| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Carl" |
| Date: |
23 Jun 2007 10:03:20 AM |
| Object: |
The Oneness Doctrine: Full Gospel Or Fool Gospel? |
THE ONENESS DOCTRINE: FULL GOSPEL OR FOOL GOSPEL?
by Edgar L. Havaich
Christians occasionally encounter people who appear committed to Jesus
Christ but profess some beliefs about the nature of God that are radically
different from those of traditional Christianity. These often zealous
individuals come under a variety of names: Apostolic Pentecostals, Oneness
Believers and Jesus Only's. Christians would do well to take a second look
at the underlying belief structure of the Oneness adherent.
Oneness teachings are much like those of a man named Sabellius, a
third-century figure who was labeled a heretic by the Christian Church.
Believed to have been born in Libya, North Africa, his ante-Nicene unitarian
doctrine spread both in Rome and Egypt and has been refined, amplified and
propagated down through the
centuries.
Unlike the Church's belief that there is one God expressed in a unity of
three distinct persons all having the attributes of God and claiming to be
God, Sabellius taught that the Godhead was one person revealed in three
different manifestations. Furthermore, Sabellius believed that the Godhead
was expressed through its
operations: The Father was revealed in creation; the existence of the Son
was limited to the period of His earthly redemptive work; once He had
returned to heaven, God was revealed as the Son no longer but as the Holy
Spirit in his operation of sanctification of the Church. This teaching is
called modalism.
Because of his beliefs, Sabellius was excommunicated from the Church. Yet
the idea of modalistic monarchianism, the belief that God reigns while
manifesting Himself through different modes of operation, is perpetuated
today through the Apostolic Pentecostal Church.
Today's Oneness movement got its start at a 1913 camp meeting for the
relatively young Pentecostal Church. In Arroyo Seco, near Los Angeles, a
message was given noting that in the days of the apostles baptism was
performed in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38) instead of using the
Trinitarian model given by Christ, who instructed Christians to baptize in
the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19). After
deliberating for one night over the message he had heard, a man by the name
of John C. Scheppe revealed his "new insight" into what he saw as the true
nature of the Godhead. His "revelation" was the beginning of the modern
Apostolic Pentecostal Church.
Modern Oneness Pentecostals believe that Jesus is the Father or the
Son-Father (hyiopator), that is Jesus is the physical manifestation of the
Father who is Spirit. The Holy Ghost is not considered a part of the Trinity
but merely the spirit and power of the Son-Father.
Oneness theology also embraces the teaching that salvation comes through
repentance and baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus only. The question
posed by many apostolics, "Have you been baptized in the name?", is one way
they determine if the person they are conversing with meets their criteria
of a "true believer." One further proof of a "legitimate" conversion is
whether the individual has been baptized in the Holy Ghost with the evidence
of speaking in tongues.
The basis for Oneness doctrine lies with a group of key scriptures that have
been misinterpreted or misunderstood by apostolic adherents. One such verse
is Colossians 2:9, "For in Him [Christ] dwells all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily." In considering the title of Oneness, author Gordon Magee's
booklet, Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus?, it would
appear that we must make a choice as to who is dwelling in whom. Since God
is Spirit (John 4:24) we realize that this cannot refer to all three persons
residing within the body, or being incarnate within the earthly body of
Jesus. Yet if, according to Oneness theology, the Godhead is in Jesus, but
Jesus is not in the Godhead, we find a contradiction when Jesus Himself says
"the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father (John 10:38).
The more plausible explanation of Colossians 2:9 is that the divine nature
of the Godhead was totally revealed through the person of Jesus Christ.
Jesus also went on to state that we, too, share this unique union when in
John 14:20 he said, "I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." In
other words, being made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26) and
having Christ living within us (Colossians 2:20), we also have a part in
revealing the loving nature of our God to a lost and dying world. To
maintain the apostolic position that Colossians 2:9 means the Godhead
resides in Jesus but Jesus does not reside in the Godhead would force us to
go one step further when considering John 14:20 and come to the blasphemous
conclusion that we, too, are a part of the Godhead.
Isaiah 9:6 is another verse that Oneness theology uses to substantiate its
doctrine. Referring to Christ's title, "everlasting Father," the apostolic
feels justified in drawing the conclusion that scripture has affirmed his
position that the Father and the Son are one and the same.
However, the word "Father" is merely the tool used to address Christ's
deity, just as the word "Son" depicts His humanity. Moreover, the Hebrew
word for Father 'ab' is used in accordance with a custom usual in Hebrew and
in Arabic, where he who possesses a thing is called the father of it. Thus
Abialbon (II Samuel 23:31), "father of strength," means "strong"; Abiasaph
(Exodus 6:24), "father of gathering," means "gatherer"; Abigail (I
Chronicles 2:16), "father of exultation," is a woman's name meaning
"exulting"; and so forth." Therefore, in keeping with the Hebrew custom the
title "everlasting Father" or as it has also been translated, "Father of
eternity" would simply be stating that Christ is eternal. (Albert Barnes,
Notes on the Old Testament and Practical: Isaiah, Vol. I, Grand Rapids, MI.:
Baker Book House, 1950 reprint, pg. 193, as quoted in Robert M. Bowman, Jr.,
"Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity", Forward, The News and Research
Periodical of the Christian Research Institute, Vol. 8, Number 3, 1985, p.
23-24.)
Trinitarians have been accused by Oneness writers of believing in three
gods. Oneness writer Thomas H. Weisser even went so far as to state "The
theologians with their babblings will be brought to their knees before the
One God in Jesus Christ. Their trinitarian beliefs will do them no good as
Christ tells them to depart from Him because they are workers of iniquity.
He will remind them of the scripture they know so well: 'If ye believe not
that I am he, ye shall die in your sins (John 8:24).'" (3 Persons? From The
Bible or Babylon, pg. 43) In spite of numerous articles by Trinitarians
declaring their belief in the one God as defined by the Bible, Oneness
adherents persist in their accusations that we believe in three Gods and are
only paying lip service to the Bible. Such statements lead us to believe
that
those who issue them are either uninformed as to true trinitarian doctrine,
or have deliberately ignored this position in an attempt to make their
point.
True trinitarian doctrine is substantiated throughout scripture. It states
first and foremost that there is only one God.
See the following:
Deuteronomy 4:35 - Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the
LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.
Deuteronomy 6:4 - Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
II Samuel 7:22 - Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none
like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we
have heard with our ears.
Isaiah 43:10 - Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I
have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he:
before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isaiah 44:8 - Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that
time, and have declared it? Ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside
me? Yea, there is no God: I know not any.
Mark 12:32 - And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the
truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he.
Galatians 3:20 - Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
I Timothy 2:5 - For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus.
Apostolics and other anti-Trinitiarians seek to support their theology on
the basis of many of the above verses. However, these verses do not limit
the number of persons contained in the Godhead, but only emphasize that
there is one God. This in no way contradicts Christian theology. It should
be noted also that within the Shema, the great Jewish confession of faith
(Deuteronomy 6:4), the Hebrew word for "one" is achid. Achid means a united
one, whereas the Hebrew word yachid means absolute one or only one. While
the word yachid would have much better fit Oneness theology, God Himself
declares that He is achid (united one). (See further, Genesis 1:5 and 2:24
for other uses of achid in compound unity.)
Yet within the nature of the one God there are three beings: Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost. scripture designates each one as being God as the following
passages show:
The Father is called God
I Peter 1:2 - ... elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the
blood of Jesus Christ.
II Peter 1:17 - For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when
there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, "This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Isaiah 64:8 - "But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and
thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand."
The Son is called God
John 1:1-3 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were
made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 10:30 - "I and my Father are one." (Jesus is speaking.)
John 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said unto him, "My Lord and my God."
Hebrews 1:8 - But unto the Son He saith, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and
ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
The Holy Spirit is called God
Job 33:4 - "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty
hath given me life."
Job 26:13 - "By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath
formed the crooked serpent."
Acts 5:3,4 - But Peter said, "Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to
lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While
it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold was it not in thine
own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not
lied unto men, but unto God."
The fact that there is only one God and that we acknowledge the Bible
differentiates between the three persons making up the Godhead does not mean
we believe in three Gods. The question we need to be asking is not "is there
one God or three Gods?" but "is there distinction within the Godhead?" Cal
Beisner makes this
observation: "The great Presbyterian theologian at the turn of the century,
Dr. Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, pointed out that when we say these three
things: 'That there is but one God,' 'That the Father;, and the Son, and the
Holy Spirit is each God,' and, 'That the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit is each a distinct person,' then we have enunciated the doctrine of
the Trinity in its completeness." (The Trinity or "Jesus Only," What Do The
Scriptures Teach? transcript from "The John Ankerberg Show,")
Beisner further observes that the need for definition is crucial in the
event of a debate because it defines the boundaries of the debate. Most
debates over this doctrine waste much time arguing points already agreed
upon. The definition B.B. Warfield has given makes clear that there are two
important points on which we
and Oneness adherents are totally agreed -- namely that there is but one God
and that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is each God. The
disagreement comes entirely from the trinitarian declaration that the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons. Here is where any
debate should be centered.
