## That includes the 27-book New Testament – the Bible never mentions the gospels acording to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, or the 23 other books. Still less are they listed. Jude quotes from 1 Enoch: by ordinary Fundamentalist logic the quotation proves that Jude is quoting a genuine prophecy from before the Flood.

There is 0 Biblical basis for treating the 27 books of the written NT as anything more than works composed by mere human industry:

1. The Bible Jesus knew did not include the NT.
2. “If they do not believe Moses & the prophets, they will not believe though one should rise from the dead” – if those books were enough for Jesus, by what right do sinful men presume to add 27 more ?
3. Jesus does refer to a “new testament” – in His Body & Blood (Matthew 26); of a written NT He has not a word to say
4. The Apostles are commanded to baptise, and to preach (Matthew 28; Mark 16): there is no command to write.
5. Even if there were commands by Jesus or His Spirit to write, it would not follow that the writing would be inspired.
6. Even if such a writing were inspired, that would not in any way prove that it was intended by God to be preserved in the Church for centuries to come;
7. nor is there any basis for the gathering together of writings, to the number of 27, being the 27 specific writings in the NT, for the use of the whole Church: no command of Christ, the Spirit, or of prophets (like Agabus), or other servants of Christ exists in the NT, to do any of those things, let alone all four.
8. It is carnal and apostate for those who have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit to put their confidence in written works such as 27 NT books. It is easier to trust in a visible set of books than in the Unseen Lord, but to do so is to fall away from the liberty He brought.
9. If St Paul found the Law condemned him, so also are Christians condemned by the 27-book NT – it brings knowledge of sin, but no release from it. It greatly worsens the condition he was in, because it threatens damnation to sinners. So it brings despair upon Christians, where Jesus is our Hope; & it returns them to a death-dealing book, whereas previously they had Christ to trust in.
10. The Law is to be written in men’s hearts (Jer.31) – but to seek it in the 27-book NT is to ignore that promise, & to make the knowledge of God external.

They are interesting as records of what people thought and said & believed, but there is no *Biblical* foundation for treating any of the 27 books as anything more than merely human, useful as they may be. The solution – throw them all out !

## Hislop’s “Two Babylons” has 1,027 footnotes – scholarly it is not. Hislop did not believe that pagan things could be won for Christ either: which suggests that Jesus is not much of a Saviour – it seems He can make a world, but that when it is spoiled by sin, He is unable to ransom it.

“One thing sadly missing is a appreciation for the many nuances in the word “pagan.” It is thrown around this book as if it only had one possible meaning (or strength of meaning). I’m sorry, but to imply that candles on an altar is as pagan as Mystery Religion rituals is a stretch.”

## Hislop has a thing about wax candles – I wouldn’t mind betting (if I were a betting man, which I’m not) that Barna is cribbing from Hislop.

Barna appears not to notice that “paganism” is a quality not inherent in what is looked at, but imposed on what is looked at as a conceptual framework for studying them. Israel was as much a “pagan” country as Egypt or Babylon or Rome – all that distinguishes Israel from these other cultures, is God’s gracious election of it. And election can’t be discerned from history, because it’s hidden in God. So seen purely historically, Israel is as much and little pagan as these other lands.

The same applies to the NT Church – historically, it’s a late antique Jewish Messianic sect with a belief in the central importance of a crucified Jewish preacher; IOW, it is nothing of any great importance – *unless* one looks at it from its own POV. Barna is not looking in that way at what he criticises, so his argument collapses; it’s valueless & self-serving.

Greek was the language of the NT – was it Christian before Christ ? It was, in some sense, pagan. Apparently this was not a problem for the Holy Spirit: or does Barna reject the NT because it was writen in that “pagan” language ?

You hit the nail on the head when you talked about how the authors are not going to bring about any unity in the body of Christ.

I thought, when a friend told me about the book, that this is going to foster a superior attitude towards those who embrace organized Christianity and is not going to help the cause of unity.

Is this book motivated by love?

All I hear in these blogs of this book are: poor research, I don’t agree with the premise, et cetera.

Can you produce better research? Can you contradict each point and show how the body of Christ fully operates in the modern church that was discussed?

I haven’t seen any REAL arguments against this book.

I have read the book. I picked up the book hoping for much more than it offered. I have long been troubled by the current condition of the institutional church, particularly its over dependence on philosophical traditions in its apologetics, which have also strongly influenced its theological categories/language.

I would have to place the scholarship of this book alongside those of other conspiracy theorists, who, choosing a position, find everything they can do to “prove” it.

One thing sadly missing is a appreciation for the many nuances in the word “pagan.” It is thrown around this book as if it only had one possible meaning (or strength of meaning). I’m sorry, but to imply that candles on an altar is as pagan as Mystery Religion rituals is a stretch.

Or, how about this example: Jesus’s death on the cross was a pagan death. The Jewish (and, therefore, biblical) punishment for blasphemy (what the Jews accused Jesus of) was stoning. Was Jesus’s redeeming death, therefore, unbiblical? This just sounds strange. Hopefully, things pagan can be redeemed or we’re all in a lot of trouble: the church (body) is full of them.

Also on the chopping block is any benefit from tradition due to this overwhelming pagan influence on them. This may cost us more than we’re willing to give.

I find it interesting that the 4th century church leaders, blinded by their “pagan influences,” were responsible for collecting together the very books that were canonized as the New Testament. This means that the New Testament, itself, is among the very traditions that suffer from pagan influences. Without these ‘pagans’ the New Testament would more than likely, not be the book we study today.

Careful, my brothers and sisters, you may cut off the very hand that feeds you.