Apology accepted. Forgiveness granted. (Matthew 18:21-22)
This is refreshing, and very appreciated. You're not the first I have apologized too for this reason - however, you're one of the few to accept and recognize the apology. Thank you, brother. We're all a work in progress.
"A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying, in other words, that he is wiser today than he was yesterday." Jonathan Swift
In the first century, more than a few were willing to endure martyrdom and death in order to remain faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ who had walked in Jerusalem earlier in that century. They knew what they believed.
A Muslim terrorists knows what he believes as well. Martyrdom is evidence that the belief is a worthy thing to believe, but it is not proof, I'm afraid. Christians are not the only ones to die for faith.
What you say is true however. Tertullian observed "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Jesus was clear that following Him was a death wish (contrary to what prosperity preachers say).
The point I was making is that the idea was that we should know what we're dying for. They thought that there should be a universal belief of Jesus. Early Christians died for Jesus - but different Christs. Some believed in the duel-nature, some believed He was a spirit that only appeared to be in a body, some believed the OT had no authority, some thought Paul (even after being converted) didn't know what he was talking about - what I'm saying is that they were dying for Jesus, but for different ideas about Him.
That was the point of Against Heresies and other such documents. What makes me suspicious of the selection is that if the Big Four (gospels) shine so much more than the rest, why burn the rest? What were the church fathers hiding? If they stack up so effortlessly and flawlessly against competition, what is there to be afraid of? Any restriction of texts would imply one of two things, I think: 1) The Christians are thought to be too stupid to recognize truth for themselves (which is an insult to both the Christian and God's ability to reveal what is authentic), or 2) The ones restricting have an agenda with the texts that is impure and meant to brainwash people. I don't know of anything banned in the U.S. (nationally). Because it would seem that restricting speech is bigoted and cowardly. It is cowardly because if the position defended in burning these texts had no holes, those burning the texts wouldn't feel threatened enough to burn them.
If you would allow me to be candid: I feel that Christians should abandon this need to defend/prove the authenticity of the Bible. God can and has defended Himself to unbelievers. No one can argue anyone into salvation. That's what I take away from the parable of the virgins waiting for the groom - you can't have faith for someone else. I admit apologetics can be a seed, for some folks, but believing by evidence (being convinced) and believing by faith are not the same thing, I don't think.
The church has lied to herself for centuries, acting like the present canon was all there ever was (the ones in authority I believe were the only ones with access to church fathers - Luther himself was a Catholic priest - but I'm willing to stand corrected on that) - this is why the textual discoveries of the 20th century was so shocking for some many. And also why we shouldn't put our faith dogmatically (I'm not saying no faith, I'm talking about dogmatic, you-must-believe-this-or-you're-a-heathen faith) in any text - something might be discovered later that challenges it, and maybe even present a better argument.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the hallmarks of the Reformation is "read it for yourself." It is no coincidence that it's part of the Age of Enlightenment/Reason. But I think a reasonable Christian would extend this advice and attitude beyond the Protestant Bible - what Christian wouldn't want to know what her/his fellow Christians thought in the first centuries? They're our brothers/sisters! Why wouldn't we then want to know what they thought? When you work in an industry, you research competition, to make your own product better. I say research opposing views to make your own understanding stronger! You may adopt an opposing view (just like fast food chains copy each other) or you may see your own view strengthened. But you don't know unless you "ask, seek, and knock."
The beginning of human history and early human writing begins several thousand years earlier than the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Prophecies concerning Jesus begin as early as Genesis 3:15.
Yes, "You shall bruise His heel." Let's run with that. Let's take it literally, since we're talking of a literal Genesis. Where in the Gospels did Jesus literally stomp on Satan? And also, where is it stated specifically that the serpent IS Satan? Why did Jesus call him Satan instead of serpent during the Temptation? I can't think of a single time that Satan was linked to the serpent (though something may be escaping my memory - I'm open to correction.) I know Mel Gibson used this Scripture in his movie, and it was very powerful and moving (and just as a side rant about the ignorance Christians have of other denominations: Most Protestants don't seem to realize that the movie had strong Catholic overtones, playing out the Stations of the Cross. I wonder if they'd like it so much, knowing it is saturated in Catholic doctrine).
