The Deconstruction and Reconstruction of our Faith

[Dave-W]

I agree the model this culture has produced as the stereotypical male fails the biblical portrayal in several aspects.

This culture is based on an ancient Greek model. (read: pagan) Men in the bible do not fit that mold.

The Greek model (borrowed from the Stoics) says that men have to be logical and unemotional.
The Greek model (borrowed from the Spartans) says that men have to be warriors.

 

[mkgal1]

Well.....that's not quite the track I was on.

I shared his video because I thought he did a great job explaining where everything originated---where he got off track. That happened way back when he was eight years old and adopted the belief that the way to cope with difficulty was to "act like a man". His [faulty] belief about "being a man" was that men don't ask for help and they don't cry (and isn't that a common belief?). IOW....."men just deny their emotions and suppress them". I'd say that his sin was the fruit of that faulty belief system, but lots of people never get as far as overt habitual sin (and that's mainly what I was thinking of when I wrote the OP). I just don't get why people want to cling to something that makes them miserable (especially when they are shown the truth).

Let me see if I can clarify: I had in mind a person--could be male or female-- with the same belief system (where it's believed that maturity is to "not dwell on emotional issues" and "just get over it" and "no one wants to hear your struggles"). That person isolates them selves from others, maybe not physically but emotionally---and doesn't really form genuine bonds of friendship (and carries that into their marriage). Just as Danny had said---he was like an eight year old in an adult body, because he'd never learned healthy coping skills. When conflict *does* come to a person's life like this---they get frustrated and don't know how to deal with it. What I've observed is that there's almost this immediate wall that goes up and they don't want to hear from others (no matter how sensitive and kind the other person is). That seems to keep them locked in this pattern (and the fact that they aren't blatantly sinning may make it worse, because they can deflect the blame on to others ).

Another thing that Danny had said in the video was that it's one thing to be set free, but we need to learn how to LIVE free. It just seems that it's often not recognized how enslaved we can be because of our false beliefs.

 

[mkgal1]

Each time the Word of God reveals to us our wickedness, we need to deconstruct/reconstruct (James 1:23-25). Every thought needs to be brought into subjection to the Word of God (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).

I agree. However......I think "wickedness" begins in a much more subtle way....more like those lies I'd mentioned that are so commonly held.

 

[mkgal1]

This culture is based on an ancient Greek model. (read: pagan) Men in the bible do not fit that mold.

The Greek model (borrowed from the Stoics) says that men have to be logical and unemotional.
The Greek model (borrowed from the Spartans) says that men have to be warriors.

It sounds strange to hear people to be described as "models" like cars (the 2016 models are coming out soon). I think I understand what you're saying, though (what's culturally accepted.....right?).

How would you describe what was culturally accepted for the early Christians? That's probably what's necessary for us to realize whether or not our belief systems are based on goodness and love....don't you think?

 

[Dave-W]

How would you describe what was culturally accepted for the early Christians? T

How "early" are you talking about? Pre Acts 15? If so then it was IDENTICAL to first century Jewish (both in the Land and Diaspora) society.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Acts tells so much about the early church...and in my opinion, the church has moved so far from that ideal that I think we ALL need to deconstruct our beliefs and go back to that 1st century model of the church...an indepth understanding of the prevailing culture of the times is necessary to really understand the entire New Testament. Unfortunately, folks seem so determined to try to apply the NT to 21st century culture and it just doesn't work that way. But...what do I know...I'm just an engineer!!!

 

[mkgal1]

How "early" are you talking about? Pre Acts 15? If so then it was IDENTICAL to first century Jewish (both in the Land and Diaspora) society.

Yes...pre Acts 15. I'm curious if you chose that turning point for the reason I'm thinking. Why do you see that as a "fork in the road"?

Acts tells so much about the early church...and in my opinion, the church has moved so far from that ideal that I think we ALL need to deconstruct our beliefs and go back to that 1st century model of the church...an indepth understanding of the prevailing culture of the times is necessary to really understand the entire New Testament. Unfortunately, folks seem so determined to try to apply the NT to 21st century culture and it just doesn't work that way. But...what do I know...I'm just an engineer!!!

I absolutely agree (and think you're one enlightened engineer ).

 

[Dave-W]

Yes...pre Acts 15. I'm curious if you chose that turning point for the reason I'm thinking. Why do you see that as a "fork in the road"?

