大象传媒

Went to lift the paper this morning, and just put it back. If there's a morning to run that as your headline, I'm not sure it's this one.
And it sounded so silly anyway: Religion causes more harm than good - as if the Guardian had discovered another world without religion to compare this one with.
Interesting to know what the story was.

Can I vote for your last paragraph in the psuedo-Gettysburg address competition?

Religion has been causing wars for a thousand years so why is anyone surpised by this poll? As for religious leaders losing their moral authority,when so many news reports concerning immoral acts by so many church leaders are published on an almost daily basis is it any wonder they are losing their authority? We also have an American president that believes God tells him to go to war and a religious prime minister that follows him.

What's Jan's beef with your last paragraph? I'd love to be part of a church that was THAT connected to social justice. Martin Luther King Jr wouldn't have had those appalling opinion polls, because people looked to him for leadership. Why would anyone look to the UK's Christian leaders for guidance. The blind leading the blind. As for Northern Ireland, the only time you hear from Christianity here, it's somebody complaining that gay people are being given rights. For God's sake ....

What just happened? Did Will get converted or something?

Am I missing something here? As far as I can tell, the post chides churches for losing the plot. How can you read that as a testimony? Would that the 大象传媒's presenters COULD be converted, but you couldn't get them to stop talking long enough for someone to explain the Gospel to them. The so-called main churches are anything but churches. They can take William Crawley's advice if they like, but it won't lead sinners to salvation.

I couldnt agree that religion per se does cause a lot of harm in the world and that is why I dont believe in it.

Though atheistic revolution, fascism, nazism and communism have somewhat of a track record too...

Religion to me is man made tradition and ritual and I can sympathise with it turning people off in a big way.

I sympathise with much of Will's advice to churchs and some of it doubtless overlaps with biblical themes.

I am pleased to see Will speak for the first time in my hearing about God's grace, but what does this mean? to me this is evidenced by God giving Christ as a sacrifice for our sins (no other faith majors on grace like this as far as I am aware); but that ties in with Christ's divinity and the gospel and begins to sound quite like biblical Christianity....

Most welcome and I dont want to stereotype Will, but never heard this from you before.

Your main approach seems to be largely humanistic and that is the authority it seems to be based on.

If you look at the old testament prophets and for example Christ's letters to the seven churches in Revelation they seemed to start from the position of calling people back to turn away from personal and corporate evil and closer to God; there are no real standards without God and that is why Will's standards are basically set by current liberal humanistic values (many of which are good, but may or may not be on God's agenda).

Israel's standard was primarily the ten commandments; putting other things before God, adultery (sex outside hetersexual marriage), stealing, dishonouring parents, covetousness (materialism), murder.

Perhaps the good majority of the social problems cited by Will could be overcome if traditional hetersexual marriage once again became the building block of society, and that is reflected in the ten commandments as a top priority. What alternative is there?

Perhaps that is what biblical bishops should major on, the Torys did a major report on this in recent days as I have discussed already with you Will, wink, wink...

PB

oh, one other point Christ had a bit of PR problem didnt he?

He said he came not to bring peace but a sword

He said he came to set siblings against one another

He gave a huge number of very detailed warnings about hell

He called the national religious leaders whitewashed sepulchres and hypocrites

He trusted himself to no man...

He went into the temple and cleared out those active in commercial stalls there with a vicious whip and fire in his eyes

He went toe to toe with the national religious leaders who questioned every aspect of his authority and credibility, including his parentage.
He did not spare them but diced and sliced them and sent them away 'bleeding'. But to the contrite and humble he was gentleness embodied.

He verified the historical teaching of Sodom and Gomorrah.

CS Lewis said of Aslan (the symbolic Christ figure) that he was not tame, but he was good....

So I wonder how a professional PR advisor would have guided Christ in the New Testament times...

PB

I think the PR was performd in the 3rd/4th centuries when the editors selected the writings that were acceptable for the their purposes.
But I suppose you'll claim Divine PR so there's no point in further discussion!
But I would be interested to know why the Gospels of Peter, Mary Magdalene, Philip, Judas and Thomas were excluded?

"Should churches be concerned about the headline story in today's Guardian
revealing the results of a poll suggesting that 82% of the British population believe that religion causes more harm than good in the world?"

I'm concerned about what's wrong with the other 18%? :>)

Alan

Not precisely informed on the epistles you mention but it is my understanding that any books which did not mesh with the teachings of the OT and other NT books were not considered inspired.

I guess you might suggest that it was only the editors' interpretations as to what were the true teachings.

If you do I would ask you this question;-

Do you have any alternative interpretations of any of the teachings in question to mount a serious case for what you might suggest? Or, as many people do, are you suggesting that there can never be any one true interpretation of scripture even though those suggesting this usually have almost zero knowledge of such teachings in order to make an informed judgement?

PB

PB, you say: "Not precisely informed on the epistles you mention but it is my understanding that any books which did not mesh with the teachings of the OT and other NT books were not considered inspired."

There are apocryphal (noncanonical) books of both the Old and the New Testaments. Each of the books included by various parts of the church at various times were included for various reasons. Each of the books excluded by various parts of the church at various times were excluded for various reasons.

The following is a short excerpt of the first draft of a book I've been working on for a few years, a collection of essays of mine that I've tentatively called 'Seven Things The Church Doens't Want You To Know About God':

"The Reformers decided to, yet again, review which books should be considered 鈥榟oly鈥� and which ones should not. Those that didn鈥檛 make the grade on this occasion became collectively known as the Apocrypha, or 鈥榙euterocanonical鈥�. The deuterocanonical books include 1st and 2nd Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon and 1st and 2nd Maccabees. The Reformers did this hack-job for various reasons; for instance that the deuterocanonical books were thought to contradict their interpretations of other parts of the bible, or that they were considered to be inaccurate, historically or geographically. These first Protestants also especially disliked the books of James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, making some extremely unfavourable comments about them and arguing for their exclusion from the Canon. If star Reformer Martin Luther had had his way, our Holy Bible would contain, at most, sixty-two books!

"And some of their choices were strange. For example, the books of Tobit, Judith and Esther are regarded by many good scholars to be of the same literary genre and general period of time. But, of these three, only Esther, a book describing the difficulties of being a Jew in Persia, was deemed by the Reformers to be worthy of inclusion in the 鈥榃ord of God鈥�, even though it does not even once mention the name 鈥楪od鈥�! This decision was not without controversy of course, but Luther was so hostile to the inclusion of Esther in the Canon that he once said he wished it did not exist! He cited that in his judgement it '...Judaizes too much, and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness.' (Incidentally, when the book of Esther was translated from Hebrew into Greek a few hundred years after it is thought to have been written, the translator added almost seven extra chapters. I have always found it an entertaining thought that someone read the book of Esther, decided it wasn鈥檛 quite long enough and made up some more material to fill it out a little! These additional chapters do contain mention of God, which was quite conceivably the motive for writing them - they provided a more 鈥榬eligious鈥� flavour.)

"Interestingly, of about three-hundred and fifty quotations of Scripture made in the New Testament writings, over three-hundred of them (86 percent) were made from the Septuagintal version, which would have included the Apocrypha. This makes it almost entirely certain that Jesus鈥� own bible would have included the Apocryphal books and that those books would have been viewed as Canonical (biblical) by him and the apostles. Right up until the Council of Trent in 1545, there is no evidence which suggests that through the history of the church, the deuterocanonical books were unused or omitted. The omissions were made by the first evangelicals, after the church had been using them for almost fifteen-hundred years! (The Council of Trent appears to have merely clarified and formalised the long-term position of the church up until that point.)

