Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Enoch is from the Old testament. I don't recall various versions of the NT, prior to the first counsel, Nor do I believe the Ethiopian version seperated the NT from the OT, so perhaps that is what you are referring to?

Yes, Enoch could be considered part of the OT, but it was accepted by the Ethiopian Christian Church.

As to the NT, the canon developed in a manner that at times accepted and rejected various books that are not included or excluded from the Catholic NT.

For example, the late fourth century Codex Sinaiticus included Barnabas and the Sherherd of Hermas in their canon.

And according to an article by
Daniel F. Lieuwen, entitled The Emergence of the New Testament Canon
"The longest Biblical canon belongs to the Ethiopian church. Their Old Testament contains the Septuagintal books, Jubilees, the Ethiopic Enoch, IV Edras, the Rest of the Words of Baruch, the Ascension of Isaiah, and other books. Their New Testament includes the Shepherd and other books. Some manuscripts of the Ethiopian New Testament include the Epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus and the Eusebian Canons which were written by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (c. 260-c. 340)."

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

Yes, Enoch could be considered part of the OT, but it was accepted by the Ethiopian Christian Church.

As to the NT, the canon developed in a manner that at times accepted and rejected various books that are not included or excluded from the Catholic NT.

For example, the late fourth century Codex Sinaiticus included Barnabas and the Sherherd of Hermas in their canon.

And according to an article by
Daniel F. Lieuwen, entitled The Emergence of the New Testament Canon
"The longest Biblical canon belongs to the Ethiopian church. Their Old Testament contains the Septuagintal books, Jubilees, the Ethiopic Enoch, IV Edras, the Rest of the Words of Baruch, the Ascension of Isaiah, and other books. Their New Testament includes the Shepherd and other books. Some manuscripts of the Ethiopian New Testament include the Epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus and the Eusebian Canons which were written by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (c. 260-c. 340)."

That's fine. However history shows that the Jews in the early years of Christianity had a canon similar to that of the Protestant version of the Old testament. In fact Jesus reffered to such a goup of books, when describing the law of the prophets and psalms. No mention of "apocrypha" was ever quoted by Jesus, or His apostles. Which means, Barnabas, the Shepard...they weren't used by the first teachers of Christ.

Now, beyond Christ, the apostles, well that is a different matter, but then, is it? Seems to me, the proof of the pudding lay at the feet of the first 12, and Christ...not in the churches that began to split almost immediately after. Eastern orthodox went one way, Augustinian Christianity went another way.

It wasn't until the 16th century that the true split occured when the Luther initiated reform catered to the eastern form of Christianity, while the church of Rome accepted the Apocrypha as canon.

The Etheopian church it seems, accepted anything and everything without scrutiny, as being scriptural.

In any event, Paul didn't write a gospel, he wrote an Epistle (letters) to various churces and people. In fact so did Peter, and James, and Timothy. Don't hear anyone declaring theirs should be removed from the NT as well. I wonder why that is?

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[Excaliburton]

Martin Luther wrote as if he thought that James and Revelation should be removed from the canon. So did Calvin.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

Martin Luther wrote as if he thought that James and Revelation should be removed from the canon. So did Calvin.

As far as Calvin, I have no idea, but as for Luther, well let's show both parts of the story, as written by Luther himself:

“Luther’s short and extremely negative Preface to the Revelation of St. John was completely dropped after 1522, and the Reformer replaced it with a long and entirely commendatory Preface (1530). Because “some of the ancient fathers held the opinion that it was not the work of St. John the apostle,” Luther leaves the authorship question open, but asserts that he can no longer “let the book alone,” for “we see, in this book, that through and above all plagues and beasts and evil angels Christ is with His saints, and wins the victory at last.” In his original, 1532 Preface to Ezekiel, Luther made a cross-reference to the Revelation of St. John with no hint of criticism; in his later, much fuller Preface to Ezekiel, he concludes on the note that if one wishes to go into prophetic study, more deeply, “the Revelation of John can also help.”

Even in the earlier 1522 version, Luther again explains that his opinion is not to be binding: “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment,” and also, “let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him.”

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

As far as Calvin, I have no idea, but as for Luther, well let's show both parts of the story, as written by Luther himself:

“Luther’s short and extremely negative Preface to the Revelation of St. John was completely dropped after 1522, and the Reformer replaced it with a long and entirely commendatory Preface (1530). Because “some of the ancient fathers held the opinion that it was not the work of St. John the apostle,” Luther leaves the authorship question open, but asserts that he can no longer “let the book alone,” for “we see, in this book, that through and above all plagues and beasts and evil angels Christ is with His saints, and wins the victory at last.” In his original, 1532 Preface to Ezekiel, Luther made a cross-reference to the Revelation of St. John with no hint of criticism; in his later, much fuller Preface to Ezekiel, he concludes on the note that if one wishes to go into prophetic study, more deeply, “the Revelation of John can also help.”