Acts 15 was what started the "Gentile Church" and the inclusion of all kinds of foreign cultural understandings and practices. The decision was that gentiles did NOT have to formally convert (via circumcision) to traditional Judaism to be part of the Lord's called out ones.

 

[mkgal1]

Acts 15 was what started the "Gentile Church" and the inclusion of all kinds of foreign cultural understandings and practices. The decision was that gentiles did NOT have to formally convert (via circumcision) to traditional Judaism to be part of the Lord's called out ones.

Oh....okay (I didn't realize that's the point that began the Gentile inclusion).

I had to go back and look over Acts (which---like Red Pony had said--so much can be learned from that one book). I'd even go back further and say Pre-Chapter 6, because that's the chapter that began all the division and disunity, I think (even prior to the Gentiles being included).

Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food.

....so, at the core, wouldn't you say that this division was based on a false belief (maybe a sense of superiority of the native Hebrews that caused the widows of the Hellenistic Jews to be overlooked)?

I'm reading through Acts 6 right now---and looking at the progression of things from that point forward (where the complaint arose---to all the changes in the church--and even though they were "good changes"--there seemed to be something brewing) and wonder if that's where things got off course. Division rears up again in verse 9:

But some men from what was called the Synagogue of the Freedmen, including both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and argued with Stephen.

 

[mkgal1]

Dave---were the Hellenistic Jews actually a part of the early church (now I'm getting confused). I just read that the Saducees were part of the Hellenistic Jews. Didn't the Saducees not believe in Christ's resurrection?

I just found this:

Jews that assimilated to the Greek/Roman lifestyle were called Hellenistic. This was a movement from about 400 BC to 100 AC. Prominent members were the Sadducees.

 

[Dave-W]

Dave---where the Hellenistic Jews actually a part of the early church (now I'm getting confused). I just read that the Sadducees were part of the Hellenistic Jews. Didn't the Saducees not believe in Christ's resurrection?

I just found this:

Hellenistic Jews were assimilated into Greek/Roman culture. Yes there were many temple priests (Sadducees) who did that.

And yes, many of them came to faith in Jesus. (of course if Sadducean, they had to pick up the Pharisaic belief of resurrection of the dead)

Not all Sadducees were Hellenized.

 

[mkgal1]

Hellenistic Jews were assimilated into Greek/Roman culture. Yes there were many temple priests (Sadducees) who did that.

And yes, many of them came to faith in Jesus. (of course if Sadducean, they had to pick up the Pharisaic belief of resurrection of the dead)

Not all Sadducees were Hellenized.

Haha.....I'm *still* confused.

What I was asking was if the group of Jews mentioned in Chapter 6 verse one were Christ-followers or not. It seems to me it was within the Early church that division was occurring.

The group mentioned in verse 9 were definitely part of the synagogues and not part of the early [Christian] church.....so that opposition against Steven seems to be coming from the outside....correct? What the two seem to have in common is that they were both labeled as "Hellenistic Jews".....so I wonder if that common bond caused a sense of loyalty to each other instead of being loyal to the truth?

I found this on the synagogue of Freedmen (and Hellenistic Jews).....but I'm still not really understanding.

there is a general consensus that the Synagogue of the Freedmen mentioned in Acts 6:9 was a Greek-speaking synagogue of the first century Hellenized Diaspora Jews. The other groups mentioned in Acts 6:9 (Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia and Asia) are all well-known Greek-speaking Jewish Diaspora communities which could have been distinct or a part of this same synagogue. Several Hellenistic Diaspora communities may have shared one facility, making them several synagogues, or gatherings under the same roof. Stephen himself was believed to be one of the Hellenist Jews (Ἑλληνιστής) who spoke and worshipped in Greek. If true, this would explain Stephen’s appointment for service in Acts 6:1-7. However, Hellenistic orientation of the Synagogue of the Freedmen did not make them any less zealous in their beliefs, which is why the synagogue was involved in this conflict in Acts 6:9.

I'm thinking this chapter is a great illustration of what I had in mind, though.....about holding tightly on to an old belief system when the truth is presented right in front of that person (or group of people).

 

[mkgal1]

I found this from David Guzik:

The Hebrews were those Jews who were more inclined to embrace Jewish culture and were mostly from Judea. The Hellenists were those Jews who were more inclined to embrace Greek culture and were mostly from the Diaspora (all over the Roman Empire).

i. For the most part, Hebrews tended to regard Hellenists as unspiritual compromisers with Greek culture, and Hellenists regarded Hebrews as holier-than-thou traditionalists. There was already a natural suspicion between the two groups, and Satan tried to take advantage of that standing suspicion.