"And there are even more. A second range of Apocryphal books stems from the New Testament era and created almost immediate controversy about their authorship. These came to be called pseudopigraphical; ie. they were probably not written by the people to whom they were attributed by the real authors. They include many more 鈥榞ospels鈥�; Thomas, Peter, the Egyptians, the Hebrews, the Ebionites, the Nazoreans, Mary, and other books which contain some strange and unusual material. They appear to be mostly fiction, written for illustrative purposes within the first few centuries AD to bolster Christian teaching, to draw attention to it, and for a number of other reasons. One of the best-known examples from this collection is a verse from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which explores the sorts of things Jesus may have done as a child by relating how he makes twelve birds out of clay, then claps his hands and watches them fly off, chirping. A classic example of 鈥業 can see how that鈥檚 done鈥� syndrome; something could be more easily attributable to David Copperfield than Jesus Christ."

PB- hope this helps.

I wish the church leaders would take your advice on this, Will. Unfortunately, I expect they will continue to avoid the limelight except when they are pushed into it by a scandal or some bureaucratic function. Listen to Bishop Alan Harpur on Sunday Sequence complaining about the government's apporoach to public consultations. Out of his depth. Didn't seem to have a worked out position. Wrong on the details of the churches' submission to the recent good and services legislation. Embarrassing.

JW

A few points

1) John dont you see you have walking right into the question I posed for Alan in post 10 and failed to answer it; what alternative interpretations of scripture are you offering for the omtted epistles? You have failed to give any mention to any teachings in the current canon or your preferred canon and explained why you think they should be in or out. One key point about how books have been selected was that if Jesus quoted them in the four gospels they were given serious credence.

You cant take all Martin Luther said seriously (or any other mere man), he was solidly antisemitic for example.

And another point is that one of the main heresies in the very early church was gnosticism (salvation through esoteric knowledge, not faith in Christ, condemned in Pauls letter to the Colossians). Many of the pseudo books you quote are shot through with this teaching and therefore cannot sit with the existing canon.

In my mind it is not enough to show where there have been disagrements among Christians down through history, that is nothing new or surprising. If your discussion is to be significant they you need to say what teachings have been lost and do they concur with the rest of scripture. Very interested to hear you on this.

I mean to put it very simply, what exactly does the church not want you to know about God (the title of your book) according to your version of the formation of the canon of scripture?

2) Lastly, I have asked you a few times but have not yet seen you tackle this but as you have brought up the term evangelical again it seems appropriate; what do you understand is meant by the New Testament Gospel/Good News/Evangel???

I understand all three terms mean the same thing. I ask because I get the impression you do not accept any traditional interpretations of scripture for reasons of presupposition and not scholarship. If you can give a serious answer to this perhaps you will prove me wrong.

Come on JW, 2 questions, dont ad hominen me or fade out on me please.

PB

PB- I was merely pointing out that there are various reasons we have the bible as it is, more complicated than you suggest in the piece I quoted from you at the start of my post 11. But here we go:

1) I don't understand the question as you phrased it at first. As for explaining what I believe about the canon: simple. I don't accept the very IDEA of a canon. The idea is ridiculous to me: that some mere men should decide for me which books are the inspiration of God and which are not. I consider the entire world to be inspired of God. The 66 books are useful, some much more useful than others. The purpose of my post was to invite you to ask if allowing mere men, who disagreed vehemently on which books should be canonical, to decide what constitutes the 'Word of God' is a really sensible or sound idea? I'd appreciate your thoughts on that.

You mention heresies. But, until these ideas were established en masse, they were ALL potentially heresies. The only reason that you, today, call them heresies and have alternative orthodoxies, and the reason you see the difference between them, is purely, arbitrarily a matter of man's historical choices. You may choose to argue differently, for example believing that God chose the canon himself, but I would suggest that you then invite me, or anyone else, to claim the exact same about an exactly different canon, as (for example) Muslims do. What facet of logic allows you to pick your 66 books as the Word of God? Only your belief that they are. My point is that the reasons you believe those 66 books to be the Word of God are based upon the actions of men throughout history.

2) I don't understand your second question either. I think those three terms mean the same thing in the contemporary evangelical lexicon. The word 'evangelical' denotes a particular category of belief within Christendom, that's all.

Also PB- "You cant take all Martin Luther said seriously (or any other mere man), he was solidly antisemitic for example."

That's irrelevant to my point. Luther was one of the Reformers revising the canon. The point is that if these books were in jeapordy of being thrown out of the canon, and you people treat them as the infallible Word of God but exclude the others that WERE thrown out, then you are relying on a few key people to tell you what IS the Word of God and what is NOT. One of those guys is Luther, who would also have done away with Esther, James, Jude and Revelation.... and if he had, as he well could have, then you would not regard it as the Word of God today! Point A: to rely on a few select historical figures making some select decisions regarding the inspiration of God and then living by them without further inquiry is at best foolhardy. Point B: to claim that these, and only these, are the Word of God is at best ridiculous.

Most evangelicals have never even heard that there are hundreds of early Christian books and that the New Testament comprises only a few of them selected by people hundreds of years later.... and that should tell you everything you need to know.

John, I think you have made my point better than I could have.

1) I contend that most of those people who reject traditional interpretations of the bible do not do so because they have studied various interpretations and decided current orthodoxy is wrong. It seems to me most of such people do so because they have presumed beforehand that it is not possible [or that they do not wish it to be possible, for whatever reason] to have a single correct interpretation of a passage.

So when you debate the meaning of the story of Sodom and Gomorroah with me for example you have no interest in understanding the passage, only an interest in destroying all possible understandings of the passage.

I therefore think it might be more honest if you stated this up front rather than allowing people to perceive that you have a scholarly interest or understanding of the bible.

Your primary and overarching value and motivation seems to be scepticism; if an opportunity arises to reach some firm conclusions about scripture this assumption comes into play and tells you that is not possible, because you must always remain sceptical.

If you believe in God, as you say you do then why should it seem ridiculous that God should be friends with men and work through them? And why should it be ridicuous that he could use them to choose a canon?

I am not setting aside the complexity and history of the subject, but id you could answer those questions for yourself it might mean progress, I think.

If I could sum up your argument it would be: "So many different men argued for so many years over so many different books, regarding which if any of them were divinely inspired that it will never be possible for anyone at any time to ascertain if any of them truly are inspired.
I have not found a firm answer to my question on this so I have reached a conclusion on what I know and have decided not to study the matter any more.
Furthermore I have decided that I will now devote my energies to disuading any other openminded people from trying to find out for themselves and would really advise them to take my point of view on board."

The problem I see with this John is that having spoken to you at length over time it appears to me you have always spent much more time reading books about the bible than reading the bible and you are quite weak in your knowledge of it.
This means you are not really able to weigh up for yourself how seamless [or not] the teachings and doctines in the current canon are compared to the excluded books.

When I read I can clearly see the key themes repeated time and again in different books, in my view the same voice using different quills.

The fact that you are not aware of the teachings of the excluded books also leaves me asking why you think they have a right in the canon without having looked at the evidence? or to put is another way, whether or not the editors might have made a very correct decision to exclude them based on their content?

The same point can be easily made about heresies. Superficially what you say seems correct but if you actually take the time to study the bible itself and what the heresies actually are, there is no contest, in my view.

But as you have not studied the bible, the excluded texts or the heresies in detail I am dumbfounded as to how you feel qualified to believe you are well informed on the matter and that no certainty can be reached on them. Are you sure you are not a postmodernist?

2) What does the New Testament mean when it speaks of "the gospel"?

Please dont tell me you dont understand the question here, you seem to be using this answer a lot recently....

PB

PB- You wanted a conversation on this, and I'm perfectly happy to give it, as it's a topic to which I've devoted hundreds of hours, but we're really going to have to get a few things straight first.

You say: "The fact that you are not aware of the teachings of the excluded books...." and "But as you have not studied the bible, the excluded texts or the heresies in detail...." and "You have always spent much more time reading books about the bible than reading the bible and you are quite weak in your knowledge of it..."

I'm really beginning to tire of this constant allegation that I don't know the bible when I'm clearly arguing with you perfectly competently about it. As I've said on more than one occasion before, TEST ME if you think there's something I should know that I don't, but as you haven't done so, I'll regard this as baseless. I'll require a clarification of your commitment to stop this kind of groundless allegations. The statements above are completely without merit and completely without proof. They're merely ramblings, PB! I thought you wanted a real discussion on the facts. And you talk to me about ad hominem! I'll put it down to the results of you being up too late to think straight.

Now, onto the real topic. You say: "So when you debate the meaning of the story of Sodom and Gomorroah with me for example you have no interest in understanding the passage, only an interest in destroying all possible understandings of the passage."

No, no, and no. You've misunderstood my position, or you are wilfully misconstruing it. There are of course valid ways of interpreting the bible, because there were valid ways that it was written. But in order to understand the way in which it was written, one must study rather than merely read, which is much harder and leads to many more possible answers than most evangelicals are willing to stomach. In short, PB, it's easier to go to church and be told what the passage says than to really work to understand it. (And it's easier to believe that these 66 books are all ya need to look at rather than to believe that the whole world contains the inspiration of God.)

"I therefore think it might be more honest if you stated this up front rather than allowing people to perceive that you have a scholarly interest or understanding of the bible."

I've never attempted to give any impression to the contrary.

"If you believe in God, as you say you do then why should it seem ridiculous that God should be friends with men and work through them? And why should it be ridicuous that he could use them to choose a canon?"

There are a few HUGE problems with this. First, if the canon is the only Word of God (sola scriptura) and there are to be no additions to the canon after Revelation, then God has not spoken since the last biblical book was penned. If God has not spoken since the last biblical book was penned (as most evangelical theologians profess) then he has not spoken to men regarding the compilation of the Canon either. Second, there are plenty of other mistakes that men have made throughout the history of the church. What makes you sure that this is not another? Or are you saying that God guided men with regard to the compilation of the canon but neglected to guide them in matters that may have avoided the crusades or transubstantiation or theology of Mary or any number of other things that the church has neglected to do correctly? Or are you saying the church has done everything according to God's plan? If not, why the canon? You claim that the bible is your guide in matters of faith and practice. But you rely on extrabiblical (nonbiblical) theology to appeal to the bible in the first place! Ever hear of a circular argument? By what facet of logic do you choose these 66 books as the Word of God? Not even the bible claims for itself the infallibility or inerrancy, and in the case of the vast majority of the New Testament, not even the inspiration of God! What makes you ascribe those qualities to it?

There's plenty of questions for you there, PB. Perhaps now I'll sit back and wait for your detailed answers to these questions, since I've answered yours. (I ask all of these with festive spirit of course. :-)

John

this will be I believe the 4th time I have asked you to explain what the gospel is from the New Testament.

It is not enough to say the gospel is is an evangelical belief, that is a circular argument - the bible was not written by evangelicals and the term therefore was not created by them.

This is a golden oportunity to put all your study and interpretative expertise to work John. What is the gospel spoken of so often in the New Testment? what does it mean in plain English?

This is your opporunity to prove you do not melt away when facing a question you allegedly wont answer and that your take on the bible works.

Why would your post-envangelical interpretation of this passage be correct and mine be incorrect?

I will answer all your points when you finally address this, but I think that if you address this you answer most of them yourself.

Dont let me down...
PB

PB- My patience is really being stretched now. I've had a hard time up until now knowing exactly what you want me to answer. You're asking me about WHICH passage, exactly? Can you be specific and give me chapter and verse? I will do my best to answer.... though I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion. This is a 'PB Tangent' that I'm barely willing to run with.

John

lets say Galations 1:6 to begin with.

Why is the gospel "good news"?
PB

John

fyi - you asked me to test you in post 17 - remember?

Just to say I would broaden that out to chapter one of Galations. Verse 6 referred to a false gospel!

Why is the gospel "good news"?

PB

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel鈥攚hich is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ." Galations 1:6,7

It is evident from Paul's letter to the Galatians (and the ones he wrote before it to the Thessalonians and Philippians and afterwards to the Corinthians) that he believed the gospel to be salvation for Jews and Gentiles alike through Jesus Christ. Note what he says in 1 Cor 15: "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved .... that Christ died for our sins..." So when Paul refers to 'gospel' it would appear that that's what he was referring to.

Now I'd appreciate an answer to my questions in post 17.

Thanks John I appreciate that.

I sympathise with your position, as I have stated at length before, that many church members simply believe what they are told without questioning. true.

But that does not mean they are in error. If the traditional understanding of the bible (theology etc) is correct then although they have not arrived at it for themselves, they will not be too far wrong. (application of teaching is something else altogether of course).

And you have yet to demonstrate *from the bible* (or extra biblical epistles) that traditional Christain theology on primary doctrine is wrong. Until then I assert it is largely correct and obvious.

My point is really this; if we had the time to do this excerise on key doctrines through every book of the bible and all the exlcuded books you are talking about, it would soon because clear that there is an amazing consistency on primary doctrines between the bible's 66 books.

And it would become very clear the excluded books strongly contradict these key doctines; to suggest another canon would be clearly like mixing oil and water.

So YOU say the
good news/gospel/evangel
(all three terms mean the same thing) is that salvation comes through believing that Jesus Christ died for our sins.

That is the first and last key concept of the whole new testament and arguably the whole bible.

And that is the evangel (greek; good news) that Christians you describe as "evangelical" are obviously named after.

So it would seem to follow that you agree that the bible contains the key teaching that "evangelicals" base their beliefs on.

This would seem to suggest you agree that "evangelicals" have basically got the correct interpetation of the bible, on the central point of the gospel at least. And that is THE central point.

But feel free to do a reading on any other text/doctrine to show where they have got it wrong in another primary area.

As I suspected, when you are tied down and forced to read the bible in front of witnesses, you cannot -so far- offer anything other than traditional interpretations for key doctrines.... because they are the plain reading of the text!

You cannot simply reject orthodox teaching without demonstrating why it is incorrect. And on this core doctrine you have not been able to demonstrate the "evangelicals" have got it wrong.

My other point is that as this "evangel" or good news or gospel (three terms are equal and interchangeable) is there in the original text, it begs the questions as to who it really belongs to and whether it is proper for "evangelicals" to claim it as they own, or be labelled with it.

I say it is not. This was the key doctrine from the start of the church before any of these labels arrived. So to me it is simply traditional and original Christianity.

So to try and marginalise people who read the bible plainly as you have done - with labels such as evangelicals - is to some extent misleading, I contend. It is not really grasping the whole truth of the matter.

On the keys issues that really matter, they are simply reading the bible as honestly as you have just done, I would contend.

I will come back to your questions tomorrow after I've looked at them.

sincerely

PB

Ps In the meantime, would be very interested (as im sure would others) for a brief outline of your seven truths that the church "does not wish you to know".

John

ref post 17

You asked for it, so against my wishes, here it is;

You have previously demonstrated little or no understanding of;-

1) The relationship between the old testament/old covenant/law/ and new testament/new covenant/grace. ie that the New Testament church is not bound by Old Testament law and the nature of grace.

2) You were not able to discuss biblical teaching on homosexuality with me and directed me to a gay church website which was riddled with school boy errors.

3) You were unaware that the New Testament has one whole and entire book devoted to updating the Old Testament laws on slavery, ie Philemon, written by Paul. This New Testament book was reprinted by anti-slavery campaigners in the US to attack slavery, because it demonstrated how slaves should be made slaves no more in the church, but brothers in the flesh and spirit.

Your point about how the bible should be studied and read I have addressed in post 23.

False assumption: I dont know where you get the idea that most theologians say God has not spoken since Revelation was finished. No new actual teachings I can accept, but churches are packed with members, teachers and books which talk about how to hear and follow God.

Yes, plenty of people (myself included) have done stupid things when they thought they were being guided by God. There are examples of believers doing stupid and even evil things even in the OT and NT.

But if I accept, according to your argument, that fallible man may have messed up the canon, there carries in that suggestion the assumption that they equally well may not have.

But I dont know how many times I have to say this;- it is not just enough to suggest the canon is all wrong. Put up or shut up; show some evidence and demonstrate the errors you think there are or what the canon should be and why.

My perception is that you do not have the depth of knowledge and expertise to make a judgement either way. I have to say that all the apparent errors and contradictions I have ever seen thrown at the bible/canon do not hold water when examined and generally come from people who are obvioulsy looking for excuses to run away from God.

Come on now, there has been 2000 years of scholarly study on the whole bible so I really dont think any of us are going to turn up anything new on this. But that also means that people like you have had 2000 years to perfect their arguments.

So it should not be too difficult for your to google a masterly exposition which demonstrates according to actual teachings and not in the abstract, what the actual canon should be - or that the current one is rubbish.

In post 11 you yourself go on at length about what rubbish many of the excluded books are.

Your arguments appear either accidentally or purposely narrowly informed; Martin Luther was a rabid anti-semite; you cannot take as gospel what any man says, no matter what "a star" he was to the reformers.

Anitsemitish is plainly unscriptural, as you can see in Romans and Hebrews.

You say I rely on non-biblical material. Well I came to faith through Chirst, not the bible per se. Then he gave me a new appetite to read the bible. But learning from other teachers is absolutely biblical. The key is to check it against the bible as Paul commended the Bereans for doing. But again, if I have made any biblical mistakes in anything I have said, show them to me and it will be clear how my approach has been tainted or flawed....you have never yet been able to do this.
I understand the point you are making in the asbtract, but flesh it out if you think it is true. I say you cant.

It seems to me you are in bondage to doubt and cannot even allow yourself to glance for a second at the other side of your arguments, even as a complete sceptic.

It seems irrationally one sided, there are two sides to your conclusions, which if you notice I have been able to acknowledge - why cant you? Admittedly mine requires faith, but you seem determined to deny that mine have any validity.

Does your God care? if so does he try and communicate with you? if so how?
Would a loving father who was to be seperated from his children not put some guidance on the record for them? And if he loved them would he want them in permement doubt and confusion over which letters he may or may not have written?

I am not sure what sort of God you believe in John, but these seem valid questions on this matter, but they may well be personal and I dont expect you to answer them to me in public.

I think this whole argument could be boiled down very simply and very quickly if you tell us what you think are the 7 things you think the church does not want you to know about God.

As you have spent hundreds of hours reading so much material it is bound to be a presse of your best conclusions on this whole matter.

While obviously very personal it may help you reflect on them more sharply if you invite comment. Iron sharpens iron etc

sincerely

PB

PB- The reason that there has been a drive recently by theologians to come to a better understanding of people like Jesus, Paul, James and other early Christians is that they wish to come to an understanding of them that has not been tainted or controlled by religious tradition. Remember that it wasn't too long ago that your head would be in serious jeapordy of being separated from your body if you professed to believe things other than what the church taught. That certainly was not the best environment in which to arrive at objective truth, and so now we're finally in a position to do so independently of tradition. As it turns out, much of what the church taught is being seriously questioned. Christianity unadorned by tradition is a very different Christianity than what went before. In your talk of heresy and orthodoxy you are clinging to the old theory that the church actually has the authority to tell people what to believe, and that if you don't believe that you are a heretic. But a modern understanding (see 'modernism' for what I mean by this) yields an almost entirely different setup for belief.

What theology is it that you accept is "largely correct and obvious?" The inerrancy of Scripture? The trinity? Miracles? Angels? Cessation of spiritual gifts? Original sin? Predestination? Infant baptism? The tribulation? Each and every one of these and much more are hotly contested even within evangelicalism... forget about bringing in postevangelicals and nonevangelical liberals and more, many of whom are people who have thought long and hard about these issues from the ground up rather than been conformed by church tradition! Can't you see that life just ain't that simple PB?

I guarantee that what you claim about the apocryphal Christian writings is not true. If I were to be able to test you, you would not be able to tell the difference between randomly selected apocryphal passages and passages from the bible. You call it 'oil and water' without (I assume) having read any apocrpyhal books, but it quite simply isn't like that. (Incidentally the reason I can't objectively test you is because you could just Google the texts I supply to determine their origin.) Throughout the ages there have been heated exchanges over the canon; none of them found it as easy as you suggest to decide which books cut the mustard.

You say: "As I suspected, when you are tied down and forced to read the bible in front of witnesses, you cannot -so far- offer anything other than traditional interpretations for key doctrines.... because they are the plain reading of the text!"

But you're missing the key points of contention. For example, at the time Paul wrote to the Galatians, James, brother of Jesus, was back in Jerusalem teaching an entirely different kind of Christianity. They thought Paul was way out of whack for doing what he was, having never met Jesus and never been discipled by him and teaching things that they'd never heard of (leading to the debate regarding whether or not it was right that non-Jews could benefit from this teaching too).

All I've proved from Galatians (and other Pauline writings) is that PAUL believed X, Y or Z to be the case. That is after we've established that Paul wrote the letter, which in the case of Galatians but not many other writings evangelicals attribute to Paul happens to be the consensus. I haven't proved that other early Christians concured, and many of these writings indicate that they didn't. Neither have I proved that he is correct. I've only proved that HE believed this about Jesus or that about the gospels or the other about X point of theology.

Key point: you and other evangelicals point to the authority of the Scriptures on the basis that they are the Word of God. I don't, and therefore I don't find it necessary to appeal to what PAUL believed in order to support or formulate MY belief. Do you see the difference?

You say: "So to try and marginalise people who read the bible plainly as you have done - with labels such as evangelicals - is to some extent misleading, I contend."

But I haven't ever tried to marginalise anyone. In fact, with your talk of heretics, it could be said that you are the one attempting to do that! One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy... I assume you are able to see that, and to appreciate that we all do not agree. You appeal often to tradition, yet you have never given a proof of why tradition should be given any authority in these matters whatever. It certainly isn't the case that because evangelicals are one of the biggest Christian groups they are somehow automatically right. I'm sure I don't need to give you examples of other things that majorities have done throughout history that were clearly wrong to prove my point.

Ok. I eagerly await your answers to my questions in post 17. On your final 'PS', I don't want to give away too much about the book, which is really mostly a collection of other material I've written on the subjects, but I'd be willing to give you an outline of the seven chapters. It's a bunch of postevangelical observations and opinions on points of theology or church practice that I believe are ignored or contested by most traditional churches. The collection is called The Big Picture: Seven Things The Church Doesn't Want You To Know About God.

1- God Is Speaking Everywhere (that inspiration of God is through and in the whole world, rather than just in 66 ancient books.)

2- God loves Hollywood (and the Manhatten skyline, and Silicon Valley, and the product of man in art and in civilisation.)

3- God And The Bible Are Not The Same Thing (an expose of modern evangelical bibliolatry and an opposition to sola scriptura.)

4- God Thinks Sex Is Fun (a critique of most Christian attitudes to sex and a strongly pointed challenge to our traditional ideas of marriage; a challenge to the notion that dirty jokes or sexuality in art or poetry is sinful, etc.)

5- God Does Not Want Our Morality At Gunpoint (disputing conservative politics as a way of achieving Christian societies)

6- God Doesn't Need Us To Be Right All The Time (an introduction to pluralist ideas which aim to ask the question; is adherence to particular sets of belief systems or religions really that important to God?)

....and finally...

7- God Did Not Create Us So That He Could Destroy Us (an introduction to some universalist ideas on the basis of God's existence and a rejection of hardline evangelical ideas such as predestination.)

