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

[2PhiloVoid]

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

Why stop there? Why not attempt a harmonization of ALL literature that claims to be a Gospel pertaining to the person of Christ. For instance, there is the Infancy Gospel which is attributed to Thomas? Why not include that? There's a gospel according to Peter. Why not incorporate that as well? And so on and so forth.

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.

What "secular" authority? I didn't mention any secular authority. Paul was appointed by Jesus Christ, Himself, as was Peter. They aren't to be counted as "secular" authorities but rather authorities WITHIN the body of Christ. If you do count the apostles as secular authorities, I'm not sure how you derive that conclusion. It seems kind of weak to me.

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.

Of course, only Jesus Christ saves. I don't think I would dispute that point. However, I'm not so sure that Jesus wants us to become just a mere drop in the ocean of God's Spirit and lose our identities in Christ. That's not exactly how I understand Jesus' work in us. And I don't think that I would say that Jesus was a "vessel" of Christ. Rather, Jesus IS the Christ.

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 sure what you're saying here. I personally believe that whether we have some academics mixed in with a more or less esoteric faith, we all have to "bear our crosses" anyway, regardless.

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.

And I'm not judging you; but I am disagreeing with your approach since I think it slices away some mandatory understanding about what it is to be in the "Body of Christ."

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.

No, I don't think this is correct. While it is correct to cite that on an epistemological scale, no two people have identical conceptions or understandings about the Trinity and what God is really doing in us, I don't think we can say that we can just leave it all there, and I say this because we are each supposed to be in an ongoing mode of learning, and that would mean that we have to abdicate some portion of our own authority and make way for information from authoritative sources outside ourselves. It can't just ALL be our own conceptual concoction.

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

Well, to assert a counter means that there is some truth "out there" about it all. Then we have to argue about "what" truth "is" in Christ. [Although, typically, no one can really win that argument since God's revelation is partially concealed by God Himself, which prevents any one of us from opening our mouths and saying, "I've got the complete and comprehensive knowledge of God -- hear ye, hear ye!!!]

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.

I don't know to what extent your "Veridicanism" can stand up to it's own inherent standards if it includes the words of Christ. Why not just call it the "red-letter faith"? Of course then, I also don't know what you're going to do with all of those extra, black print words surrounding the red-letters which provide connective narrative and contexts.

 

[EGSpirit]

Why stop there? Why not attempt a harmonization of ALL literature that claims to be a Gospel pertaining to the person of Christ. For instance, there is the Infancy Gospel which is attributed to Thomas? Why not include that? There's a gospel according to Peter. Why not incorporate that as well? And so on and so forth.

I've read every Gospel I know of that exists. Everything from the Nag Hammadi library. I considered them all. But anyone who does that, I feel will come away with the same conclusion I did: The four NT Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas are the real deal. Nothing else is. Maybe that was the Holy Spirit speaking to me. I hope so.

What "secular" authority? I didn't mention any secular authority. Paul was appointed by Jesus Christ, Himself, as was Peter. They aren't to be counted as "secular" authorities but rather authorities WITHIN the body of Christ. If you do count the apostles as secular authorities, I'm not sure how you derive that conclusion. It seems kind of weak to me.

Of course, only Jesus Christ saves. I don't think I would dispute that point. However, I'm not so sure that Jesus wants us to become just a mere drop in the ocean of God's Spirit and lose our identities in Christ. That's not exactly how I understand Jesus' work in us. And I don't think that I would say that Jesus was a "vessel" of Christ. Rather, Jesus IS the Christ.

I agree. With all of it.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I personally believe that whether we have some academics mixed in with a more or less esoteric faith, we all have to "bear our crosses" anyway, regardless.

Academics is a way to escape that. Academics is a way to get lost in the questions and avoid the path of faith. But I'm an academic to, of sorts, so I'm not judging. I'm just cautioning.

