Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'?

There are no contradictions between Jesus and Paul.

Sigh. There are even contradictions between Paul and Paul. Yes, I understand that my message from yesterday is too much effort for you to look at again, so let's just go with you being uninterested in my opinion and leave the record as it stands.

Yes I can't read yesterday's message. But I know that you are wrong about contradictions between Paul and Jesus or Paul and Paul. You are not reading in context.

Do you believe that the church...(The Body Of Christ) has survived solely because some of its members had the Holy Spirit and thus preserved the truth for future generations?

The problem is that there is no such thing as "The Canon" rather there are lots of Canons. As I have pointed out, the only books that are common to every Christian Canon are the first five book of the Old Testament. In addition, over 50% of the Christians in the world are Roman Catholics. The balance is divided between Protestants, the Orthodox chapters of Club Christian many with a unique Canon or even multiple Canons, the Non-Trinitarian Christians and a whole host of unique chapters that are off on their own.That means that the majority of Christians follow the Roman Catholic Canon and the Protestant Canon is at best, an "also ran".If you are going to claim that Canons came into creation through some agency of the Holy Spirit you need to explain why the Holy Spirit could not make up its mind on what should be included or excluded and how to test and determine which inspiration is actually the Holy Spirit and not the normal politics, power struggles, personal bias and petty intrigues.Or bad burritos.There is simply no way to honestly or even reasonably support an assertion of the " Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon' " or any specific Canon.People can and do subscribe to different Canons even when most do not even know what a Canon is or how any of them were created or even that there really is such a thing at a Canon and if asked to explain their subscribed Canon the best they can come up with is "The one MY church uses!"

I don't really get your question. I'm not talking about the church's survival but what it takes to understand the Bible, and the Holy Spirit is necessary to that. And if you don't have the Holy Spirit you aren't part of the Church anyway (can't find the reference but it says if you doln't have the Holy Ghost you aren't His).ABE: Found it: Romans 8:9: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just for the record, jesus affirmed women to be equal in essence, as souls, to men; Paul was always talking about assigned roles, which is a different subject.

The Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit are two different things.Nor is there anyway to actually tell if anyone has the Spirit of Christ. At the time Paul was writing Romans the issue of the Holy Spirit as part of some Trinity had not yet even been suggested.And regardless, the fact is that most Christians follow the Roman Catholic Canon and that there are many other Canons; or the fact that the only books that are common to all the various Christian Canons are the first five books of the Old Testament; or the fact that some Christian Churches have more than one Canon; or that some Christian Churches do not believe in the Trinity.There is no way to determine that one Canon is superior to another Canon.

Some Theologians disagree with you. What makes you think that the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of Christ?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Certainly not. Phat has pointed out many different ways it is identified. And the complete quote of Romans 8:9 uses two different terms for the same Spirit: It is often hard to tell who has the Spirit but in some cases there's no problem. But it is ridiculous to think that the idea of the Trinity didn't exist until it was spelled out by a council. The whole point of the council was to define what believers already believed in order to deal with heresies, and the Trinity was the way that finally was expressed.Your stuff about the canon is some kind of weird preoccupation of yours. The Protestant canon IS what Protestants take as authoritative, and just as the early church knew by the Holy Spirit what were the Spirit-inspired writings and what were not, we also know what is the superior canon. It takes the Holy Spirit to make the determination.

jar has always been known for his contrarian (Jewish) views on Christianity. He does his homework and has some well thought out arguments supported by scripture, but where he and I disagree is that he focuses on the content of scripture in light of human logic, reason, and reality and is anti-pauline.As an example, note my summation of his old topic Who can be saved? A Christian perspective. To be honest, his entire argument that Christianity is based upon what we do rather than what Jesus did is presupposing that Christianity is really little more than reformed Judaism.For the peanut gallery here at EvC it plays well chiefly because few here are inclined to believe in God (as marketed through mainstream Protestantism) and thus jars logic persuades many of them...most notably ringo. Though not a strict Creationist as you are, I tend to agree with the premise that God gave the church the Holy Spirit and that through that impartation, understanding of the Bible increases. The other side will have you believing that much of what is taught (if not all) is a myth and that the bottom line is human behavior and actions.I won't go so far as to disagree with the commands (by Jesus) to GO and DO.Going out of my way to argue against such a belief makes me look stupid and makes Christians out to be pious, sanctimonious, and a stumbling block for human solutions.Where I most strongly disagree with jar is that he would likely refuse Gods help even if it could be proven to be offered. Perhaps he thinks it nobler to fight the good fight yourself rather than ask for help.All I know is that I could never have achieved 331 days of sobriety purely through my own efforts. On the other hand, I don't believe that God simply zapped me and that I was purified, sanctified and glorified. To me, a good Christian has a balance...a communion, if you will. Jesus and we do it together. No Priest needed either. The Protestant Canon emphasizes a relational communion with God.