I trust you'll buy a copy if I ever get it published, PB? It is written to evangelicals primarily! :-)

PB- I've just had a chance to read your point 24. When I first 'met' you online I think you may remember me saying that I don't think we're ever going to agree on how to read the bible. I'm back there again. I think we're worlds apart on this. When did I fail the test on covenant theology? Am I missing something? When was I tested, and when did I fail? Anyhow, I couldn't care less what you think of my knowledge or lack thereof. I'm not here to try and prove anything in that regard.

You say: "...it is not just enough to suggest the canon is all wrong. Put up or shut up; show some evidence and demonstrate the errors you think there are or what the canon should be and why.

You have gotten it precisely backwards; 180 degrees the opposite of what rational, logical, modern thinking people require as evidential. The burden of proof is not upon me to prove you wrong; the burden of proof is upon you to prove that your canon is the Word of God! As I don't think you can do that, no further action is necessary on my part.

(PS- just to clarify... chapter 2 is really more about the aritificial divide drawn by evangelicalism between the 'secular' and the 'spiritual'. I argue in this chapter that such a line does not, in fact, exist.

John

1) You correctly point out that there is a lot of debate about secondary doctrines in the church in its broadest sense. But there is very little dispute about key doctrines eg most churches are pretty comfortable to the early creeds.

2) Once again you go on about debates through the ages about what the canon should be. This is not news to anyone.
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS?
If you have a point about where the canon is in error then demonstrate it. Otherwise you have no case at all.

3) If you want to bring me an extra biblical book I will look at it and test my assertion that it contains teaching plainly at odds with the existing canon. Pulling random texts out is useless because they can be neutral.

3) So James was teaching an entirely different type of Christianity? dont just assert - demonstrate that John, that is a big say.

4) post 24 answers post 17.

5) One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy? While there is a subtle sense in which you are correct I dont think you are driving at the subtle interpretation of this. And while some churches have ascribed heresy to things without biblical justcication, I challenge you to provide an example of one "heresy" which is not plainly at odds with the bible. Agains John, stand your case up or you are just blowing hot air.

6) And here is the biggest suprise of the day for you John. I strongly agree with your seven points.

My only qualifications are that I think sex is for fun within marriage and that it is too precious to demean with cheap humour. God did not create us to destroy us, he created us to be his friends. If we reject his emergency parachute (Christ) and the plane is about to crash then who is destroying who? Within that I believe God will judge entirely fairly anyone who has never heard the gospel according to how they have responded to his witness in creation and their conscience.

PB

John

As I said, I expected your "seven key points about God that the church does not want you to know" would be the sum or all your knowledge in the hundreds of hours you have spent studying all these canonical and non-canonical books.

And guess what, all seven points are actally biblical, aside from the minor qualifications in post 6.

In fact, I cannot think of a single Christian I know who would disagree with me on that. Your seven points could just about be part of an enquirers course such as the Alpha course which aims to break down preconceptions about Christianity for honest enquirers, but using the bible to do so.

1) God does not just speak through the bible. Correct. The book of psalms shows how God speaks through all of creation; God speaks to bible characters in the bible through many channels, on one occasion through a donkey.

2) God loves human development. Correct. God is creative and made man in his image to be creative. He told man to go and subdue the earth to multiply and be fruitful, so the products of man you discuss he commanded of man. There is no biblical suggestion at all that he is displeased with these items you mention.

3) God and the bible are not the same thing. Correct. If I write a letter to my children it is not me, but it has come from me and does reflect my character.

4) God thinks sex is fun. correct. Everything God made is good, including sex. Many have confused the divine wisdom of protecting man by keeping sex within marriage as God having a downer on sex, but that is not biblical. Song of Songs is an explicit love poem and there is much in Proverbs about the joy of sex.

5) Christ never started a political movement to enforce morality, correct. Though all Christians are called to be salt and light in their fields, including politics.

6) God doesnt need us to be right all the time; Correct. I have repeatedly owned up to errors on this blog and will continue to do so as I make them. In Hebrews 11, the hall of faith, there is a list of famous believers but all of them had made serious mistakes, as recorded in the bible, including adultery and murder. Christ commended many people whose worldview was not "orthodox" but whose motives were good.
It could also be said alongside this that God does not expect us to pretend we have all the answers.

7) God did not create us so he could destroy us; Correct. In fact he destroyed himself on the cross so that our own willful sin need not destroy us. And the NT says that hell was actually created for the devil and his angels, not men.

So if these are the most startling truths you have to offer after allegedly dismantling the entire Biblical canon and devouring all the extra biblical espistles you could find, I think the most startling thing is that what you have actually written is a charter to put it all back together again as it was John!!

There is certainly nothing radical in what you have found.

PB

PS Sex is fun but sex outside marriage is not really fun because; stds are not fun; unwanted pregnancies and abortion are not fun (abortions are rarely for women in a stable married relationship); growing up without a father around is not fun; it is not fun to engage in procreation when neither partner has committed to the other that they will be there for the child for 18 years; being used for sex by a ruthless partner is not fun; etc etc. On the other hand, I have never heard of one serious problem that results from sexual fun within marriage.

PPS What guidelines or rules for having "sexual fun" would you have preferred your mother/sister/daughter would adhere to, if any, John?

PB- Trust me.... despite what you say, you don't agree with my seven points. The seven titles are subject to your own interpretation, but when you actually read what I'm defending or rejecting within those chapters, they are the antithesis of evangelicalism for the most part. I'll leave the rest of the seven points to post-publishing debate, if we're still in contact if/when that happens and not pursue it any more here, since all we have to discuss are really chapter titles and a sentence-long synopsis, which isn't enough.

Let me address a couple of the other things you say: "If you have a point about where the canon is in error then demonstrate it. Otherwise you have no case at all."

You must have missed the part where I said that my contention is with the very idea of a canon. I think the idea of a canon is ridiculous. If you'd like to see a more complete list of books that you may be interested in reading from early Christians - some of which are extremely valuable reading if you'd really like to understand Christianity - visit one of my favourite websites, www.earlychristianwritings.com.

You say: "If you want to bring me an extra biblical book [sic] I will look at it and test my assertion that it contains teaching plainly at odds with the existing canon."

The thrust of my entire argument is to ask why you accept the canon as it is in the first place! For instance, PB, why would you need me to bring you an apocryphal book? Why would you not want to read everything you could get your hands on?

And the idea that if a book contains teaching "at odds with" the existing canon, then one should simply remove that book from the canon is BIZARRE, and certainly not a means by which to arrive at a sensible, logical, or truthful perspective. The chief aim of those who compiled the canon was to create a 'sacred' set of writings that contains the theology necessary for the belief system they subscribed to. I reject the very premise of that endeavour.

"So James was teaching an entirely different type of Christianity? dont just assert - demonstrate that John, that is a big say."

Go find it out for yourself. I'm not interested in educating you on mere facts, PB... I'm simply interested in changing your perspective. If you want to bury your head in evangelical tradition, feel entirely free, but I believe the purpose of discussion like this is the search for truth. I don't recognise the authority of religious tradition such that you are appealing to here. Try to come from a neutral standpoint here, PB, rather than - as you are - on the turret of your evangelical fort fiercly defending the undefendible.

"I challenge you to provide an example of one 'heresy' which is not plainly at odds with the bible. Agains John, stand your case up or you are just blowing hot air."

AGAIN you are missing the point. The point is to reset and ask the question 'What IS heresy?' 'What IS orthodoxy?' Why is it helpful to appeal to the theology of the many as an argument against the theology of the few? If you can't understand this, I'm not going to be able to help you... honestly. Instead of calling people heretics it might make sense to debate with them as equals on the merits of their theology? Just a thought.

