Evangelical Christians closer to authentic Christianity?

[Wannabe Yogi]

What makes you say that?

IMO, it would be more accurate to say that they didn't adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis in the face of contradictory evidence, but potentially only because they didn't have the evidence.

The most Important christian thinker in the west was Augustine of Hippo. The reformation was fought not only over scripture but interpretation of his writings.

This is what he said about Genesis, from his book The Literal Meaning of Genesis, written in about AD 415.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7]


This view is just shocking in the light of modern Evangelical Christianity. He was not the only one who believed this in the early church.

They did? The only Christian denomination I've ever heard of who believed this was the Shakers, who aren't exactly "early" Christians.

As far as I could tell all early Christians looked at the fall of Adam and Eve as a sex sin.

Quotes from the Bible on sex.

What Jesus said

"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."-Matthew 19:12 (NIV)

What Paul said
I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife,

1 Corinthians 7:32-33 (English Standard Version)

Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225), writing of the apostles, indicated that he was obliged to believe that apart from Peter, who was certainly married, the apostles were continent.

Augustine of Hippo said "The only good thing that comes out of marriage is more Virgins"

Christians are celibate — Christians honor and esteem the practice of perpetual virginity.-Minucius Felix

 

[Smoke]

They did? The only Christian denomination I've ever heard of who believed this was the Shakers, who aren't exactly "early" Christians.

Both Jesus and Paul said it was better not to marry.

 

[fallingblood]

Falling blood I think you're purposely ignoring other things I've posted based on your bias. What about the anti-Nicene fathers?

I do not believe I've ignored anything you've said. Yes, I didn't get to the anti-Nicene fathers, but that was simply because I simply did not have time to respond before you posted this. There was a lot to which I was responding, as well as taking care of my child, and making some business calls. So it does take me awhile to get back. It is also the reason my posts are not expanded to the point that they could be. I assume certain ideas can be left out, but I don't think that is a safe assumption anymore.

If there is anything I've ignored, please do point it out, and I will address it.

 

[fallingblood]

How was the church hierarchy an invention of the church? You've failed to show that bishops weren't leaders and merely meant overseers. We haven't even touch on Presbyters yet, which are basically the modern day Priests.

Just look at the actual wording of the passage. Or see the Greek. Now, my Greek is rusty, but New Testament scholars would agree that the terminology used did not refer to Bishops in the modern day sense. Even most translations that I've see don't use the word Bishop, but shepherd or overseer. Taken in context, it is easily seen that who is being referred to were the elders in a specific congregation.

As for Presbyters, no, they are not the modern day Priests. Again, Presbyters are probably more referring to elders once again, which is seen in the Greek again. Again though, this is dealing with the elders of a specific community. The idea of Bishop, as you are describing, didn't come about until around the time of the writing of the Pastoral epistles. Before that, it was only two fold at most, being that of elders and deacons.

 

[fallingblood]

Falling blood 96 CE is a very late date for the epistle of Clement. Most place it in the 80's CE.

It is not that late. To be fair, I would even mention the possibility of it being written anytime between 75-100 CE, but it really doesn't matter. It is talking about Bishops in the same way you are, and only mentions some authority coming from Rome. Even at 75 CE, Peter and Paul most likely had already been dead for a decade. And still, the idea of Bishop wasn't what you are talking about.