thanks again for your response,
I would not discount her credentials, rather I would say that her credentials seem to point to an area of study that are centered around the Gnostic's. I believe that someone who is classified as an expert of early Christian writings, might want to broaden their study to include the writing of the apostles, as well as the early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Ploycarp, Justin Martyr, and Origin to name a few. In this area I found little or nothing written by her.I am not really familiar with Dr. Pagels' work, as I am relatively uninterested in Gnostic Christianity, but seeing as she completed a Ph.D at Harvard (with distinction) under Helmut Koester, I will not be cavalier about dismissing her expertise. Of course, you may choose to discount credentials, if you want.
I would not consider LDS or any spin off group like the Bickertonites, Christian. Jesus and the Apostle taught monotheism, while the Mormon church teaches polytheism.how far must a movement diverge before it no longer subsumes under a broader tradition, but merits its own category? Are sundry Mormonesque churches (e.g., CJCLDS, Bickertonite, Community of Christ) fairly categorized under Christianity, or the Druze under Islam? How about Jehovah's Witnesses, or Christadelphians, or Samaritans, or Sufis, or Alawites, or Subbotniks? For many scholars of religion, this is a dispassionate (though challenging) matter of taxonomy.
Christapelphians is a difficult question. They deny the Trinity, the pre-existence of Jesus, and the eternal soul. All of these I disagree with, but what does that matter? The fact is Jesus and His Apostles taught that one needed only to believe in Jesus, and be baptized in order to be considered a follower. We could go into the implications of being a follower, but that could be saved for another thread.
One must at least believe in the correct Jesus to be saved, and the Mormons do not. They have another Gospel, another savior, and another god, therefore they cannot be considered Christian. As for the other sects of Islam and Judaism you mention, I don't think it really matters. They don't recognize Jesus as the messiah, therefore they don't honor God in there religion.
These were not the only choices. Some parties were choosing to undergo the trial, when they might have avoided winding up in the position of being pressured to deny their faith. Even Paul left town (by means of a basket!) to avoid fatal intent.
As you know, many Christians did worship in private and tried to avoid persecution. However this was not possible for everyone and many faced the fact that dying for Christ and there witness of Him was a worth while objective. But persecution was not limited to the first 6 centuries. Christians have continued to have mayrters even up to today. The Catholic Church persecuted Protestants, and the Protestants persecuted Anabaptists, and so on throughout history. So not only was the church born into persecution but it has endured it throughout the ages.
Well should we critically analyze the death of Christians who are dying today in Sudan? Hardly. We should pray for them to have courage in the persecution, even unto death.And in any case, the reality of the threat does not negate the importance of critically engaging its effect on the evolution of Christian theology.
A very pastoral response . I'm sure those "serious questions" would be quite helpful.
Then again, it is important to remember that those who shaped Christianity in the first place were doing so in reaction to personal loss. One may likewise have serious questions about their reshaping of the theology that antedated them.
I think that the serious Christian will not base their beliefs on Church history, but rather the inspired word of God, both in the Old and New Testament. In that case one would avoid the problem of trying to defend some of the indefensible actions by the Church in the past. A Christian should always look to Jesus and His Apostles for guidance.
I agree, but you know that this statement cannot be limited to Christians only. Perhaps even you have been blinded by your own preconceptions?And, of course, "strong" preconceptions can blind one to what one is supposed to learn through personal experience....
Your point is well taken. However, I think we must be careful when dealing with this issue, and not allow ourselves to makeGod conform to an image that is palatable to us. We should conform ourselves to Him, even if this takes years, which it usually does.To quote myself: Rather than pushing people to transform completely overnight, discipleship usually has to do with helping people wrestle with the immediate frontiers of their personal growth. This is often the way God deals with us - patient and evolutionary.
If one metaphor or image for God is not likely to be fruitful in an individual's development, then perhaps another option will be more appropriate. As the individual grows and heals through their relationship with God, they may find it easier to engage the sensitive imagery. But if the imagery is unlikely to accomplish its purpose - if it is unlikely to accurately convey the character of God to its audience - then insisting upon it may be a practical betrayal of it, and of the One who inspired it.
I would loved to have read the article, but your link did not work.If you are interested in a fairly recent treatment of Elaine Pagels, you might check the article linked below; it may answer some of your serious questions, if not to your satisfaction:
http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/maga ... pagels.htm
Thank you,
Robin
. But a good doctor utilizes both empathy and clinical detachment.
The loss of a beloved and respected companion (viz., Jesus; many people seek to find significant meaning behind such a loss, whether or not the actual facts of the matter are relatively pedestrian);