While Trinitarians see three distinct persons within the Godhead, Oneness
believers see three different manifestations in the Godhead. The following
quote from Oneness author David K. Bernard helps illustrate the point:
"It is necessary to distinguish clearly between the deity and the humanity
of Christ. While Jesus was both God and man at the same time, sometimes He
acted from the human viewpoint and sometimes from the divine viewpoint. As
Father, He sometimes spoke from His divine self-consciousness; as Son He
sometimes spoke from His human self-consciousness. Only as a man could Jesus
be born, grow, be tempted by the devil, hunger, thirst, become weary, sleep,
pray, be beaten, die, not know all things, not have all power, be inferior
to God, and be a servant. Only as God could He exist from eternity, be
unchanging, cast out devils by His own authority, be the bread of life, give
living water, give spiritual rest, calm the storm, answer prayer, heal the
sick, raise His body from death, forgive sin, know all things, have all
power, be identified as God, and be King of kings. In an ordinary person,
these two contrasting lists would be mutually exclusive, yet the scriptures
attribute all them to Jesus, revealing His dual nature." (Essential
Doctrines of the Bible, by David K. Bernard, pp. 9,10)
Trinitarians see the use of plural pronouns as identifying distinct persons.
Oneness adherents see the use of plural pronouns as showing the dual nature
of Jesus Christ, as another apostolic writer explains:
"All we have to do when we read our Bibles is to keep in mind this simple
thought: Is Jesus acting as a man now or is He acting as God? - because He
was both God and man, In him deity and humanity were fused but not confused.
He could speak from two separate standpoints, He could talk as Almighty
God - He could
talk as a human. For instance, when He walked on the sea He was acting as
God. When He walked beside the sea He was acting as man. When He sat down on
the wall and was weary in every limb, He was weary as to His humanity, but
Isaiah 40:28 says that everlasting God - the Creator - faints not nor is
weary. Jesus
was not weary as to His deity; He was weary merely as to His humanity.
To understand what a scriptural passage says about Jesus, then, we must ask
the question, Is He now taking the part and place of God or is He taking the
part and place of man? There we have a wonderful key, and unfolding key to
the Jesus of the four Gospels." (Is Jesus in the Godhead or Is the Godhead
in Jesus?, by Gordon McGee, pg. 14)
When plural pronouns and terms such as "both," "another" and " not alone"
are used in reference to the Father and the Son, distinction is evident. To
state, as do Oneness believers, that this is the Father speaking from two
different points of view or modes, is eisegesis in its most pronounced form.
The following scriptures illustrate the distinction of persons.
Both:
John 15:24 - "If I had not done among them the works which none other man
did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and
my Father."
II John 9 - "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of
Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath
both the Father and the Son."
We and Our:
John 14:23 - "Jesus answered and said unto him, 'If a man love me, he will
keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and
make our abode with him.'"
Another:
John 14:16 - "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another
Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever."
Not Alone:
John 8:16 - "And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone,
but I and the Father that sent me."
John 8:29 - "And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me
alone; for I do always those things that please him."
John 16:32 - "Behold the hour cometh, yea, in now come, that ye shall be
scattered, everyman to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not
alone, because the Father is with me."
Nothing in the texts quoted implies that there is a unipersonal God,
manifesting different roles or modes. It would be more logical and more
scripturally sound to conclude that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are
separate and distinct individuals. It would also be more judicious to allow
scripture to speak of the nature of the Godhead rather than relying on man's
"revelations" of what they believe the Godhead to be. Scripture speaks
clearly on this issue when it states clearly and concisely in Proverb 30:6:
"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a
liar." God is stern in His warning regarding His nature, for "such is the
antichrist - he that denies the Father and the Son." (I John 2:22)
.
|
|
| User: "RedFox" |
|
| Title: Re: The Oneness Doctrine: Full Gospel Or Fool Gospel? |
24 Jun 2007 04:47:07 PM |
|
|
In article <f5jcnp$8is$1@news.utelfla.com>, "Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote:
Christians occasionally encounter people who appear committed to Jesus
Christ but profess some beliefs about the nature of God that are radically
different from those of traditional Christianity.
