numerous other persons also said to have performed miracles, to have calmed the storm and multiplied loaves, to have told the future and healed the sick, to have cast out demons and raised the dead, to have been supernaturally born and taken up into heaven at the end of their life. Even though Jesus may be the only miracle-working Son of God that we know about in our world, he was one of many talked about in the first century.

Clearly, then, if we want to study the stories about Jesus – and about his followers – we need to situate them in their own historical context, in the world of the first Christian century. The stories about Jesus were told among people who could make sense of them, and the sense they made of them related to their own world, which knew of divine beings who were also human. The environment in which Jesus was born and in which Christianity emerged is known as the Greco-Roman world.

(Bart Ehrman, ehrmanblog.com)

22

UNDERSTANDING WHY THE ORGANIZATION is a false idol and a BLASPHEMY

by Terry in

do we understand these three words: worship, idolatry, and blasphemy?.

most christians have a vague notion of worship, idolatry, and blasphemy already, but.

a clear definition is necessary.. we must take care to differentiate, however.. how the words appear in original language and how they are defined today might be at odds.. ____________________.

TerryWalstrom

Jehovah's Witnesses worship is emotionless; everywhere evident in their music, their 'art' and the sterile atmosphere of the cracker box Kingdom Halls.

Their 'friendliness' is about as warm as the smile you fake for the policeman who writes you a speeding ticket.

67

Good Netflix shows to watch

by Simon in

in the long winter nights you need some good tv shows to watch while you wait for the eternity between seasons of game of thrones.. we've watched marco polo (pretty good) and have just started watching orange is the new black which is not at all what i imagined (didn't know it was funny!).

house of cards is on the list too as we've heard good things about that.. anyone have any others that are worth seeing?.

TerryWalstrom

I finally got around to watching THE WIRE (after everybody raved about it).

It is on HBO(GO).

I fell in love with the series. It kept getting better and better and better.

Wow-incredible from start to finish.

I just completed the last season (5) and I want to hang myself because there aren't any more!

THE WIRE is a definite must see.

TRUE DETECTIVE is quite wonderful. I blazed through all of season one episodes in no time.

Very dark, off the wall, compelling, fascinating, amazing, and surprising.

10

PESHER: an Historic scheme of INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE. . . Watchtower style!

by TerryWalstrom in

george bernard shaw said: no man ever believes that the bible means what it says.

he is always convinced that it says what he means.. shaw must have had pesher in mind!

but, what is pesher?.

TerryWalstrom

Hey Doug! Good to see you here again.

I would advise anybody really interested in subjects such as this to become a Member on Bart Ehrmans' Blog.

You can try it for Month and decide.

The only definite thing anybody can say about Scripture with confidence is that it becomes all things to all people.