Arriving at the Paradigm Shift: A preponderance of evidence IIl

In the last two posts I have talked about the preponderance of evidence that led to my paradigm shift. So this question comes to mind; what should this mean to the church, its doctrine, its worship, and its faith and practice? When I mention the church I mean those who are believing in Jesus as the redeemer. I mean the universal body of believers, the catholic church, small c.

First off, it only makes sense that when one identifies as a believer in Jesus Christ, that they would follow what Jesus, and his first century apostolic writers taught. This means that they would look at the scripture from a redemptive view and not as a legal constitutional document. It means that they would define and teach that the word of God is the gospel or Jesus the living good news. When John wrote that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, he meant that the gospel (good news) became flesh and dwelt among men. He certainly did not mean that the scripture became flesh and dwelt among men. Therefore, the gospel should be the main focus of all Christians and Christian Churches. The gospel is as refreshing, if not more refreshing to the seasoned saint as it is to the new one. The gospel is the main defensive weapon against the accuser of the brethren. The gospel is the necessary re-assurance that promotes resting in the peace with the Father which only comes from justification by faith.

A follower of Christ should not use the scripture in a legal constitutional way. Even the instructions in the epistles that sound like commandments should not be viewed in a legal constitutional way. When they are the result is ALWAYS spiritual death and striving to please God in the flesh. They can only be efficacious when one is resting in redemption by faith alone. I am not saying that they cannot show the heart of God, and cannot be used to encourage godliness. I am saying that when they are used with a legal constitutional understanding or focus they always, always, always become a killing letter. This is precisely why the gospel has to be the main focus.

Christians, should worship Jesus. Paul tells us that in the risen Lord Jesus Christ, all of the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily (Col 2:9.) Further, Isaiah prophesied that would be the case (Is 9:6-7.) The King of Kings and Lord of Lords in Revelation 19 is Jesus. The name of Jesus is to be worshipped by every tongue, and every bowing knee. When Jesus is worshipped there is a special anointing that can come in no other way. It is the name of Jesus that saves, heals, cleanses, and comforts. Why is the name of Jesus mentioned so little, and so many sermons are just a rehashing of Old Covenant messages that do not in any way point to Christ. Jesus said that the entire scripture points to him (John 5:39-40; Luke 24:27, 43-45.) If you use the Old Testament scripture it had better point directly to Jesus if you are a Christian and if it does not you should not use it.

In faith and practice every Christian should be resting completely in Romans 5:1. If you are a following believer of Jesus Christ you should be allowing the love of God and peace with God to be the driving catalyst of your life. A proper understanding of the apostle's doctrine (Acts 2:42) would promote real transformation in the life of the believer. Not reformation. That seems to be the main business of the evangelical, institutional church, and it is just flat out the wrong focus. It is no wonder church doctrine is so far off the mark.

I am going to be writing in this vane for a while so why not go over a lot of these posts and see the preponderance of the evidence for a paradigm shift?

Arriving at the Paradigm Shift: A preponderance of evidence II

In the last post I explained the process of the twenty year journey to my paradigm shift. Again as I stated in the last post the paradigm shift is the result of a preponderance of evidence. This is a legal term that is a standard of proof in civil trials. It is not as high as beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that a person is 99.89% sure of the facts presented. The preponderance of evidence means that it is far more likely to be true than to be false.  I would estimate that in the case of my paradigm shift, I am 80 - 90% certain of the facts. And, as time goes on, and as I study more, this increases and more and more evidence piles up.

So what is the substance of my paradigm shift? What doctrinal issues have changed? How is it different from mainstream evangelical doctrine or orthodox doctrine? In summary, it is apparent to me, that the early church father's doctrine, which has been brought forward to today from the second century, does not square with the apostle's doctrine mentioned (though not defined) in Acts 2:42. There is a large discrepancy between the apparent doctrine of the first century church found in the apostolic writings, and what has been handed down as orthodox doctrine. This discrepancy is the source of my paradigm shift.

The first discrepancy is found in the respective views of the scripture. Israel, viewed their scripture in a legal constitutional way. They did this no doubt based upon their plain sense reading and study of the entire old testament. Jesus and the apostle's shifted to a redemptive reading of scripture which saw Jesus as Messiah and claimed that the entire scripture pointed to Him (John 5:39-40.) Interestingly, the early church fathers went back to viewing the scripture in a legal constitutional way, and while they maintained a semblance of the redemptive focus, they did not make it the prime focus as did Jesus and the apostolic writers.

The second discrepancy lies in the fact that Jesus and the apostolic writers redefined the phrase *word of God* from scripture to gospel and Jesus the living gospel. This is true in most of the passages mentioning the phrase in the entire apostolic writings (New Testament) and completely from Acts forward. This fact has been proven over and over in the posts on this blog. Again, it is interesting that the early church fathers went back to defining the phrase *word of God* as the scripture. The first century apostolic use of the phrase meaning gospel adds weight to the redemptive focus of scripture.

