As I said before, God creating the universe in six days was never part and parcel of the Creed of the Church. It comes from the presumption that the author of Genesis was trying to write historical and scientific information. With the knowledge that science has given us, it seems highly unlikely that the author WAS intending to write a scientific tract. In either case, it is not necessary to believe that God created the universe in 6 days or over a billion years - our salvation depends on other issues.
Actually I do not believe the earth is 6,000 years old and do believe the earth could very easily be billions of years old. I find this completely compatible with Genesis 1 and 2. There is simply no indication of how long Adam was in the garden. Adam could have existed millions of years. It is my personal belief things evolved around the garden. That would explain how when God told Adam that in the day he eats of the fruit, he will die, Adam knew what dying was. However I should caution you I have never read this viewpoint anywhere and it could be heretical.
You certainly could be correct. Science will not be able to prove or disprove this. It certainly is feasible to say that Adam was in the Garden for many years before the temptation.
Believing in a virgin birth and God raising someone from the dead sounds like foolishness as well. I believe Paul said it was foolishness to the world. And, btw, you're the one who believes that bread and wine gets changed to flesh and blood.
Touche! However, the Church doesn't say that the accidents become something else. They continue to have the appearance of bread and wine. Thus, again, science cannot prove or disprove anything regarding the transubstantiation. On the other hand, young-earth Creationists claim that the earth was formed in 6000 years despite the visible evidence. There IS no visible evidence of the Eucharistic elements changing to something else - it is strictly based on faith. Young earth creationists deal with visible evidence and deny it all.
Oops...that's the wrong side, jokus. Come back to the light.... :O)
Yes, I know, the devil doesn't need my help. I am only disagreeing with your take on early Christianity.
And this is where we differ with our soteriology. God isn't interested in numbers. The number of Jews who were converted don't matter. Neither do the Gentiles. You look at it like it wasn't "successful". I look at it as God brought in the right people at the right time. There isn't anyone of His sheep that He lost.
I am not taking the discussion in that direction. I am merely saying that Christianity WAS an innovation - something that was VERY much different then what the Jews expected. Jesus was considered a failed Messiah, at best, by them. He hung from a tree. The were not 'saved' from slavery, as far as they could tell. Jesus disregarded the visible applications of the Law. This should give a new respect for Paul and Peter, who had to evangelize people based on this new paradigm that the Jews just did not comprehend. I am not saying anything about GOD'S point of view, of course!
Of course the Jews accepted them; at least those who accepted God by faith. They became Christians. The others have no faith and, as we know, it is God who gives us our faith.
Yes, God gives us faith. He opens our hearts to Him.
Regards