http://www.theamericanconservative.com/jacobs/christmas-as-history-and-now/
(Bold emphasis mine.)
What say you?
(Bold emphasis mine.)
What say you?
"The Bible As History and Now"
- Thread starter HammerStone
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I don't see the point the author is trying to draw. In these times of hyper-antichristianism (the next step is outright persecution here in the US), we MUST hide the nativity in plain sight in this culture. The incarnation of Christ is taught as fable and fairy tale rather than history, and that is even in some mainline church denominations!
So while it may be quaint for some to imagine the Bible being treated as "merely historical", the truth is, it's being erased right before our eyes.
So while it may be quaint for some to imagine the Bible being treated as "merely historical", the truth is, it's being erased right before our eyes.
Well, I see what you mean, and while I cannot speak explicitly for the author, I think he would reply along the lines that collectively we treat Jesus and all other events in the Bible as something historically true. In other words, we read the Bible generally as an account of the past, much like a trusted history book, and then we may leave some events open to future prophecy or something rather amorphous (I'm thinking of dispensationalism).
You didn't have the benefit of a very similar article the author also wrote, but he analyzed several paintings from the medieval period. In these works of art, the artists would portray a Biblical event, but the accompanying details would be decidedly contemporary to the artist. One example is Botticelli Alessandro's Cestello Annunciation where the virgin Mary is receiving the message that she will bear Jesus. In the background, and out a well-framed (I am no art critic, so I don't know technical terms) window, is a castle-looking Judea/Palestine. Jacobs contended that the artists were not ignorant of how Palestine looked at the time of Jesus, but that the specifically wanted the viewer to see a connection from then until now (now being the time of the painting).
I think this can be lacking sometimes in the church. It's easy to talk about a king and kingdom, for instance, but we don't understand a number of nuances about king and kingdom to understand the Kingdom of God and what it means for the Bible to use that phrase. For example, Americans are colored by the idea that we rebelled from a king in our national history; to some extent, that will affect our thoughts on kingdom.
Often this is criticized as a watering-down of the gospel under the guise of relevance, but being familiar with the author, he's not after just relevance but after the idea that God is indeed God of the living and what he did relates to now.
I think that argument plays into the the stamping out of Jesus in the public square; to a great extent, we've built this historical Jesus based on more palatable (to secular society) facts. We believe he happened, but the historical-critical method has allowed that doubt to enter the church. However, if we live out Jesus and see what he did as involved in the now, no amount of persecution - persecution that we mutually agree is coming - will erase him and his affecting others through us.
You didn't have the benefit of a very similar article the author also wrote, but he analyzed several paintings from the medieval period. In these works of art, the artists would portray a Biblical event, but the accompanying details would be decidedly contemporary to the artist. One example is Botticelli Alessandro's Cestello Annunciation where the virgin Mary is receiving the message that she will bear Jesus. In the background, and out a well-framed (I am no art critic, so I don't know technical terms) window, is a castle-looking Judea/Palestine. Jacobs contended that the artists were not ignorant of how Palestine looked at the time of Jesus, but that the specifically wanted the viewer to see a connection from then until now (now being the time of the painting).
I think this can be lacking sometimes in the church. It's easy to talk about a king and kingdom, for instance, but we don't understand a number of nuances about king and kingdom to understand the Kingdom of God and what it means for the Bible to use that phrase. For example, Americans are colored by the idea that we rebelled from a king in our national history; to some extent, that will affect our thoughts on kingdom.
Often this is criticized as a watering-down of the gospel under the guise of relevance, but being familiar with the author, he's not after just relevance but after the idea that God is indeed God of the living and what he did relates to now.
I think that argument plays into the the stamping out of Jesus in the public square; to a great extent, we've built this historical Jesus based on more palatable (to secular society) facts. We believe he happened, but the historical-critical method has allowed that doubt to enter the church. However, if we live out Jesus and see what he did as involved in the now, no amount of persecution - persecution that we mutually agree is coming - will erase him and his affecting others through us.
I suppose I don't have that view (watering down the Gospel) being raised near the neighborhood of the Vanka Church Murals...
or
or
See here: http://www.vankamurals.org/
or
or
See here: http://www.vankamurals.org/
The Bible contains history but it is not a history book. It was never intended for that purpose. It is a religious book, using the old definition of "religious" before it became a bad word. The books of the Bible were originally called "divine writings to be read aloud in the churches".(Synod of Hippo, Council of Carthage) That is the reason we have a Bible. Almost no one could read.
The term "bible" was not in use until the 14th century, according to this source. (Websters). "Bible" is a development. "Trinity" is a development. Why certain Christians resist development doesn't make sense. But I digress...
When you remove the Bible from the Church you invite it to be explained or dismissed by "histories", Rationalism, Modernism, Naturalism, Humanism and that's just for starters. The end result of all this is people having no faith at all. Now you have to contend with guys like Jacobs who think that a culture’s understanding of Christianity changes when the events described in the Bible become purely historical, things that happened but no longer happen.
That's not how it works. Christianity changes cultures, not the other way around. Individuals need conversion, and so do whole societies. It's called inculturation.
The term "bible" was not in use until the 14th century, according to this source. (Websters). "Bible" is a development. "Trinity" is a development. Why certain Christians resist development doesn't make sense. But I digress...
When you remove the Bible from the Church you invite it to be explained or dismissed by "histories", Rationalism, Modernism, Naturalism, Humanism and that's just for starters. The end result of all this is people having no faith at all. Now you have to contend with guys like Jacobs who think that a culture’s understanding of Christianity changes when the events described in the Bible become purely historical, things that happened but no longer happen.
That's not how it works. Christianity changes cultures, not the other way around. Individuals need conversion, and so do whole societies. It's called inculturation.
Similar threads
