Can One Trust the New Testament Canon is Correct?

[Dovekin]

In terms of relationally, the masculine is more fitting than the feminine.

THis may be the case, though I doubt it. The problem is that you then launch into a discussion of stereotypes that are sexist. What do you even mean by proactive and receptive?

Women play a very active role in giving children to the world, men not so much. They are a much better picture of how God gives everything to us, even our lives and existence. Fahers are detached, becoming fathers only when they receive their child from the mother.

When you can explain the masculinity of God without resorting to sexist imagery, people might accept Father as non-sexist. Personally I cannot imagine such an explanation…

 

[Kei]

Once again, we must look relationally. Further than just the sexual relations, such is the case in terms of romance, marriage, etc. (i.e., asking the hand in marriage). This is, of course, not always the case, but the generality of this custom should be well understood. Recognizing a generality is not in itself sexist.
The father should NOT be some distant guy, but has traditionally been one who works to provide for the family and protects it. Once again, recognizing this generality is not in itself sexist, and no doubt many have failed in their duties.
There are other reasons we should call the Father Father.
One, His relation to the Son.
Two, Jesus Himself, who is Perfect, calls Him Father and teaches us the “Our Father” prayer
Three, We already have a mother. Our mother is the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom God Incarnate gave to the Church on the Cross.
Four, though already mentioned, His relation to the Church
Etc. There are more, but explaining can be easily misunderstood (as as has already happened).

Once again, to clarify, the Bible seems to indicate both feminine and masculine traits to God, but in His revelation He makes clear the term we are to call Him in our relationship with Him.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, when my Lutheran relatives and President Barry state that the bible consists of 66 books, are they in error in saying this if it is not in the confessions? I’m not being smirky only trying for clarity. Can I say that the Confessions allow that the Catholic Canon may be correct, 73 books or for that matter the Orthodox canon? Tx

In error? It depends on what you mean by canon.
Before use of English Bibles, the lectionary included readings from the DC’s.
https://weedon.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-public-reading-of-apocrypha.html?m=1

That is one definition of canon. It’s the definition Cajetan used to defend his view of the DC’s.
Lutherans don’t use them for doctrine.
Lutheran bibles have always had them (except in English)
Luther said to teach from them.
The Lutheran Confessions do not list a canon.
I’ll let you decide.

 

[TruthHasSpoken]

Can I say that the Confessions allow that the Catholic Canon may be correct, 73 books or for that matter the Orthodox canon?

Jon, would this be a true statement according to Lutheran beliefs as there is no canon in the confessions? Sorry keep asking you these Lutheran questions but you are most expert in your knowledge. the Catholic Canon of 73 may be correct, or for that matter the Orthodox canon?

 

[MiserereMei]

When you can explain the masculinity of God without resorting to sexist imagery, people might accept Father as non-sexist. Personally I cannot imagine such an explanation…

While some may still see the following example as a sexist image, it is more of an example of duty than stereotype.

I once had an Orthodox priest friend tell me that the use of “Father” is meant to evoke an image, not of the father of a household, but something more similar to a middle-eastern Arab patriarch. That is, a middle-eastern nomadic patriarch was the absolute head of his clan, did everything in his power for and on behalf of his clan, including war against his clan’s enemies and punishing members of his clan when they endanger the welfare of the rest. That was the patriarch’s duty and purpose, and proof of his love to the members of his clan.

It is an image that is derived from the cultural origin of the Bible in order to explain God’s interaction with the chosen people. It is not intended as a gender-marker.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, would this be a true statement according to Lutheran beliefs as there is no canon in the confessions? Sorry keep asking you these Lutheran questions but you are most expert in your knowledge. the Catholic Canon of 73 may be correct, or for that matter the Orthodox canon?

Again, you’re placing the scriptures into a box that Lutherans don’t use. Go back and look at the link I provided a few posts back.

So it may surprise you to learn that unlike Trent, Westminster, the 39 Articles, etc, there is no definition of the canon of Scripture in the Lutheran Confessions. This is relevant because between Catholics and Protestants, the canon debate is framed in such away that either you believe in an inerrant Protestant canon of 66 books based on their self-evident, internal witness to their own divine inspiration, or you believe that the infallible Church inerrantly defined the canon, and that it is accepted only on that authority. But as with many theological issues, the Lutheran position takes neither of the supposedly only two possible options without being a synthesis, either.

You’re asking a question that doesn’t fit Lutheran understanding. It’s like asking whether Lutherans believe Transubstaniation or consubstantiation. The answer is neither. The metaphysics doesn’t fit the Lutheran understanding of Christ’s institution.

 

[JonNC]

Sorry keep asking you these Lutheran questions but you are most expert in your knowledge.

I’ve never claimed to be an expert, but I do read. If you have a link that indicates that what I’ve said here is wrong, I’ll be appreciative.

 

[CzechMan]

It does not matter that we have had a father and a mother. A good just God would not be any more fatherly to us than motherly. He or she would not be any more like my own father than my mother. So that is a major fault with some verses in the Bible. Those verses are not from a good just God. They are from imperfect human minds. So they don’t belong to the canon. Just like other sexist verses, like verses saying women must be silent in the congregation, must obey their husbands, or the sexist laws in the laws of Moses. They don’t belong to the canon.

 

[JonNC]

So that is a major fault with some verses in the Bible

Which versions? Which versions do not refer to the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

 

[CzechMan]

All versions I am aware of. Some verses in all versions of the Bible are non-canonical, as they are not from God, but the products of imperfect human minds. Like the inheritance laws in the Old Testament, and other sexist laws. Plenty of imperfect human sexism, in some verses. As far as I know, nobody has ever produced a non-sexist version of the Bible. If anyone did, it would not be a faithful translation, more like a paraphrase. Of course it could be done, and I can imagine some church accepting that as the canon. But as far as I know, it has not been done.

