How do you know when to reject a book from the NT canon?

[PRmerger]

So you have used wow a few times and I do not think I am presenting different astonishing ideas. So what do you mean by wow? Is it just that I am committed to a astonishing idea? What is it?

I am astonished that you reserve the right for yourself, and for all others, to decide what belongs in the Bible and what doesn’t.

Because of this, there will be folks who say, “I just don’t believe that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are inspired. But I want to keep John in. That’s what the Holy Spirit has convicted me of. Oh, and I also believe that the Protoevangelium of James is inspired. I know that Jesus did indeed push someone off a roof in his childhood and then, feeling badly, brought him back to life. That’s why I believe the PoJ is theopneustos.”

That paradigm that you are promoting is going to be the source of millions and millions of differing denominations.

It’s already an obscenity with tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations, thanks to the idea that everyone gets to read the Bible and decide for himself what doctrines to distill from it.

Wow.

 

[PRmerger]

There was already a thread about the tens of thousands of denominations. Aside from facts I think in all reality that is a horribly exaggerated number.

You say it’s wrong.

What is the correct number of denominations, then?

Please give that to me, as well as your source, and I will very gladly consider using that number.

 

[Protestor]

You say it’s wrong.

What is the correct number of denominations, then?

Please give that to me, as well as your source, and I will very gladly consider using that number.

Unless I am mistaken the 30,000 is an extrapolated number from a study done by Barrett where in 1982 he claimed there were about 8,196 protestant denominations. As of 2001 I think he updated his claim to about 9,000. Where you get the rest of the denominations from is independent churches which are at about 21,000. To call these churches protestant is a misnomer.Unless your claim is that all churches that are not catholic are protestant. I do not personally own the book so I so not think it would be correct to take numbers from it without stating that I could not find source material. He actually claims 230 some odd catholic denominations. The prevailing thought is that this is to account for all of the countries that it is presiding in. Again if this is true and we want to expand that claim to the 30,000 “protestant” number which gives you about 130 and on the conservative number of 9,000 about 39.

I would say there are maybe 50(±10) to 150(±20) denominations. Unless you are really willing count idiosyncrasies. These number are not exact being as I do not have the proper materials to come up with them so excuse my plus minus for assumed margin of error.

wedsites quoting this book
David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000

 

[Protestor]

I am astonished that you reserve the right for yourself, and for all others, to decide what belongs in the Bible and what doesn’t.
That paradigm that you are promoting is going to be the source of millions and millions of differing denominations.
Wow.

I think that the people you are trying to present would, have, or already are claiming this. They do not account for their beliefs by following my posts on this site. The only difference is that I cannot claim that they are not christians just for this obscenity.

Anyway don’t you think your are being a bit judgmental against my belief. When the only thing you can do is to say that the person is wrong. It is not like you could tell the person that they are not a christian because of this. Sure their view is heretical and they will be pronounced an anathema if they were catholic, but that doesn’t mean that they are not christian. Your church does not believe that someone or the church can claim that a person is or is not a christian. Claiming that they are wrong without the ability to claim the consequence of that wrongness is IMNSHO sad and astonishing.

You still think I am claiming that I have a right to claim; I actually chuckled at this idea. Is this what I have been saying. I am sorry if you think this or if I wrote that.

I think that God has the right to claim what is inspired. You think God gave the RCC an exclusive claim over this authority. I do not think they have exclusive claim to it… Nor did Luther… Nor the Jews… Nor I.

If a christian comes to question the inspiration of scripture I do not think that me telling him it is inspired will help. The Spirit, I believe, must intercede. I believe that this is what happened for me with James and Revelation. I can claim incontrovertibly that these are inspired, because I have had a revelation from God. Do I think this is normal or should be normal, absolutely not. Do I think that it is possible that a book is not inspired? I absolutely think it is possible however unlikely the case may be. You have an envious case where you believe in tradition as being inspired. For people like me who do not have such a belief there can be no absolute claim from anything other than God.

 

[PRmerger]

Unless I am mistaken the 30,000 is an extrapolated number from a study done by Barrett where in 1982 he claimed there were about 8,196 protestant denominations.

I am not saying 30,000. And I make no reference to the study by Barrett.