From the beginning until now, all humanity has faced (and often avoided) three big questions:
1) Where did we come from?
2) Why are we here?
3) Where are we going in the future?
Let's run with the Eden story. I'm going to assume it is literal history. Isn't it interesting how the sure knowledge of where we come from and our origins suddenly found itself along opposing viewpoints? How you ever wondered why? If Adam passes it down, and it is fact, wouldn't his children pass it down, and the next generation, and so forth - what propelled someone to challenge these facts of where we come from? People don't challenge facts today (unless they conflict with religious conviction). Haven't you ever found it odd that someone decided to lie about our origins, which is history, not legend? You could say out of hatred for God, but why wasn't there a base respect to preserve the view that was fact about themselves? (I mean in the sense that every civilization seeks to preserve the stories of mankind's origins.)
The view I'm gravitating towards myself (though I don't believe it dogmatically, I'm still listening to other ideas), is that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman in the evolution of mankind to realize they were naked (because our very first ancestors - evolutionarily speaking - didn't wear clothes), and to become conscious of right and wrong. To me, that's what separates them and all after them from the ancestors before. That's where humanity starts.
I will say, that I think the Big Bang and evolution is far more awe-inspiring than the literal understanding. Yes, I see how the literal understanding is awesome and revered. You have a Being who speaks something out of nothing, and "Poof, there it is!" (
The reference is only a kid). What I mean is the conception that God speaks "tree" and there it is; God speaks "dog" and there it is; God speaks "man" and there he is. For me personally (there's that beautiful word again - it means no one has to think the way I do
) as awe-inspiring as it is for a painter to paint on a canvas, using every color and arranging them in such a way that's beautiful, it is far more breath-taking to think of an artist who complies the canvas and the paint into a tiny ball and creates the paint and canvas in such a way that it can become a beautiful painting all on its own. (So yes, I believe there was nothing to start with, as well.) To me, that takes greater power and greater understanding. However, neither method can man duplicate. Both methods are beautiful. It's like apples and oranges - pick what makes the most sense to you. It doesn't really matter, salvation-wise. There are many Christians who embrace Big Bang and evolution and it doesn't affect their faith. I don't see the danger it poses to Christianity. Really, NOTHING poses a threat to Christianity, if you want to take Jesus at His words... "and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
I don't claim to have divine insight. This is what makes sense to me. No one was there - some creationists use the "you weren't there" argument, but it's not a satisfying point, but they weren't either. So how do they know for certain, dogmatically, that they have the correct understanding of Genesis?
In the beginning, Adam and Noah knew important truth about from whence we came. In early cultures, polytheism and astrology were common alternative cosmologies to the realities that Adam and Noah had known. More recently, humanism, atheism and agnosticism have been popular alternatives. Pantheism exists in both ancient religion and modern new age religion.
You know, Judaism and the roots of it are not the ONLY monotheistic movements in the ancient history. It's the first movement that really established the idea in stone, but according to historians, not the first to try the idea (by first I mean the Hebrews here). There was one Egyptian pharaoh that tried his hand at monotheism, however, his children and the next generation swept it under a rug. There was another community, very ancient (I believe dated before the Hebrews), I don't remember what it was called, but they had a single, female god. And we know it was their only god because there she was the only idols of their in the homes. If you want details, I can fetch them for you.
Christianity includes a call to repent and to follow Jesus and give the glory and honor to Him.
Of course! Yes! I have never disputed this. But most people repent out of faith... not really evidence. That's the problem with being so dogmatic about Genesis. A literal interpretation doesn't produce faith (neither does the liberal)... so why all the emphasis on it? In fact, as Cycel points out himself, it sometimes (not always, of course) crushes faith.
None are likely to devise such a religion on their own.
You would be amazed at how similar some Christian concepts are to older religions. I wouldn't agree with that, after doing a comparative religion study.
God bless!