So...am I understanding correctly? First there was division *inside* the church between the Hellenists and the Hebrews (over the care of the widows).......then there was opposition from the Hellinists *outside* the church against Stephen. Is that correct? That standing suspicion [false belief] seemed to only aid in causing division. In verse 5......there seems to be resolution ("The statement found approval with the whole congregation"), but I'm wondering if there was still resentment brewing beneath the surface (since that belief of one group against the other is still being held onto---just guessing).

 

[mkgal1]

I'm still reading through Acts....and it's at chapter 6:11 where things began to shift. Earlier (in Acts 2:47 and 5:26) the popular opinion was with the apostles. In 6:11, though.....Stephen's opposition fought with lies---and those lies seemed to be bought into ("they stirred up the people"). The same crowds that praised Jesus (Luke 19:35-40) soon called for His crucifixion (Luke 23:18-23); then they loved the apostles (Acts 2:47, 5:26) but now oppose Stephen.

So......my question is: how can people resist the truth like that? These are people that saw Christ live out His life on earth (at least some of it)......and they experienced Stephen's power through Christ and couldn't deny what he was saying (in Chapter 6 verse 10) .....yet stoned him to death as he spoke the truth (dismantling their false beliefs one at a time in Chapter 7 verses 2- 53). I realize all we can do is theorize.......but it intrigues me (and scares me a little---I don't want to fall into the group that does this).

 

[mkgal1]

What I believe is one of the best ways to distinguish truth from tradition (if a specific tradition isn't truth) is this from Chip Ingram:

Truth : (vs) Tradition:

Liberates ----------------->Perpetuates
Gives life ----------------->Nullifies God's Word
Brings about change ----->Status Quo
Reality -------------------->Stability
Threatening -------------->Comforting
Dynamic ------------------>Static


I think that actually answers my question: Truth brings change, it's not as comforting as staying with the status quo, and stability is often chosen over changes (even if that means sacrificing something "better" and more life-giving).

 

[royal priest]

I agree. However......I think "wickedness" begins in a much more subtle way....more like those lies I'd mentioned that are so commonly held.

It does usually begin quite subtly. The Devil has many tricks to draw us away from God. Howbeit, if his enticements where too obvious, then we'd be less likely to bite. But if it starts, for instance, with a little feeling of discouragement; or perhaps a change in our normal routine; something to throw off our joy just enough that we can't quite face God in our prayers with our usual confidence, our Bible reading is distracted...turns into a habit of distraction from prayer and study. Then the dominoes begin to topple. Our dependance upon God is lessened enough that worry gradually creeps in with increasing pressure. Our thoughts are a little more focused on the negative side of things. "How dare that co-worker treat me like that." Self-confidence or confidence in the creature starts filling the void where confidence in God has been shaken. It usually begins subtly, but the slope that leads to apostasy is slippery and will take us further and further from God until God stops it and restores us again.

 

[royal priest]

So......my question is: how can people resist the truth like that? These are people that saw Christ live out His life on earth (at least some of it)......

This reminded me of the Apostle Peter, a staunchly devout Jew who had such great difficulty setting his old beliefs aside regarding the Messiah. It seemed that during Jesus' ministry, Peter grasped some aspects of Jesus as the Messiah(John 6:68), but could not grasp others (Mark 8:33).
But, after the Christ had ascended to Heaven and Peter preached to the Jews on Pentacost, his words evidenced a remarkable understanding of the Messiah's true purpose in the world.
Then a short time after, God gave special instruction to Peter and yet we see the propensity of his old Jewish heritage preventing him from fully grasping what God was showing him(Acts of the Apostles 10:10-16). Moreover, we see him continue to struggle with abandoning his Jewish ways of thinking as he was compelling gentile Christians to follow Jewish ordinances (Galatians 2:14). Thankfully, he was enabled by the grace of God to deconstruct his old habits enough to eventually minister the Gospel in truth(Acts of the Apostles 15:7-11).

 

[Dave-W]

What I was asking was if the group of Jews mentioned in Chapter 6 verse one were Christ-followers or not.

Yes they were.

The group mentioned in verse 9 were definitely part of the synagogues and not part of the early [Christian] church.....so that opposition against Steven seems to be coming from the outside....correct?

Yes that is correct.

What the two seem to have in common is that they were both labeled as "Hellenistic Jews".....so I wonder if that common bond caused a sense of loyalty to each other instead of being loyal to the truth?

I do not see that at all. There was a general distrust of the Hellenic Diaspora Jews by several groups in Jerusalem and Judea. Those groups included the Pharisees and the Zealots. (think IRA type terrorists) Most of the early believers (especially in Jerusalem) were from these groups. So when the Hellenic Diaspora Jews started coming into the congregation, that distrust continued. (just like racial discrimination continues in the church even though it should not)

Many traditional Jews did (and still do) consider Jesus followers to be traitors to the cause of Judaism. That included the Hellenic diaspora Jews. So I see these 2 issues/conflicts as unrelated.

David Guzik said: For the most part, Hebrews tended to regard Hellenists as unspiritual compromisers with Greek culture, and Hellenists regarded Hebrews as holier-than-thou traditionalists. There was already a natural suspicion between the two groups, and Satan tried to take advantage of that standing suspicion.

That seems to be a fair assessment.

 

[Dave-W]

I'm still reading through Acts....and it's at chapter 6:11 where things began to shift. Earlier (in Acts 2:47 and 5:26) the popular opinion was with the apostles. In 6:11, though.....Stephen's opposition fought with lies---and those lies seemed to be bought into ("they stirred up the people"). The same crowds that praised Jesus (Luke 19:35-40) soon called for His crucifixion (Luke 23:18-23); then they loved the apostles (Acts 2:47, 5:26) but now oppose Stephen.

What was understood in the first century but not now is that there were many different factions of Jews in the late 2nd temple period. Even the Pharisees were divided into 2 major camps (with a few minor ones that can be pretty much ignored). The major ones were the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel. (Gamaliel who discipled Saul/Paul was Hillel's grandson) Hillel's school seemed at least somewhat tolerant of the Jesus crowd but the Shammai school was not. So when you see the back and forth between acceptance and hostility, some of that can be understood in the differences between the 2 schools.

So......my question is: how can people resist the truth like that? These are people that saw Christ live out His life on earth (at least some of it)......and they experienced Stephen's power through Christ and couldn't deny what he was saying (in Chapter 6 verse 10) .....yet stoned him to death as he spoke the truth (dismantling their false beliefs one at a time in Chapter 7 verses 2- 53). I realize all we can do is theorize.......but it intrigues me (and scares me a little---).

God is not a robot controller. We have a choice. And satan can blind us to the truth to the degree that our own fallen nature fights against God and His truth.

We are told in Revelation that the people of that day will see all the miracles of God and the violence of the devil; and still rail against the Lord. they have the opportunity to repent but they refuse to do so.

Rev 9.18 By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed—by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which came out of their mouths. 19 For their power is in their mouth and in their tails; for their tails are like serpents, having heads; and with them they do harm.
20 But the rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and idols of gold, silver, brass, stone, and wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk.
21 And they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts.

Rev 16.8 Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and power was given to him to scorch men with fire.
9 And men were scorched with great heat, and they blasphemed the name of God who has power over these plagues; and they did not repent and give Him glory.
10 Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom became full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues because of the pain.
11 They blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and did not repent of their deeds.
....
17 Then the seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, “It is done!”
18 And there were noises and thunderings and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such a mighty and great earthquake as had not occurred since men were on the earth.
19 Now the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath.
20 Then every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.
21 And great hail from heaven fell upon men, each hailstone about the weight of a talent. Men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, since that plague was exceedingly great.

I don't want to fall into the group that does this

Then obey the admonition of the writer of Hebrews who quotes David in Psalm 95:

Hebrews 3:15 while it is said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”

 

[mkgal1]

God is not a robot controller. We have a choice. And satan can blind us to the truth to the degree that our own fallen nature fights against God and His truth.

We are told in Revelation that the people of that day will see all the miracles of God and the violence of the devil; and still rail against the Lord. they have the opportunity to repent but they refuse to do so.

Right......but something else has to be winning out in those situations (people are *choosing* something besides the truth in front of them). I believe it's power and a sense of control (based on fear). I am thinking that even has a lot to do with the boxes people want to stuff others into---the world is a much more "manageable" place if things can be predicted (but that's a fantasy that's often shattered sooner than later). I see love and fear as oppositions (not necessarily love and hate ).