So now that I've covered the OT Canon I thought I might as well continue and cover the NT Canon. I hate to leave things half finished. Besides, I already promised Lula I would. So leaving where I left off let's look at how the NT Canon was formalized.

Paul in his writing to the Corinthians mentioned that he was writing to them as the Lord commanded 1 Cor 14:37. Jesus had commissioned the disciples to pass on what he had instructed them the last 3 1/2 years. He told them in the upper room that the HS would bring all things to their remembrance. Unlike the Jews, the early church had no focal point of worship. There was no special location that served as a central base of authority. Also, persecution scattered the new Christians in all directions (which turns out to be a good thing).

All the books of the NT we hold today were written in the latter half of the first century. The majority of them as letters written to the churches that were scattered with some of them addressed to individuals. These letters were generally copied and recopied being distributed to the many house churches in the area.

Somewhere along the line a process of selection and verification had to be done and was very important to these new believers. As long as the Apostles were alive this could be checked out. John himself said in his letter "The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and has appeared to us. WE proclaim to you what we have seen and heard." 1 John 1:2-3.

Peter also assured us he was an eyewitness and his desciption of the transfiguration was based on what he saw with his own eyes, 2 Peter 1:16-18. So Apostolic authority was very important to the verification of these Epistles.

Peter confirmed that some books were accepted as scripture after they were written. He regarded Paul's writings as HS inspired, 2 Peter 3:15-16. Because of what was seen and heard during this time Paul's letters were immediately regarded as authoritative and inspired from God himself.

Right from the get go early believers recognized this growing body of literature as the inspired Word of God. Before the first century closed to begin the next more than 2/3 of our NT we have now was believed inspired. The other third were known and quoted but did not have the wide circulation as the others.

There were some disagreements. Because Hebrews has an unknown author it was suspect in the beginning. Some doubted Peter wrote 2 Peter. Revelation was missing from some early lists most likely because it was unknown in those places.

In 135 AD a heretic named Marcion came out in opposition of these writings. He, of course, had his own version of the scriptures. So the church was forced to define which books weould be regarded as inspired. Marcion, an anti-semite was very opposed to biblical law. He believed the God of the OT was diff from the God of the NT, he picked and chose which books he deemed worthy. Out went the OT books and only some of the NT books were chosen. So the church responded formally to his claims. This was not a bad thing.

A document called the Muratorian Fragment dates back to about 175 had a listing of both accepted and rejected books selected by the early church. Even tho this document is very old and mutilated scholars were able to identify a list that contained 23 out of our present 27 books of the NT. It clearly states that the rejected books were not fit for the church saying "since it is not fitting that poison should be mixed with honey." They were recognized as forgeries almost immediately.

There is some contention that the NT books were not finalized until after 365 AD. It is true that a complete list of the 27 accepted books first appeared in a letter of Athanasius in 367 AD. But these books had already served as rule of the church for more than 250 years.

There was criteria for acceptance of these 27 books. Most important was Apostolic Authority. It had to have either been written by an Apostle or sanctioned by one. Many gnostic books were rejected because of this lack of connection. There also had to be a connection with the other books including the OT canon. So the writing in question would have to be consistent with the OT prophets and the teachings of the Apostles. The next criteria was that this document had to have widespread acceptance.

The accepted books were not accepted or rejected by a council or a committee as the DaVinci Code assertss and described as a power grab. Councils only formally ratified what had been already accepted for years. The 27 books of the NT were ratified at the Council of Hippo 393 AD and the Council of Carthage 397 AD.

Now what about those "other books" also called Gnostic Gospels? They simply fail the criteria test mentioned above. They are not even close to being in harmony with the other 27 books or the OT books. For those that disagree, they need to put forth their case as to why they should be included.

When you look at how these books were put together you can't help but see the hand of God thru the process. I mean look at the geographical distances of these churches, the limitations of communications and all the diff backgrounds and for them to come to an agreement is amazing.

"All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly euipped for every good work." Paul to Timothy


Comments
on Mar 03, 2007
Let me quote you back to yourself: "All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly euipped for every good work." Paul to Timothy

All scripture, you note. Not merely scripture approved by earthly authorities. What constitutes scripture? You yourself give us the only clue we need to answer that question, when you mention the widespread acceptance of certain scriptures throughout the body of believers. It's in the response of those who believe to words presented to them as scriptural that the authority of Scripture lies - not in the authorisation of certain words by men seeking to promote their own sectarian agenda - as in the conflict with Marcion and other heretics.

What's your purpose in all of this? To preach the inviolate authority of scripture, its immunity to interpretation? Yet you yourself have taken advantage of the licence of conscience granted by the Reformation to declare yourself a teacher, in total contradiction of the writings of the Tentmaker that you claim to be authoritative. As I think you'll recall, he was rather explicit as to the role of women in the Church - that they should be humble and keep silent.

