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

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Jesus Christ is the focus of the entire Bible, not just the gospels.

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?

The church.

 

[EGSpirit]

I have a lot of comments to respond to. Thank you for posting them overnight. I will get to them throughout the day.

 

[EGSpirit]

Jesus did not cover everything. You have to go back to the Old Testament and here what God said. Meanwhile, there is a lot of other helpful information in the Bible.

Okay, so you're saying the plan of salvation spans time. In fact, spans about 300 years from the time Jesus was born until the final canon of the Old and New Testaments were adopted by the early Catholic Church. The problem with that is that even in the Bible, there is no support for that whatsoever. None. There is no more reason to believe that is true than there is for me to believe my version of Christianity, which I know in my heart the Holy Spirit gave to me.

Any opinion on that?

You might want to consider this glaring fact an indication that you're probably wrong in this theological belief.

It's actually the lament of a prophet.

I'm not a prophet and if I'm wrong, I am incapable of seeing it. So, we don't even need to go there. In 2005, I did write a Gospel harmony that synthesizes Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas into one Gospel record. But that wasn't the gift of prophecy, so much as faith and hopefully Divinely inspired editing. I don't need to argue that gospel, however, because I can just as easily talk about any one of the New Testament Gospels on their own.

But if I am wrong about all of this, you have to understand something about me. Since I was 14 (I'm 53 now), I have been a searcher. I have believed in Jesus Christ, and I have walked down just about every religious path one can walk, including the occult. But my search for the truth has always led me back to Jesus Christ--always, inevitably.

But in those travels, everything else, every lie, all the tarnish, got scrubbed away. In 1993, I read the Gospels for the first time. Oh, I had read them before, but this time, I challenged myself for some reason, to read them as if I had never been to Church, as if I knew nothing but what I was reading in that moment. And that's when everything changed. I changed. The utter truth of Christ opened up to me. And for once I totally got it; I totally understood that Jesus Christ wasn't just telling the truth--he was the truth. What philosophers searched for Jesus simply was.

I know all about the other religions of the world; I know all about the sects and denominations of Christianity. I know all about the occult and fortunetelling and witchcraft. I am extremely wide in a religious sense, but once again, I have returned to what I became in 1993. I am now, in my life, a follower of Jesus Christ.

I don't want anything else. I live my life by two tenets: God is monistic in his nature, and the human purpose is to be transformed into Christ. The first is supported by the Gospels, the second is demanded by the Gospels.

So, you see, SPF, I have been wrong so much about so much, that I know what I'm talking about now. I'm not going to get suckered down any other road but the one I'm on, because in Jesus Christ, I found the way, the truth, and the life.

Sure, Jesus is enough. But I think the authority of any of the N.T. Scriptures is a reflection of the authority of the Apostles which Jesus gave to them for establishing His Church in the 1st century.

One problem with your theory is that whatever we think we have of Jesus' words has all come through the pens of the N.T. writers and not by Jesus' own hand and pen, and we have to hope that they reported their details about Jesus' words and deeds accurately. So, whichever gospel you choose to favor, you will have to explain why you think your choice in affirming that particular gospel material is sufficient for your faith.

I wrote a Gospel harmony (The Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ). It is a synthesis of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas into a single Gospel account. That is technically my Gospel. But I'm happy with those texts on their own and from the NT as well. So, I don't have to invoke my personal Gospel harmony in this discussion. We can stick to the NT. I don't even have to discuss Thomas. We can just stick with the NT Gospels.

And I don't care about the origins of the NT gospels. I have a bible on my bookshelf. The very one I had in 1993 when God quickened my mind to understand the mysteries of Jesus Christ. That's all I care about. It might as well be the original source, because it did the job.

For instance, can you explain why I should prefer Luke over John, or John over Matthew, or Mark over Luke, or Mark over the various Gnostic Gospels? Who is to determine this with any authority? And couldn't I also just say that I'm inspired by the Holy Spirit to accept only the Gnostic gospels and ignore the four that are in the New Testament? If not, why not?

You could say that, if you believed that were true in your heart. In fact, if you had real faith that the Gospel of Nicodemus was the one and only true Gospel of Jesus Christ, then you would have no choice but to follow that. You're heart wouldn't let you do anything else--even if you were deceived by God or Satan--you'd have no other way to go, and you would feel compelled to go that way.

