Should the books of the bible been more like 77?

[Stranger]

We are not rejecting the New Testament, just questioning if we have it all. I believe the Epistle of Barnabas is missing, but God has preserved it.

Well, yes you are rejecting what we have as the New Testament. Because Barnabas is not included. So, what is your method of determining the canonicity of 'Barnabas'? And is it an accepted method among the Church? Do you use the same methods employed by those who first were involved in the making of the canon? If you use the same methods, how do you arrive at a different conclusion? Why were they wrong?

Stranger

 

[Enoch111]

Did you write this? Or who wrote it?

I wrote it, and you can check the epistle of Barnabas for yourself. While SDA's definitely object to the changes relating to the sabbath and dietary laws, all Christians should object to spiritualizing away Scriptures which are meant to taken literally.

 

[farouk]

Martin Luther was a mixed blessing. He joined the Catholics in persecuting the Anabaptists.

The Refomers and Their Stepchildren, by Leonard Verduin is a seminally important book historically which brought to the Christian public the errors of Old Europe in mixing state patronage, canon law and Scholastic logic with the truths of the Gospel revealed in Scripture, whereas those of the Anabaptist tradition - themselves diverse in some ways - were largely preserved from these compromises.

 

[CharismaticLady]

So God told you it was inspired? In other words you are saying, "I feel that it is true therefore I know that it is true." You realize that is the same logic of Mormons?

Mormons are not Spirit-filled. There is a difference and you have to KNOW God's voice to relate to what I'm saying. That doesn't mean you have to believe me yourself.

 

[CharismaticLady]

The Church obviously disagrees with you since they said it's not canonical. Either you believe the men of The Church were inspired by the Holy Spirit to get the 27 right or you don't believe they were inspired. The onerous is on you to explain why they didn't get this one right and they didn't listen to the Spirit.

Mary

Because you have to have the Spirit to listen to Him. I believe the Church was too worldly for centuries to get anything right in the eyes of God.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Which is all well and good. But as to canonicity, that was something only the early Jews or the early Church could determine.

Stranger

The early Church believed it was by the apostle Barnabas. A couple hundred years later when the Church became worldly, inviting paganism to mix with it, they quenched the Spirit. So, no, I don't take for granted what others do. But some people go throughout their whole lives being led by the nose without questioning anything, and never having an original thought.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Once again....FASCINATING!!

You don't like Origins doctrines sooooo you disregard EVERYTHING he wrote?

The letter in which Clement talks about the phoenix is often slighted but in Clement's day the Phoenix was a believable story. Personally, I cannot blame him for accepting the "science" of his day. That does not disqualify him from being filled with the Spirit. He was a student of the Apostles for crying out loud and his letters were WIDELY read in churches and considered inspired/canonical by MANY because he was a student of the Apostles.

Mary

So you will accept that Clement's writings could have been canonical, but not Barnabas? At least, Barnabas was from the first century.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Fascinating.....Soooo who gets to decide who is "filled with the Spirit"?

Those who are filled with the Spirit can hear God's voice and are endued with power. There are also tests of who is abiding in Christ. They keep the commandments of God and God answers their prayers. Before I was filled with the Spirit not one of my prayers were answered. But since 1977 all my prayers are answered. I receive what has been prayed.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Well, yes you are rejecting what we have as the New Testament. Because Barnabas is not included. So, what is your method of determining the canonicity of 'Barnabas'? And is it an accepted method among the Church? Do you use the same methods employed by those who first were involved in the making of the canon? If you use the same methods, how do you arrive at a different conclusion? Why were they wrong?

Stranger

The making of the canon were the writers of the canon. They were Spirit-filled. Their books have life and are spiritually discerned. I will repeat again, that I accept all the books presently in the New Testament, but am not misguided enough to trust those, as if they are God, who rejected the only book that contains the commandment:

Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I wrote it, and you can check the epistle of Barnabas for yourself. While SDA's definitely object to the changes relating to the sabbath and dietary laws, all Christians should object to spiritualizing away Scriptures which are meant to taken literally.

Just curious. Then it is you I don't agree with.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

So God told you it was inspired? In other words you are saying, "I feel that it is true therefore I know that it is true." You realize that is the same logic of Mormons?

Ultimately there's only a few epistemological methods out there:
- "I believe X because that's what <insert human authority figure here> told me so"
- "I believe X because that's what after consulting God & scripture that's what I've come to believing to be true"
- "I believe X because that's what I believe, with no deeper reasoning really put into it".

Speaking generally, Catholics lean heavily on the first method. LDS Christians on the second. Protestants are a very varied camp.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Mormons are not Spirit-filled.

I'd beg to differ

God & His influence are not confined to just one group, even when us idiot humans can't keep things straight.

 

[Enoch111]

Just curious. Then it is you I don't agree with.

Then you don't agree with facts. Wilful blindness.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Then you don't agree with facts. Wilful blindness.

I'm smart enough to not mistake myths for facts. You assume too much.

 

[reformed1689]

Mormons are not Spirit-filled. There is a difference and you have to KNOW God's voice to relate to what I'm saying. That doesn't mean you have to believe me yourself.

Right, but you are insinuating that anyone who does not agree with you does not know God's voice and is not Spirit-Filled making you the sole source of truth. What arrogance!

 

[reformed1689]

I smart enough to not mistake myths for facts. You assume too much.

Not so sure....

 

[CharismaticLady]

Right, but you are insinuating that anyone who does not agree with you does not know God's voice and is not Spirit-Filled making you the sole source of truth. What arrogance!

Right, but you are insinuating that anyone who does not agree with you does not know God's voice and is not Spirit-Filled making you the sole source of truth. What arrogance!

I have the Spirit of Truth in me, but am not here to convince you, as you need the Spirit to do that.

 

[reformed1689]

I have the Spirit of Truth in me, but am not here to convince you, as you need the Spirit to do that.

And anyone who disagrees with you does not have the Spirit of Truth? I noticed you dodged that point....

 

[CharismaticLady]

And anyone who disagrees with you does not have the Spirit of Truth? I noticed you dodged that point....

Someone can hold to a false doctrine and still have the Spirit of Truth, and as long as you obey the Spirit He will continue to bring you into all truth, discarding the chaff along the way. I just share what He has taught me. And some who have already gotten that truth before me will relate; others, not yet. It is not my timing for you, it is the Spirit's. And what I've discovered is He is not as fast to teach us as we would like. But first we have to be willing to open up to God's truth and willing to drop anything false. I just wrote a post on a different thread about my journey of letting go of falsehoods. And I'm still learning new truths.

 

[reformed1689]

Someone can hold to a false doctrine and still have the Spirit of Truth, and as long as you obey the Spirit He will continue to bring you into all truth, discarding the chaff along the way. I just share what He has taught me. And some who have already gotten that truth before me will relate; others, not yet. It is not my timing for you, it is the Spirit's. And what I've discovered is He is not as fast to teach us as we would like. But first we have to be willing to open up to God's truth and willing to drop anything false. I just wrote a post on a different thread about my journey of letting go of falsehoods. And I'm still learning new truths.

Again, if someone disagrees with you then they are always wrong 100% of the time?