And I'm not judging you; but I am disagreeing with your approach since I think it slices away some mandatory understanding about what it is to be in the "Body of Christ."

I can appreciate that.

No, I don't think this is correct. While it is correct to cite that on an epistemological scale, no two people have identical conceptions or understandings about the Trinity and what God is really doing in us, I don't think we can say that we can just leave it all there, and I say this because we are each supposed to be in an ongoing mode of learning, and that would mean that we have to abdicate some portion of our own authority and make way for information from authoritative sources outside ourselves. It can't just ALL be our own conceptual concoction.

Who then? Who is the authority? You act like these people from centuries and centuries ago can be trusted. We don't know them. If you can't receive direct communication from the Holy Spirit, you're screwed. Nothing else matters. But if you honestly believe in your heart that the Holy Spirit has told you to accept the authority of the...Presbyterian faith...then follow that faith. What I'm saying is I've been given something different.

I used to think I had been given something new. But now I know it's not new at all. It very much used to be the case that an entire Church could be formed on one Gospel document. And when Titian wrote the first Gospel harmony, the Diatessaron, there was no heresy yet. So, me? I'm not anything new. I'm so old and forgotten it just seems new. What is new is that it came to me when I started without me ever knowing any of that history. So now, that's my confirmation.

Well, to assert a counter means that there is some truth "out there" about it all. Then we have to argue about "what" truth "is" in Christ. [Although, typically, no one can really win that argument since God's revelation is partially concealed by God Himself, which prevents any one of us from opening our mouths and saying, "I've got the complete and comprehensive knowledge of God -- hear ye, hear ye!!!]

I don't know to what extent your "Veridicanism" can stand up to it's own inherent standards if it includes the words of Christ. Why not just call it the "red-letter faith"? Of course then, I also don't know what you're going to do with all of those extra, black print words surrounding the red-letters which provide connective narrative and contexts.

It could be called the "Red-Letter faith." But that would include the book of Acts and Revelation, so that's not really going to happen, not to mention there are passages in the Gospel that are not in red letters, and even at that, then I would be following some man who made this or that to be red letters.

I just want you to think about something: You're an educated man. You are more than capable of reading the Bible and understanding it. So, I ask you this: Do you ever think about the men you are following? Why are they different than you? Why do you think the communication by the Holy Spirit to them is of greater quality than the Holy Spirit's communication to you? Because that's what it's all about: If you can't hear the Holy Spirit the way they did, the way I do, then you are damned. You are not saved. God is not with you, and you have no salvation. The fact that you cannot hear the Holy Spirit is evidence of that.

But I don't think that's the case with you. I think you are just scared to be on your own, and I totally get that. Where I am, is not pleasant. I am alone with God, and that is good, but I have no friends, no one else to help me. I am alone on earth. I believe in the Kingdom of God there will be others like me, and we will be soul mates and love each other as ourselves, and all these people in the Kingdom will come from all the years between the time of Christ and me. But that is for dreams and after death. For now, I'm just glad you and I are talking--even if we don't agree. That means so little to me, but that we are talking means so much, so thank you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who then? Who is the authority? You act like these people from centuries and centuries ago can be trusted. We don't know them. If you can't receive direct communication from the Holy Spirit, you're screwed. Nothing else matters. But if you honestly believe in your heart that the Holy Spirit has told you to accept the authority of the...Presbyterian faith...then follow that faith. What I'm saying is I've been given something different.

I just want you to think about something: You're an educated man. You are more than capable of reading the Bible and understanding it. So, I ask you this: Do you ever think about the men you are following? Why are they different than you? Why do you think the communication by the Holy Spirit to them is of greater quality than the Holy Spirit's communication to you? Because that's what it's all about: If you can't hear the Holy Spirit the way they did, the way I do, then you are damned. You are not saved. God is not with you, and you have no salvation. The fact that you cannot hear the Holy Spirit is evidence of that.