Then if God made you a writer with an insatiable need to communicate what you believe, you'd be like me, in this forum, talking about it.

I doubt it very much,
So a guy rides in on a donkey and claims to be God, performs miracles and feeds the poor. Talks unheard things of hell, crucified and buried and turns out his tomb was empty. And people saw him alive afterwards.
It sounds like something you’d see in a movie.

That's a really crass way of talking about the life of Jesus Christ.

 

[Jonathan Leo]

Okay, so you're saying the plan of salvation spans time. In fact, spans about 300 years from the time Jesus was born until the final canon of the Old and New Testaments were adopted by the early Catholic Church. The problem with that is that even in the Bible, there is no support for that whatsoever. None. There is no more reason to believe that is true than there is for me to believe my version of Christianity, which I know in my heart the Holy Spirit gave to me.

Any opinion on that?





I'm not a prophet and if I'm wrong, I am incapable of seeing it. So, we don't even need to go there. In 2005, I did write a Gospel harmony that synthesizes Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas into one Gospel record. But that wasn't the gift of prophecy, so much as faith and hopefully Divinely inspired editing. I don't need to argue that gospel, however, because I can just as easily talk about any one of the New Testament Gospels on their own.

But if I am wrong about all of this, you have to understand something about me. Since I was 14 (I'm 53 now), I have been a searcher. I have believed in Jesus Christ, and I have walked down just about every religious path one can walk, including the occult. But my search for the truth has always led me back to Jesus Christ--always, inevitably.

But in those travels, everything else, every lie, all the tarnish, got scrubbed away. In 1993, I read the Gospels for the first time. Oh, I had read them before, but this time, I challenged myself for some reason, to read them as if I had never been to Church, as if I knew nothing but what I was reading in that moment. And that's when everything changed. I changed. The utter truth of Christ opened up to me. And for once I totally got it; I totally understood that Jesus Christ wasn't just telling the truth--he was the truth. What philosophers searched for Jesus simply was.

I know all about the other religions of the world; I know all about the sects and denominations of Christianity. I know all about the occult and fortunetelling and witchcraft. I am extremely wide in a religious sense, but once again, I have returned to what I became in 1993. I am now, in my life, a follower of Jesus Christ.

I don't want anything else. I live my life by two tenets: God is monistic in his nature, and the human purpose is to be transformed into Christ. The first is supported by the Gospels, the second is demanded by the Gospels.

So, you see, SPF, I have been wrong so much about so much, that I know what I'm talking about now. I'm not going to get suckered down any other road but the one I'm on, because in Jesus Christ, I found the way, the truth, and the life.



I wrote a Gospel harmony (The Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ). It is a synthesis of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas into a single Gospel account. That is technically my Gospel. But I'm happy with those texts on their own and from the NT as well. So, I don't have to invoke my personal Gospel harmony in this discussion. We can stick to the NT. I don't even have to discuss Thomas. We can just stick with the NT Gospels.

And I don't care about the origins of the NT gospels. I have a bible on my bookshelf. The very one I had in 1993 when God quickened my mind to understand the mysteries of Jesus Christ. That's all I care about. It might as well be the original source, because it did the job.



You could say that, if you believed that were true in your heart. In fact, if you had real faith that the Gospel of Nicodemus was the one and only true Gospel of Jesus Christ, then you would have no choice but to follow that. You're heart wouldn't let you do anything else--even if you were deceived by God or Satan--you'd have no other way to go, and you would feel compelled to go that way.

Then if God made you a writer with an insatiable need to communicate what you believe, you'd be like me, in this forum, talking about it.



That's a really crass way of talking about the life of Jesus Christ.

Not crass at all,
I don’t view my Saviour like that at all,
I was para phrasing,
If we only had 1 gospel, people would no doubt look at it that way

 

[RaymondG]

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

When this was written, were they including future writings or just the OT? Not sure the whole bible as we know it was available at this time.

 

[RaymondG]

The letter killeth, it is the spirit that maketh alive. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Maybe it is time to put down all the books and start being led by the spirit...

 

[EGSpirit]

When this was written, were they including future writings or just the OT? Not sure the whole bible as we know it was available at this time.