I explained that. At the time Romans was being written the Holy Spirit was simply not a major concept in the new religion Paul and others were creating. Sure, Apologists have made the assertion they are one and the same but there is absolutely no reason to think Paul thought they were the same thing. As you quote itself shows it is far more likely it is the generic "Wisdom" or "Truth". Even the concept of the Trinity as still hundreds of years in the future.Regardless of what apologists assert, the topic is about the supposed superiority of the Protestant Canon and the facts are that there are many different Canons and most Christians follow the Roman Catholic Canon. The fact that there are so many Canons and as I have pointed out before, the only books common to all the Canons are the first five books of the Old Testament shows that if the Canons are created under the guidance of some "Holy Spirit" then the Holy Spirit is inconsistent at best.What is missing from this thread as expected is any actual support for the assertion of any superiority of the Protestant Canon or any evidence of any external guidance or motivation other than the normal bias, politics, power and control.

Not true Phat. I am not opposed to what Paul wrote but rather opposed to the perversion of what Paul wrote common in much of modern Evangelical Christianity. If that is the case then this thread is the place to present the supporting evidence for that assertion and to show how the other Canons do not emphasize a relational communion with God, whatever that means.BUT... as expected, no one has presented such evidence.

I always have thought of SPIRIT as something of a non-flesh/blood type of body. Example : 1 Enoch (Ethiopian Enoch ) says that the souls in bodies of the offspring of the sons of god (angels ) , born from human females, became evil spirits after they were killed in the flood.Jesus was perhaps raised bodily so this complicates matters.But there was the first three days after the cross death. I Peter says that he went to Hell to talk to the angel characters of Genesis 6 that impregnated the human females. Even if one holds the flesh body resurrection view, he would have been a spirit for the first 3 days.1 Corinthians 15 called Jesus the "last Adam" and said that he became a quickened spirit.Romans was written by the same author - Paul himself.To Phat and Faith-Am I understanding that the Holy Spirit chronologically didn't exist , according to your reasoning, as a separate entity until Jesus Christ died?Or is this Romans 8:9 issue just an unusual word phrase?I would perhaps be inclined to think that Paul felt that Jesus was still alive but in a spirit body.I don't think he felt that the Holy Spirit was the same thing as Jesus Christ (whether when he was alive or after the cross ). I am able to allow for a rare terminology use in Romans 8:9 for the Holy Spirit, but Paul would, in that case, then not consider it as Jesus.These comments (Phat and Faith ) don't sound like orthodox Trinity interpretations. I'm not sure though.

Who is your post addressed to? You didn't use a Reply to a particular post.We are body, soul and spirit, a three-part entitiy. At the Fall our spirit "died," meaning we lost contact with God. We still can have contact with demons or fallen angels because that's the level we fell to but thanks to Jesus' death on the cross we now have resumed ability to be in contact with God through the Holy Spirit, though we will be growing into this all our lives.Separation from the body at death had something to do with the Fall I think though I'm not sure about that. But I do know that we are promised to be reunited with our bodies in the final resurrection because of what Jesus did, and He was the first to be raised bodily because He was sinless.The Holy Spirit has always existed but because of the Fall was only available to chosen individuals as God decreed, until Jesus came. He was made available to all who believe on the death of Christ for our sins, sent by Christ Himself on Pentecost (Acts 2:1).Jesus was not a spirit after his resurrection and Paul certainly didn't think he was; In Luke 24:39 he tells them in so many words: He also ate a fish and some honeycomb to prove the point.He was, however, in his "glorified" body, which is not a spirit body but some kind of transformed physical body, which all who believe on him will also receive at the final resurrection.I don't understand your wanting to make a distinction between the Spirit of Christ and Christ Himself. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son no less than the Father. There is a distinction between Persons but they do all share the same basic essence and motivations so if the Spirit of Christ is referred to, that is the mind of Christ Himself.