http://www.theoblogian.org/Quality theological discussion.60 http://ww.theoblogian.org/Post.aspx?s=rc&idpPost=63#Comment_163<P>About the "feel" of the books, here is a quote from Eusebius in his Church history.</P> <P>Writings published by heretics under the names of the apostles, such as the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthais, and others, or the Acts of Andrew, John, and other apostles have never been cited by any in the succession of church writers. The type of phraselogy used contrasts with apostolic style, and the opinions and thrusts of their contents are so dissonant from true orthodoxy that they show themselves to be forgeries of heretics. Accordingly, they ought not be reckoned even among the spurious books but discarded as impious and absurd.</P> <P>(Book 3 paragraph 25)</P>Charlie1/12/2006 6:32:00 PM http://ww.theoblogian.org/Post.aspx?s=rc&idpPost=63#Comment_149I want to preach from the Acts of Paul sometime and look at the lion that was baptized by Paul after it belived. That should raise some eyebrows. Seriously, though, someday I want to lead a Communion by looking at the Communion section in the Didache. Charlie12/29/2005 10:38:00 PM http://ww.theoblogian.org/Post.aspx?s=rc&idpPost=63#Comment_148<P>Samtor,</P> <P>Yes, that kind of reasoning does disturb. I intended the statement not as a reason for accepting or declining, but as a retrospective look at a decision already made. As I read these books, and compare them with those that were accepted, they have a different feel to them, even from Jude. But perhaps if I wasn't living in a modernistic society, then maybe the feel of a book would weigh more heavily with me. But as it is, I see the books being accepted or declined for other reasons.</P>Charlietor12/29/2005 10:34:00 PM http://ww.theoblogian.org/Post.aspx?s=rc&idpPost=63#Comment_147<P>Good questions Brian. For the most part, I didn't intend to answer them in my paper. I wrote the paper in response to what I saw as a glaring hole in the standard works on the canon. When they looked at the debated books in the canon, they would cite all the support for them, and then say that there is overwhelming evidence for them. But they would never look at the books that didn't make it. Is there overwhelming support for them too? This is why I wrote the paper, and so the questions you ask were not my concern. But here a few thoughts.</P> <P>These books tell us a lot about the early church and how they thought and read Scripture. Since we are talking about allegory elsewhere, we can see some prime examples in Barnabas. We can see how some in the church viewed Paul (such as in the Acts of Paul). But we must be careful: these books tell us mostly about the person that wrote them, not necessarily about the church as a whole. There are spiritual lessons we can learn from these books, although the way they get to their conclusions is often different than ours. There is discussion of church polity, although no formal discussion as such. Usually it is assumed, and then something is discussed in relation to the polity. So those are a few comments. Frankly, I recommend them simply as enjoyable reading. </P>Charlie12/29/2005 10:32:00 PM http://ww.theoblogian.org/Post.aspx?s=rc&idpPost=63#Comment_142<P>Charlie, you quoted Metzger,</P> <P>"<EM>[T]he New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so</EM>" </P> <P>The Canon and the character of the church are inextricably linked. The church identified the Canon according to the wisdom it had learned from the Scriptures and the Apostles. So if the Canon were to be different, we would also have to imagine a different church. </P> <P>You mention that there were three revelations. Is this&nbsp;why people refer to the Revelation of John as "Revelations." Seriously though, what would a fundamental Baptist church be like if it preached the Revealations of Peter and Hermas as well as that of John?</P>Brian12/29/2005 5:18:00 PM http://ww.theoblogian.org/Post.aspx?s=rc&idpPost=63#Comment_140<DIV><EM>"While this is inherently subjective, these books have a different feel to them than do the canonical NT books. It is evident they are sub-quality and not inspired. The church fathers intuitively recognized which books should be in the canon."</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Charlie, what do you think of this as a criterion...the feel of a book?&nbsp; Is this a problem for me because of the times in which we live...do you have a problem with it?&nbsp; If i were to throw a book out based on its feel, i'd probably get rid of Jude...any thoughts?</DIV>Dr. Samtor12/28/2005 4:14:00 PM http://ww.theoblogian.org/Post.aspx?s=rc&idpPost=63#Comment_137<P>Maybe I was just hoping for more fuss, Charlie suggesting that we add the Shepherd of Hermas to the Canon, or something. What was the specific value of these writings? We consult many books that aren't Scripture on a host of topics. What would I turn to these books for? Did they&nbsp;address church polity? Do they recommend open or closed communion?</P>Brian12/26/2005 4:46:00 PM