How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

  • Thread starter Thread starter ncstevem
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
larkin31 said:
I am not certain that a man named Jesus actually overturned the tables in historical reality. I was referring to the episode in the story. The story exists, and I am certain of its existence and its details. I do believe that it is quite probable that a Jewish peasant/healer might disrupt the money-changing procedures on the temple grounds.
Click to expand...
Oh but we here do not talk about probability and we do not take that as a story. We do not think and limit it to “the story exists”. We believe the story exists only because Jesus (the historical Jesus) walked this earth and did those things.

This is why it is difficult to debate with you because we are never quite sure whether you are agnostic or protestant. And you keep shuffling between the two and most of the time you don’t even know which camp your posting from.
And, correct, I do not believe in (have religious faith in) the Christian resurrection. I fully acknowledge the account of such, however, in the Gospels and I am fully willing to discuss its details and implications both as a former Christian (I was born again) and as a teacher of literature.
Click to expand...
But that is all rubbish. You cannot dissect something that is so profound and treat it as some piece of literature like you would do The Catcher and the Rye. Perhaps you can have a meaningful discussion like that among like minded atheists and agnostics who do not believe the Bible is sacred and inspired by the Holy Spirit but not in this thread. As I explained to you in another thread, people here already take the inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit as a given in the most profound sense. Something you do not. I honestly cannot understand why you are even on this thread.
All narratives carry message and meaning and content whether they are fiction or fact or a blending of the two. One need not be a woman to read the story of a woman and understand it and share ideas about it. One need not be African-American to understand and share ideas about the narrative of Frederick Douglass. One need not be Taoist to read the Tao te Ching and engage in a fruitful discussion over it.
Click to expand...
And that is true. If we are just discussing the the moral teachings in the Bible and the literary aspects of this book, then yes that is fine. Anyone can have a say in that if they are fairly acquainted with the Bible.

But this thread is not about that at all. In this thread, there is already this underlying assumption that everyone here takes the Bible as God-breathed ) as some protestants would call it and the implications that proceed from that statement and assumption. You do not.

Another poster- Simpst - I think it was, was able to contribute sensibly to the thread because though not a believer he can actually see the logic of it all. Something that seems to have evaded you for quite a while now.

How about you start a discussion on why the agnostic position is a good position explaining your reasons for moving from faith to agnosticism. That would be a good discussion forum and there I think you contributions will be very valid.
 
larkin31 said:
“Need”?

Because it is the topic, and I am discussing it with a Christian???
Click to expand...
But how can you validly discuss it with a Christian when the Christian holds the Bible as inerrant and you don’t ?

The topic is not the stories of the Bible but the formation of the canon where the underlying assumption is that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, something you do not subscribe to.
 
*Peter’s name is mentioned over 90 times in the NT.

Something I was thinking this morning. The Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded for us all - we Catholics do not have exclusive rights to it.

I often get the feeling that people behave like their church was like their favourite team (football, baseball whatever) and will cheer and wave the flag etc. They will stick to their denomination out of “loyalty” as if the truth didn’t matter.

On the other hand we have seen many Ministers from Protestant and Evangelical denominations who converted and had such courage - resigning from a paid Ministry (they have morgages and expenses) they give up friends and family who turn their back on them. They do all this for the fullness of the truth.

Oh gosh - what treasures and how noble they are!

Blessings
Cinette:)*
 
Cinette said:
*Peter’s name is mentioned over 90 times in the NT.

Something I was thinking this morning. The Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded for us all - we Catholics do not have exclusive right to it. *
Click to expand...
Amen. That is why we keep saying, Come on brother and sister, COME HOME!
*On the other hand we have seen many Ministers from Protestant and Evangelical denominations who converted and had such courage - resigning from a paid Ministry (they have morgages and expenses) they give up friends and family who turn their back on them. They do all this for the fullness of the truth. *
Oh gosh - what treasures and how noble they are!
Click to expand...
Yes, it does require a lot of courage. But as Scott Hahn said in his story, delaying conversion felt like disobedience to God.

There was this touching moment when he asked the Lord, what should I do? And the Lord said to him. “What do you want to do?” And he said to our Lord, “I want to come home”.
 
larkin31 said:
“Need”?

Because it is the topic, and I am discussing it with a Christian???
Click to expand...
Really? Honestly? I have not seen one valid point that you have made or tried to make yet!