The first recorded of these was Paul of Tarsus who radically changed the
Jesus Movement creating most of its theology and probably much of its
mythology.
If you are looking for the source of error look there. All else follows
from the acceptance of the nonsense put out by a supposedly reformed
serial killer
QUOTE
"What is shown below is taken word for word from The Sierra Reference
Encyclopedia.
Copyright 1996 P. F. Collier, L. P. All rights reserved.
PAUL, ST.
PAUL, ST. (died c. A.D. 68), founder of Pauline Christianity. His name was
originally Saul. He later claimed that he was a Jew of the tribe of
Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus. According to
Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under
Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel. This account
of Paul's youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin
had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown in
Tarsus. According to Paul's opponents, the Ebionites, he came from a
family of recent converts to Judaism. He learnt the trade of tent-making
(or perhaps leather-working), by which he made his living.
While still a youth in Jerusalem, Saul became part of the opposition to
the newly formed Jerusalem Church (the disciples of Jesus, who, believing
that Jesus had been resurrected, continued to hope for his return to
complete his messianic mission). Saul was present at the death of Stephen.
Soon after, Saul was an active persecutor of the Jerusalem Church,
entering its synagogues and arresting its members. Acts represents this as
due to Saul's zeal as a Pharisee, but this is doubtful, as the Pharisees,
under Gamaliel, were friendly to the Jerusalem Church (see Acts 5).
Moreover, Saul was acting in concert with the high priest (Acts 9:2), who
was a Sadducee opponent of the Pharisees. It seems likely that Saul was at
this period an employee of the Roman-appointed high priest, playing a
police role in suppressing movements regarded as a threat to the Roman
occupation. Since Jesus had been crucified on a charge of sedition, his
followers were under the same cloud.
The high priest then entrusted Saul with an important mission, which was
to travel to Damascus to arrest prominent members of the Jerusalem Church.
This must have been a clandestine kidnapping operation, since Damascus was
not under Roman rule at the time but was in fact a place of refuge for the
persecuted Nazarenes. On the way to Damascus, Paul experienced a vision of
Jesus that converted him from persecutor to believer. Paul joined the
Christians of Damascus, but soon he had to flee Damascus to escape the
officers of King Aretas (II Corinthians 11:32-33), though a later, less
authentic, account in Acts 9:22-25 changes his persecutors to "the Jews."
After his vision, according to Paul's own account (Galatians 1:17), he
went into the desert of Arabia for a period, seeking no instruction.
According to Acts, however, he sought instruction first from Ananias of
Damascus and then from the apostles in Jerusalem. These contradictory
accounts reflect a change in Paul's status: in his own view, he had
received a revelation that put him far higher than the apostles, while in
later Church opinion he had experienced a conversion that was only the
beginning of his development as a Christian.
Paul's self-assessment is closer to the historical truth, which is that he
was the founder of Christianity. Neither Jesus himself nor his disciples
had any intention of founding a new religion. The need for a semblance of
continuity between Christianity and Judaism, and between Gentile and
Jewish Christianity, led to a playing-down of Paul's creative role. The
split that took place between Paul and the Jerusalem Church is minimized
in the Paulinist book of Acts, which contrasts with Paul's earlier and
more authentic account in Galatians 2.
Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving
mankind from sin. Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type
human saviour from political bondage he saw him as a salvation-deity whose
atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for
immortal life. This view of Jesus' death seems to have come to Paul in his
Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion,
with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus. The violent deaths of Osiris,
Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. Paul,
as founder of the new Christian mystery, initiated the Eucharist, echoing
the communion meal of the mystery religions. The awkward insertion of
eucharistic material based on I Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper
accounts in the Gospels cannot disguise this, especially as the evidence
is that the Jerusalem Church did not practise the Eucharist.
Paul's missionary campaign began c.44 in Antioch. He journeyed to Cyprus,
where he converted Sergius Paulus, the governor of the island. It was
probably at this point that he changed his name from Saul to Paul, in
honor of his distinguished convert. After journeys in Asia Minor where he
made many converts, Paul returned to Antioch. His second missionary tour
(51-53) took him as far as Corinth; and his third (54-58) led to a
three-year stay in Ephesus. It was during these missionary periods that he
wrote his Epistles.