The third discrepancy lies in the fact that the apostolic writers in the New Testament saw the end of the age and eschatology as something contemporary with them. The preponderance of scripture passages that demonstrate this are overwhelming. The first century apostolic writers saw great eschatological significance in the destruction of the second temple and the early church fathers ignored it for the most part.

These discrepancies alone show a great difference between what the first century apostolic writers thought, wrote and prophesied in the New Testament, and what the writings of the early church fathers concluded. It is so great a difference that one could safely call the doctrine brought forward from the second century to be the strong delusion, prophesied by Paul in 2Thess 2:11.

Again, I urge you to read the bulk of these posts to look at the preponderance of evidence pointing to the fact that evangelical doctrine is off the mark.

Arriving at the Paradigm Shift: A preponderance of evidence

As the Holy Spirit has shifted my paradigm with scriptural illumination, I find myself in the precarious position of not being able to go back to the old paradigm, and business as usual. More than that, I know that the Lord does not want me to. To participate in the old paradigm is tantamount to approving it. I could no more participate in the old paradigm than a catfish could survive on dry land. This presents certain problems for me because the paradigm shift has happened over a twenty-year period. Interestingly, the basic core of the paradigm shift came all at once; I intuitively knew it to be true, and even trusted in it based upon the unction of the Holy Spirit and this was almost instantaneous from the beginning twenty-plus years ago.

However, the proof has come over a twenty year period, and has been the result of much study of the scripture. I dare say that I studied sometimes, all day, and I am quite certain that if I averaged it all out it would amount to at least two and one half hours of study per day, seven days a week, for 20 years. If I do the math it would be conservatively speaking 18,250 hours of study. During this study, I have written at least 2,000 pages of writing which would average out to 1,140,000 words. I am not boasting as I am sure that others have studied more but it is clear that I have not adopted the paradigm shift lightly.

It should be fairly easy to see why not many are willing to instantly embrace my paradigm shift and yet, I see the Holy Spirit moving many people in the same direction and admittedly, there are those who have surpassed me. So I say without reservation that my paradigm shift comes with a preponderance of evidence. Anyone willing to study and listen would after a while see that there is indeed a preponderance of evidence for the shift. It is indeed a valid way to look at the biblical narrative, and of course, I think that it is the best way.

I have gradually over time gained the courage to ask tougher and tougher questions about the biblical narrative. In so doing, I have grown fonder of it, and much more convinced of its inspiration. I no longer struggle over the many paradigm shifts that are clearly presented within the pages of the sacred text. There are drastic changes of paradigm over the scripture from Genesis to Revelation. They coincide nicely with the cultural development of society. It is imperative to understand historical context within the pages of scripture. Here are some important things to consider, some important questions to ask when examining the sacred text.

1. Who was the intended audience, what would they have thought and what would have been the meaning for them?
2. What were the cultural conditions of the occasion that caused the text to be written?
3. How do they compare with what we face today culturally?
4. What were their beliefs about redemption, eschatology, the Messiah etc.?
5. What if any are the overriding themes that link the narrative together as a whole?
6. What was the actual meaning of the original language and where there are obvious discrepancies from one text to the other, what was the likely intended meaning?

I will end this post here, but I hope that some of you will begin to take the journey through the many posts on this blog that will begin to show the preponderance of proof for the accuracy of the paradigm shift. I will say this. So much of what we call Christian doctrine in mainline evangelical churches is pathetically off the mark!

Audience Relevance: Who was the intended audience of the New Testament?

What did the close of the age mean to the first century readers of the New Testament? Were they expecting the end of the world or was it something different? In order to examine this we have to look at what the first century, second temple Jew would have understood end of the age to mean. We are in luck thanks to the dead sea scrolls.

The King James Problem:
The KJV of the bible is very good in most cases but not when it comes to eschatology in the gospels. The KJV renders aion world in Matthew 13:39 et. al. passages and that is just a bad translation. Aion in the Greek is age. So then, Matthew 13:39 speaks of the end or the close of the age and not the end of the world. It is not the end of the space time continuum for certain. That is not what was meant by the first century, second temple Jews. And yet, the recipients of the messages recorded in the gospels were solely to first century, second temple Jews. While it is very likely that some were written for congregations that were primarily Gentiles, the words recorded told of events that happened to first century, second temple Jews. In other words, the intended audience of the words spoken by Jesus, John the Baptist and others were strictly first century, second temple Jews.

