Skip to main content

Eyewitnesses

   Thank you, everyone, for the comments...I think the following verses will be instructive, too:

2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory:"This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, a which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, a 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God a spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

    I value the written testimony of the "eyewitnesses," and recall that the early church often addressed how to react to alternative viewpoints [even so soon after Jesus' death and resurrection] as we see here in Peter's comments.

Comments

mtspace said…
Yes, this is a perfect example of a passage that supports institutional orthodoxy. It attempts to argue that the authority of the Church arises from an external divine being, not from the cunning minds of people interested in building an institution. Perhaps Peter believed what he was saying. But the important thing is that the passage serves the needs of building a durable institution with authority.

I would love to see some passages from "alternative gospels," My bet is that gospels that were not canonized shared one important quality: they did not serve to bolster the divine authority of the institution. I'd be interested to know what other qualities they share.

Popular posts from this blog

Re: Science and Christianity--Can these both be believed?

David Moyer Posted:      I am a Christian Engineer/Scientist and I have no problem with conflicts between the facts of science (as opposed to some hypotheses of science) and the teachings of scripture. I know literally dozens of other engineers and people with doctorates in technical fields including medicine, veterinary medicine, biology, etc. who also see no conflict. I was once a staunch evolutionist and I could easily teach a high school or community college course on evolution. There are some aspects of evolutionary theory/hypotheses with which I have no quarrel. But nearly the entire field is a matter of hypotheses with very little of it proven by the scientific method, because so little of it is falsifiable. It certainly does not deserve to be classified as a theory- that is a hypothesis that has been tests by real scientific methods so often that almost no one can devise another test that might disprove it. Remember, that scientific hypotheses are not proven, but rather

Rob Bell, Christianity Popular and Out of Context...

Good Morning    I have been reading about Pastor Rob Bell - Pastor Bell has written a book in which he asserts that there IS NO HELL - while quoting scriptures out of context [and very fluidly] to make his point - Below is a link to a NY TIMES article about him [TIME magazine made it the cover story a week ago].    This stands out for me as one of the greatest problems for the Dialogue, and society; how to approach examples in which a newer "form" of Christianity becomes popular but in total disregard for traditional and even explicit, foundational, Church teaching...there appear to be, in the mind of many, no Essentials to anything...Will science be next? See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/us/05bell.html

State and Religion

Steve - I agree that there is a need for ongoing dialogue about this - in almost every case when the state has a endorsed a "State religion" problems arise...and even in America, where there is a lot of freedom to choose one's religious practice and to carry it out unimpeded, we still see many trying to use courts and legislative actions to limit or remove one or another group's rights [sometimes even private citizens rights] to practice their own religion peaceably.       I certainly do not have any easy answers: this country was designed to allow tolerance of diverse ideas and views, but our international policies and actions seem to me, at times, to belie that. and internally, many of us are very intolerant of other's worldviews...I hope the Dalai Lama's decision plays out as he hopes... As for the USA, If Christians would take the lead in promoting religious tolerance it might help...I find it hardest to be that person when it comes to my closest associa