Despite what you assert, PB, you appear incapable of seeing the big picture here. You are clinging to a theology of tradition and not a theology of modern critical scholarship. If you had been born into a Christian household in 1500AD you would be coming to this conversation defending things that are entirely different to what you're defending today, and the reason for that is adherence to religious tradition and the absence of critical scholarship.

If you contest that, it will tell me that I'm banging my head against a brick wall with this conversation. The fact that you want people to BRING you the texts and SHOW you historical facts means that you aren't really too interested in truth... you're interested in conserving your own theology. Otherwise you'd find out for yourself. Wikipedia is a fantastic knowledge project which it may benefit you to spend some time with.

I accept that the reason for your reluctance to consider nonevangelical ideas is that it would be extremely uncomfortable to break out of that mould. But what's more important: comfort or truth? Only you can answer that.

PB- One final question.

You are in charge of compiling the canon. What are your qualifying factors that a writing must achieve in order to be included?

For example you say you accept that God speaks today. If he does, couldn't someone write it down and add it to the canon? If not, why not? Try not to make up your answers as you go along.

Post 13 PB wrote:
鈥淎nd another point is that one of the main heresies in the very early church was gnosticism (salvation through esoteric knowledge, not faith in Christ, condemned in Pauls letter to the Colossians).鈥�

Colossians is suspected of being a forgery in Paul鈥檚 name.

Post 14 John Wright wrote:
鈥淵ou mention heresies. But, until these ideas were established en masse, they were ALL potentially heresies. The only reason that you, today, call them heresies and have alternative orthodoxies, and the reason you see the difference between them, is purely, arbitrarily a matter of man's historical choices.鈥�

In Post 28 PB wrote:
鈥漁ne man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy? While there is a subtle sense in which you are correct I dont think you are driving at the subtle interpretation of this. And while some churches have ascribed heresy to things without biblical justcication, I challenge you to provide an example of one "heresy" which is not plainly at odds with the bible. Agains John, stand your case up or you are just blowing hot air.鈥�

I agree with John though I wish the term 鈥榟eresy鈥� could be dropped because in its modern usage it has taken on a negative connotation. It鈥檚 a bit like the term 鈥榗onspiracy theory鈥� which the government throws out when trying to disparage people who disagree with its findings.

When one is 鈥榤odeling鈥� a concept (for example, gravity) ideas considered 鈥榦rthodox鈥� can be subjected to tests of proof. When one has to 鈥榤etaphorize鈥� a concept (for example, love) there are no tests that can be performed. It is in this area of 鈥榤etaphor鈥� where the term 鈥榟eresy鈥� seems to be used detrimentally in that beliefs are always held to be orthodox by 鈥榯he believers鈥� and those who hold 鈥榦ther beliefs鈥� are considered 鈥榟eretical鈥�.

I like the term 鈥榟eterodox鈥� better. This is an opinion or doctrine at variance with an official or orthodox position. As an adjective, heterodox may be used to describe a subject as "characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards" e.g. the status quo. I consider myself heterodox rather than heretical, for example, on the historicity of the virgin birth.

In Post 16 pb wrote: 鈥淚 contend that most of those people who reject traditional interpretations of the bible do not do so because they have studied various interpretations and decided current orthodoxy is wrong. It seems to me most of such people do so because they have presumed beforehand that it is not possible [or that they do not wish it to be possible, for whatever reason] to have a single correct interpretation of a passage.鈥�

There were numerous 鈥榯raditional鈥� Christianities up until the 4th Century. Our 鈥榯raditional鈥� Christianity happens to be the one that was present in the center of Imperial Rome when Christianity was deemed 鈥榣egit鈥�.

In post 16 PB wrote: 鈥淚f you believe in God, as you say you do then why should it seem ridiculous that God should be friends with men and work through them? And why should it be ridicuous that he could use them to choose a canon?鈥�

Actually we don鈥檛 have the original canon. What we have are copies of copies of copies of the 鈥榗anon鈥�. Scribes down through the centuries have been copying the canon and inadvertently and intentionally changing it.

I quote Bart Ehrman from his book 鈥淢isquoting Jesus鈥�:

鈥淗ow does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God if in fact we don鈥檛 have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes 鈥� sometimes correctly but many times incorrectly? What good is it to say that the originals were inspired? We don鈥檛 have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways鈥�.

In Post 25 John Wright wrote:
鈥淏ut you're missing the key points of contention. For example, at the time Paul wrote to the Galatians, James, brother of Jesus, was back in Jerusalem teaching an entirely different kind of Christianity. They thought Paul was way out of whack for doing what he was, having never met Jesus and never been discipled by him and teaching things that they'd never heard of (leading to the debate regarding whether or not it was right that non-Jews could benefit from this teaching too).鈥�

In Post 28 PB wrote:
鈥淪o James was teaching an entirely different type of Christianity? dont just assert - demonstrate that John, that is a big say.鈥�

James headed the Ebionites who believed that Jesus was a man and was not divine. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a version of the Gospel according to Matthew (minus the birth stories). The Marcionites thought Jesus was divine and not human 鈥� they liked Paul. They rejected the writings of the Old Testament and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of the good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant. It seems strange that the beliefs of James, the brother of Jesus, should be considered inferior to that of Paul.

Good exchange PB and John!
Michael

John

On your seven points - if you cant sum them up in the space you have given then I am disaapointed in you. And if you think only the extended discussion will show how I disagree then so subtle must be the differences as to be insignificant.

KEY QUESTION: If you believe in no canon then with what authority do you state that you know seven things about God that the church does not want you to know?

Michael - colussions is suspected of being a forgery???!!! So even you are stating you are not sure of your facts on this and yet your are using it to contest my point? Not very sound.

And James headed the Ebionites? I have never heard this but have you any proof? I have never seen any evidence in scripture that he was at variance with the other 11 disciples, on the contrary. And as the scripture did not shrink from replaying the row between Peter and Paul why would this not be included ref James?

John, you are agressively against the idea of a canon. Hmmm. This is not very tolerant or libertarian of you.
In fact, according to your stance on homosexuality, what you should be saying here is; "I dont believe in the canon, but that is just my personal view. I accept and respect that you do and commend you living out your life in accordance to that."
So why get inconsistent now John?

Why shouldnt people have a canon for the bible?
Even in basic literature terms I can see it is quite possible to group together a bunch of books with the same teachings. This is a very basic logic and requires no faith or religious belief.
You seem to be overstepping your logic here.

If you were so certain of the ground you were standing on you could give chapter and verse of examples why the current canon is a nonsense and does not hold together as a homogenous unit. You have a mountain of scholarly studies to the contrary to climb over.

Why would I not want to read extra biblical books? John, you have demonstrated the answer very clearly. You have trawled through them all and come up with.....NOTHING! Your seven points are straight from the main canon you deny. This was my take long before this discussion - nothing of value in them. By the way I have read some of these books.

If I challenge you now to come up with one useful or helpful point from extra-biblicle books what would it be? Again, a wide open net for you to stand up your case....

You cant say I have no right or logic to defend the canon, it exists and has done for hundreds of years, so it has a precedent. You are in danger of becoming King Canute.

You say the canon was created by people using the necessary books to create the belief system they wanted. That is highly interpretative. You have not demonstrated they did it out of honest scholarship, only assumed and asserted.

You have so far failed to demonstrate that they actually joined together a homogenous group of books,

It seems to me you have surrendered to doubt.would he not leave his children an extended love letter if he was to be seperated from them? why is the bible t
Ref James, he said faith without works was dead. Christ told how the prodigal son was saved without works but also told how the goats were seperated from the sheep because of actions they failed to do. Christ was teaching two aspects of the same truth; without works, faith is dead.

James uses Abraham's sacrifice to illustrate the point. His faith imputed righteousness to him but his faith was only demontrated when he went to sacrifice his son as God requested. James writes time and again about the importance of faith in his epistle. Is there any evidence at all that he was rebuked or disciplined by the other disciples for preaching another gospel? I have never heard any and suspect what you have read is mere speculation made up much later after the event. Prove me wrong.