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


So. On the one hand you deny in your own life the authority of scripture, canonical or otherwise. On the other, you hold up the whole of the Canon and its teachings as authoritative for all believers. You are, in fact, as I have long said, a rank hypocrite. Not that I expect you to agree, but it's nice to see the confirmation of the fact proceeding from your own mouth.

To return to your own words: "There was criteria for acceptance of these 27 books. Most important was Apostolic Authority. It had to have either been written by an Apostle or sanctioned by one. Many gnostic books were rejected because of this lack of connection. There also had to be a connection with the other books including the OT canon. So the writing in question would have to be consistent with the OT prophets and the teachings of the Apostles. The next criteria was that this document had to have widespread acceptance." (My emphasis in italics.)

So. There were two principles at work, both of equal importance. The approval of the Church that stated these books were Apostolic in origin, and wide acceptance throughout the body of believers. Which came first? Clearly, wide acceptance within the body of believers - what Luther might have referred to as the Holy Spirit working through the conscience of believers to testify to the truth.

So the source of your authority for the contents of the Canon derives, on your own argument, from either the hierarchy of the Church, or the light of your conscience. I've read many of the Gnostic gospels and studied many of the critical texts written in response, and personally I see nothing of the 'poison' referred to in them - many, in fact, provide illuminating insights into the Gospel narratives, and almost all of them are free of the miserable antipathy towards sex that so characterises the writings of that misogynist and homophobe, the Tentmaker.

Being a misogynist, homophobe and bigot yourself I'm sure that will cut no ice with you. But it remains true nonetheless.

In essence, your commendation and acceptance of the Canonical OT and NT boils down to no more than this: that you prefer the authoritarian dictat of the Church to the freedom of your own conscience. And like those well-meaning but ultimately deluded bigots of old, you would like to deny to others the freedom you fear yourself.

I suggest that you do as the Tentmaker would have you do - keep your mouth shut; or, if you cannot, ask your husband. He at least is properly authorised by the Canon to speak for you and who knows? He might be able to come up with something less confused, less incoherent, and less self-serving than your productions to date.
on Mar 03, 2007
Well, well, well, I see this got your attention. Can't you ever respond without the name calling and insults?

Yet you yourself have taken advantage of the licence of conscience granted by the Reformation to declare yourself a teacher, in total contradiction of the writings of the Tentmaker that you claim to be authoritative. As I think you'll recall, he was rather explicit as to the role of women in the Church - that they should be humble and keep silent.


Your statement tells me you are not understanding of the writings of Paul. Consider theses questions:

1. Does the NT as a whole show that women were routinely excluded from verbal participation in Christian worship?
2. Why are they not allowed to speak here in this instance?
3. Which "Law" is referred to in 1 Cor 14:34?
4. How are "submission" and "silence" related?
5. How can Paul say earlier in this same letter that women are to have a head covering on while praying and proclaiming the gospel and now in the same letter forbid verbal participation?
6. How are we to take what seems to be a discrepancy between this prohibition and the fact that there are numerous examples of women's active participation in the worship life of early Christianity? Priscilla come to mind?

I'm not going to go into a lengthy dissertation here but you get my drift. You may want to check the context of what you're saying. If Paul believed that women should be silent in the churches in a universal sense he would not have spent so much time on instruction for women and what to do with their heads in their practice of praying and prophesying in the assembly; so you've got a big problem here if you are trying to shut me up on scipture using this as your text.

Besides, if you don't adhere to it and love it like I do, why bother quoting it?
on Mar 03, 2007
I've read many of the Gnostic gospels and studied many of the critical texts written in response, and personally I see nothing of the 'poison' referred to in them - many, in fact, provide illuminating insights into the Gospel narratives, and almost all of them are free of the miserable antipathy towards sex


So is that it? Sex? It all comes down to that?

Well then as I stated in my original writing...the proof's on you. Tell me with documentation why they should be included with the Apostle's writings. Have you only read the critical texts in FAVOR but not the rebuttals to them?

on Mar 03, 2007
As ever, you refuse to acknowledge or address the points I made. How can you teach, thou rank fool, when your preferred arbiter of truth tells you that you must not?
on Mar 03, 2007
To: KFC

Can't you ever respond without the name calling and insults?


I see no reason to be polite to a hypocrite, liar and deceiver. Nor will I refrain from telling you what you are to your face. If you don't like it, blacklist me.

Tell me with documentation why they should be included with the Apostle's writings. Have you only read the critical texts in FAVOR but not the rebuttals to them?


Unlike you, imbecile, the authors of the critical texts are not interested in polemics. Any decent author of such texts will include both possibilities within his/her analysis. And as I have often said, I refuse to offer you 'proof' because none exists, nor will I deal in any authority save that of the biblical texts. As you interpret according to the light of your fears and prejudices, I interpret according to the light of my conscience and my faith.

So is that it? Sex? It all comes down to that?


It does if you're considering the future procreation of the human race. Or are you of the conviction that we ought to be like cabbages, and recreate the species without sex? In terms of morality, no, it's not all about sex - though you'd be hard pressed to come to that conclusion if all you ever read were the maunderings of the Tentmaker. But sex is an integral part of the human condition. It's treatment in Christian thought derives primarily from the Confessions of Augustine (which is a wonderful account of the development of the sexual ethos of one human being - but hardly a sufficient basis for the development of a morality purporting to answer the entirety of the human condition) - and the chronic bigotry of one who considered himself to be a Jew among Jews. And the Jews are not known for their progressive attitudes to human social-sexual development.

No, it's not all about sex. But the Tentmaker's attitude to sex says much about the nature of the religion he helped to found.

on Mar 03, 2007
Besides, if you don't adhere to it and love it like I do, why bother quoting it?


Who said I don't love it? You?

Thou fool.
on Mar 03, 2007
Oh, and one last point. The Tentmaker didn't forbid verbal participation on the part of women. He forbade teaching.
on Mar 03, 2007
The Tentmaker didn't forbid verbal participation on the part of women. He forbade teaching.


hmmmmmm do you not read what YOU write? YOU wrote this:

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


so you just contradicted yourself.
on Mar 04, 2007
As my perspicuous wife points out, the contradiction is not mine but yours. Me, I'm rather more lenient than the Tentmaker. If women want to talk in Church they can. Indeed, I've never had a problem with women teaching: one of the most eloquent preachers I ever heard, back in England, was a woman.

My problem is not with the Tentmaker, nor with women teaching: it's with you. You claim to be a bible-believing Christian, and a teacher. As some of the earliest teachers I had pointed out to me, back in the days just after my initial conversion, the bible is an all-or-nothing book. If you are going to be a Christian, you take the thing in its entirety, not in drips and drabs, or by cherry-picking the parts you like and ignoring the rest.

You present yourself as some kind of uber-authority on all things Christian - but to do so you have to ignore one of the Tentmaker's more stringent requirements as to order and Godliness in the life of the Church. You're either a hypocrite or a fool. What's certain is that you are not what you present yourself as, and your witness is, therefore, tainted and corrupt.

By all means talk in Church. By all means teach. Just don't claim to be a Christian while doing so. Instead, claim to be what you are: a Christian heretic. Being a heretic myself, I'd find you a lot less offensive (as ridiculous, but less offensive) if you were to do so.

Oh, and one more thing. You quote my words to prove that I have somehow contradicted myself. But which is the greater contradiction - you citing the scripture with approval (I assume you approve it) as a means (presumably) of demonstrating the fallacy of my comments. Or you citing the Scripture with approval - and then doing the very thing the Scripture forbids?

As I said above, you're either a fool or a hypocrite.
on Mar 04, 2007
As I said above, you're either a fool or a hypocrite.


Does it have to be either/or?     
on Mar 04, 2007
I suppose the possibility remains that she could be both. But somehow I doubt she has the necessary intellectual framework.
on Mar 04, 2007
EMPEROR OF ICE CREAM POSTS:
As I think you'll recall, he was rather explicit as to the role of women in the Church - that they should be humble and keep silent.

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
------------------------------------


To start, as far as I am concerned, whenever St. Paul speaks of “the Church”, he is referring to the early (Catholic) Church. It is from this perspective that I offer the following comments as to the interpretation of St. Paul's teaching to the Corinthians, chapter 14.

One of the constant themes of the NT concerning our relationship with God is that of a sacred partnership (covenant) that has clearly marital overtones. Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride.

Throughout chapter 14, St. Paul teaches the Corinthians how to govern themselves in their relationship with each other (neighbor to neighbor, wife to husband) as the united members of Christ’s Mystical Body (the Church).

Over and over, St. Paul uses the image of the Church in connection with Christ. The Church belongs to Him and is joined to Him as the Bride is to the Bridegroom. Christ is the Head of the Church in the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ as the man is the head of his wife in the unity of the marriage.

The unity that exists among its members is both a spiritual and visible dimension with the result that a variety of ministries are in the Church that in no way detracts from but instead each member has a different gift for the welfare of the Church.

We know from the Acts of the Apostles, as also in other letters of St. Paul, that some women cooperated with him in the ministry of evangelization. He thanked them by name, Priscilla, Lydia, Phoebe and others. Rom. 16:1-12; Phil 4:2-3. They were in the service of the welfare of the Church.

