History

If you don’t believe the Bible literally, does that mean you must conclude that Christianity is based on biblical myth - literally fiction and stories passed down, generation to generation, from our ancient ancestors? That the only way to read the Bible is to read it metaphorically or metaphysically?

Absolutely not. There’s great history recounted in the Bible. But the Bible is more than just history. It is a book of faith written by people who had undergone a transforming spiritual experience or who believed they had “seen” their God at work in their history. By “transforming” I mean an inward turning-around: things/ideas/values that were not important to you now are; those that were of great significance now aren’t.

Biblical people tried, as best they could, to put that experience into words, just as I tried to tell the story of my own spiritual transformation in my book, How the Bible became the Bible (Chapter 9). Trying to tell that story, I learned that it is very difficult to verbalize or communicate deeply personal spiritual transformations. Regardless how I crafted, reshaped, and eventually reworked my verbiage, my soul still felt as if I had missed the mark.

At the same time I also know if I tell my wife: “Honey, I’ll love you ’til the moon turns blue,” it doesn’t mean that I think the moon has turned blue before or will turn blue sometime in the future. It means I’ll love her forever. If someone were to find this note of mine four or five centuries from now, they would need to understand a little bit about the 21st century, a little bit about American culture and its many greeting card “festivals,” and a little bit about being a middle class professional in that culture in order to comprehend what I was trying to say to my wife. If they didn’t understand any of that, they could very well conclude I believed the moon had (or could) turn blue. So, why is it when we read statements like this in the Bible, we think we have to believe them literally? We understand poetry and song lyrics. These kinds of words evoke imagery - ” ’til the moon turns blue.” It is the same with the Psalms, for example. Verses in the Book of Psalms were written as praises or songs to be recited, chanted, or sung at temple festivals. Why do we think their references (e.g., to angels) are more literally true than lyrics to one of our songs or poetic verses in a Hallmark greeting card?

So, what can be established as being literally true in the Bible? Speaking in the broadest of brushstrokes, I think we could conclude the following to be pretty accurate:

1. The overall history and culture of the Patriarchs, most of which was recorded from Chapter Twelve to the end of the Book of Genesis. This is the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their culture, which is very similar to and very influenced by the Code of the Babylonian king, Hammurabi.

2. A great deal of I-II Samuel and I Kings - stories about Samuel, Saul, David, and Solomon - most of which was recorded by the Court Historian;

3. Historical references, overall events, and cultural undertones in the Old Testament during the Schism between Israel and Judah and their independent exiles - Israel to Assyria and Judah to Babylon;

4. Stories of Jesus‘ teaching during his two-year ministry - especially his cynic-like one-liners and his many parables of the new, inner Kingdom of Heaven;

5. Jesus execution in Jerusalem just prior to Passover;

6. The general history of the times reflected in Paul’s original eight letters - I-II Thessalonians; Galatians, I-II Corinthians; Romans; Philemon, and Philippians.

“Okay,” you say. “I’ll buy that. But what about heaven and hell? What about the final destruction of the earth? What about the Virgin Birth? What about ?”

Good questions. Let’s take these major concerns one-by-one.

Heaven and Hell: Heaven and hell are here on earth, not just in the hereafter. If you have a loving relationship with God, as you understand God, while you’re physically alive - that relationship will continue after your physical death. That’s the message of Easter. If you don’t have a transforming relationship with a Higher Power while you’re alive, you won’t get it after you’re dead.

The Second Coming: The general consensus among scholars, both Christian and Jewish, leads us to conclude that virtually all the references to some form of final destruction refers to a final destruction of life as the audience knew and understood it. For example, many Jews, Christians, and Jewish-Christians all believed the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE was the beginning of the end of the world. The Jews believed it was a final punishment of God. Christians and Jewish-Christians believed it was the coming of the Lord Jesus, as predicted by the Apostle Paul, who thought it was just around the corner. So, he counseled people not to have sex, not to complete business transactions, and other admonitions. Theologically - not literally - it was the end. It was the end of the Jewish Temple-State of Jerusalem. It was the end of life as Jews, Christians, and Jewish-Christians knew and understood it at the time.

The Virgin Birth: The Virgin Birth became an important doctrinal belief as the derived Doctrine of Original Sin became more and more defined. Of course, there are always stories about the birth and childhood of any significant public figure. George Washington became the great Revolutionary General and our first President. As parents and teachers taught youngsters about him, especially after he had retired then died, stories about Washington’s youth began to grow - the cherry tree incident or the account of throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac River (which is almost a mile wide at his plantation in Mount Vernon.) The same kind of phenomena occurred with Jesus, as well. There were stories. Many Jewish-Christian mothers tried to liken his birth to the birth of Moses. However, as the Doctrine of Original Sin was being hammered out several hundred years after Jesus’ death, the concept of the Virgin Birth took on a new significance. If Original Sin were true fact, then no person could be born naturally without being in Sin. Jesus could not be in Sin if he were to save us the way the theology was proclaiming. Therefore, he wasn’t born “naturally.”

It becomes important then to understand a little about the biblical culture, the authors, their audiences, and the events they were addressing. This lets us “see” the people of the Bible as real people. “Seeing” the people of the Bible as folks just like us allows Spirit to touch our hearts just as it did theirs.

* The article may be published free of charge or royalty only when the article in its entirety, including the above author information is included in direct relation to the article.

Donald ODell holds a Master of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary and is the author of How the Bible became the Bible. He was an active United Presbyterian minister, including a ministry with street gangs. Currently, Unity Institute uses his book in their Bible-related courses and Religious Science International recommends his book for all Bible-related Science of Mind (SOM) courses. Visit http://www.donodell.com for more information about this acclaimed work.