Now that we have solved the King James problem, let's look at its implications. That means that the intended audience of the New Testament writings was those in the first century while the second temple still stood. The best place to understand their thinking on the matter is to look at the community who wrote/copied the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are divided into three types of documents. First was their copies of the scripture. They spent much of their time copying the scripture. Secondly, they wrote about their interpretation of the scripture, especially the Prophets and most especially Isaiah. And thirdly, they wrote about the rules for their community. Because of this, we can get a very good idea of what they thought about many things and one of the main things they were concerned with was eschatology. Therefore, the meaning of the end of the age was made quite clear in their writings. They often referred to it as the end of the evil age and thus, the beginning of a better age to come. They did not refer to the end of the planet and a new existence in heaven. While they were expecting a battle of Armageddon, they were not expecting the end of the planet.

Now, when you read carefully the pages of the New Testament you see that the beliefs of the Christian communities were very similar to that of the Essenes at Qumran which is the group responsible for creating the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is safe to say that the early Christian communities were not expecting an end of the planet. Apocalyptic language is figurative and not literal. The melting of the heavens and the earth and fire and brimstone and coming on clouds is part of the apocalyptic language and is figurative.

We really mislead our audiences when we proclaim that we are now in the last days or the eschaton. The truth is that they were. You can find that in many of the New Testament writings. As an example, Paul wrote the Corinthians telling them that they were the ones on whom the end of the ages had come, (1 Cor 10:11.)

The paradigm shift will go a long way to help us present a much more clear understanding. It will offer more hope for believers.

An atonement theory for the paradigm shift Part I

First off, I need to lay some foundational ground work before I finalize an atonement theory. To begin with I will acknowledge that there are several atonement theories that have been presented over the history of the church. I will provide a link that will give you a concise overview of atonement theories. Please keep reading this post before you go to the link which will take you to Theopedia.

If we want to be able to present Christ to the world, especially the generations coming, we must find a coherent compelling atonement theory that gives meaning to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. It should be a unified theory that makes sense of the biblical data. I think it should be a theory that will show the benefit of trusting in Christ even if one thinks that all paths lead to God.

Don't blow an aorta, I did not say that all paths lead to God, rather I said that the atonement theory should give compelling meaning, significance and benefit to ALL *even if* one believes all paths lead to God. If you believe that all paths lead to God, don't get all riled up as I am not saying that they don't. In other words, whether you do or don't I want to make clear that this atonement theory will show the benefit of believing in Jesus either way.

It is also imperative that the atonement theory acknowledges the facts that I have shown to be overwhelmingly true in this blog. For example, it must fit with the writer of Hebrews assertion that sin and unbelief are synonymous and that the original sin is unbelief. To add to this I must fit with Paul's teaching that faith is obedience and that obedience equals faith. The writer of Hebrews boldly states that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6.) Likewise, the atonement theory must square with the assertion of the problem found in Genesis chapter three. Death and the knowledge of good and evil are the source of all of humanities problems. The fear of death makes us want to survive and therefore develops greed, and the knowledge of good and evil allows us to have judgment and judge others as wrong when they do not agree with us and thereby we are provided with a reason for justification of our own actions.

Further, the atonement theory must take into consideration the fact that according to Paul et. al., we are in reality justified by our faith in the atoning force of Jesus of Nazareth and his death, burial and resurrection, and that this event has some spiritual cosmic significance. It is very important to consider Romans 5:1; "therefore, being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." According to Paul's premise, the reason for peace with God is the fact that we have been justified by faith alone.

Finally for this first post, it is important to realize that atonement is only mentioned a few times in the New Testament and the bulk of those mentions happen in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21. Therefore it is safe to say that this passage is very important in our understanding of an atonement theory. Atonement and reconciliation are interchangeable. The definition of atonement includes reconciliation because the word really comes from Middle English, and is literally at-one-ment. In other words atonement is to be put at one with something and that something is God the Father. If one is made at one with the father it means they are reconciled.

Reconciliation is going to be very important as I move forward with this series. We will look at how Paul speaks of the flesh as being similar in nature to what we would now call the ego. Being in the flesh is ego-centric and atonement will specifically help with that in a mystical, spiritual, supernatural way.

A little hint for where this is going. This will closely resemble the Christus Victor atonement with a caveat. But, essentially, Christ's victory is over the ego and He accomplishes it by faith in the Father. More to come... stay tuned.

Here is a link to Part 2

The Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Christ? Does it matter?

A while back I did a series of studies entitled in search of the kingdom of God. In these, I was trying to investigate what scripture had to say about the kingdom of God. I suspected that the way in which most evangelicals use the term kingdom of God was not really accurate. The first thing that I discovered is the phrase *the kingdom of God* is used most prevalently in four gospels and Acts. I believe that it was a first century Jewish term that anticipated the reign of the Messiah. It therefore would mean to the first century hearers the kingdom of the Messiah. If we were to express that in our terms today it would be the kingdom of Christ.

