Is Jesus Enough? (What if we only had one Gospel?)

[EGSpirit]

What if that was it? What if all we had was the Gospel of Mark or John? What if a Christianity was formed solely on following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and nothing else? Sure the other books of the bible could be there, but what if they weren't canonical? What if they were just background information and historical context for the one Gospel?

Would it be possible? Could Jesus, by himself, be enough to carry the day?

 

[Doug Melven]

What if that was it? What if all we had was the Gospel of Mark or John? What if a Christianity was formed solely on following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and nothing else? Sure the other books of the bible could be there, but what if they weren't canonical? What if they were just background information and historical context for the one Gospel?

Would it be possible? Could Jesus, by himself, be enough to carry the day?

I would like to say yes. But according to what Jesus said I would have to say no.
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Jesus never talked about how the Body of Christ worked together like Paul did in 1 Corinthians 12.
The Book of Acts explains much of how Jesus' command should be carried out.
Romans is one of the best books for learning doctrine. More so than what Jesus taught on Earth.
Galatians tells us the true purpose of the law. Jesus did not explain this.
I could go on about the Pastoral epistles and much more, like what Hebrews and James go into, but I hope you get the idea.

 

[dreadnought]

What if that was it? What if all we had was the Gospel of Mark or John? What if a Christianity was formed solely on following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and nothing else? Sure the other books of the bible could be there, but what if they weren't canonical? What if they were just background information and historical context for the one Gospel?

Would it be possible? Could Jesus, by himself, be enough to carry the day?

Jesus is God in flesh (Matthew 1:23) and God can accomplish whatever he wishes, however he wishes, but I do think the remaining books of the Bible, and the other three gospels, provide necessary information in our quest to find heaven.

 

[EGSpirit]

Jesus is God in flesh (Matthew 1:23) and God can accomplish whatever he wishes, however he wishes, but I do think the remaining books of the Bible, and the other three gospels, provide necessary information in our quest to find heaven.

But, I don't get it: If Jesus is who we are following, why don't we just follow his life and teachings? Why burden ourselves with all the rest of it? I'm not saying anything against the rest of the Bible. It's necessary to understand many things, not to mention providing a context for the Gospels. But why not just consider the Gospels canonical? Why do we have to accept the Church's Canon?

Stupid questions, really. But for me, I'll tell you the truth: I study the Gospels constantly, but I rarely read any other part of the Bible, and have not, nor have I quoted it in many years.

 

[SPF]

What if that was it? What if all we had was the Gospel of Mark or John? What if a Christianity was formed solely on following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and nothing else? Sure the other books of the bible could be there, but what if they weren't canonical? What if they were just background information and historical context for the one Gospel?

Would it be possible? Could Jesus, by himself, be enough to carry the day?

God chose to reveal Himself to us through the entirety of Scripture, both the OT and the NT. Your question is nothing more than, "Could God have chosen to reveal Himself to us in another way?" To which the answer is yes, of course God could have revealed Himself to us in another way. But the point is, the fact is - He didn't. He has revealed Himself to us in this specific way.

But, I don't get it: If Jesus is who we are following, why don't we just follow his life and teachings? Why burden ourselves with all the rest of it? I'm not saying anything against the rest of the Bible. It's necessary to understand many things, not to mention providing a context for the Gospels. But why not just consider the Gospels canonical? Why do we have to accept the Church's Canon?

Stupid questions, really. But for me, I'll tell you the truth: I study the Gospels constantly, but I rarely read any other part of the Bible, and have not, nor have I quoted it in many years.

Reading this leaves me with a number of questions and concerns. First, the entire NT (and old) is inspired by the Holy Spirit. So when you read Philippians, you're reading a book that carries just as much weight and authority in its teachings as do the words of Jesus Himself from the Gospels. So when you say things like "Why burden ourselves with all the rest of it?" I find that very disturbing. Why exactly do you find in the inspired Word of God to be a burden? What is it about the Holy Spirit's inspired Word that you don't like and wish you could disregard and ignore?

 

[EGSpirit]

God chose to reveal Himself to us through the entirety of Scripture, both the OT and the NT. Your question is nothing more than, "Could God have chosen to reveal Himself to us in another way?" To which the answer is yes, of course God could have revealed Himself to us in another way. But the point is, the fact is - He didn't. He has revealed Himself to us in this specific way.

Reading this leaves me with a number of questions and concerns. First, the entire NT (and old) is inspired by the Holy Spirit. So when you read Philippians, you're reading a book that carries just as much weight and authority in its teachings as do the words of Jesus Himself from the Gospels. So when you say things like "Why burden ourselves with all the rest of it?" I find that very disturbing. Why exactly do you find in the inspired Word of God to be a burden? What is it about the Holy Spirit's inspired Word that you don't like and wish you could disregard and ignore?

No, no, no. You're begging the question. My point is that we decide what the canon is. We DID decide what the canon was, and the canon we have is handed down from churches most of us have nothing to do with. And the major canons are not in agreement, even today. So, it's not disturbing to talk about what the canon should be, and clearly, I don't include the rest of the bible in my personal canon. But why should that be a surprise? I am not a member of any church.

And in a way, that answer my question: I am not a member of any church. If I want to be, if I want that fellowship, then I will have to agree with their canon. But I don't. So, I can't have that fellowship with those particular Christians.

But don't think I'm not a Christian because I don't agree with you on the canon, otherwise for that reason, you will have to exclude Greek Orthodox Christians and Catholics as well (assuming you're Protestant). I am a Christian. I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in the Trinity. I agree with the Nicean Creed. I believe there is no other way to the Kingdom of God except through Jesus Christ. So, I am a Christian.

But I've read the Bible, and I've decided on the Canon for myself. Unfortunately, that leaves me kind of a solitary Christian. But I haven't forsaken the fellowship of other Christians--I'm here now, in this forum, for instance.

 

[SPF]

No, no, no. You're begging the question. My point is that we decide what the canon is. We DID decide what the canon was, and the canon we have is handed down from churches most of us have nothing to do with.

I tend to think that "we" decided the Canon under the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

And the major canons are not in agreement, even today. So, it's not disturbing to talk about what the canon should be, and clearly, I don't include the rest of the bible in my personal canon.

First, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "major canons". But as far as I can see, the three main branches of Christianity actually ARE in agreement over the Canon. There is some question over the apocrypha, but as far as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I, II Thessalonians, I, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I, II Peter, I, II, III John, Jude, and Revelation are all universally accepted by all three branches of Christianity as inspired Scripture.

But why should that be a surprise? I am not a member of any church.

I don't find it surprising that you are not a member of any Church. Most people that feel they have some personal insight/knowledge/understanding that the rest of Christianity does not are typically not members of a Church. That's usually how cults start, such as the JWs and Mormons.

But I've read the Bible, and I've decided on the Canon for myself.

This is what concerns me. On what authority have you done that? What insight has the Holy Spirit given you that has enlightened you to this Truth? I mean basically what you're saying is that all of Christianity for centuries has been wrong and that you have finally been bestowed upon with the Truth of what is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Finally you have come along! Finally you are here with the secret knowledge of what is inspired by Scripture! See, that is what would concern me. Personally, I'm not brave/arrogant enough to presume to have more authority and direction than the early Church Fathers.

What I wonder most is why you reject the entirety of the NT except the Gospels? Why do you consider Paul's letters to be a burden? I find them encouraging, instructional, and full of wisdom.

 

[EGSpirit]

I tend to think that "we" decided the Canon under the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

First, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "major canons". But as far as I can see, the three main branches of Christianity actually ARE in agreement over the Canon. There is some question over the apocrypha, but as far as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I, II Thessalonians, I, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I, II Peter, I, II, III John, Jude, and Revelation are all universally accepted by all three branches of Christianity as inspired Scripture.

Ah, but you see, now you are creating a canon. In your canon, you take what is common among say the Catholic and Protestant bibles and declare that that's the actual canon. But you have no use whatsoever for these books:

Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4–16:24)[9]
Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon)
Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)[10]
Additions to Daniel:
Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90)
Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

And these are not part of your bible. And I'm not criticizing. On the contrary: I'm suggesting that's what every Christian has to do. I'm suggesting that part of our spiritual responsibility is to decide the "canon" for ourselves.

I don't find it surprising that you are not a member of any Church. Most people that feel they have some personal insight/knowledge/understanding that the rest of Christianity does not are typically not members of a Church. That's usually how cults start, such as the JWs and Mormons.

I hardly think those branches of Christianity are cults. I mean, come on, once you get a cathedral, surely you lose the designation of "cult."

This is what concerns me. On what authority have you done that? What insight has the Holy Spirit given you that has enlightened you to this Truth? I mean basically what you're saying is that all of Christianity for centuries has been wrong and that you have finally been bestowed upon with the Truth of what is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Okay, but think about that: What did the others do? What did the Gospel writers do? What did the ones who decided on whatever canon you are using do? For that matter, what about the interpreters and the scribes who interpreted and copied the Bible for centuries? Clearly, I believe the Holy Spirit has told me to follow only the Gospels as the WORD of God; that's why I'm doing it. But how can you abdicate to people you don't even know, have never met, never talked to--how can you let them decide what the Holy Spirit said? Don't you have a relationship with the Holy Spirit, too?

Now, fine, maybe the Holy Spirit has told you to follow the 66 books of the Holy Bible in the translation of your choice from the publisher who put that copy on the bookstore shelf. That's fine. I can accept that--but how is that any different than what I'm suggesting?

Finally you have come along! Finally you are here with the secret knowledge of what is inspired by Scripture! See, that is what would concern me. Personally, I'm not brave/arrogant enough to presume to have more authority and direction than the early Church Fathers.

But you don't even know them. How can you say that? When I read the Gospels, I find it doesn't matter what translation I read. I find the revelation of Christ in my NIV bible that I bought 25 years ago. I don't need original manuscripts; I don't need Ancient Greek interpretations; I don't even need historical evidence. All I need is that NIV bible (By the way, I have many translations, besides NIV, but I use that to make my point.). And that's my choice, and my revelation, and my communication with the Holy Spirit.

What I wonder most is why you reject the entirety of the NT except the Gospels? Why do you consider Paul's letters to be a burden? I find them encouraging, instructional, and full of wisdom.

I do, too! I find them instructional and wise, and encouraging. But they are, in the end, only letters by a Christian man to various churches that existed at that time. I can't believe for one moment, especially the way he goes on in some of them, that he ever would have dreamed or endorsed them being used as Holy Scripture.

But I'm not trying to convert anyone here. I'm just asking the question, really: Who has authority to determine the canon for anyone other than that particular Christian person?

Again, there are costs to that. It sets me apart from other Christians, and that can be a lonely place. But it certainly doesn't hurt my walk with Christ. Frankly, it strengthens it, because in truth, I only follow Christ. Nothing else, and no one else. I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but it is where I find myself.

 

[SPF]

Ah, but you see, now you are creating a canon. In your canon, you take what is common among say the Catholic and Protestant bibles and declare that that's the actual canon.

I'm not at all creating a Canon. I hold, along with all three branches of Christianity to the 27 books of the NT as inspired by the Holy Spirit. The only disagreement among the three branches of Christianity is in relation to the apocrypha.

And these are not part of your bible. And I'm not criticizing. On the contrary: I'm suggesting that's what every Christian has to do. I'm suggesting that part of our spiritual responsibility is to decide the "canon" for ourselves...

Clearly, I believe the Holy Spirit has told me to follow only the Gospels as the WORD of God; that's why I'm doing it. But how can you abdicate to people you don't even know, have never met, never talked to--how can you let them decide what the Holy Spirit said? Don't you have a relationship with the Holy Spirit, too?

Now, fine, maybe the Holy Spirit has told you to follow the 66 books of the Holy Bible in the translation of your choice from the publisher who put that copy on the bookstore shelf. That's fine. I can accept that--but how is that any different than what I'm suggesting?

God isn't a God of confusion, and that is what you're promoting. Either Scripture is divinely inspired by God, or it's not. I strive to base my beliefs upon what Scripture teaches because I believe Scripture to be authoritative. But if Scripture is NOT divinely inspired by God, then I have no objective foundation by which to base my theology on.

What you're suggesting is that ONLY the Gospels are inspired and authoritative, and while I'm sure you're a great guy, I don't see any reason why I should believe you.

 

[EGSpirit]

God isn't a God of confusion, and that is what you're promoting.

Oh, stop it. I'm not promoting anything. I'm having a discussion about the Christian canon. If you're getting confused, then just stop responding, but don't accuse me of somehow being "against God."

What you're suggesting is that ONLY the Gospels are inspired and authoritative, and while I'm sure you're a great guy, I don't see any reason why I should believe you.

I wasn't looking to make you believe me. I was looking to have discussion and debate on the issue. You clearly can't do that without feeling like someone's pulling your religion out from under you. And you know why that is? Seriously? It's because you've let others make up your mind for you about what you believe. So, you see false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing everywhere.

When you say the 66 books of the Bible are the inspired canon, you need to be able to say you came to that conclusion on your own.

 

[SPF]

I wasn't looking to make you believe me. I was looking to have discussion and debate on the issue. You clearly can't do that without feeling like someone's pulling your religion out from under you. And you know why that is? Seriously? It's because you've let others make up your mind for you about what you believe. So, you see false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing everywhere.

When you say the 66 books of the Bible are the inspired canon, you need to be able to say you came to that conclusion on your own.

I find the amount of emotion you're reading into my posts to be quite telling of yourself, more than anything. If I get accused of anything, it's being too logical and not emotional enough.

The mutually exclusive Truth is that either all, some, or none of the 27 books of the NT which are universally agreed upon as Canon by the three branches of Christianity are inspired by the Holy Spirit or not.

You've come here with a view that in fact they are NOT all inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that only the 4 Gospels are inspired by the Holy Spirit. I actually have a fairly deep education with regards to Church History, and so I am well aware of the development of the Canon and personally believe that the Holy Spirit did indeed guide its formation, and I agree, along with the three major branches of Christianity that the 27 books I previously listed are indeed Divinely Inspired. I also agree that the Canon is closed.

Your position is mutually exclusive and contradicts that of thousands of years of Church history. Now, if you want to come to this forum and declare that you have received some mystical and gnostic revelation that the Church has actually been wrong for these past 1700 years and that the Holy Spirit didn't actually inspire anything other than the Gospels, then I would love to hear an argument as to why that is.

Why can you trust the Gospels and not the other books? Does the fact that the Gospels are inspired and the other NT books not inspired mean that the Gospels are without error but that the epistles all contain errors? Luke and Acts were written by the same author pretty much back to back. Yet, you reject Acts as authoritative and accept Luke? Why?

 

[Soyeong]

What if that was it? What if all we had was the Gospel of Mark or John? What if a Christianity was formed solely on following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and nothing else? Sure the other books of the bible could be there, but what if they weren't canonical? What if they were just background information and historical context for the one Gospel?

Would it be possible? Could Jesus, by himself, be enough to carry the day?

If all we had was one Gospel, then there would be a whole lot less confusion about whether his followers should follow the Mosaic Law as he taught by word and by example.

 

[EGSpirit]

The mutually exclusive Truth is that either all, some, or none of the 27 books of the NT which are universally agreed upon as Canon by the three branches of Christianity are inspired by the Holy Spirit or not.

Fair enough. I choose your "some" option. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

You've come here with a view that in fact they are NOT all inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that only the 4 Gospels are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I can't say that. I can't say that the other books of the Bible are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, I'm saying that I don't accept all of them in what I consider to be the Christian canon. Protestants have a canon, Catholics have a different canon, Orthodox have yet another canon. I have mine. In fact, I include the Gospel of Thomas. Some say it's Gnostic, but I don't find it any more Gnostic than the the Gospel of John--and I am NOT a Gnostic. So, don't even start throwing that term around. I can feel you itching to do so.

And don't even try to suggest I'm not a Christian. I fully accept that salvation and eternal life come only through Jesus Christ, and furthermore, I fully agree and accept the Nicene Creed, the Apostolic Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.

I may be a denomination of one, but there it is.

I actually have a fairly deep education with regards to Church History, and so I am well aware of the development of the Canon and personally believe that the Holy Spirit did indeed guide its formation, and I agree, along with the three major branches of Christianity that the 27 books I previously listed are indeed Divinely Inspired. I also agree that the Canon is closed.

Oh, so you only include the New Testament in YOUR canon. Then you're no different than me. You try to sound like you are, but you're not. And frankly, I'm fine with that. So long as you're taking responsibility for your own Christian faith, then I'm fine with your canon. In fact, you and I would agree on Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Your position is mutually exclusive and contradicts that of thousands of years of Church history.

It doesn't contradict anything. I just have a different canon. And for the record, your Protestant faith goes against 1500 years of Church history, and my guess is your not a deeply orthodox Lutheran, so your sect of Christianity is probably heretical compared to the Catholic Church. I'll bet you don't even believe that Mary is the mother of God or that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. I'm not judging. I don't believe that either (Well, I actually do believe the bread and wine become the substance of Christ.). And I can see where the whole "mother of God" thing comes from. But again, like you, I'm not Catholic.

Now, if you want to come to this forum and declare that you have received some mystical and gnostic revelation that the Church has actually been wrong for these past 1700 years and that the Holy Spirit didn't actually inspire anything other than the Gospels, then I would love to hear an argument as to why that is.

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]! You actually called me a Gnostic before I even mentioned the Gospel of Thomas. How did I know that? You don't even know what a Gnostic is or what they believed, do you? But you throw that term around. Ever heard the saying: "To speak without thinking is to shoot without aiming?"

And what are you talking about? You're a Protestant. You're outside that 1700 year-old Church just like me.

Why can you trust the Gospels and not the other books? Does the fact that the Gospels are inspired and the other NT books not inspired mean that the Gospels are without error but that the epistles all contain errors? Luke and Acts were written by the same author pretty much back to back. Yet, you reject Acts as authoritative and accept Luke? Why?

Finally, something we can discuss...

Acts is not a Gospel, so...I don't know what else to say about that.

Inerrancy is not a concern of mine. The books of the Bible have been copied and translated so many times, there's no telling what the originals said. BUT, I don't care. I'm looking at my bible right now. In it are the Gospels. Those Gospels still have more than enough transformative power. So, I don't care about inerrancy.

The Old Testament is Jewish literature. We are not Jews; we are Christians. So, it's great for historical reference, but doesn't belong in a Christian canon. Or do we not follow Jesus Christ?

The New Testament has letters and Gospels. Letters are just letters by Christians who were writing in the 1st century. There's no reason for them to be in the canon. Why not have Augustine's "Confessions" as a book of the Bible?

As to why I trust the Gospels:

a. No one knows who wrote them, so they stand on their own and either succeed or fail based on what they say. And that means what my 25-year-old Bible records as the Gospels.

b. They inspired me to be like Christ, to follow Christ--so they work.

c. They exist miraculously, because the life and teachings of Jesus Christ would not permit the Catholic Church to exist as it does, and yet, the Catholic Church preserved the Gospels for all these centuries, at least up until the printing press.

d. They have a kind of supernatural depth to them. They are concrete on one level, symbolic on a deeper level, and then transformative on an even deeper level, such that reading--just hearing--the words as their spoken can cause a change in the mind of the reader--even if they don't understand what the passage says.

So, as Martin Luther would say: There I stand.

 

[EGSpirit]

If all we had was one Gospel, then there would be a whole lot less confusion about whether his followers should follow the Mosaic Law as he taught by word and by example.

Jesus wasn't about the Mosaic law. Jesus fulfills the law. Faith in Christ supersedes the law. It transcends it.

 

[Soyeong]

Jesus wasn't about the Mosaic law.

Jesus lived in perfect obedience to the Law and spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey it by word and by example, so your assertion that he wasn't about the Mosaic Law is groundless.

Jesus fulfills the law.

To fulfill the Law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS 2c). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law in Matthew 5:17, that is precisely what he then proceeded to do six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly understand and obey it. According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire Law, so it doesn't refer to something unique that only Jesus did, and there are many other examples of people fulfilling the law in other Jewish writings. In Galatians 6:2, it says that bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, which again refers to obeying it as it should be and is something anyone can do. In Romans 15:18-19, it says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, which referred to causing the Gentiles to become fully obedient to it in word and in deed, not to doing away with it.