John, cant you see that modern critical scholarship IS a theology of tradition? I can accept in theory I could be defending things now that I wouldnt have done in 1500, but NOT THE PRIMARY DOCTRINE(S).

The key point running through the NT is that Christ as man and God died on a cross to save us from our sins (the gospel). In my understanding every epistle is a teaching or clarification of that for those that were straying/rebelling.

And that has been the gospel from the beginning...so on the point that really matters, I would have believed exactly the same point at any time in history.

Remember, the early creeds were in agreement with me on this. While there are subtle truths in much of what you say you seem to be using the existence of debates and different interpretations throughout church history to damn any possibility of real truth. Throwing the baby out with the bath water.

To answer you in your terms, if you contest this you are arguing with historical fact, notwithstanding I accept the general premise you make will most likely have some truth. Incidentally, as you appear to have no foundation other than what you draw from your current environment and thought, I imagine you would be a totally different mind 1500 years ago, incomparison to me. My central creed, Christ, would have been the same.

(Note John, there is me admitting once again I may be wrong in some of my beliefs, yet I claimed to have the infallible word of God. Yet you, who only has your reason, never seem to display this type of circumspection. How can you be more certain about your doubt than I am about my faith?)

eg after demanding that I show you examples of gaping holes in your biblical knowledge I gave you three sterling examples and now you have dropped the whole matter. Not displaying intellectual integrity on that one so far.

Key question 1:
I think the most important questions I have asked you so far you have ignored. What sort of a God do you believe in John? What is his character? why he best selling book in history?

I think if you describe the character of God as you see him this will all become a lot clearer.

Key question 2:
What authority do you use for assembling your knowledge of the seven things that the Church does not want you to know?

PB

In post 33 PB wrote:

鈥滿ichael - Colossians is suspected of being a forgery???!!! So even you are stating you are not sure of your facts on this and yet your are using it to contest my point? Not very sound.鈥�

PB: There is continuing historical and scientific research on the documents associated with Christianity (and other religions). This research has shown that of the 13 books attributed to Paul seven are considered to a very high degree of probability to have been written by him, three are dubious (Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians) and three are to a very high degree of probabilty documents written using Paul鈥檚 name years after his death (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus).

PB wrote: 鈥淎nd James headed the Ebionites? I have never heard this but have you any proof? I have never seen any evidence in scripture that he was at variance with the other 11 disciples, on the contrary. And as the scripture did not shrink from replaying the row between Peter and Paul why would this not be included ref James?鈥�

PB: Wikipedia has a good article of this

Also you could take a look at 鈥淟ost Christianities 鈥� The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew鈥� and 鈥淭he New Testament 鈥� A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings鈥� both by Bart Ehrman.

Regards,
Michael

In a competitive world, if you want to sell the product, you have to advertise. You have to be distinctive, you need what we call a gimmick, a schtick. A good PR firm, a makeover, maybe a new logo, and a clever ad campaign is a start. An incentive program helps too. Now if the churches say did away with hell and promised eternal salvation just for showing up once a week, that might run the numbers up. Keep the carrot, get rid of the stick...replace it with a schtick (sounds catchy doesn't it?) How about a one time offer, show up in church twice within the next month, get the following three months of sins forgiven for free.

I really hope they don't go out of business...I like the music.

Michael

ref Ebionites and "James the just" on wikipedia. ie that James was the leader of the Ebionites.

1) I dont see any scriptural excerpts referred to in wikipedia articles.

2) Wikipedia does not even claim James was the leader of this group, merely that they looked up to him. There is no suggestion James had anything to do with them.

3) The book of James in no way supports the reintroduction of Jewish law into the church as was a central value of the Ebionites. Not a word of it. In fact James echoes the book of Galations which was written to counter this heresy when he says that anyone who keeps the law but offends in one point is guilt of breaking all the law 2:10. This would not have gone down well with those trying to impose Jewish law onto the church and are definitely not the words of someone who believes in salvation by observance of the law.

4) In fact these words strongly echo the writings of Paul in Romans and Galations where he explains the law, grace and salvation. So much for "ebionite" James being at variance with Paul.

5) James also speaks of

"...the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory..." in 2:1.

This would not have gone down well with the Ebionite view that Jesus was a mere man.

I mean, who exactly might "the Lord of Glory" be???

It would be a tad blasphemous for this to be anyone else but God, and obviously strongly supports the idea that Jesus was God and therefore supports the notion of the Trinity, which again is contrary to Ebionite teaching.

5) As John Wright so ably defined earlier, the Christian gospel (good news) is that trusting in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross will save from sin and death. This is repeated time and again throughout the New Testament. SO even if you were able to bin the book of James or Colossions, Christ and his work on the cross are the lynchpin of the rest of the NT, explicitly. So if you really believe there is another gospel apart from this you have an uphill struggle with the canon. You may just have to bin them all and start again.

Michael, as these were the concrete references you had to James allegedly being the leader of the Ebionites I will trouble you no more for concrete references on the argument that Paul may not have written Paul's Epistle to the Colossions.

By the way, I am back on narrow band and have no access to the hebrew hymn material. Would be glad to see a plain text though.

PB

John

What are my qualifying factors for a canon?

Well first, this is not a subject I have studied in depth, so dont nitpick my honest answer to death.

Second, you seem to have missed the point that the Jews decided their own canon and the church accepted it.

That in itself throws a minor spanner in your Da Vinci Code theory that the whole canon might be a Vatican conspiracy (joke).

So basically here it is John, the key point for my NT canon is the gospel you defined, that Jesus, fully man and fully God died on the Cross to save us from our sins and rose again, fully man and God, three days later. Any book which supports this can be considered. Any book which contests this is out already. To my mind that is the core teaching of every book in the NT.

That is the best I can do off the top of my head. it is not complete.

Ref your other question, why can the epistle of the seven secrets of John Wright (joke) not be added the bible, I'm not sure.

Perhaps I can plead a variation of the sixth secret of JW here, that God does not expect me to be right all the time, or have all the answers all the time.

You know, if a car manual works for chapter 5 say, (read: my life at present), I feel comfortable in believing the authors were acting responsibly when they decided when they had written enough and what the last chapter should be. Faith again I guess.

Can you think of an aspect of life where the bible cannot give us adequate guidance and could have done with another epistle?

You know, after knowing my wife for a while, I have faith in her without having to examine every aspect of her life in minute detail. That is how I feel about God and the bible.

I doubt you require this level of crossexamination in other areas of your life where you have faith in people and things. I wonder if all this comes back to your understanding of Gods charachter and your experiences with Him. Do you feel he or a church leader let you down? Did doubt become overpowering? if so...No shame in any of those things...

I have had rough times as a Christian, but thankfully never allowed it to come between me and God.
I feel from the tone of your writing that there is a very great emotional tension behind your words that goes far beyond the words you are writing and might explain why you are really saying what you are saying....?

I do know the book of Revelation completes the bible in same way that Genesis opens it; it is logically the last book of the bible.

Revelation has an oft repeated theme about Christ being the Alpha and Omega. Omega being the end (Christ) and Christ also being the beginning... you get the connection with the end of the book and the end of time Revelation portrays?

I dont think Christ is called the Alpha and Omega anywhere else in the bible.

Revelation is a very fitting conclusion to the bible if you read all 66 books. And from 22:18 on it promises a curse on anyone who adds to it.

(Hope that doesnt disappoint any plans you might have had for royalties if you could have sneaked TEOTSSOJW into the canon somewhere
;-) joke, joke).

Havnt given much time to this area John, hope that answer is worthy of your question. Best I can do off the top of my head.

Obviously there are bible teachers today commissioned by God who write books in their ministry. But none of them would suggest their books are in the same category as the canon. I imagine they would all agree the canon gives them plenty to work from and needs no addition - perhaps they would say the word of God is perfect?

