Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Running Elk's avatar

I find it remarkable that the Shepherd of Hermas is told in the second vision -- "God is not angry with you on account of this (the desire for the woman he saw bathing in the river), but that you may convert your house, which have committed iniquity against the Lord, and against you, their parents. And although you love your sons, yet did you not warn your house, but permitted them to be terribly corrupted. On this account is the Lord angry."

The desire itself is not considered sinful, but "Such a wish, in the case of the servants of God, produces sin. For it is a wicked and horrible wish in an all-chaste and already well-tried spirit to desire an evil deed"

Expand full comment
Tucker Chisholm's avatar

Its so abundantly clear that God wrote the Bible and as much as I love all the other ancient apostolic texts, theres always something in them that clearly shows it wasnt literally, exactly, God-breathed word for word. While still insightful, its clesr how these things were revealed by the Spirit to not be Scripture (not deemed such by men). In epistle of Barnabas, for me it was the 7,000 year dispensational literalism. In Clement its the phoenix as you mentioned. God’s Word could never have a single letter that is not exactly literally infallibly true, and yet these epistles have nuggets that are seemingly of fallible human origin.

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts