Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'?

You destroy the usefulness of the Bible with your rejection of Paul. Jesus called and commissioned Paul, his writings are no less authoritative than the words of Jesus Himself. In fact ALL the Bible should be understood to be Jesus' own work, no part left out. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Every single writer of the Bible was "human and subject to human error," all the apostles of Christ, all the prophets, Moses, all of them. So what? Their writings are considered to be the word of God, and so are Paul's. They wrote "as moved by the Holy Spirit," every one of them, and Paul as much as any of them.ABE: Oh, and even to have Jesus' spoken words at all you need to trust those fallible human beings.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The writings included in the canon were determined by the early church leaders and others down the centuries to be authored by the Holy Spirit. No thinking person who has the Holy Spirit needs any further test.ABE: The "scholars" who have been raising so many questions about the authenticity of the Bible over the last couple of centuries are phonies who don't have the Holy Spirit. These things are spiritually discerned, mere intellect -- which is fallen intellect -- can't discern them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in your opinion about these things.

There are no contradictions between Jesus and Paul.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The thing is you only see wrinkles if you don't believe, and I can't iron out all the wrinkles conjured up by unbelievers. I don't see 1 Cor 15 as describing a disembodied spirit, but a spiritual body which is a way of referring to the glorified body Jesus had that could walk through walls and yet eat fish, the uncorrupted body set free from the corruptions of life in this fallen world. But I have little optimism that I could ever iron out the wrinkles you keep finding. Give yourself to Christ as a believer and then maybe we can talk.

I can't iron out that wrinkle for you. It seems obvious to me and it's certainly the view of the traditional Church. Best I can do.

The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity which is One God in Three Persons. Paul had the same understanding, it just wasn't yet officially codified in the Trinitarian terminology, which was after all based on the writings and intuitions of the early Church.Your questions don't make enough sense to me to try to continue the discussion.

II agree that "accuracy" isn't a particularly relevant term in relation to belief or faith, but if it's "colored by what we prefer to be true" we are probably seriously misled and possibly not even a Christian. It is NOT part of faith to include anything we "prefer" be true, it just isn't, and I don't know how you can say such things. If we aren't believing rightly about the true God as He has taken pains to reveal Himself, we are in deep trouble. Why do you use that false concept of "marketing" Christianity? It's just a pejorative term used by unbelievers like jar, and you really shouldn't use it. (Yes he's an unbeliever).

Perhaps you have fallen for Roman Catholic bogus history. There was no Romanism until the papacy was officially established in the 7th century and there were plenty of canons developing before that.