Even in the earlier 1522 version, Luther again explains that his opinion is not to be binding: “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment,” and also, “let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him.”

It looks like Luther was cherry picking Revelation for the verses that fit his agenda while suggesting the entire book could not be universally (or catholically) regarded as canon.

Martin Luther even marginalizes the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke in order to assert the priamcy of the Pauline epistles:

Luther Marginalizes The Synoptic Gospels In

Preference for Paul

Douglas Del Tondo writes:

"Luther’s view was that the Synoptics (i.e., Matthew, Mark &
Luke) did not contain the pure gospel. Paul and the Gospel of John
instead were all that you needed to know about the true gospel.
Luther wrote in 1522 that Paul and John’s Gospel “far surpass the
other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke.” Paul and John’s
Gospel are “all that is necessary and good for you to know, even
though you never see or hear any other book or doctrine.”3 Luther
also wrote even more bluntly elsewhere that Paul had the truer gospel
than what is presented in the Synoptics:

Those Apostles who treat oftenest and highest of how
faith alone justifies, are the best Evangelists. Therefore

St. Paul’s Epistles are more a Gospel than Matthew,

Mark and Luke.

For these [Matthew, Mark and Luke]
do not set down much more than the works and miracles
of Christ; but the grace which we receive through
Christ no one so boldly extols as St. Paul, especially in
his letter to the Romans.4

Thus, Luther like Marcion knew there was something different
in the Synoptics. He did not acknowledge Jesus contradicted
Paul’s doctrine. Yet, if Paul’s doctrine were true, then why would the
Synoptics omit it? If Paul and the Synoptic-Jesus taught the same
thing, then why do Luther and Marcion insist the

truer gospel is in
Paul’s writings ?

Besides Luther’s down-playing the Synoptic Gospels, Luther
also rejected the Book of Revelation. He claimed it was uninspired.
He dismissed it with a conclusory statement that he could not see the
“Holy Spirit” in it. Luther declared it was “neither apostolic nor prophetic,”
and he claimed that “Christ is not taught or known in it.”5

Yet, in Revelation Jesus is talking much of the time. Also, Apostle
John is certainly the human hand involved. Luther’s reason for rejecting
the Book of Revelation is easy to deduce. Numerous Pauline
thinkers have recognized the anti-Pauline emphasis on salvation by
faith and works in Revelation. For that reason modern Paulinists urge
its rejection as inspired canon. (See page 177

et seq.) It thus takes little
to realize what caused Luther to reject the Book of Revelation.
Christ was present in Revelation, but it is not the Christ of Paul.
This is corroborated by the fact Luther also concluded James’
Epistle was uninspired. Luther freely admitted James’ Epistle contradicted
Paul on the same point that Jesus in Revelation contradicts
Paul: James and Jesus in Revelation reject faith alone as the appropriate
salvation formula.6

As a result of Luther’s view, the Synoptics (

i.e., Matthew,
Mark, & Luke), Revelation, and James were effectively put on the
shelf by the Reformation’s founder. These New Testament writings
were too far afield of Paul to be given 100% validity on par with
Paul.
Thus, we can see the banner of Sola Scriptura had quickly
degraded into Only the Scripture that Fits Paul. Daniel Fuller correctly
faults Luther’s approach:

But when he set up his understanding of justification
by faith as the basis for

suppressing such books as the
Synoptic Gospels, Hebrews, and James, he then made
it impossible for these books to deepen or improve his
understanding of this doctrine.7

Because Luther was blatantly marginalizing Jesus’ words in
numerous books of the New Testament, the

Sola Scriptura banner
was quickly being taken down. In its place the reformed congregations
re-established the banner of ‘approved’ church doctrine. This
meant de facto that Paul’s doctrines must triumph. Even though
Jesus’ words from the Synoptics or Revelation conflict with Paul,
Paul’s words trumped Jesus’ words every time.
This approach led eventually to an explicit abandonment of

Sola Scriptura.

The reformers quickly turned to Catechisms to give
the right spin to things. Matthaeus Flacius (a Lutheran) said in his

Key to the Scriptures

(1567)— the first hermeneutics book to emerge
from the Reformation—that:

Every understanding and exposition of Scripture is to
be in agreement with the faith. Such [agreement] is, so
to speak, the norm or limit of a sound faith, that we
may not be thrust over the fence into the abyss by any-

thing, either by a storm from without or by an attack
from within (Rom. 12:6). For everything that is said
concerning Scripture, or on the basis of Scripture,

must be in agreement with all that the catechism

declares or that is taught by the articles of faith.

8

Fuller aptly criticizes this view. Flacius was urging Christians
“to conform their language and thinking about a passage of scripture
to an

a priori [i.e., a presupposed] understanding of what God’s Word
must be like.”

By such illogic and violation of reformed principles of Sola
Scriptura, marginalization of Jesus became encrusted in official
reformed confessions. These writings were quickly put above Scripture.
They were put above challenge even if someone were quoting
Jesus’ words.

