The book of Revelation (among others) was strongly disputed, even by Martin Luther, who wanted to leave out about five books of the current Protestant canon, including Revelation (which would, in fact, constitute “taking away” from Scripture, no?). Incidentally, which Bible canon is the “inerrant” “infallible” one, Protestant, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Syriac, etc.?

See Deuteronomy 4:2. By your apparent logic, we need to discard everything after Deuteronomy, since that verse gives the exact same warning: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”

Also, please note Rev. 1:3,11, which makes clear that that warning applies to that specific writing. I also question how one goes about defending the claim that God Himself may not add to His Word as He sees fit by way of prophets.

It would also have been a good answer when some reporter asked Mitt Romney during the last primary if there were any parts of the Bible that he (or his church) didn’t believe in. “Yeah, 1 Corinthians 14: 33–35. We don’t believe that. We have women speak and teach in church.”

This classification is between traveling and stationary authorities (p. 19-21), especially drawing from the Didache(and the analysis done by influential scholar Adolf von Harnack), a document contemporary with some of the later New Testament writings. (I lean towards the scholarly consensus that date the final version of letters to Timothy and Titus very much after Paul’s death, even though that puts me somewhat in unorthodox territory.) …

A relatively recent scholar, David Horrell [12], noted that nobody since Harnack has tried to explain the transition in any detail. He utilized a household development model for the rise of bishops that Nibley did not. Basically this model has bishops arising out of the family patriarchs that often hosted church services. Early Christians were frequently cast out of synagogues, and initially having no dedicated buildings of their own, were forced to meet in the homes of the more wealthy patrons. These wealthy patriarchs would naturally be called to positions of responsibility and leadership in the local church. The qualifications for bishops and deacons in Timothy and Titus resemble “household codes” or societal rules for running a respectable household in a community.

These codes tended to further elevate the position of the hosting male leader in comparison to his wife, children, servants, slaves, and guests. One sees the hint of a class warfare problem that could emerge between wealthy local leaders and the poor traveling leaders that depended upon (and could be accused of abusing in the Didache) a host’s generosity. Horrell’s model also has the benefit of explaining the decline in prominence of women in the early church. Women like Junia and Priscilla were mentioned in the same breath as evangelizing apostles, but the pastoral letters effectively silenced such activity. You heard it here first, but the a priori rejection of female prophetic ability seems to have been an early sign of the apostasy.

It’s going to be very quiet during that 30 minutes!