Well then, according to you, and by the way in which you've framed of all of your questions, it sounds like I'm not only spiritually ignorant, but I'm also eternally "damned." Because, if there is one thing I can definitely tell you, it is that in the 30+ years that I've been a Christian, I haven't been spoken to by God in the same way that the early disciples/apostles were spoken to by the Trinity. In fact, I can't say that God has really ever spoken directly to me at all...except through the Bible. At most, I might have experienced a few very 'tiny' nudges from out of nowhere telling me..."go this way, not that way." But, as I said, those were very tiny nudges.

So, if your personal dogma requires that a Christian has to have had some kind of hyper-charismatic experience with God's Spirit, EQUAL to that of those early, 1st century persons ... then I'm doomed.

The funny this is, it sounds like I may be able to accept you as a fellow Christian, being that my personal "Christian philosophy" is based on a shared, generalized, Trans-denominational affirmation of Trinitarian doctrine, but you can't accept me as such. What a conundrum ...

[p.s. ....just a word of advice. You may want to steer clear of implying that other people aren't Christian when they say that they are. And why do I say you may want to steer clear of this? Mainly because Christian Forums has a rule against doing that very thing. ]

 

[EGSpirit]

Well then, according to you, and by the way in which you've framed of all of your questions, it sounds like I'm not only spiritually ignorant, but I'm also eternally "damned." Because, if there is one thing I can definitely tell you, it is that in the 30+ years that I've been a Christian, I haven't been spoken to by God in the same way that the early disciples/apostles were spoken to by the Trinity. In fact, I can't say that God has really ever spoken directly to me at all...except through the Bible. At most, I might have experienced a few very 'tiny' nudges from out of nowhere telling me..."go this way, not that way." But, as I said, those were very tiny nudges.

So, if your personal dogma requires that a Christian has to have had some kind of hyper-charismatic experience with God's Spirit, EQUAL to that of those early, 1st century persons ... then I'm doomed.

The funny this is, it sounds like I may be able to accept you as a fellow Christian, being that my personal "Christian philosophy" is based on a shared, generalized, Trans-denominational affirmation of Trinitarian doctrine, but you can't accept me as such. What a conundrum ...

[p.s. ....just a word of advice. You may want to steer clear of implying that other people aren't Christian when they say that they are. And why do I say you may want to steer clear of this? Mainly because Christian Forums has a rule against doing that very thing. ]

I didn't mean to say that about you. I was trying to use a little hyperbole that I honestly didn't think applied to you. Clearly, you're a Christian. That's clearly your religion. So, I take it back if I can, because I was just trying to be dramatic more than anything else. But I do feel a certain disheartenment, and I have met many Christians just like yourself, so you're not unusual to me, but I've never really understood how...no, more like why...someone would be a Christian if they didn't hear back from God, the Holy Spirit, when they prayed. I mean, I wonder how they stay motivated and keep their faith.

But, in fact, I think that majority of Christians of all denominations, throughout the entire history of the Church have been more like you than like me. And I think this is something I have to wake up to and accept, whether or not I understand it.

I apologize for saying you were damned. I don't really believe that. And that's what I said in the paragraph below that. See, I didn't take my own favorite motto into account: "To speak without thinking is to shoot without aiming."

I guess I always just thought the differences between me and other Christians was doctrinal, but I have to think on that some now. Maybe the doctrinal differences are just a symptom of a much greater difference. Either way: I consider myself a Christian, and I know you are a Christian, and I'm certainly no one to judge whether or not someone is damned. My apologies.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't mean to say that about you. I was trying to use a little hyperbole that I honestly didn't think applied to you. Clearly, you're a Christian. That's clearly your religion. So, I take it back if I can, because I was just trying to be dramatic more than anything else. But I do feel a certain disheartenment, and I have met many Christians just like yourself, so you're not unusual to me, but I've never really understood how...no, more like why...someone would be a Christian if they didn't hear back from God, the Holy Spirit, when they prayed. I mean, I wonder how they stay motivated and keep their faith.