Any chance of a brief response to my ps and pps in post 29 please? Come on, I am not shrinking back from anything you ask.

sincerely

PB

PS John, I feel you are being unrealistic if you expect either of us to convert the other. But iron sharpens iron, it has to be a learning experience for both of us, and who knows, perhaps for some other passerby who is even less learned than we are.

PB- This conversation is over.

I want to tell you carefully and patiently why it's over, articulately and very clearly, (a) so that you are not offended, (b) so that you do not hold a grudge about it, and (c) so that you don't misconstrue the reasons for it later.

First, you are not ready for this discussion. You are contesting basic facts regarding biblical history and you're displaying incredible reluctance to learn from scholarship... even Michael is having to step in to help try and raise your awareness. Until you know this stuff, you are incapable of having or understanding this discussion. I'm convinced that the reason you aren't understanding my perceptions about the canon is because you do not see the true nature of how that canon came to be as it is. Until you do, or even indicate the slightest eagerness to find out, this is taking up time and energy that I'm unwilling to give.

Second, the reason I've been taking the time to converse with you, thus far, is that I've believed it possible to persuade you on at least a few of these points. Since I haven't managed to do anything but entrench you in your own position, I'm going to let this whole debate sit for a while; maybe until you show some signs of ungrudging insight.

Third, the magnitude of the gap between our positions is so vast that perhaps it's a worthless exercise in the first place. For example, you ask in your last post: "If you believe in no canon then with what authority do you state that you know seven things about God that the church does not want you to know?" This is because you're coming from a belief in sola scriptura, that the bible alone is capable of providing the basis of any authority for belief. Yet that is exactly what this debate is about! Your blatant lack of comprehension on points like this makes it impossible for me to do anything but clang cymbals (in what part of the bible is that analogy found, PB? And how do I know that if I don't know anything about the bible?).

You bring up my libertarianism... AGAIN in a manner that shows that you don't understand what libertarianism is. You say: "John, you are agressively against the idea of a canon. Hmmm. This is not very tolerant or libertarian of you." That, PB, is a great example of the precise reason I am not able to continue this discussion. You're saying I can't be libertarian and withstand belief in a canon of scripture. What do you think libertarianism is? Libertarianism is a political philosophy, nothing more - again WIKIPEDIA may be of interest to you here, PB since you are display a horrendous lack of apprehension on almost all of these subjects.

"Remember, the early creeds were in agreement with me on this." This sentence is irrelevant, PB, and constitutes either ignorance of this debate or an unwillingness to engage me fully on it.

"John, cant you see that modern critical scholarship IS a theology of tradition? Another distinction you are just not seeing. And the scholars to whom I'm referring would BALK at your suggestion.

Can you see the problem? Probably not. But nevertheless I don't want it said that I shrunk from this discussion: I really gave it my best try, PB. I've devoted more time to you on this blog than I have to any other online activity in the past few days, and it's gotten me precisely nowhere. I'd be a fool to keep trying.

Maybe Michael would like to try instead? Michael has a very good grasp of this debate and would be an ideal person with whom to explore this further. I'll continue to chip in if you like, but PB- -I'm spent. We are poles apart, and, as I see it, we're unlikely to see the light of day here no matter what I do.

Happy New Year.

Michael

You are Presbyterian - would that be non-subscribing (ie unitarian) I wonder???

Another point on the gospel being the lynchpin of the NT...

The gospel (ie good news) is that there is a way out from sin and death ie grace, a gracious way out granted by God through Christ...a clean leaf...a new start from all our mistakes and sin...what Jesus told Nicodemos was like starting life all over again with God's blessing ie being born again.

If you think about it, this really is good news, if you accept it is true... facing life anew with the certainty that God would not be holding any of your past against you and that he was your cheerleader for the rest of your life.

But another question that really bothers me is that, if this understanding of the gospel/good news is not true, the there really is no good news.

Any other way out is really no news, bad news or not bad news at the very best.

So you see how in yet another sense, the gospel realy is the lynchpin of the NT???

PB

In post 36 PB wrote:

鈥淢ichael, as these were the concrete references you had to James allegedly being the leader of the Ebionites I will trouble you no more for concrete references on the argument that Paul may not have written Paul's Epistle to the Colossions.鈥�

PB: Wikipedia was the snapshot version. It would help if you read 鈥淟ost Christianities 鈥� The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew鈥� and 鈥淭he New Testament 鈥� A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings鈥� both by Bart Ehrman. It鈥檚 quite a bit but highly readable and I know, PB, with your depth of understanding of Christian theology you will enjoy the historical research. I think this would put you, John and me on the same page to pick up matters at a later time.

PB Wrote:
鈥淏y the way, I am back on narrow band and have no access to the hebrew hymn material. Would be glad to see a plain text though.鈥�

There is both an audio and a video version at the site I gave you. I don鈥檛 have access to a text version.

In post 38 John wrote:

鈥淢aybe Michael would like to try instead? Michael has a very good grasp of this debate and would be an ideal person with whom to explore this further. I'll continue to chip in if you like, but PB- -I'm spent. We are poles apart, and, as I see it, we're unlikely to see the light of day here no matter what I do.鈥�

I suggest a rest for all. Both of you are spent. The discussion was interesting and very intensive. Let鈥檚 not burn each other out. There always comes a time when it is better to pause and move on. These topics will come up again in later blogs 鈥� none of us are going away.

Maureen, Mark and me got to a similar point in an earlier blog over models and metaphors and so we gave it a rest which I think was to everyone鈥檚 benefit. (Now I see on the Defending Andy McIntosh blog that Maureen and Mark are back in each others arms!)

BTW I had some correspondence with Andy McIntosh and he has indicated that he will post an answer here to Dawkins on the evolution 2nd law debate so I expect I will want to watch what happens there.

So I鈥檓 signing off on this particular thread and will chat with you later on another topic.

Regards,
Michael

John

With respect, you are not making any sense.

I apolgise for being flippant and joking about your essays but I will not take any offence from you - ever.

But as I like you I will not allow you to leave with your thinking unchallenged;-

Do you really expect intelligent people to fall over and drink in every pearl of wisdom from your mouth without question? That is not very mature. What every happened to adult discourse and debate?

You say Michael stepped in to educate me?????

I cant believe you said that!!!

Have you actually read posts 34 and 36?

All the biblical evidence runs contrary to James being an ebionite and there is not a shred of evidence yet from Michael to the contrary...

I mean, the book of James just contracts Ebionite belief on so many levels, see post 36.

And in post 24, against my wishes, I took your challenge to show some of the gaping holes in your understanding of the bible, in detail. And you just ignored my very detailed response? Not very honest or intellectual, so dont point your finger so quickly at me when you are lecturing me about the bible.

Lastly, Michael actually said: "Good exchange John and PB" in post 32, so for your own objectivity I have to reel you in and correct you if you think Michael has been taking your side here. Michael, feel free to comment again though, however you wish.

No harm done John, I only hope you are not offended by my humour, which may well have been insensitive.

I wont fall out with you and still like and respect you for the time and effort you have put in with me. You do challenge me and make me think.

PB

PB- Thanks. I didn't see your jokes at the time I wrote my final post so that definately wasn't the problem, and some humour is necessary in these things. I'm not in the least offended by anything in this thread... I'm not emotional involved in any way, PB - I'm just out of energy for this one! This is entirely a matter of the issue for me, and not anything personal. I know that shouldn't need repeated, but sometimes it's a good reminder that in no sense am I mad at you or anything like that. I'm just spent!

Maybe we'll revisit some of these ideas in 2007. Until then enjoy your weekend and have a happy new year.... same goes for everyone watching the thread. Enjoy! :-)

Okay John

glad we simmered down there, catcha later.

PB