[CS-FSLUG] Open Source Theology

[Chris Brault]

Interesting,

> Has anybody an opinion about those texts (especially a few letters of
> Paul, and maybe even a few Apocrypha) that do get to be commented on in
> passages of our usual canon but didn't make it as Scripture?

The Book of Enoch also falls into this Category since it was quoted by 
Peter. I have always supposed that, although the history of these 
documents may be somewhat accurate, their tales tend to wander in and 
out of legend when the facts become sparse or when their theology 
warrants it.

In other words, like other legends, there is a basis in fact (like 
Daniel killing Bel the Dragon), but that the story was too corrupted to 
be relied upon as more that reference.

---------------------------------------

> The standard answer I get from pastors is that if God had wanted them to
> make it to the canon, He would have made sure of it.  Not a good answer:
> God has let quite a few things go by that were definitely works of men,
> but done in His name.

On this matter we have no choice than to trust that the Holy Spirit will 
give honest discernment ... If we can get past our own prejudices and 
cultural "goggles". As a wise man said once, "God does is not American".

----------------------------------------

> The fact that the guys that decided on the canon were fallible and might
> have had some interests is established by their not only setting the
> Creed, Canon, but also proclaiming Constantine and even Helen as
> Apostles (this is still recognized by the so-called Orthodox Church).

Some of these moves were purely political in deference to the powers in 
charge. Others were in deference to common usage and a well established 
set of rules in deciding accurate Apostolic words from the mass of lies 
floating around the world (gnostics come to mind).

----------------------------------------

> By the way, a most common use of Scripture to take both sides of a
> question comes from those:

Indeed, but a look at the full translation might help.

> "I and the Father are one." -John 10:30 (Bishops Athanasius and Alexander)
"I and the Father are [of] one [mind]."
John 1:1 is a much better example, comparing Jesus to a "mirror image" 
of the God. And of course, Jesus said that to see him was to see the 
Father. Besides all the times he outright claimed to be God.

>  "The Father is greater than I am." -John 14:28 (Bishop Arius)
The simplest reading seems to indicate that Jesus was a carbon copy of 
God placed in a human body. He was a part of God separated physically 
for a particular purpose. That said, I'm not an expert on trinitarian 
theology. This is definitely a headache that has been beating the church 
for a long time.

Gabe Ginorio