Why make this distinction, kingdom of God... kingdom of Christ what is the difference? I think there is a big difference from a New Covenant view. National Israel was the kingdom of God. God was their King. When reading I Samuel chapter 8 it is clear that God considered himself king of Israel. When Israel asked for a king they really were rejecting God as their king. Yet, in God's ultimate loving grace he provided a king for them at a future time. In fact, in reading Ephesians one it is seen that God had planned to give them a Messiah from before the foundation of the world. This kingdom was God's first purpose in creation. Before humanity was created and allowed to fall, the kingdom of the Messiah, (kingdom of Christ) had already been proclaimed by the word of God. It was a reality before creation. It merely awaited the time in which it would be fulfilled in linear time.

But you say, you still have not made a case for the importance of the distinction. Well, please be patient, I will. The difference is in who the actual king is. God, Yahweh, was their king under the old covenant. They were under a kingship that was predicated on a legal-constitutional reading of scripture. But, the kingdom of God prophesied in the gospels, would in fact be the kingdom of the Messiah (the kingdom of Christ.) When Israel rejected God as king, he said via the prophet Samuel, that if they wanted him back as their king he would not hear. However, grace and mercy prevailed and it unfolded that He had already made a provision for them to have a King.

It was a mystery to them, but He would become their king again via His Son Jesus. Often, I hear someone speak of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and often I fear that they mean God the Father. Since evangelical Christianity insists on a legal constitutional reading of scripture it is very easy to understand why this is happens, but the King of Kings and Lord of Lords of Revelation 19:16 is the *Word of God* verse 13. So then, make no mistake, the kingdom of God is really the kingdom of the King of Kings. It is the kingdom of Christ.

Now then, when one speaks of the principals of the kingdom of God or kingdom of God principals they are speaking of the kingdom of Christ. As I have demonstrated over and over on this blog, Jesus and his first century followers taught a Jesus of Nazareth centric view of the scripture and gave them a redemptive purpose taking away the legal-constitutional reading in favor of a redemptive view.  You can not teach kingdom of God principals from an old covenant mindset. It must be one that focuses on the risen Christ Jesus.

The centrality of Christ in the New Testament

I find it interesting that so many these days speak of faith for the sake of faith. The reality is that if one is a Christian, then faith should be in Christ Jesus. I wrote an article just a short time ago that asked the question whether we should present church or Christ. The obvious answer is that we should present Jesus Christ (1Cor 2:2.) The overwhelming message of the New Testament is the superiority of Jesus of Nazareth as the prophesied anticipated Messiah. When one looks at the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, known as the faith chapter, it is somewhat easy when isolating passages within the chapter to teach on faith for the sake of faith. I think I have been guilty of not making it clear enough what the object of our faith should be. Let me state it unequivocally; it is Jesus Christ.

Let me share the short *Cliff Notes* outline of Hebrews. Chapter 1 & 2 speaks of the superiority of Christ over angels. Chapter three begins the superiority of Christ over Moses and Judaism. He is greater than Moses in chapter three, and he is the Sabbath Rest in chapter four. In other words, the Sabbath was a picture of Jesus. Chapters 5-7 begins to show the superiority of Christ's priesthood. Chapter eight tells us that the whole point of the first seven chapters was to show that the New Covenant under Christ is superior to the Old Covenant. Then chapters 9 & 10 explain that the sacrifice of Christ is superior to the temple sacrifices and the temple formed by believers in the spirit is superior to the stone and mortar temple. Notice this, the entire book of Hebrews is ALL about Jesus and nothing else. Now enters chapter 11 which is the *faith chapter.*  It begins to point out all of the Old Covenant saints who had faith. To name some in a non-all-conclusive list are Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Sampson, Gideon, Jeremiah, Daniel, the three Hebrew Boys, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and on and on. This interesting thing though is that their faith is not even the point of the chapter.... that's right let me state again that their faith was not the point of the Chapter. The point of the chapter is found at the very end of chapter eleven.

Heb 11:39-40 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: (40) God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

The point was that all of the hero's of faith in the Old Covenant could not be made perfect by their faith. They received a good report but were not made perfect. The reason was that they did not know exactly how the plan of redemption was going to play out. They did not know that Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of God would by his faith make them all perfect. So you see, in the New Covenant, it is not sufficient to merely have faith. No, one must specifically have faith in Christ. All of the blessings of the New Covenant are channeled through Jesus Christ. He is pre-eminent. He, according to this same book is the author and finisher of our faith. We rob him of his glory when we do not make him pre-eminent in all of our teaching and sermons.

This is a beginning of a series in which I will show that the church today is presenting church and not Christ and that the sole job of the church is to present Christ.