That's true. This passage could not have been referring to what we consider the Bible. It could only be considered as referring to what we call the Old Testament. And, in general, Paul's statement is probably true. But that doesn't mean the OT should be part of the canon for Christians.

 

[EGSpirit]

What we have to do is to ask the following questions:
1. Who was the audience?
2. Where was it spoken?
3. What was the underlying culture?

While it is quite possible to be truly saved by what Jesus taught, we have to remember that the things He taught were before He went to cross and was risen from the dead. He gave His teaching to unconverted Jews, while Paul gave his teaching to born again Christians who believed on the crucified and resurrected Jesus.

Each of the Gospel writers wrote for different audiences. Matthew wrote for the Jews, Mark wrote to gentiles to explain Jewish customs in relation to the gospel. John wrote about Jesus personal thoughts because he knew things about Jesus that others didn't because of his closeness with the Saviour, and he wrote his Gospel to counter the Gnostic heresy. Luke wrote his gospel to a gentile official and did very comprehensive research.

Until the Apostles came into contact with Paul, who visited them at Jerusalem as a response to teachers going from Jerusalem to the gentile churches demanding that they confirm to the Law of Moses and to become circumcised. This came from a mistaken idea that one had to become a Jew to be saved. This is because the only teaching that the Apostles had at first was Jesus' teaching. Once they accepted Paul's revelation of the New Creation and the extent of what Jesus did on the cross, then they realised that Paul's teaching completed Jesus' teaching.

Oscarr, while I understand what you are saying, I am in no way going to equate Paul's letters with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. I refuse to do that. We do not have co-saviors. We do not have co-Sons of God in the Gospel message. In fact, since the Gospels were written after Paul, I tend to think they were written to correct his influence over the Church. So, I simply do not accept what you are saying on this. No offense.

People who stick to what Jesus taught, ignoring Paul, are usually very legalistic and become modern day Pharisees, perverting the gospel and demanding that people live in a type of Judiasm mixed with some Christian principles. To fully understand what happens when a person is born again of the Spirit of God, one must do the same intensive study of Paul's letters as they do of the Gospels. Paul called those who demanded Judiastic lawkeeping, "false apostles".

I don't think that's true, because I don't think there is anyone else in the world like me--or near as I can tell, ever has been. There are no Christian sects outside of my own personal religion I call Veridicanism, that teaches us to ONLY follow the Gospels. In 25 years, I've never met anyone, or found anyone online like that. So, I can tell you for a fact that the opposite is true. A real danger in following only Jesus Christ is that there is so much freedom from the law that it's easy to go down all kinds of divergent paths. And I have. And maybe God wanted it that way for me, but I'm happier in the fold of Jesus Christ with him as the shepherd.

This means that because I am not a Jew but a gentile believer, I have no obligation at all to follow any aspect of the Jewish Law and that includes the 10 Commandments. But as a believer in Christ I am required to develop the fruit of the Spirit in my life and conduct and that covers all the Law, but instead of complying with rules set by churches or others, I have a new Law in my heart that is governed by the development of the fruit of the Spirit.

Yes, I would agree with that. If we simply follow the teachings of Christ, and if we love our neighbor as ourselves, and do unto others as we would have it done unto us, all other morality falls into place in our lives. No other law is needed.

 

[JoeP222w]

Jesus is the only Savior there is. There is salvation in no one else.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

When this was written, were they including future writings or just the OT? Not sure the whole bible as we know it was available at this time.

Ah, that is a something that people often think. However, we have scripture that tells us that they indeed had the NT writings.

acts 15 30So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: 31Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

You see they had copies and shared the letters (epistles) with all. So those in Corinth had the epistle to Ephesians and so on. They did not keep these secret or only for those churches.

 

[RaymondG]

Ah, that is a something that people often think. However, we have scripture that tells us that they indeed had the NT writings.

acts 15 30So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: 31Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

You see they had copies and shared the letters (epistles) with all. So those in Corinth had the epistle to Ephesians and so on. They did not keep these secret or only for those churches.

OK, lets say they were talking about the OT and some epistles. Do you have anything to say that the Gospels, which may have been written after the epistles, were inspired or suitable for teaching and reprove?

 

[2Timothy2:15]

OK, lets say they were talking about the OT and some epistles. Do you have anything to say that the Gospels, which may have been written after the epistles, were inspired or suitable for teaching and reprove?