I said “tens of thousands”, which in my estimation alludes to over 80,000 to 90,000.

I would say there are maybe 50(±10) to 150(±20) denominations.

Source, please.

And make sure that your source includes each and every one of these churches, which are found on almost every corner of my metropolitan area, each claiming that their (fallible) pastor’s interpretations of Scripture are correct over the church down the street which teaches completely different doctrines.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And imagine the obscenity of what would occur if we now get to form our own canon of the Bible.

There will be one church on one corner that says, "We profess the 4 gospels, but not the Pauline epistles!’

And another one which says, “Our pastor was convicted by the Spirit and only the Johannine texts are inspired. But we do read from the Pauline epistles–we just don’t believe that they are inspired!”

Imagine how the devil will laugh at what has been wrought by giving each and every Christian the power to declare what he wants to be inspired!

 

[spina1953]

I am not saying 30,000. And I make no reference to the study by Barrett.

I said “tens of thousands”, which in my estimation alludes to over 80,000 to 90,000.

Source, please.

And make sure that your source includes each and every one of these churches, which are found on almost every corner of my metropolitan area, each claiming that their (fallible) pastor’s interpretations of Scripture are correct over the church down the street which teaches completely different doctrines.

http://springsbargains.com/wp-conte...h-Thrift-Store-COlorado-Springs-9-300x168.jpg

And imagine the obscenity of what would occur if we now get to form our own canon of the Bible.

There will be one church on one corner that says, "We profess the 4 gospels, but not the Pauline epistles!’

And another one which says, “Our pastor was convicted by the Spirit and only the Johannine texts are inspired. But we do read from the Pauline epistles–we just don’t believe that they are inspired!”

Imagine how the devil will laugh at what has been wrought by giving each and every Christian the power to declare what he wants to be inspired!

Your good ,really good !!!

 

[PRmerger]

Your good ,really good !!!

:curtsey:

 

[Protestor]

Source, please.

And make sure that your source includes each and every one of these churches, which are found on almost every corner of my metropolitan area, each claiming that their (fallible) pastor’s interpretations of Scripture are correct over the church down the street which teaches completely different doctrines.

Imagine how the devil will laugh at what has been wrought by giving each and every Christian the power to declare what he wants to be inspired!

You have slipped back into not telling me what you agree with and what you don’t. I have trouble understanding your implicit agreements and disagreements.

This is where I got the 9,000 philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm this is where I got the 8,196 freerepublic.com/focus/news/1108779/posts Like I said I do not have either book. It seems as though you do not either, and if this is correct I can only estimate how he broke everything down.

I got the 40-170 number from assuming that the 20 distinct groups of protestants were in each country of the world. If being in a different country makes a sect be a different denomination then the catholic church has 230 some odd denominations. I know that this is were I make a jump that you think is wrong but I propose that if you want to count the catholic church as one you must also extend the same curtesy to the protestant church. Being as I do not have the time to nor the resources nor the drive to go to every corner and talk to every pastor I am going to trust Barrett’s work. If you can find a pdf or send me a copy of his work I will gladly read it. If you want to claim he is wrong it is fine by me. If you want to make your own definition of what a denomination is fine. But do it don’t just make implicit claims that I have to try and figure out.

What you are saying is the equivalent of me saying that if one priest believes differently than another then they are different denominations of the catholic church. Please point that inquisitive eye back at your own church. Like there are not disagreements on issues in the catholic church.

One church thinks that the eucharist should be received on the tongue and in a genuflected position, and another standing if possible and in their hands. Each teaches that one is the right way. They must be different denominations. I think if I am correct in saying that the vatican recently told the american CC that they could not refuse giving the eucharist for people who where doing the former. Should I have considered these different denominations because they were teaching separate things. I think not.

Please this is foolish. Talk to me about the determination of scripture. Address the issues I have raised.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that the people you are trying to present would, have, or already are claiming this.

Yes. This is correct.

So how do you justify it? In professing that any Christian can read a text and decide for herself if she feels convicted of its divine origin, you open yourself to this obscenity that has been limned by me.

It only takes the whisper of Satan, mimicking the Spirit, to plant the seed that the Gospels of M, M, L and J are not inspired, and that the Gospel of Barnabas is…

and then hell will be unleashed.

