Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'?

I was questioning the idea that the spirit of Christ was the same exact thing as the Holy Spirit.I was thinking that the Spirit of God might be the same thing as the Holy Spirit in the Romans 8:9Let us assume that Luke (and John ) are not simply a later response to the early Christian view of a spiritual, as opposed to flesh body resurrection ( and the Gospel of Luke might have misunderstood the concept of spiritual bodies anyway - who says that the spirit bodies can't be touched? ) .The previous ( to Jesus ) existing Holy Spirit is the exact same spirit as Christ then? Possibly what Paul felt, I will admit.Then when Jesus died, I Corinthians says that he became a spirit. Chapter 15. The First Man and Last Man is an interesting thing.I guess the problem I have is that you & Phat blurred the difference between a very specific Holy Spirit and a very specific Christ. I admit that Paul did not have a clearly defined Holy Spirit at this time ( or at least not something detectable in his extant writings ).I don't feel that you have actually ironed out the massive wrinkles in the response above.

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 am going to assume that you have forgotten about my main question (somewhere along the way during your last post ).It was about how you can justify that Paul was referring to the Holy Spirit as the "spirit of Christ".I just don't think we need to demand a mass conversion of the entire planet before we try to understand what Paul is talking about.We don't even need to see a total eclipse either.Can we get back to the issue, please?

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.

I'm not at all convinced that your interpretation of Romans 8:9 would have been considered anything other than a type of heresy that considered God to have 3 separate modes or offices. Like a person being a son to his father. A father to his father's grandson ( his son ). And a boss to his workers. A holy man type of mode if he is a preacher.You are interpreting the Holy Spirit as a description.Not as a distinct, separate and eternal entity.The orthodox Trinity interpretation has 3 separate and clearly defined entities.(I admit that Paul long predated the orthodox interpretation )Do you have other scripture that matches this interpretation of Paul you have presented?

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.

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.

Topic Phat.Where is the support for the assertion of any Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'?

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

As I said, only the first five books of the Old Testament are common to all the Canons. The shortest Canon is the Samaritan Orthodox Canon and they take the position that only those books already Canonized at the time Jesus lived should be considered. Their position is anything written after Jesus is commentary and not Canonical. None of the New Testament books are included.Way back in Message 33 I listed some possible ways that the different Canons might be categorized.

quote:

---

But a collection of fragments of scrolls found in a variety of caves is NOT a Canon.

​

A Canon is a list compiled by a recognized Committee of Canon of what books should be included in a Bible.

​

That is what is NOT found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

​

There have been many such Committees of Canon and each one has drawn up a different list.

​

In fact, the only books that are common to ALL of the various Canons are the first five books of the Old Testament.

​

There are several possible way to determine which Canon is superior.

​

One could be commonality. The Superior Canon is the one that contains ONLY Books found in all Canons. By that criteria the Samaritan Orthodox Canon is Superior to all others and everything except the first five books of the Old Testament is non-canonical.

​

Another could be inclusiveness. The Canon that includes the most books is Superior and so the Ethiopian Long Canon with its 80 plus books is superior.

​

The criteria could be based on acceptance by a major chapter of Club Christian and there the Roman Catholic Canon is far superior.

​

It could be based on documented age and there the superior Canon would be the one drawn up by the Nicean Committee of Canon.

​

Or it could be the most recent Canon and thus the Mormon Canon which is open and continually growing is far superior.

​

So what is the justification argument that might show the Protestant Canon as superior?

---

So the question remains, what justification is there for some Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'?

How would you determine accuracy?

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...

So it has nothing to do with "accuracy". Not me. I'd be perfectly fine if "the" God was real. I'd also be perfectly fine if leprechauns were real or if the flat earth was real or if perpetual motion was real - but I can accept that none of them are. When did I say anything about dishonesty?

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).