Is Ignorance Bliss?

[Pancho Frijoles]

No. Everything that is essential to understanding, believing and practicing is known.

Well, now you are adding a big qualifier: "essential".

Yes, I agree that everything that was essential is known.
I do not agree, though, that everything that is known was essential.

Let me give you an example:
Paul mentions briefly those who get baptized for the dead. When you analyze the text, there is nothing to tell us if Paul approved or disapproved that practice. He mentions it as a practice his congregation knew, because some people did practice it. He mentions it quickly, because his interest is focused in other more important thing: the hope of resurrection.

In the eyes of Paul, were people who got baptized for the dead doing right or wrong? We can't tell.
Paul did not consider essential to discuss it.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

It’s the mind behind David and Peter - not David and Peter - who had me in mind when they wrote.

In that sense, I was as much in the mind of God as you were.

 

[Matthias]

Well, now you are adding a big qualifier: "essential".

Yes, I agree that everything that was essential is known.
I do not agree, though, that everything that is known was essential.

That’s why you’re Baha’i and I’m Christian. There can be only limited agreement between us.

Let me give you an example:
Paul mentions briefly those who get baptized for the dead. When you analyze the text, there is nothing to tell us if Paul approved or disapproved that practice. He mentions it as a practice his congregation knew, because some people did practice it. He speaks so quickly about it, because his interest is focused in other more important thing: the hope of resurrection.

In the eyes of Paul, were people who got baptized for the dead doing right or wrong? We can't tell.
Paul did not consider essential to discuss it.

 

[Matthias]

In that sense, I was as much in the mind of God as you were.

I can’t stop you from believing that you’re one of the Messiah’s sheep, and I may never be able to persuade you that you’re not, but I know that you’re not. I would very much like for you to be. I would like for everyone to be.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

As a non-Christian you’re trying to have the writings addressed to those who are outside of the body.

As an under-shepherd of Messiah, it is my duty to protect the body.

Wolves don't come to steal the sheep's wool or food. Wolves come to eat sheep.
If an animal came to feed from the same grass sheep are eating, it wouldn't be a wolf.

I hope you don't think I am trying to damage the soul of anyone. In contrast with the false teachers that Paul and Peter talked against, I am not leading anyone to do any evil thing, to give me their money or their applause. I'm not preaching lust, avarice, indifference to the poor, vanity, any of the works of the flesh. What I am trying to share, with robust Scriptural support expressed through numerous quotes, is what I believe to be the eternal and only gospel.

So, if you see me feeding from the same grass you feed, I am probably just a sheep from another flock.

 

[Matthias]

Wolves don't come to steal the sheep's wool or food. Wolves come to eat sheep.
If an animal came to feed from the same grass sheep are eating, it wouldn't be a wolf.

I hope you don't think I am trying to damage the soul of anyone. In contrast with the false teachers that Paul and Peter talked against, I am not leading anyone to do any evil thing, to give me their money or their applause. I'm not preaching lust, avarice, indifference to the poor, vanity, any of the works of the flesh. What I am trying to share, with robust Scriptural support expressed through numerous quotes, is what I believe to be the eternal and only gospel.

So, if you see me feeding from the same grass you feed, I am probably just a sheep from another flock.

Muslims aren’t the Messiah’s sheep. Jews aren’t the Messiah’s sheep. Hindu’s aren’t the Messiah’s sheep. Bahai’i aren’t the Messiah’s sheep. The list could go on but I don’t think it’s necessary in order to make my position clear. They can become Messiah’s sheep.

I wouldn’t being doing anyone a good service by telling those who aren’t Messiah’s sheep that they are.

Maybe you’ll find someone here who will. I can’t.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

When Jesus preached about the Shepherd and the sheep, Israelites thought that Judaism was the only true religion. They were the only flock of God among all nations. Gentiles were impure and people engaging in relationships with them became contaminated.

Interestingly, although Jesus taught that his sheep are those who follow his voice, He also taught that He had sheep that, although didn't belong to that flock, were also HIS sheep, even if they had still not heard his voice (see verse below*).
The question is: how can Jesus consider those who still don't follow Him as HIS sheep?
Do sheep become Christ's sheep when they follow Him, or are they already Christ's sheep?

Well, the answer, to me, is the same for other related question: Are all humans children of God, or do they become children of God when they are reconciled with God and adopted?

Both are two aspects of the same thing. We all are Jesus' sheep and God's children, but when we accept this fact and act as sheep of Jesus and children of God are expected to act (ie, repent and be born to a new life in love), we become "adopted" sheep and children, with a totally new perspective.

***

The shepherd rans after the lost sheep, because it is OUTSIDE the flock (otherwise, He wouldn't run after it).
The shepherd cares about those outside and regard them as belonging to him, even if gone astray.
The shepherd doesn't think that because the sheep has decided to go astray, it is not his business anymore.
He wants to save them, acts accordingly... and succeeds.





*And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. John 10:16

 

[Matthias]

I agree, Wrangler. The more I look into so-called heresies, the more I realize they were either reactions to abuses, or the result of not having a good reason to abandon an idea that the new convert brought from his previous religion/culture. Sometimes those "heresies" ended up enriching the understanding of the "orthodox" people, and blending in, so that centuries later, they were not easily distinguishable from the original thought.

To me, the heresies that deserve being fought are those who deviate people from God, in practice. Meaning, those who lead to evil works.
I have reasons to believe the apostles supported this attitude towards heresies.

***

For centuries, the masses of illiterate Christians believed what their bishops told them to believe.
Sure, in the first couple of centuries, people from Jewish background, literate and in knowledge of the Tanakh, would consult the Tanakh to validate an idea. By the same token, and educated elite from Greek-Roman background, in knowledge of the philosophers, would test the new ideas against Plato and Aristotle (and try to find a point of agreement, so that their brains could digest everything).
But for a small artisan in Crete, who knew only the necessary maths to calculate his income and expenses, it all was around believing the bishop or preacher in turn. Even worse, to believe what landlord or the customer with better reputation in town thought. No way to think in Sola Scriptura.

***

When I present my rationale to disagree with a religious idea, Wrangler and @Matthias, I'm not looking for your endorsement to an idea you don't (or won't) believe. I'm looking for the recognition of the other (in this case me, but could be any Mormon, Catholic, Jehovah Witness, Muslim or Baha'i) as a person who needs God's mercy just as you, and who can indeed enjoy (somehow, if you like) the transformative power of God's grace, within his religious framework.

I’m not able to give you the recognition that you’re looking for. I think that has probably become clear to you now.