The only difference is that I cannot claim that they are not christians just for this obscenity.

This, too, is true. You have no authority whatsoever to declare anyone to be a Christian or not a Christian.

Anyway don’t you think your are being a bit judgmental against my belief.

Well, sure, Protestor. Just like you are being a big judgmental against my belief.

I don’t have a problem with being judgmental. In fact, we are called to be judgmental. (See John 7:24). We are just called to judge fairly.

When the only thing you can do is to say that the person is wrong. It is not like you could tell the person that they are not a christian because of this.

Curious that you say this, when you recently denied that a certain sect of believers who deny the Pauline Epistles were Christian.

Is this not your post:

If they were actually christians I might, but since they are not I do not think I will.

 

[PRmerger]

This is where I got the 9,000 philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm this is where I got the 8,196 freerepublic.com/focus/news/1108779/posts

Unfortunately, neither of those sources counted this church:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...9EC6MbPFlPnslSyYjRhvIdonH0tGQjiSsViuaVMZ5JqaP

Or this church:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...LuTT7M0fzNYob53ledBtQh1jUSXyRjLRbXPSdFjC3xXWQ

Or this church:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...WJCcw-qYhb5oVkHL2iTpjsgTFdgcGTdUQIU5fN23mbE4w

Do you see how the numbers of Christian denominations can be up in the areas of tens of thousands?

You need to account for each and every storefront church on each and every corner of each and every town in the world.

This is what was wrought by the Protestant Reformation, and by those who say, “I don’t need the Catholic Church to tell me what Scripture means!”

 

[PRmerger]

What you are saying is the equivalent of me saying that if one priest believes differently than another then they are different denominations of the catholic church. Please point that inquisitive eye back at your own church. Like there are not disagreements on issues in the catholic church.

When a priest believes differently from that which the CC proclaims, he is being a bad Catholic. That is not permitted. There is the CC, and there is what we believe, and then there are those that diverge from that. And that is bad in the Church’s eyes.

When a Protestant pastor believes differently from another man, he is being a good Protestant. That is exactly what you’re supposed to do as a Protestant–read the Bible and come to your own interpretations. That is considered good in a Bible-Alone church.

 

[PRmerger]

One church thinks that the eucharist should be received on the tongue and in a genuflected position, and another standing if possible and in their hands.

Both are permitted, Protestor.

Each teaches that one is the right way.

Then they would be wrong.

If you ever hear of a Catholic priest teaching that one way (receiving on the tongue) is the ONLY way to receive communion then you may report him to his bishop for he has been teaching incorrectly.

Can you cite a Catholic church that has said that one way is correct and the other way is incorrect (tongue vs hand)? Please cite your source. Thanks.

 

[adf417]

Your good ,really good !!!

I must concur!

 

[betsybug354]

Wow.

Do you realize the implications of what you are saying?

Someone could really feel convicted to reject all of the Pauline epistles, and, in some cases, you would think that this was permissible.

Imagine all of the disagreements in doctrine that would ensue.

There’s already an obscenity of tens of thousands of Christian denominations–with these denominations at least all agreeing upon the 27 book canon of the NT…yet these denominations still cannot agree on doctrine. There is already chaos and confusion in the Bible Alone world…

and now you want to add the right to discern on one’s own whether the Gospels, Epistles, Revelation, etc etc etc are inspired…

That truly would be obscene.

And, I might add, just what the Author of Confusion would relish in. If he could just plant the seeds in a Christian’s mind “Perhaps this book is not really the Word of God!” imagine how the gates of hell would open!

:bigyikes:

Based on what? How would you know whether he is mentally ill or simply convicted by the Spirit?

But this is exactly what happens when the Church’s teaching is abandoned. I cannot tell you how many times I have attended a Bible study or Sunday School class in the Protestant church (especially in my former Methodist church) and I heard derogatory statements made about St. Paul because of some of his teachings regarding women as they appear in his Epistles. Or the “facilitator” (not teacher, mind you, because then that would have placed the burden of truth on the leader) would state, “Oh, you can interpret that verse however you want to since it’s not really clear what the writer meant there.” This is what I mean by shifting sand, and I’m done with it.