Not sure what your question is. The apostles were preaching the gospels. How do you suppose they heard of Jesus?

When they talked and read of the OT they were reading it through the lens of the Messiah Jesus had came. That the entire OT pointed to Jesus. I am reminded of how Stephen broke down the OT with the Pharisees and expounded on it's very meaning to which he was stoned.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Oscarr, while I understand what you are saying, I am in no way going to equate Paul's letters with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. I refuse to do that. We do not have co-saviors. We do not have co-Sons of God in the Gospel message. In fact, since the Gospels were written after Paul, I tend to think they were written to correct his influence over the Church. So, I simply do not accept what you are saying on this. No offense.



I don't think that's true, because I don't think there is anyone else in the world like me--or near as I can tell, ever has been. There are no Christian sects outside of my own personal religion I call Veridicanism, that teaches us to ONLY follow the Gospels. In 25 years, I've never met anyone, or found anyone online like that. So, I can tell you for a fact that the opposite is true. A real danger in following only Jesus Christ is that there is so much freedom from the law that it's easy to go down all kinds of divergent paths. And I have. And maybe God wanted it that way for me, but I'm happier in the fold of Jesus Christ with him as the shepherd.



Yes, I would agree with that. If we simply follow the teachings of Christ, and if we love our neighbor as ourselves, and do unto others as we would have it done unto us, all other morality falls into place in our lives. No other law is needed.

I don't take offense. Although the Gospel writers are very aware of Paul's teaching, they deliberately ignored it when they wrote about the life and ministry of Jesus. This was because they did not want their writing to be inappropriately influenced by the further revelation that came after the Holy Spirit descended on the Church at Pentecost. There is absolutely no mention of Paul in the Gospels, and certainly no indication stated that they wrote to discount the Pauline revelations.

We are not talking about two Saviours here. By your own admission, you have not read Paul's letters closely, because if you had you would have seen that Paul is not overruling Jesus at all but is teaching what Jesus through the Holy Spirit is wanting the Church to know about what the full gospel is all about. Jesus gave teaching to the unconverted Jews still under the Law. Paul completes it for born again Christians under grace.

The councils of the most godly and Spirit-filled men determined what was to be in the canon of Holy Scripture, and Paul's letters were unreservedly accepted. To reject Paul's teaching as Holy Scripture is to is say that Paul is lying when he said that what he taught he received from the Holy Spirit. If, in fact, his teaching did come through the Holy Spirit, and that is what all sound commentators and Christian teachers maintain, then that is what Jesus wanted the Church to know through Paul. Therefore, Jesus planned that Paul's teaching would complete what He wanted the Church to know about what the gospel was all about.

There have been movements over the centuries that have either taken the Gospels as true and rejected Paul, or taken Paul as the only truth and put the Gospels on the back burner. These movements have turned out to be heretical and not accepted in the orthodox framework of Church teaching, both Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

Paul did not bring another Jesus to the Church. Jesus taught as the human Jesus to the Jews. Paul taught the risen, glorified Jesus to the Church. That is the difference.

 

[EGSpirit]

The councils of the most godly and Spirit-filled men determined what was to be in the canon of Holy Scripture, and Paul's letters were unreservedly accepted.

You have no idea who they were, or how they acted, or what was in their heart, or even their motivations. Your statement above is a statement of faith, and I don't share it, because I know what people are like.

It's only what you believe, and you may be wrong or right, and I believe the canon should only be the 4 Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas. I may be wrong or right.

And I'm not saying that other scripture isn't useful. It is. It provides background and historical context. But I don't believe it belongs in the Christian canon.

To reject Paul's teaching as Holy Scripture is to is say that Paul is lying when he said that what he taught he received from the Holy Spirit.

Every Sunday in one Pentecostal church or another, someone is saying something that is supposed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Why don't we record them, transcribe them, and put what they say in the canon? I'm not saying he's lying. I don't even know the man.

If, in fact, his teaching did come through the Holy Spirit, and that is what all sound commentators and Christian teachers maintain, then that is what Jesus wanted the Church to know through Paul. Therefore, Jesus planned that Paul's teaching would complete what He wanted the Church to know about what the gospel was all about.

