How is your concept of the Spirit any different from that found in many Christian circles? You view the Spirit as some sort of impersonal, alien power, just as many Christians do, and that's plenty scary for many people.
God's power is only scary to those who are not in his favor. Those who belong to Jehovah have nothing to fear...the holy spirit is a comforter, a helper, a counselor and a "power" beyond our own so that we can endure trials that inevitably come.
2 Cor 4:7-9
"But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; 8 we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed." (NASB)
Research shows there was no original, unified church that later split. The NT itself makes clear there was much divisiveness among the early Christians. Paul, in I Cor., chapter I, laments that they are tearing Christ to pieces. He also has a feud going on with the Judaizers, such as the Jerusalem cult and Peter. When Paul write on the gifts of teh Spirit, it is clearly in the context of addressing all sorts of back-biting, in-fighting, jealously, and one-upmanship that has been going on over these gifts. I mean, the Gospel of John was written between 95-100 AD. I doubt of any of the apostles lived that long. The Book of Revelations, same thing, written probably around 95-100 AD.
It is true as I said, the apostates were snapping at the heels of the apostles who were acting as a restraint until the last of scripture was penned. Then, after that restraint was removed, the weeds were fertilized and the apostasy gained full growth, corrupting men more and more as ideas from outside of scripture were added by them.
If you are not going to accept anything written after the death of the apostles, you are dumping major portions of the NT canon. Right?
No I am not. None of what is written in the Christian scriptures was penned after John wrote his letters in 98CE. His Revelation was written in 96CE. I have no reason to believe that the books assigned to the Bible writers are in error. If God preserved his word down to this day, I am sure that the greatest power in existence can kept it free from error, including the names of their penmen.
The Pastorals are probably not genuine Paulines and written around 120. Corinthians represents a synthesis of fragments from earlier letters of Paul. Given that these earlier letters had to get lost or get destroyed in part and then the fragments reassembled, considerable time elapsed and they sere probably put together in their current form after the death of Paul. Also, you are gong to dump Acts, right? As the Book of Acts was written after the death of Paul. Of course, you are dropping the Johannie Comma and the ending of Mark. Right?
The book of Acts was written by Luke who also penned his gospel after carefully ascertaining that his information was correct.
Luke did not speak of himself as an eyewitness of the events in the life of Christ that are recorded in his Gospel account. (Luke 1:2) So, he apparently became a believer sometime after Pentecost of 33 C.E.
In the book of Acts, Luke is referred to in an indirect way by the use of the pronouns “we” and “us.” (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5–21:18; 27:1–28:16) He was with Paul at Troas on the apostle’s second missionary tour and accompanied him from there to Philippi, where he may have remained until Paul’s return on his third missionary journey. Luke accompanied Paul to Judea at the end of that missionary tour (Acts 21:7, 8, 15), and while the apostle was imprisoned for about two years at Caesarea, Luke probably wrote his Gospel account there (c. 56-58 C.E.). He accompanied Paul on his trip to Rome for trial. (Acts 27:1; 28:16) Since the book of Acts covers events from 33 C.E. down through two years of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome but does not record the outcome of Paul’s appeal to Caesar, Luke likely completed the book of Acts there by about 61 C.E.
Luke joined Paul in sending greetings to Christians at Colossae when Paul wrote to them from Rome (c. 60-61 C.E.), and the apostle identified him as “the beloved physician.” (Col 4:14) In writing to Philemon from Rome (c. 60-61 C.E.), Paul included greetings from Luke (Lucas, KJ), referring to him as one of his “fellow workers.” (Phm 24) That Luke stuck close to Paul and was with him shortly before the apostle’s martyrdom is evident from Paul’s remark, “Luke alone is with me.” (2 Tim 4:11)
I am wondering what your concept of teh canon is. I ask because there was no canon in place until long after the death of the apostles.
The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was well fixed by the end of the fifth century B.C.E., containing the same writings that we have today.
The real test of canonicity, however, is not how many times or by what nonapostolic writer a certain book has been quoted. The contents of the book itself must give evidence that it is a product of holy spirit. Consequently, it cannot contain superstitions or demonism, nor can it encourage creature worship. It must be in total harmony and complete unity with the rest of the Bible, thus supporting the authorship of Jehovah God. Each book must conform to the divine “pattern of healthful words” and be in harmony with the teachings and activities of Christ Jesus. (2Tim 1:13; 1Cor 4:17) The apostles clearly had divine accreditation and they spoke in attestation of such other writers as Luke and James, the half brother of Jesus. By holy spirit the apostles had “discernment of inspired utterances” as to whether such were of God or not. (1Cor 12:4, 10) With the death of John, the last apostle, this reliable chain of divinely inspired men came to an end, and so with the Revelation, John’s Gospel, and his epistles, the Bible canon closed.
You say you reject Christendom right across the board, but you have yet to make a case. Could you, for example take up a major source from the Apostolic Period, say, Tertullian, and show me how you feel he blew it?
I never said that any of them "blew it"...what I said was that I cannot accept what the early church fathers taught as doctrine if it contradicts God's word. Man-made traditions did not just jump into Christian thought....they crept in gradually over a long period of time. The devil has had time up his sleeve so he does nothing in a hurry. If church dogma ends up being out of harmony with the word of God, I will take the word of God over any teaching or tradition of men.
By the end of the second century there was no question but that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was closed, and we find such ones as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian recognizing the writings comprising the Christian Scriptures as carrying authority equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures. Irenaeus in appealing to the Scriptures makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul’s letters. Clement says he will answer his opponents by “the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority,” that is, “by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel.” --The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 409, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies.”
Apostate Christianity still had plenty of time before Constantine's declaration of Roman Catholicism as the state religion of the empire in the 4th century. The passage of time has always been the undoing of God's people, spiritually speaking...sin leads to corruption and corrupt humans are easy targets for the devil.....history attests to that.
???