 

[fnr]

I received a PM from a non-Catholic member of the CAFs who gave me permission to share his thoughts on a new thread.

He wrote: Barnabas clearly contradicts OT scripture. If something is to be added to canon it at the very least needs to not contradict established scripture. It can be paradoxical but not contradictory. This is not a paradox if it was I could not say about it that it is not found in scripture. Scripture actually claims that something else is true(mosaic covenant and sabbath being on sat). He says it is false. So one has to be correct and hence the other cannot be inspired. Hence the epistle of Barnabas is not inspired.

My question: If Barnabas contradicts the OT scripture, and therefore it is not to be considered inspired, what about the Gospels which state things which contradict the OT (namely, to eat flesh and drink blood)?

Should you not then also reject the Gospel of John and the Epistles of Paul when command us to do something contradicted in the OT?

Barnabas is tricky, because it’s included in the Codex Sinaiticus (c. 330-360), along with part of the Shepherd of Hermas. It’s not in the Codex Vaticanus (c. 325-350), nor the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (c. 450).

Among OT lists in early codices, there are some exceptions. The Codex Alexandrinus (c. 400-440) includes 3 and 4 Maccabees and the Book of Odes.

Also, if you compare Jude and 2 Peter, it’s obvious that at least until the early second Century (when 2 Peter was written), the OT canon was in flux. 2 Peter 2:1-18 cites text from Jude 4-16, but edits out references made in the earlier text to two works that we now consider as Old Testament apocrypha: The Assumption of Moses in Jude 9 and the Book of Enoch in Jude 14-15. The fact that these references are made to Jewish intertestamental works in Jude, but not in 2 Peter, strongly suggests that for Christians, the OT canon was not established until later. The Muratorian Canon (which references Pius I, 142-157, as recent) includes Jude, but not 2 Peter. Codex Sinaiticus (c. 330-360), Codex Vaticanus (c. 325-350), includes both.

The issue of NT canonicity is also complicated. If you look at how Paul himself included preexisting Christian material, it provides an interesting example of how the early Church incorporated material into the NT. For example, in Romans 1:3-4, Paul appears to be citing an older Christian hymn or creed that seems to have an adoptionist Christology (i.e., that Jesus became the Son of God through his resurrection). On the other hand, Philippians 2:6-11 seems to be another use of an early Christian creed proclaiming Jesus as pre-existent and existing with God before the Incarnation. So Paul included some material that was later determined to be heretical, at least in Romans 1. What do we make of that?

 

[PRmerger]

I must concur!

shaw:

Aw, shucks, folks!

 

[Protestor]

So how do you justify it? In professing that any Christian can read a text and decide for herself if she feels convicted of its divine origin, you open yourself to this obscenity that has been limned by me.

It only takes the whisper of Satan, mimicking the Spirit, to plant the seed that the Gospels of M, M, L and J are not inspired, and that the Gospel of Barnabas is…

and then hell will be unleashed.

I don’t have a problem with being judgmental. Curious that you say this, when you recently denied that a certain sect of believers who deny the Pauline Epistles were Christian

They said they were not Christians and I am agreeing. I am amazed that you still think that I am claiming that I can decide. I have said I think from the beginning that only God can reveal this. This is not unlike what you believe. You believe that God gave your church an exclusive right to this claim. The bible says that demons can imitate angels, I think imitating God might take a little more than a whisper. I do not have a problem with you being judgmental I just wanted to point it out.

You need to account for each and every storefront church on each and every corner of each and every town in the world.

If you have a problem with the way that guy did the research for his book I suggest you take it up with him. I do not need to do anything. Not every storefront church is attached to a denomination but I am sure that some are. I once went to a “storefront” church it was held in the back of a laundry mat but it did not have a sign out front. They did not have a specified denomination, but this was on propose. The leader/pastor was/is involved in Korean presbyterian church. By your reckoning this would be it’s own denomination. You would be wrong. This was a basically a korean presbyterian church not in a “church” building or under that specific denominations authority. He did talk to the pastors of KP churches, but it was not a formal member of the denomination. My point that I am trying to make is that you cannot always tell by the outside of a church which denominational beliefs it holds or if there is even a church there at all. Should I walk into every building

I also think you are overstating. Not all beliefs were as honed in for the early church. Some things were not heretical so there was at least some difference in beliefs that no longer exist. Example Origen believed some things that catholics can no longer in good conscience believe. I bring this up because you would consider Origen to be a part the CC and not the leader of a different denomination of catholic, but within your current paradigm he is not catholic.