No problem. I don't hold grudges (...or at least I try to place a 10 minute limit on that kind of thing, if possible).

I'm sorry to hear that you feel disheartened. We all have our own individual perceptions of the world and our own ways of coping with it all. And to some extent, I can understand the frustration of having what seems to be a "good idea" and having a number of people spurn it with a mere wave of the hand.

But, in fact, I think that majority of Christians of all denominations, throughout the entire history of the Church have been more like you than like me. And I think this is something I have to wake up to and accept, whether or not I understand it.

Perhaps in some ways, they are more like me. But, then again, perhaps not. I'm a philosopher, and I'm open to a more inclusive approach to my Christian faith than many other Christians are, so I'm not sure how 'like' I am to other, various brethren. This isn't to say that I'm ready to shake hands with just anybody, but I do have a low bar, one centering on traditional Trinitarian faith. I personally think that if a person has that, along with a heart that is generally repentant and led by the Holy Spirit, then who am I to swat them away from Christ's Church.

I apologize for saying you were damned. I don't really believe that. And that's what I said in the paragraph below that. See, I didn't take my own favorite motto into account: "To speak without thinking is to shoot without aiming."

I guess I always just thought the differences between me and other Christians was doctrinal, but I have to think on that some now. Maybe the doctrinal differences are just a symptom of a much greater difference. Either way: I consider myself a Christian, and I know you are a Christian, and I'm certainly no one to judge whether or not someone is damned. My apologies.

I'm sure there's more than just doctrinal differences between many of us ... and that's ok. It's part of being human and part of having to labor to build social connections.

 

[Kristen Davis]

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?

Yes because Jesus allows us to not only become better decision makers but also appreciate what we already have. Jesus is the gateway to eternal glory through the father. In Exodus it mentions how the lord was able to provide the Isrealites with food, confidence, and survival that allowed them to posses the land of their ancestors and ultimately thrive.

 

[FenderTL5]

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?

For the OP; What makes you think that Christianity wasn't formed on the teaching(s) of Christ and the Apostles without reference to the Gospels or the epistles?

 

[EGSpirit]

For the OP; What makes you think that Christianity wasn't formed on the teaching(s) of Christ and the Apostles without reference to the Gospels or the epistles?

See, none of that really mattes. What happened back then really isn't a concern to us today. We have the Bible. It contains the Gospels, and I know for a fact that the story of the Gospel as found in any modern Bible still works to convert people whom the Spirit allows to hear the message.

So, whatever the early Christians did is up to them. We have no experience of that. Christ is for the living, not the dead. They have gone on to the Kingdom (presumably), so they live there. We live here (for now), so our Christianity should be immediate, not historical.

Of course, history is interesting, and it can be inspiring, so no one is saying we should throw out the Bible. But the canon should only be the Gospels. We should only follow the Jesus Christ we encounter there. In my opinion.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

I have to reemphasize a concept here that was brought up.
This Jesus only philosophy you have going on here, there is a significant portion of Jesus speaking that you are leaving out that come from other books of the Bible other than the four synoptic gospels.
Why do you dismiss these?

 

[EGSpirit]

I have to reemphasize a concept here that was brought up.
This Jesus only philosophy you have going on here, there is a significant portion of Jesus speaking that you are leaving out that come from other books of the Bible other than the four synoptic gospels.
Why do you dismiss these?

You mean such as in Acts or in Revelation. Because those aren't Gospels written by the Gospel writers. Even if the writer of Acts is the same as the writer of Luke, he (or she) wasn't writing a Gospel when he wrote Acts. Gospel writing is a special commission by the Holy Spirit.

So, what about all the other Gnostic gospels? Why don't I canonize those? Because I have read them, and I've read all the ones that we know of, that the public has access to, anyway, and the same Holy Spirit that speaks to me when I read Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas is not present when I read the others. I can sense the difference between the inspired works and works of fiction in the Gospels.