Faith in Christ supersedes the law. It transcends it.

Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law (Matthew 23:23) and obedience to it is straightforwardly about having faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live. Living by faith is always associated with a willingness to submit to God's commands, such as with every example of saving faith in Hebrews 11, while disobedience to God's Law is referred to as breaking faith. In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience that faith requires, so faith does not supersede the Law, but rather it is what requires us to obey it. In any case, there is nothing that you would find from reading just one Gospel that suggests that faith in Christ supersedes or transcends the Law or that speaks against anyone obeying it.

 

[Almost there]

What if that was it? What if all we had was the Gospel of Mark or John? What if a Christianity was formed solely on following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and nothing else? Sure the other books of the bible could be there, but what if they weren't canonical? What if they were just background information and historical context for the one Gospel?

Would it be possible? Could Jesus, by himself, be enough to carry the day?

In a way, that is how I already see it. Maybe that is the point of the lyrics in this song:

 

[Almost there]

But, I don't get it: If Jesus is who we are following, why don't we just follow his life and teachings? Why burden ourselves with all the rest of it? I'm not saying anything against the rest of the Bible. It's necessary to understand many things, not to mention providing a context for the Gospels. But why not just consider the Gospels canonical? Why do we have to accept the Church's Canon?

Stupid questions, really. But for me, I'll tell you the truth: I study the Gospels constantly, but I rarely read any other part of the Bible, and have not, nor have I quoted it in many years.

It is very probably that Pauls letters were written before the Gospels. Quite a while before.

 

[SPF]

I can't say that. I can't say that the other books of the Bible are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, I'm saying that I don't accept all of them in what I consider to be the Christian canon.

Saying that you don't consider the epistles Canon sounds a lot like you suggesting they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. I would assume you believe the 4 Gospels are inspired by the Holy Spirit, which would be why you accept them as Canon, why else would you reject the rest of the NT as not Canon if you believed they were divinely inspired and possessing equal authority as the 4 Gospels?

Protestants have a canon, Catholics have a different canon, Orthodox have yet another canon.

All three branches universally accept the OT and the 27 books of the NT as Canon. The difference rests primarily in the apocrypha.

In fact, I include the Gospel of Thomas. Some say it's Gnostic,

It IS gnostic heresy.

And don't even try to suggest I'm not a Christian.

The thought hasn't crossed my mind.

Oh, so you only include the New Testament in YOUR canon.

No, I do not. I accept the 39 books of the Old Testament as divinely inspired and inerrant.

It doesn't contradict anything. I just have a different canon.

....which contradicts orthodox Christianity.

You don't even know what a Gnostic is or what they believed, do you?

Yes, yes I do.

Inerrancy is not a concern of mine. The books of the Bible have been copied and translated so many times, there's no telling what the originals said.

Actually, if you do a study on the reliability of Scripture you'll find that we can trust with a very high degree of certainty that what we have today is about as close to the original as you can get. Supernatural some might say.

The Old Testament is Jewish literature. We are not Jews; we are Christians. So, it's great for historical reference, but doesn't belong in a Christian canon. Or do we not follow Jesus Christ?

Without the OT, how would you know that Jesus was fulfilling prophecy? Are you aware of how much the NT quotes the OT? The book of Matthew alone references the OT quite a lot. I find this quote by you to be just really sad and ignorant.

The New Testament has letters and Gospels. Letters are just letters by Christians who were writing in the 1st century. There's no reason for them to be in the canon.

Unless they are Divinely Inspired by God, then there is very good reason for them to be in the Canon.

 

[Almost there]

Unless they are Divinely Inspired by God, then there is very good reason for them to be in the Canon.

The above is your response to someone talking about the letters. I don't disagree with your position, but I have to ask two questions:
1. How do we know they were "divinely inspired"?
2. Many modern preachers are claimed to often give "divinely inspired" sermons. Should we staple them to the back of our bible?

 

[EGSpirit]

I just want to say before I read through any of the recent replies that I love Brooks and Dunn! So, I'm listening. I haven't really listened to them since the early 1990s.