And if you are standing in for a Protestant, I can’t help but wonder what they think your performance:rolleyes:
 
larkin31 said:
You said to look it up in the dictionary. So I did. I knew that you were using the wrong definition of “tend” even though you were pretending to know what you were talking about. Now you are changing the issue again and stating that the apostles defined it differently. No, they didn’t. They don’t define it at all. YOU are defining it as you see fit, and claiming the dictionary and the apostles as sources, but neither one of them supports you.

Why don’t you just say what really is the truth: “I believe that Jesus, through Peter, is both leading us and tending us, like a shepherd both cares for and guides his flock.” Instead of telling people that they should read the dictionary to see that it agrees (not) with you.
Click to expand...
Actually in the Greek original, the first word Jesus used was to "herb / graze " the sheep, the second was to “shepherd” the sheep and the third was to "herb/ graze " again.

Shepherds when they allow the sheep to graze take them out to pasture. In the psalm “The Lord is my Shepherd” there is a line that says of the shepherd “He leads me to green pastures”.

There is a lot of leading that is involved with the shepherding of sheep. If you ask any shepherd, there is a lot tending, taking care of that is involved with shepherding.

What strikes me about the commisioning was that Jesus said to “graze” my sheep twice. Feeding His sheep is very important to Jesus. And this is what Peter and His successors have have done through the centuries, fed with with Truth from Bible and Tradition and fees us Christ Himself in the Eucharist.
 
crazzeto said:
Here’s your problem, on what authority do you accept the canon? This isn’t a question so trivial that one should merely accept it particularly if the whole of your faith tradition depends upon this basic question.
Click to expand...
simspt said:
Protestants that I have talked with agree that they believe the HS guided the CC and by providence God chose the CC as the delivery tool so to speak to deliver the NT.
Click to expand...
I wonder what other choices God had in the first 4 centurys for delivering the New Testament.
simspt said:
That the NT is basically the tradition of the CC is historically undeniable.
Click to expand...
I think so.

I still would like to hear how a Protestant would answer the question
 
benedictus2 said:
But how can you validly discuss it with a Christian when the Christian holds the Bible as inerrant and you don’t ?

The topic is not the stories of the Bible but the formation of the canon where the underlying assumption is that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, something you do not subscribe to.
Click to expand...
round and round the mulberry bush
 
rinnie said:
I am with you there Stephen, I can’t figure out which word to get past first the institutional or authority:eek:😃
Click to expand...
A Catholic does not know what “institutional authority” means? You’re kidding, right?
 
larkin31 said:
A Catholic does not know what “institutional authority” means? You’re kidding, right?
Click to expand...
Oh sorry, of course we are kidding there, we know what it is:D We are trying to figure out how you placed yourself there:eek:😃

Get it:p
 
rinnie said:
Oh sorry, of course we are kidding there, we know what it is:D We are trying to figure out how you placed yourself there:eek:😃

Get it:p
Click to expand...
Yes. At that point larkin was answering not from an agnostic POV, not from a Catholic POV, but from a Protestant point of view.

So what is a Protestant “institutional authority”? Someone’s pastor? :confused:
 
PRmerger said:
Yes. At that point larkin was answering not from an agnostic POV, not from a Catholic POV, but from a Protestant point of view.

So what is a Protestant “institutional authority”? Someone’s pastor? :confused:
Click to expand...
😉
 
rinnie said:
Oh sorry, of course we are kidding there, we know what it is:D We are trying to figure out how you placed yourself there:eek:😃

Get it:p
Click to expand...
yeah

I get it

You are not really asking nor interested in a “Protestant” answer.

And I don’t place myself there in terms of determining a “canon”. But you are not really asking, anyway. 🤷
 
larkin31 said:
yeah

I get it

You are not really asking nor interested in a “Protestant” answer.

And I don’t place myself there in terms of determining a “canon”. But you are not really asking, anyway. 🤷
Click to expand...
No we really are interested in a answer. We just never got one yet!😃 Don’t think we will. But who knows.

But honstly could you answer for a Protestant? How I mean that is are you acting as a Protestant who proclaims his Love for our Lord Jesus Christ!!

Or are you acting as a protestant in just protesting the RCC? Don’t want to dare answer that for you or accuse you of anything. But just wondering if you even could answer the question.

Because I Could be wrong, but I do believe the OP really meant a Protestant who did indeed accept the Canon of Scripture. Which means they indeed accept Jesus Christ.
 
larkin31 said:
A Catholic does not know what “institutional authority” means? You’re kidding, right?
Click to expand...
No, as a Catholic, I was never taught what YOU (larkin31) mean by ‘institutional authority’ in the context of this question. I will assume because of your lack of an answer it was just an anti-catholic quip.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top