But that is not to say the other books like Luke and Revelation don't have their place in our study, they do. And, in my opinion, when I read them I consider that the writer thought this is what Jesus was communicating to them, and that's fine. It's taken under advisement. But it's not the Gospel.

And another thing, too: I don't believe Jesus speaks to us outside of the Gospel. I believe the Holy Spirit does regularly, but not Jesus. He is the Word and the Word is the Gospel of his life and teachings, and that's it. I believe this because Jesus clearly left all his earthly communications to be handled by the Gospel writers. He himself wrote nothing.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

You mean such as in Acts or in Revelation. Because those aren't Gospels written by the Gospel writers. Even if the writer of Acts is the same as the writer of Luke, he (or she) wasn't writing a Gospel when he wrote Acts. Gospel writing is a special commission by the Holy Spirit.

So, what about all the other Gnostic gospels? Why don't I canonize those? Because I have read them, and I've read all the ones that we know of, that the public has access to, anyway, and the same Holy Spirit that speaks to me when I read Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas is not present when I read the others. I can sense the difference between the inspired works and works of fiction in the Gospels.

But that is not to say the other books like Luke and Revelation don't have their place in our study, they do. And, in my opinion, when I read them I consider that the writer thought this is what Jesus was communicating to them, and that's fine. It's taken under advisement. But it's not the Gospel.

And another thing, too: I don't believe Jesus speaks to us outside of the Gospel. I believe the Holy Spirit does regularly, but not Jesus. He is the Word and the Word is the Gospel of his life and teachings, and that's it. I believe this because Jesus clearly left all his earthly communications to be handled by the Gospel writers. He himself wrote nothing.

First off, let me be plain. I make no mention of Gnostic gospels, other gospels, or even attribute anything to Thomas, regardless of whatever. It's all outside of the commonly accepted canon, which is what I am referring to for reference in this discussion. King James, 66 books is what I use. Get over it.
Secondly. When I addressed the Jesus speaking portion of your statements, I mentioned other books of the Bible, and you immediately knew which books I was referring to. You have clearly seen Jesus speaking in them, you choose to dismiss this. When reading Luke then Acts, they read together as one book, probably because they were written by the same guy, to the same guy, about the same things. Same style, same spirit. You are neglecting a large portion of Scriptures which is the Resurrection.
Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
You can follow this with Acts.
Acts talks about Pentecost and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. Confirming the very thing Jesus talked about.
You talk about this taking it under advisement, and that Jesus does not talk to us regularly. Funny because every time I open up the Bible, I see his words speaking to me. I hear his voice when I pray.
I'm sorry. I can't do this anymore. You've allowed whatever it is you're doing to warp your mind and are quenching the Spirit, dismissing it, preaching from another gospel. From a very guy that doubted unless he had seen him and touched his hands.
Blessed are those who have not seen and still believe. You make it clear, you need to see him to believe, just like Thomas.. I personally don't.
You even made up your own religion making Jesus into whatever you want him to be, copy and pasting whatever you want, to however you see fit according to a hardened heart in your advanced age. As if some righteous work were going to buy yourself the ticket to heaven, when you really don't believe in the first place. You used to.
They shall be known by their fruits.
You speak nonsense. You spew your own nonsense. Almost like a new John Smith.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one.
Your words do not convey this.
I am sick and tired of attacking nonsense. I don't like fighting people so that they can see what they are tripping over. It's hard to communicate love through this cloud of garbage. So just know that I will pray for you. To turn from your wicked ways. Cuz whatever this is....whatever you got going on.... this isn't God's doing and it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. You got a different spirit working. And many people more righteous than I, have said so in less words.
If we had one Gospel, it would not be your work.
If we had one gospel, it would not be Thomas.
The gospel we do have is known as the Bible. All of it.
Deuces.