Paul's new religion had the advantage over other salvation-cults of being
attached to the Hebrew Scriptures, which Paul now reinterpreted as
forecasting the salvation-death of Jesus. This gave Pauline Christianity
an awesome authority that proved attractive to Gentiles thirsting for
salvation. Paul's new doctrine, however, met with disapproval from the
Jewish-Christians of the Jerusalem Church, who regarded the substitution
of Jesus' atoning death for the observance of the Torah as a lapse into
paganism. Paul was summoned to Jerusalem by the leaders James (Jesus'
brother), Peter, and John to explain his doctrine (c.50).
At the ensuing conference, agreement was reached that Paul's Gentile
converts did not need to observe the Torah. This was not a revolutionary
decision, since Judaism had never insisted on full conversion to Judaism
for Gentiles. But Paul on this occasion concealed his belief that the
Torah was no longer valid for Jews either. He was thus confirmed in the
role of "apostle to the Gentiles," with full permission to enroll Gentiles
in the messianic movement without requiring full conversion to Judaism.
It was when Peter visited him in Antioch and became aware of the full
extent of Paul's views that a serious rift began between Pauline and
Jewish Christianity. At a second conference in Jerusalem (c.55), Paul was
accused by James of teaching Jews "to turn their backs on Moses" (Acts
21:21). Again, however, Paul evaded the charge by concealing his views,
and he agreed to undergo a test of his own observance of the Torah. His
deception, however, was detected by a group of "Asian Jews" (probably
Jewish Christians) who were aware of his real teaching. A stormy protest
ensued in which Paul feared for his life and was rescued by the Roman
police, to whom he declared for his protection that he was a Roman
citizen. This surprising announcement was the end of Paul's association
with the Jerusalem Church, to whom the Romans were the chief enemy.
The Roman commandant, Claudius Lysias, decided to bring Paul before the
Sanhedrin in order to discover the cause of the disturbance. With great
presence of mind, Paul appealed to the Pharisee majority to acquit him,
claiming to be a Pharisee like James. Paul was rescued by the Pharisees
from the high priest, like Peter before him. However, the high priest,
resenting this escape, appointed a body of men to assassinate Paul.
Learning of the plot, Paul again placed himself under the protection of
the Romans, who transported him by armed guard from Jerusalem to Caesarea.
The High Priest Ananias was implacable, no doubt because of Paul's
defection from his police task in Damascus, and laid a charge of
anti-Roman activity against him. Paul appealed for a trial in Rome before
Caesar, his right as a Roman citizen. The assertion of Acts that the
Jewish "elders" were also implicated in the charges against Paul is
unhistorical, since these same elders had just acquitted him in his
Sanhedrin trial. Paul was sent to Rome, and here our information ends.
Legends speak of his eventual martyrdom in Rome.
Paul's authentic voice is found in his Epistles. Here he appears as an
eloquent writer, skilled in asserting his authority over his converts as
their inspired teacher. The view often asserted, however, that Paul writes
in the style of a rabbi is incorrect. His occasional attempts to argue in
rabbinical style (e.g., Romans 7:1-6) reveal his lack of knowledge of
rabbinic logic. Paul's letters belong to Greek literature and have
affinity to Stoic and Cynic literature. His knowledge of the Scriptures is
confined to their Greek translation, the Septuagint. Paul was a religious
genius, who invested Greek mystery-religion with the historical sweep and
authority of the Jewish Bible.
HYAM MACCOBY
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RedFox" |
|
| Title: Re: The Oneness Doctrine: Full Gospel Or Fool Gospel? |
24 Jun 2007 04:49:30 PM |
|
|
In article <f5jcnp$8is$1@news.utelfla.com>, "Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote:
THE ONENESS DOCTRINE: FULL GOSPEL OR FOOL GOSPEL?
by Edgar L. Havaich
Christians occasionally encounter people who appear committed to Jesus
Christ but profess some beliefs about the nature of God that are radically
different from those of traditional Christianity.
By the time Paul died the basic errors had already been committed:
QUOTE
"The writings in the New Testament were not written by eyewitnesses of an
overpowering divine appearance in the midst of human history. That is the
impression created by the final formation of the New Testament. Dismantled
and given back to the people who produced them, the writings of the New
Testament are the record of three hundred years of intellectual labor in
the interest of a thoroughly human construction.
The effect of the studied selection and arrangement of these texts must
therefore be seen as remarkable. Mythic rationalizations for very
different social notions and community traditions were forged into a
concerted testimony for the one true gospel and its single story line.
