02 January 2024
A few questions came up. My answers, in more or less logical order...
1. Radix Fidem is a community of faith. The boundaries of inclusion are published. It's not a catechism, nor even a statement of doctrine. The booklet is simply an outline of how we arrive at our teaching. The actual "church" has another name: Kiln of the Soul. It's a virtual church, in that none of us have ever met in the flesh. Still, that church has formal spiritual covering through leadership and doctrine. Radix Fidem community and Kiln of the Soul church are two separate things. The community is bigger than the church, for obvious reasons.
You could embrace Radix Fidem and start your own church. Or, you can belong to any church that brings you peace with God. You would be warned that embracing Radix Fidem as an approach to faith and religion will cause inevitable conflicts with every established church we know about. How you handle that is between you and the Lord. I'll make comments about various organized religious institutions, but I am by no means flawless. It's just that I've been pushed out the door so many times that I have nothing to lose by criticizing them. That's part of my mission. I rather expect most of my readers will be less confrontational.
Following this blog does not make you a part of the Radix Fidem community. Thus, this blog is collegial; it's meant to invite you to think for yourself. Consider what I write and keep only what works for you. Nobody is going to hold you accountable but God. I'll guarantee you that, at any give time, some of what I teach will not work for you. That should be obvious; I seek a lot of different ways to say that. I leave for you the task of thrashing and winnowing out the chaff in my blather. Mention it in the comments or don't. We are just comparing notes, at most.
You can always ask questions. I'll do my best to explain anything I mention that leaves you confused or conflicted. But by no means should you ever get the impression my writing is "thus sayeth the Lord". This is not a pastoral blog like Radix Fidem Blog. But like that blog, your host here sees no good purpose in debate. I may well allow comments that are confrontational, but don't count on getting an argument. The fundamental purpose is to inform, not convince or make anyone conform to some standard, real or imagined. The most I'll do is clarify my position; yours is your problem.
I am accountable to God for discerning who is family, who are allies, and who are enemies of my work, and when. The level of conflict between our positions will affect our conversations and friendship.
2. I've already said I do not agree 100% with Dr. Heiser's teaching on the Unseen Realm. However, his fundamental approach is quite correct. He states that he intends to find out what the Bible actually says, trying his best to get inside the heads of those who wrote Scripture. From that stand, we both try to clarify for others what the Bible says.
Lots of church scholars have already said that the Bible did not arise in a cultural-historical vacuum. They have long debated what the context is and what that means for us when we read the Bible today. There are actually only a few who dare to assert, or at least act like, the Bible in English is sufficiently clear for anyone with a western mindset to ignore all that background information. There is no hope of dialog with that sort of "Christian". Most of the Christians you encounter are open to some discussion of what's behind the canon.
I share nothing of significance with fundamentalists. I ignore questions about inspiration or infallibility, and I snicker at the idea of propositional truth. My basic statement is that we are accountable to God for what Scripture says to us. The only valid question, then, is what Scripture says to us. Whether or not you feel God holds you accountable for what church leaders may have said since the Apostle John died is between Him and you. I'm not much interested in that issue. For me, the only real issue is what to make of what was written and preserved as canon before John died. I don't trust anyone or anything that came later.
I've already discounted the church councils and creeds. I won't say there is nothing useful in them, only that I don't trust them. That I use the current Protestant canon of Scripture is simply a matter of taking advantage of what most people use. It's not a doctrinal position; it simply saves time. For me, it's a question of what speaks to my convictions. You need to trust your own. My mission and calling do not include dealing with the question of what is or isn't canon. I can answer your specific questions, but it boils down to my convictions, not some rule that should guide everyone else.
3. The writers who produced what is in the canon of Scripture obviously had reference to materials and lore that is not included in the Bible. In the Old Testament, it was mostly a matter of common knowledge within the nation of Israel. A few items require a much deeper examination, as the background is clearly not common knowledge. In the New Testament, we have the matter of rabbinical lore.
To ignore that body of lore is flatly stupid. There are references to that lore in things Jesus said, along with some of what we find in the letters preserved later. Here's the problem: Some of that lore is not written. There is a good deal of writing based on that lore, historical texts that are not included in Scripture, but referencing the same body of oral lore. I've noted already that Dr. Heiser seems to believe that the New Testament writers quote or refer directly to the written materials, but I would argue that those writers are pointing back to a common oral lore that shows up in both the New Testament and non-canonical materials.
Thus, I posted several times that the Books of Enoch are not the source of New Testament references; rather, Scipture and the Books of Enoch both refer to a well-known oral lore. The problem is that we know of the oral lore, but it has faded from history. Don't confuse this with what Jesus called "the traditions of the elders". That term refers to the Talmud, and whole body of teaching that was oral in Jesus' day, but was written down much later. It also includes some of that common body of Hebrew lore, but don't lose track of the distinctions here. The Pharisees and Scribes promoted this body of Talmudic Law as superior to Scripture, so that it has become the "Bible" for Judaism.
This is part of the distinction between "Jewish" versus "Hebrew" — Judaism is Talmudism, the religion of the Pharisees. Hebrew refers to the Old Testament, before Judaism was born a century after the last book in the Old Testament was published. Jesus taught the Old Testament. He referred to the closing of the Old Covenant, but His daily teaching stood squarely on Moses.
And He cites things that were not written in the Old Testament, but were part of the common lore of Hebrew knowledge and belief outside of the Talmudic nonsense. Given that His native Hebrew/Aramaic language was fundamentally symbolic, we know that you should expect most of what He said was not meant literally. His words are loaded with well-known Hebrew figures of speech. And some of those figures of speech are quite obviously a reflection of the common Hebrew mythology of His day. You cannot understand what He said unless you make some effort to review that mythology.
Dr. Heiser points this out in his book, Reversing Hermon. I still say that Dr. Heiser goes too far with some of his teaching, in that book more than any other, but that's not the point. The major thesis behind the book is the depth of Hebrew mythology regarding Mount Hermon, the symbolism of His conquest of all things. If you don't know something about that mythology, you don't know Jesus.
The issue of mythology is not whether it's accurate; that's the wrong question. Mythology refers to an attempt to communicate moral truth that exceeds factual knowledge. Jesus did not verify whether Mount Hermon was actually a demon stronghold. Rather, He used that mythology to indicate His divine authority. His disciples most certainly knew the mythology about Mount Hermon, and probably believed some of it. They acted as if they took seriously other elements of common Jewish mythology of their day. Jesus set aside the question of whether that mythology was accurate. The Father would help them sort that out later. What mattered at the time was that they needed to recognize His authority regardless of what was real or imagined.
Side note: The Internet Archive has removed Heiser's books. If you can't afford to buy them, you need to learn how to use Zlibrary. There is also his his YouTube channel and his personal site, still available despite his death early in 2023.
Comments
Robust1
I just rediscovered your blogs after having run across them a few years ago, back when I was in the process of turning my heart back to God and repenting of going astray (like the prodigal son). This is just a note to say how much I appreciate your teaching, and how much it resonates with me. (you don't even have to publish the comment) My relationship with the Lord and the scripture always had a more mystical aspect than the folks with which I was in fellowship. I really wasn't planning on becoming a regular church attender again after I repented, but the Lord led me to do so, not to be fed as much as to find fellowship with those few with hearts turned to God, and minister to others who are spiritually struggling. The churches I've attended over the years may have done as much damage to me as my own flesh and the unseen adversary(ies) we face. "Church" is just another struggle at times. Peace to you brother.
CatRez
Thanks for stopping by; your note encourages me. Peace to you, as well.
This document is public domain; spread the message.