You don't know that. You want it to be true. Maybe it is true. I'm pretty much at the end of this debate, because I don't think there's much to debate. I'm a denomination unto myself. It's my bed; I have to lie in it, for better or worse.

There have been movements over the centuries that have either taken the Gospels as true and rejected Paul, or taken Paul as the only truth and put the Gospels on the back burner. These movements have turned out to be heretical and not accepted in the orthodox framework of Church teaching, both Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

Heretical, huh? Everyone is a heretic to someone. Does it matter that Protestants consider Catholics to worship false gods and Catholics consider Protestants to be outside of salvation? Does that matter to you at all? Orthodox? No one speaks Russian, so God only knows what they're getting up to.

Paul did not bring another Jesus to the Church. Jesus taught as the human Jesus to the Jews. Paul taught the risen, glorified Jesus to the Church. That is the difference.

I understand your position, and I refuse to follow Paul. That's my position.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You have no idea who they were, or how they acted, or what was in their heart, or even their motivations. Your statement above is a statement of faith, and I don't share it, because I know what people are like.

It's only what you believe, and you may be wrong or right, and I believe the canon should only be the 4 Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas. I may be wrong or right.

And I'm not saying that other scripture isn't useful. It is. It provides background and historical context. But I don't believe it belongs in the Christian canon.




Every Sunday in one Pentecostal church or another, someone is saying something that is supposed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Why don't we record them, transcribe them, and put what they say in the canon? I'm not saying he's lying. I don't even know the man.




You don't know that. You want it to be true. Maybe it is true. I'm pretty much at the end of this debate, because I don't think there's much to debate. I'm a denomination unto myself. It's my bed; I have to lie in it, for better or worse.



Heretical, huh? Everyone is a heretic to someone. Does it matter that Protestants consider Catholics to worship false gods and Catholics consider Protestants to be outside of salvation? Does that matter to you at all? Orthodox? No one speaks Russian, so God only knows what they're getting up to.



I understand your position, and I refuse to follow Paul. That's my position.

That is your choice. By the way, I have a MDiv as the result of three years intensive study of the Scriptures, Christian History, Catholic and Protestant Theology, etc. So I think I know something about Church councils and the decisions they made concerning the canon of Scripture. Just so you know that you are not talking to an uneducated New Zealand shepherd from the hills.

 

[EGSpirit]

That is your choice. By the way, I have a MDiv as the result of three years intensive study of the Scriptures, Christian History, Catholic and Protestant Theology, etc. So I think I know something about Church councils and the decisions they made concerning the canon of Scripture. Just so you know that you are not talking to an uneducated New Zealand shepherd from the hills.

It's clearly evident by your responses that you're highly educated. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I'm merely pointing out that I recognize the difference between fact and faith, and I'm not criticizing faith. It's just that in a debate, appeals to faith are fruitless, since each side is entitled to their own faith and little can be done to ever change that.

I appreciate you taking the time to converse with me on this. I have most certainly found your input enlightening and educational. I'm sure we'll see each other again in other posts.

Take care, my friend.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It's clearly evident by your responses that you're highly educated. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I'm merely pointing out that I recognize the difference between fact and faith, and I'm not criticizing faith. It's just that in a debate, appeals to faith are fruitless, since each side is entitled to their own faith and little can be done to ever change that.

I appreciate you taking the time to converse with me on this. I have most certainly found your input enlightening and educational. I'm sure we'll see each other again in other posts.

Take care, my friend.

Don't make the mistake of thinking I am a better person because of my education. I was a high school dropout and went for the next 10 years thinking I was as thick as a plank. My first wife could not accept that I had enough intelligence to succeed at university. But I decided to have a go at it in my mid 30s and to my surprise I gained a bachelor's degree without failing a paper. My average grade level was B+ but I felt I could live with that. I gained an MA in my late 40s also with a B+ average. Spending 15 months updating a 17th Century play by the first British woman playwright as my thesis nearly killed me. I gained my MDiv online at the age of 68 after three years of a great journey. It is a bit ironic that in the 1970s my first wife suggested that I do a bit of English study to get my English sorted out, and I ended up with an MA in English. At another time she said that I could do some theology study to get my theology straight (she obviously had a different theology than mine in those days). I did a lot better with MDiv and I gained a 95% average for my written assignment and essays. I did a big research study (around 50 pages) about the healing ministry, historically, Scripturally, and current practice. I got a very high mark and from a Church of Christ -based Bible college!