Differences among the various traditions represented in this selection
were erased. Mark could be read through the eyes of Paul, and Paul could
be read as a witness to the gospel according to Matthew, and so on. When
combined with the Jewish scriptures, moreover, for the reasons we have
been able to identify, the Christian Bible turns out to be a masterpiece
of invention. It is charged with the intellectual battles and resolutions
of untold numbers of persons who invested in a grand project three
centuries in the making. It finally reads as the epic they imagined to
sustain them, the history of God's plan to establish his kingdom on earth.
To be quite frank about it, the Bible is the product of very energetic and
successful mythmaking on the part of those early Christians.
We are the heirs of that legacy, as we are of the mythmaking of myriad
Christians from that time to this who worked with these texts to produce
yet other cultural configurations. As if taking a jewel in hand to catch
the light in yet another facet, Christians have manipulated the biblical
myths and symbols time and again to see themselves reflected anew
somewhere in its story. The image of the Christ has shifted with each new
epoch of that history, as has the shape of the basilicas and cathedrals
built to rehearse the biblical story. God's universe also had to expand in
order to encompass the vast horizons of the Bible's story of creation and
redemption. And the music of those cosmic spheres has been captured in a
glorious history of Western chants, masses, anthems, and symphonies. The
emergence of the distinctively Christian sense of awe, called worship, was
another inculcation of the biblical epic, as were the Books of Days for
private devotion, the first flowering of Christian art, and the Western
orientation to texts and publications.
These creations of Christian culture have shaped our Western souls, though
some archaic features linger only as a haunting resonance. And we also
know something of the struggle to be emancipated from the cosmic
encasement of the biblical world in our medieval past. From Petrarch's
"discovery" of beauty in the natural world, through the Copernican
revolution, Galileo's science, Renaissance art, the Reformation's revision
of history, the emergence of "secular" theater, the founding of
universities, Enlightenment literature, the industrial revolution, and the
modern history of political theory and the nation-state, the "birth" was
from the biblical womb and the struggle to be free was repeatedly
adolescent. No wonder the Bible is still among us. No wonder the effect of
the biblical epic can still be discerned in our nation's myths, our
leaders'policies, and the people's dreams and attitudes.
But the world is spinning faster now, and the times have changed our hopes
and fears and circumstances as never before. We face a situation in
America, and predicaments around the world, that call for serious
reflection, honest conversation, and hard intellectual labor. Shooting
from the political hip will no longer do. Harking back to the
Judeo-Christian tradition without spelling out what one means does not
help. Facile references to the Bible are sounding shrill. We are very
close to entertaining a public discourse about our nation's Christian
heritage that does not rise above the level of demagoguery.
Thus this book may help. There are, in fact, two ways in which it might
help, both of them due to its description of the historical and
intellectual process of the Bible's formation. One benefit would be to
help us see early Christian history as a chapter in the larger history of
human social formation and mythmaking. That alone would take the edge off
the Bible's mystique and let us analyze its logic just as we do with that
of all other myths, religions, and their cultures.
We have learned, for instance, that the Bible was produced in the process
of social change and that the process included the mythmaking that
eventually produced the Bible. Our study also tells us that mythmaking is
hard work, requires the best intelligence a society can muster, uses lots
of time and energy, and is in the last analysis a collective enterprise
linked to shared interests in (re)making a social construction. And one
more thing. Looking at early Christianity this way tells us that
mythmaking is born both of new ideas and of the rearranging of traditional
images already at hand. Some early Christians (but not all!) did want to
think that they were starting with a big bang, but even to imagine this
they had to work with old myths and models.
Mythmakers never start completely from scratch. But if that is so, if
early Christianity was a human labor in the bricolage (handicraft) of
creating something new from the bits and pieces of ideas at hand, some
new, some old, don't we also have to be circumspect as we do our own
rethinking of what we are about? Thus, a second benefit might be the sense
of distance from the Christian myth that results from such a redescription
of that early history. Seeing that the early Christians had their reasons
for imagining the world the way they did should come as a relief to any
thoughtful person who has wondered about the helpfulness of the gospel
story when tackling the social issues of our time.
Understanding those reasons lets us appreciate the mythmaking of those
early Christians even as we recognize that their reasons for telling their
stories are not good enough to be our reasons for continuing to tell the
stories just as they told them."
Burton Mack "Who Wrote The New Testament" 1995
Posted in the interests of recommendation and review
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