When a Protestant pastor believes differently from another man, he is being a good Protestant

Not within a denomination. When you are ordained or even if you want to lead a small group you have to sign a paper saying you agree with all the churches beliefs and or if you disagree or on the fence you are still required to teach those beliefs as your own. We even have a general statement like that if you want to lead a small group for my college group. The beliefs within it are basically what I would call catholic or universal to all christians. My friend who has been waiting a year or two to be ordained in the PCA is not even allowed to baptize people. He said it would be a violation of his contract(basically) that he signed(maybe just an oath) after he took the last test in the ordination process.

My semester is about to start which means I might check this once a month. If you want to respond PM me and I will get back to you in a month when I check this or give me your email or ask for my email. This goes for anyone who wants to talk about anything.

 

[PRmerger]

They said they were not Christians and I am agreeing.

But you do believe that Christians could decide to exclude all of the Epistles of Paul.

That is a monstrous claim that you have seized for yourself, or for anyone: to decide what is inspired and what is not.

I am amazed that you still think that I am claiming that I can decide. I have said I think from the beginning that only God can reveal this.

And I keep saying: how does God do this?

You have no answer for this except to say, “It’s what I feel convicted of”.

That is another monstrous assertion and power you have given to yourself.

Simply monstrous.

Calls to mind this saying: “When I submit only when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me.”

This is not unlike what you believe. You believe that God gave your church an exclusive right to this claim. The bible says that demons can imitate angels, I think imitating God might take a little more than a whisper. I do not have a problem with you being judgmental I just wanted to point it out.

 

[PRmerger]

I do not have a problem with you being judgmental I just wanted to point it out.

And I do not have a problem with your being judgmental about me being judgmental.

Not every storefront church is attached to a denomination but I am sure that some are.

Right.

So when you count denominations, you have to count the ones that are not attached to a denomination.

There’s thousands and thousands of those in my large metropolitan area. And that’s just one city in the US, which is just one country on the planet.

Extrapolate that to how many denominations there are, and you can see that my “tens of thousands” of denominations is very very conservative.

I also think you are overstating. Not all beliefs were as honed in for the early church. Some things were not heretical so there was at least some difference in beliefs that no longer exist. Example Origen believed some things that catholics can no longer in good conscience believe. I bring this up because you would consider Origen to be a part the CC and not the leader of a different denomination of catholic, but within your current paradigm he is not catholic.

Anyone who is baptized in the Church is Catholic, Protestor.

But when a baptized Catholic professes things which are wrong, then he has divorced himself from the faith given once for all to the saints.

Not within a denomination. When you are ordained or even if you want to lead a small group you have to sign a paper saying you agree with all the churches beliefs and or if you disagree or on the fence you are still required to teach those beliefs as your own.

Where is this found in the Bible?

Answer: nowhere!

As such, I am 100% certain that there are thousands of denominations which DO NOT REQUIRE this.

It’s a man-made tradition.

 

[garysibio]

I received a PM from a non-Catholic member of the CAFs who gave me permission to share his thoughts on a new thread.

He wrote: Barnabas clearly contradicts OT scripture. If something is to be added to canon it at the very least needs to not contradict established scripture. It can be paradoxical but not contradictory. This is not a paradox if it was I could not say about it that it is not found in scripture. Scripture actually claims that something else is true(mosaic covenant and sabbath being on sat). He says it is false. So one has to be correct and hence the other cannot be inspired. Hence the epistle of Barnabas is not inspired.

My question: If Barnabas contradicts the OT scripture, and therefore it is not to be considered inspired, what about the Gospels which state things which contradict the OT (namely, to eat flesh and drink blood)?

Should you not then also reject the Gospel of John and the Epistles of Paul when command us to do something contradicted in the OT?

Where does the OT prohibit the eating of meat other than Gen 1-5? After the flood it is specifically allowed.

Where does the NT allow eating blood? Act 15 specifically prohibits it.