Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
Okay, everyone has marinated long enough.
Let's all Christians today admit that it was a good thing the Judaizers lost out, and the Hellenizers won out. Else we'd likely not be Christians today. If the Judaizers won, it's likely Constantine wouldn't have happened. The west wouldn't be the same today at all.
That being said, all Christians today should be happy the Hellenizers won. But then we should be happy and admit that Christianity was influenced by Greek philosophy, culture, language, and education.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Christianity owes a debt of gratitude to the pagans. Without them we wouldn't be Christians today.
And Hellenism is not when Christianity was made poor.
|
Yes, even Nash, who argues against what he sees as various contemporary writers attempts to undermine the authority of the New Testament by affirming that some of its teachings were borrowed from pagan philosophical systems of the day, admits that Paul, the authors of John's gospel and of the book of Hebrews were schooled in Hellenism, using its terminology and reacting to it's concepts.
I don't expect LCD discussants to agree on exactly when the apostasy began. But as former members of the LCM, we were all taught that Christianity was apostate and that necessitated a recovery of the church as God's move on Earth. That conviction places the "Lord's Recovery" within the larger Christian restorationist movement. By the way, "apostasy" is an apt synonym for "Christianity" in the Witness Lee terminology.
To Igzy's question "does 'Baptist' mean to a Baptist what 'Recovery' means..." I would answer yes. Landmarkism is the Baptist equivalent to Lee's "Recovery". Many, Lee included, trace the apostasy back to Constantine. Some like perhaps Boxjobox may trace it back to when Tertullian formulated the doctrine of the Trinity. Many would probably agree that the apostasy began in the New Testament times and was what Paul was fighting against and described as "other gospels". Unfortunately, since he doesn't described what they believed in detail we can sometimes only guess what Paul was referring to from such clues as he provided.