 

[JonNC]

All versions I am aware of. Some verses in all versions of the Bible are non-canonical, as they are not from God, but the products of imperfect human minds. Like the inheritance laws in the Old Testament, and other sexist laws. Plenty of imperfect human sexism, in some verses. As far as I know, nobody has ever produced a non-sexist version of the Bible. If anyone did, it would not be a faithful translation, more like a paraphrase. Of course it could be done, and I can imagine some church accepting that as the canon. But as far as I know, it has not been done.

So, what version is not “sexist “?

 

[GKMotley]

It is a massively recognized problem, of course.

No, You Can't Rewrite the Bible to Remove Gendered Language for God

I can’t recall which Episcopal bishop said (paraphrase, slightly) “We wrote the Bible and we can rewrite it”. It was back there, laid out for us, years ago. And still we have done little or nothing to take up the challenge.

 

[CzechMan]

I told you, as far as I know it has not been done. Not with the Bible. Not with the Qur’an. Not with the Talmud. Not even with the Baha’i scriptures. Not with the Hindu scriptures. Now there might be some religion with non-sexist scriptures, but so far I am not aware of it. So it could be that some verses in the Qur’an are canonical, from a good God, but not the sexist verses. Even though the Qur’an never refers to God as the Father, there are other sexist verses there. I am not aware of a non-sexist translation of the Qur’an either, just like with the Bible. And if such a translation of the Qur’an were made, it would not be a very faithful translation. Though of course, it could be done. But at least at present, it would be rejected by almost any Muslim. Just like a nonsexist translation of the Christian Bible would be rejected by most Christians. Even I would think, a nonsexist translation of the Jewish Bible would be rejected by most Jews.

 

[Kei]

A good just God would not be any more fatherly to us than motherly. He or she would not be any more like my own father than my mother.

Why? Do you understand that it is in terms of relation and not just in terms of His qualities?

like verses saying women must be silent in the congregation

Which was a quote in response to a heresy that tried to say all sorts of nonsense about Eve, etc., from what I have studied.

must obey their husbands

Would you have households instead be divided and have no one be obedient? Obedience is a virtue as all saints will attest. It is the devil who says, “I will not obey”. It is also in relation to the husband’s duty as stated in Scripture, not just obedience but in relation to loving as Christ loves the Church.

You call things sexist but I have a feeling you really are missing the point/history of a lot of what’s going on.

God is God. Do not follow the idol of gender equality that is not truly gender equality but a false rage against things not understood. The mind goes wild.

What I find truly sexist is if you deny the true femininity and masculinity of woman and man and their relational nature. It would then be a denial of the true nature of reality as concerns the sexes. I do not mean stereotypes, if that’s what you think. It confounds man and woman alike, to neither’s good.

 

[JonNC]

I told you, as far as I know it has not been done. Not with the Bible. Not with the Qur’an. Not with the Talmud. Not even with the Baha’i scriptures. Not with the Hindu scriptures. Now there might be some religion with non-sexist scriptures, but so far I am not aware of it. So it could be that some verses in the Qur’an are canonical, from a good God, but not the sexist verses. Even though the Qur’an never refers to God as the Father, there are other sexist verses there. I am not aware of a non-sexist translation of the Qur’an either, just like with the Bible. And if such a translation of the Qur’an were made, it would not be a very faithful translation. Though of course, it could be done. But at least at present, it would be rejected by almost any Muslim. Just like a nonsexist translation of the Christian Bible would be rejected by most Christians. Even I would think, a nonsexist translation of the Jewish Bible would be rejected by most Jews.

So, I am assuming you do not view the Bible as God’s word. What do you consider God’s word?

 

[CzechMan]

With my parents there was no requirement for obedience. If they had a disagreement, they would discuss it, sometimes agree to disagree, sometimes my father would agree to go along with my mother’s wishes, I know of one case when instead my mother agreed to go along with my father’s wishes. That is as far as the relations between them. Now us as their children, were required to obey our parents. So that was different. They were our parents.

 

[CzechMan]

Parts of the Bible could be God’s word. Parts of the scriptures of different religions, could be God’s word too. Like parts of the Book of Mormon, parts of the Qur’an, parts of the Hindu scriptures, etc. But not the sexist parts, or some other parts, which show imperfection. That is what I feel, of course I respect your different opinions.

 

[JonNC]

Parts of the Bible could be God’s word. Parts of the scriptures of different religions, could be God’s word too. Like parts of the Book of Mormon, parts of the Qur’an, parts of the Hindu scriptures, etc. But not the sexist parts, or some other parts, which show imperfection. That is what I feel, of course I respect your different opinions.

I respect your opinion, but you actually have “no skin in the game”.
God the Father has revealed Himself to us in God the Son. That’s no more sexist than the fact that He was born of the Virgin Mary, without the cooperation or participation of a male human being.
If you can produce a Bible that can be linked to the early Church that has no gender references, your point seems to lack any value to the Christian.

 

[Kei]

Obedience doesn’t mean in every little whim or argument or petty squabble.

 

[CzechMan]

I respect your opinion too, I just feel that a sexist type of Christianity cannot be from a good God. Just like a sexist type of Judaism, or a sexist type of Islam, etc. That is my skin in the game. I have the right to my opinion. And I believe that if God exists and is good, then he or she feels the same, so disagrees with you. I am just seeking truth. I want to believe that a good God exists. I want to believe that for example my parents, who died years ago, have a good afterlife.