Chapter 14 deals with the gift of prophesy, tongues and their interpretation. St. Paul now gives a clear ruling (which he repeats in 1Tim2:11-14 “women should keep silence in the churches”. He’s not opposed to women prophesying (1Cor.11:5). The prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For St. Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of Creation (1Cor.11:7; Gen.2:18-24). And it shouldn’t be forgotten that we owe to St. Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the NT on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (Gal.3:28).

This teaching of the variety of roles in the Church --including the fact that the ministerial priesthood is restricted to men chosen by God--is based on the real equality (not to be confused with identity) which is one of the great affirmations of Christianity.

The Church is a differentiated body in which each individual has his or her role that is unitive in the Mystical Body of Christ. The roles are distinct and must not be confused and they don’t favor the superiority of some over others, nor do they provide an excuse for jealousy. The only better gift which can and must be desired from them is love (1Cor. 12-13).

With this in mind, I can only see KFC’s posting as an act of charity and love. It may not be perfectly said and may not even be factually correct, but was given in love.



on Mar 04, 2007
Chapter 14 deals with the gift of prophesy, tongues and their interpretation. St. Paul now gives a clear ruling (which he repeats in 1Tim2:11-14 “women should keep silence in the churches”. He’s not opposed to women prophesying (1Cor.11:5). The prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For St. Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of Creation (1Cor.11:7; Gen.2:18-24). And it shouldn’t be forgotten that we owe to St. Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the NT on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (Gal.3:28). This teaching of the variety of roles in the Church --including the fact that the ministerial priesthood is restricted to men chosen by God--is based on the real equality (not to be confused with identity) which is one of the great affirmations of Christianity. The Church is a differentiated body in which each individual has his or her role that is unitive in the Mystical Body of Christ. The roles are distinct and must not be confused and they don’t favor the superiority of some over others, nor do they provide an excuse for jealousy. The only better gift which can and must be desired from them is love (1Cor. 12-13).


exactly Lula....you nailed it pretty well. You see what they failed to see. But where was I factually in error? This thread is most certainly based on facts so if there's a fact you don't agree with, let's discuss it. But the thread in itself had nothing to do with woman's role in the church. EOIC has misdirected this thread in his vain attempts to shut me up. He's in error and is one of those that Paul, Peter and Jude warned us about.

God has given men and women specific roles. Women are most certalnly allowed to teach as Paul's letter to Titus certainly tells the older women to teach the younger women. While I agree that it should be men who are the leaders/teachers in the church for the most part, women most certainly are allowed to be in the teaching mode as we can see in scripture especially under the headship of the men leaders. What is forbidden is for women to usurp the role of men which is what happened right from the get go in Adam and Eve. That was a clear example of what happens when woman take the place of man. Both were to blamed, however since one usurped a role and the other abdicated it.



on Mar 04, 2007
Or you citing the Scripture with approval - and then doing the very thing the Scripture forbids?


I, sir, follow the "Whole" gospel of Christ. You, sir, do not understand scripture but yet you like to beat me over the head with "certain" scriptures you interpret for your own use. Are you familiar with Eph 3:31-32?

"Let all bitterness and wrath, and anger and clamour and evil speaking be put away from you with all malice. And be kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you."

Again, I'll say again if Paul believed that woman should be silent in the churches......he would not have instructed them what to do when they did speak.....as I said above.

You need to use the whole counsel of God before you so rashly make a judgment on me as you have done here.

Paul's larger view which acknowledged and validated the vocal participation of women in the churches is supported in other NT writings. In Acts we see Peter's Pentecost sermon as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel 2 which says that in the last days, under the inspiration of God's outpoured Spirit, "Your sons and daughters will prophesy..." Even on my servants both men and women, I will pour out my spirit in those days and they will prophesy." Acts 2:17-18.

Luke mentions matter of factly that the evangelist Philip had four daughters who were engaged in the prophetic ministry of the good news Acts 21:8-9.

In light of this evidence that women in the early churches were moved by the Spirit to engage in ministries of the Word side by side with men, it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand Paul's command as a categorical imperative intended for all churches in all places in all times. Rather it should be understood within its own context as addressing a problem in Corinth which needed correcting and this namely had to do with the misuse of tongues and prophesy.

It's ok...... I forgive you.

on Mar 08, 2007
LW....remember.......a text taken out of context is nothing but a pretext.

I do embrace scripture (as I've said repeatedly) as a whole. You can't take one scripture and ignore the others LW. Look at the context. I've said this many times and look at the other scriptures and put them together. How do you answer the problems with your belief as I've stated here? What is your answer for Acts 2:17-18 and Acts 21:8-9? You're totally ignoring the other texts like these.

Who were these women prophesying to? Who were the older women in Titus 2 who were commanded to teach the younger women? How can you say that Paul was making a categorical imperative for all churches in all times? Read the context. Read what the problems were before you jump to a conclusion.