Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'?

quote:

---

I am mostly talking about the "i read the bible all by myself and now I am going to create my own faith" christians. I think "most" evangelical protestants fall into this category (Baptists, Pentacostals, 7th day adventist); aka the American Christians. you know the sort of crazy that isn't-allowed-in-Europe-Christians.

---

I never understood why a so called "professional" church guy had any more of a mind to understand scripture than a layman.And while I agree that some can read what they want into scripture, this goes for churches as well as individuals.Finally, it is my belief that if one searches for truth with a sincere heart, truth will find them. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

jar and I discussed a lot of this both in this current topic and in The God That Paul Marketed Over TimeYou may find the conversation interesting.

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?

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.

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.

This type of understanding is not a scholarly intellectual understanding. Lets discuss the Trinity in that thread rather than this one. This thread is to discuss the Protestant Canon.

Consider that Paul had an encounter on the Road to Damascus. Though he claims he saw no one, he heard a voice that said" I am Jesus whom you are persecuting." As far as Spirit and spirits go, there is to me only two classes.
1) The Holy Spirit
2) The rest of themThus in my mind it would be amiss to suggest that Jesus had any other spirit.

To start with, I suppose we would have to list the differences as to what each Canon teaches.I have not done the research.Do the Canons differ substantially?Must everything be included? Is the longest one the most accurate or is it chock full of syncretistic mythos?add by edit: Is the Gospel of John included in all of the Canons you mentioned or do some omit it?Edited by Phat, : added point

in matters of belief, accuracy is colored by what we prefer to be true, though some critics allege that human nature prefers the God Who Is to NOT be true.What is it specifically about the God I market that you think is dishonest? I need to know...

Well it could be because LNA embraces some of the Zoroastrianistic teachings, which according to what I have read are stranger and more unbelievable than the stuff you study.

Why would it have been unknown?Remember the word "occult" refers to hidden knowledge.....

Why would Jesus be excluded from any Canon?

How would he have understood Paul? Had he met him? What makes one belief paradigm acceptable over another? What makes Reincarnation more or less probable than Resurrection? Why do humans pick and choose one canon over another? Why do some rely on a Source for their argument while others "make up" their own conclusion based only on logic, reason, and reality?
Use your own words and keep pasting to a minimum. I would prefer it if you simply used links rather than quotes. (You do know how to make a link, dont you? Use the peek feature to find out how it is done)