Share This

One of the more common arguments against Jesus is that all of the evidence for him is found in the Bible, which of course is going to support him. In rebuttal, you might direct them to a book written by Jewish historian Flavius Josephus called Antiquities of the Jews and a passage that has become known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

It would appear at first glance that Jesus enjoys a solid proof to his existence from a non-Christian source, but many smart guys and myself would ask you to reconsider its authenticity.

What should surprise us first is that a devout Jew would refer to Jesus as the Christ? Josephus was a professing Jew who worked for the Romans and might have been tried for treason if he were to say this. It also contradicts his statements in another book, Wars of the Jews, when Josephus calls Emperor Vespasian the Messiah. Also the early church father, Origen, when speaking of Josepus says that “he did not accept Jesus as Christ”.

There are generally three views on the Testimonium Flavianum.

1. The entire text was fabricated and added afterwards by someone.
2. All of the text is authentic
3. Most of the text is authentic except for three additions:
   • “if it be lawful to call him a man”

   • “He was [the] Christ”
   • “for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him”

The first view has some support saying that the passages before and after (3.2 and 3.4) flow into each other. Also Origen never actually mentions this passage in his arguments, but does mention another less significant passage (we’ll get to that one in a second).

The second view does not have much support, leaving many thinking that part of the text was originally written by Josephus, but the three additions are obvious. Some even go further and say there was a reference to Jesus but the reworking is so bad that the true original reference is lost.

If the text was added to or completely fabricated then we must wonder who is the culprit that took it upon themselves to change history. The main suspect is Eusebius who was a bishop of Caesarea in the 4th century. Eusebius only gets blame because he is the first one to use the Testimonium Flavianum and it conveniently supports his argument that Jesus was not a wizard. It doesn’t bode well for Eusebius that Origen, who wrote sooner, does not make use of this passage when speaking of Josephus’ writings.

The Testimonium Flavianum and Eusebius’ reference to it was never even questioned until about 1770. From that point on the Testimonium Flavianum has never really held any weight as a reference to Jesus. Instead Christian apologists look to another passage which is less disputed.

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned

Here Josephus is talking about James and refers to him as the brother of Jesus. Some still debate whether or not “who was called the Christ” was originally in there, but the majority accept this passage as authentic since it is quoted by Origen not too long after it was written. It would make sense that Josephus wouldn’t name James as his father’s son (which is the norm) because his brother was so well known.

Although there is very limited reference to Jesus outside of the Bible, the alarming statistics to defend the Bible’s authenticity should be enough. Lesson learned for today: Do not change the wording of ancient documents and if you must, then be a little less obvious.

From ChurchHopping.com

Me
http://www.churchhopping.com

Share This

The rosary is a form of combined prayer and meditation that has been around for over 1200 years. The origin of the rosary dates back to the ninth century where Irish monks would recite and chant the 150 Psalms of the Bible as a major part of their worship. People living near the monasteries were drawn towards this beautiful and harmonious devotion, and they became very eager to join in with the monks’ prayers. Unfortunately, the people were not able to adapt to this form of prayer because the psalms were very hard to memorize and printed copies of the psalms were not readily available. As a result, it was suggested to the people outside the monastery that they recite a series of 150 “Our Father” prayers in place of the psalms.

As this form of devotion became increasingly popular, people started to devise methods in order to keep track of their prayers. At first, 150 little pebbles were placed inside small leather pouches to keep count. Since this method was rather troublesome, a thin rope having 50 knots on it was used instead (it was used three times for a total of 150 prayers). Eventually, the instrument of choice became the use of string with small pieces of wood.

In later years, the Irish monks traveled throughout Europe and brought this form of devotion with them. In some areas, both clergy and lay people began to recite the “Angelic Salutation” (the first part of what we now know as the “Hail Mary”) as part of this devotion. The popularity of this prayer led to the adoption of 50 Angelic Salutations being said for each piece of wood or knot on the prayer string.

During the 13th century, Medieval theologians began to interpret the 150 psalms as veiled mysteries about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They began to write a series of Psalters, or praises, in honor of Jesus for each interpretation of the psalms. In addition, 150 Psalters honoring Mary were also composed. In order to fit the existing prayer string, these Psalters were divided into groups of 50 and were referred to as “rosariums”. Although “rosarium” refers to roses and rose gardens, it was used to signify a collection of prayers which could be compared to a bouquet of roses. As we see today, the rose is a very popular symbol associated with our Blessed Mother Mary and it is a sign that she often uses as she did in Guadalupe, Mexico.

The interpretation of the psalms into written Psalters lead to the implementation of special thoughts or meditations being attached to each bead. This innovated version of the rosary was widely spread by Blessed Alan de la Roche of the Dominican Order, as it revived the divinely inspired works that St. Dominic and his rosary Confraternity had initiated some hundred years earlier. The prayers of the Rosarium were later broken out into sets of 10 and these groupings became known as decades. Each decade of ten “Hail Mary” prayers would be preceded by one “Our Father”.

Around the year 1700, the thoughts used in the rosary started to become narratives. St. Louis de Montfort composed the most common set of narratives that eventually became used as meditations for each decade of the rosary. These narratives were divided into five Joyful, five Sorrowful, and five Glorious meditations that are referred to as “mysteries”. Just recently, in 2002, Pope John Paul II introduced another set of five meditations referred to as the “Luminous Mysteries”.

As you can see, the rosary we know today is the result of many evolutions dating back several hundred years. Although the manner in which the rosary is recited has changed, the results of praying the rosary are still the same. Countless interventions still occur today, and the power and divine graces the rosary offers are available to everyone who is willing to give it a chance.

Dan Rudden is the President and Founder of The Rosary Foundation; a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the special graces, healing properties, and “15 Promises” of the rosary.

Share This