But I am aware that knowledge puffs up, while love builds up. Because I was a school dropout, I needed to prove something and that is why I did my MA - not a very good motive, and I never really used it as part of my job as a teacher. I think though it made be a better writer, and gave me the confidence that I could write, and I have written a number of Christian ministry books.

But I did my MDiv because I needed to strengthen my role as a lay preacher and to make be "bomb proof" in case anyone questioned my qualification for such a role. In the traditional Presbyterian church, this is quite important, although I know that it is the Holy Spirit who gives the inspiration for my messages to the people. I resist academic sermons and prefer to preach to the people from my heart and to inspire them to have greater faith and trust in Christ.

I believe that my ability to do academic work has come because I became a Christian and became filled with the Holy Spirit. All I have achieved is because of Christ working in me. I have nothing that I have not received from the Lord. This is why I say that my academic achievement has not made me any better than I have ever been. I believe that the Lord has allowed me to achieve academically because He has a purpose in it for me.

 

[Rescued One]

A Mormon temple is NOT a cathedral. Most Mormons aren't even allowed in them after they are dedicated.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wrote a Gospel harmony (The Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ). It is a synthesis of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas into a single Gospel account. That is technically my Gospel. But I'm happy with those texts on their own and from the NT as well. So, I don't have to invoke my personal Gospel harmony in this discussion. We can stick to the NT. I don't even have to discuss Thomas. We can just stick with the NT Gospels.

So, why not incorporate and harmonize any other Gospels outside of the four that are canonical?

And I don't care about the origins of the NT gospels. I have a bible on my bookshelf. The very one I had in 1993 when God quickened my mind to understand the mysteries of Jesus Christ. That's all I care about. It might as well be the original source, because it did the job.

So, is to say that you don't care about the origins of the NT gospels the same as saying that it doesn't matter? Surely, to some extent it does matter, doesn't it? Otherwise, the Mormon or some other more cultic "believers" are equally as justified in their beliefs as you are, and no one and no other authority will be able to tell them otherwise (in which case, so much for prophets and teachers and evangelists, or even apostles, since no one has to listen to them ...).

You could say that, if you believed that were true in your heart. In fact, if you had real faith that the Gospel of Nicodemus was the one and only true Gospel of Jesus Christ, then you would have no choice but to follow that. You're heart wouldn't let you do anything else--even if you were deceived by God or Satan--you'd have no other way to go, and you would feel compelled to go that way.

Truthfully, I can side with you in saying that I was aesthetically drawn to the person of Jesus Christ when I first read the canonical gospels. Like you, I can't really explain how Jesus appealed to me when I read the Gospels; He was simply the most wonderful person I've ever encountered, even if in a book.

However, it was really upon reading the book of Acts and a few of Paul's letters that the substance of Christianity "hit home" for me and brought me to a point where I began to see faith as something more than just the affirmation of a collection of spiritual platitudes; in my reading of Acts, I began to understand that Christianity has a historical significance within the reality that we ALL SHARE. So, the development of my faith has been partially aesthetic and individual, as it has apparently been for you, but another part of my faith also has been rationally informed by additional considerations about how my understanding of Christ AND His Church fits and integrates with what other Christians also understand about Christ AND His Church, making it a social interaction as well.

I guess I mean to say that I've never been under the impression that my faith can simply be a "solo project."

Then if God made you a writer with an insatiable need to communicate what you believe, you'd be like me, in this forum, talking about it.

Sure. And we both know that God will gift people through His Holy Spirit so they can perform various tasks in life. But, we also know that we each have to be careful to not presume upon God and assume that whatever we may "feel" directed to do in Jesus' name is all necessarily ordained by God. Sometimes, people who claim to be Christian speak out by way of their own inclinations and not because they are actually endowed by God with a gift.

 

[EGSpirit]

So, why not incorporate and harmonize any other Gospels outside of the four that are canonical?

I did, I harmonized the 4 NT Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas.

So, is to say that you don't care about the origins of the NT gospels the same as saying that it doesn't matter? Surely, to some extent it does matter, doesn't it? Otherwise, the Mormon or some other more cultic "believers" are equally as justified in their beliefs as you are, and no one and no other authority will be able to tell them otherwise (in which case, so much for prophets and teachers and evangelists, or even apostles, since no one has to listen to them ...).

That's right. That's exactly how I see it. We cannot abdicate our spirituality to a secular authority. We must search for it on our own. If after a true search we come to believe that the ...Amish...have it right--then we are spiritually commanded to be Amish.

But, if you ask me, only Jesus Christ saves (and, for the record, I think the Amish are Christians). But not Jesus in our academic understanding, but Jesus as that which transforms our hearts into the image of Christ so much so that we no longer exist, but we are vessels of Christ just like Jesus was. One doesn't have to be a Christian, per se, for that. For what we truly believe--where our faith is--our actions will follow.

Truthfully, I can side with you in saying that I was aesthetically drawn to the person of Jesus Christ when I first read the canonical gospels. Like you, I can't really explain how Jesus appealed to me when I read the Gospels; He was simply the most wonderful person I've ever encountered, even if in a book.

However, it was really upon reading the book of Acts and a few of Paul's letters that the substance of Christianity "hit home" for me and brought me to a point where I began to see faith as something more than just the affirmation of a collection of spiritual platitudes; in my reading of Acts, I began to understand that Christianity has a historical significance within the reality that we ALL SHARE. So, the development of my faith has been partially aesthetic and individual, as it has apparently been for you, but another part of my faith also has been rationally informed by additional considerations about how my understanding of Christ AND His Church fits and integrates with what other Christians also understand about Christ AND His Church, making it a social interaction as well.

It's easier that way. You don't have to pick up your cross and carry it that way. You don't have to suffer as Christ suffered. Because remember, Jesus was utterly alone in his life. And if his life is seen as a symbol of one's spiritual journey, then seeking the company and safety of any church is anathema to that.

I'm not judging you on this. I'm just warning you that academics is not faith. It feels like faith. But it's like the way our bodies treat carbon monoxide just like oxygen--but CO is not O2. I engage in academics; I'm not saying I don't, but I try not to confuse the two. And I'm not saying you do. I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility.

I guess I mean to say that I've never been under the impression that my faith can simply be a "solo project."

But it is. I assure you, the person next to you in the pew has a different concept of God than you do. He has a different idea of Jesus than you do. The platitudes you said you wanted to avoid are all you and he have to share. Unless, that is, you can both meet in the academics of the religion. Then you can definitely share that. And then you can have the comfort of your church in that.

But, hey, what you do is your own business. I'm not judging. I'm just countering in this debate we're having.

Sure. And we both know that God will gift people through His Holy Spirit so they can perform various tasks in life. But, we also know that we each have to be careful to not presume upon God and assume that whatever we may "feel" directed to do in Jesus' name is all necessarily ordained by God. Sometimes, people who claim to be Christian speak out by way of their own inclinations and not because they are actually endowed by God with a gift.

And that may be the case with me. I've thought about that. But this is what I've concluded: Veridicanism is 25 years now for me. I've tried to walk away only to be drawn back again and again. Now, I feel way too old to change.

So, if I have been deceived by Satan or myself, and if God has allowed that, even allowing it to feel so right and correct in me, then I'm powerless to stop it. I'm only a man after all. I have a lesser mind than God. So, if I'm damned and don't know it, then there is nothing I can do to prevent it.

But, nevertheless, it has given me some satisfaction in this life: I can say I sought God on my own and didn't follow other men (which would have abdicated my spiritual responsibility). And even if I failed in that, and I was wrong, I have felt a certain spiritual dignity as a result, and that has eased my mind somewhat in this life.

I also wrote a true Gospel harmony that incorporates the Gospel of Thomas. At the time of that writing, and as far as I can tell even now, no one in history has ever done that.

I have coined a term "Veridicanism" and I have spent decades distilling that philosophy until I came to two certain truths in my life (which are the tenets of Veridicanism), and that has given me some sense of pride and made me feel some sense of stature, because I don't have any other stature in this life.

So, I may be deceived and damned and unable to know it and thus unable to turn away from it. But I still thank God for the mercy and grace to have given me what I have, which has given me some measure of happiness in a world that is not a very happy one for me.

So, like Martin Luther said, Here I stand.