The effort by Luther, Calvin and certain Protestant catechisms
to marginalize Jesus’ words, giving preference to Paul, have now
reaped their logical conclusion. Some put it bluntly: we cannot any
longer view the four gospels as truly part of the New Testament—
they reflect all ‘Old Testament’ principles. As one sincere Paulinist,
Dr. Russ Kelly, put it:

Even though

uninspired persons designated the four
Gospels as ‘New Testament’ books, most thinking
Christians realize that, in reality, the New Covenant
did not begin until the very moment Christ died on
Calvary. The blood of Christ, the blood of the New Covenant,
or testament, sealed and ratified the New Covenant
and ended the Old Covenant, or Mosaic Law once
for all time.9

Paulinists are thus so dedicated to Paul that no amount of contradiction
of Paul by Jesus matters. It is all Paul, even if we must get
rid of all of Jesus. They want the Jesus of the Synoptics to disappear.

3. Martin Luther, “Preface to the New Testament [1522],” Works of Martin
Luther:The Philadelphia Edition (trans. C.M. Jacobs) (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1982) Vol. 6 at 439-444.
4. Martin Luther, quoted in G.F. Moore, History of Religion (Scribners: 1920) at
320. As Bainton says: “That this doctrine [i.e., faith alone] is not enunciated
with equal emphasis throughout the New Testament and appears denied in the
Bookof James did not escape Luther.” (R. Bainton, Here I Stand, supra, at 331.)
5. Martin Luther, “Preface to the New Testament [1522],” Works of Martin
Luther:The Philadelphia Edition (trans. C.M. Jacobs) (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1982) Vol. 6 at 439-444 (or 1932 edition at 488-89.) See also D.
Del Tondo, The Canonicity of the Book of Revelation (2005), available online at
www.jesuswordsalone.com.
6. See “Luther’s Admission of James’ Direct Conflict with Paul” on page 238.
7. Daniel Fuller, “Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith,” Unity and Diversity
in N.T. Theology. Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd (R. A. Guelich (ed.))
(Eerdmans: 1978) at 195-213.

8. Kemmel, History of Investigation, supra, at 30.
9. http://home.earthlink.net/~russkellyphd/id17.html (last accessed 9-23-05).

http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/Free/ch15.pdf

[Excaliburton]

delete duplicate post posted in error

[Excaliburton]

delete duplicate post posted in error

[paul]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

That's fine. However history shows that the Jews in the early years of Christianity had a canon similar to that of the Protestant version of the Old testament. In fact Jesus reffered to such a goup of books, when describing the law of the prophets and psalms. No mention of "apocrypha" was ever quoted by Jesus, or His apostles. Which means, Barnabas, the Shepard...they weren't used by the first teachers of Christ.

but the prophets writings nor the psalms are one book, there are more psalms in the septuagint and ethiopian version, the writings of the prophets also differ and there are more writngs in the ethiopian canon, and it could be said possibly removed and corrupted by the jews you mention, or maybe their collection of scriptures were destroyed and in the recollection of their scripture they rejected some parts thinking them corrupted by christians

the septuagint existed before christ, you say this jewish canon existed in early christianity, but the early christians used the septuagint version.
these jews you talk of rejected christ, saw him as a deceiver, i would thnk were strongly opposed to christianity as a corruption of their jewish religion.

barnabas, shepherd of hermas were not old testament apocrypha, they were written after christ, they are included in some old manuscripts, you usually find them in the collection of books titled the apostolic fathers, which are early christian writings, by very early christians.

[Excaliburton]

And the earliest Christians, the Ebionites, accepted Jesus and rejected Paul as an impostor

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

And the earliest Christians, the Ebionites, accepted Jesus and rejected Paul as an impostor

The "earliest Christians" were His mother, the apostles, and disciples, the Roman "soldiers", the cannanites, the samaritans...

How amazing, to ignore those that were there first, for a race of people who may or may not have accepted something until decades later...(because they didn't know)...

lol.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by paul

but the prophets writings nor the psalms are one book, there are more psalms in the septuagint and ethiopian version, the writings of the prophets also differ and there are more writngs in the ethiopian canon, and it could be said possibly removed and corrupted by the jews you mention, or maybe their collection of scriptures were destroyed and in the recollection of their scripture they rejected some parts thinking them corrupted by christians

the septuagint existed before christ, you say this jewish canon existed in early christianity, but the early christians used the septuagint version.
these jews you talk of rejected christ, saw him as a deceiver, i would thnk were strongly opposed to christianity as a corruption of their jewish religion.

barnabas, shepherd of hermas were not old testament apocrypha, they were written after christ, they are included in some old manuscripts, you usually find them in the collection of books titled the apostolic fathers, which are early christian writings, by very early christians.

Well, Barnabas and Shepard are out of the game...as they are apocrypha.

As far as the "Septuagant" origins, well, it came from the Tanakh, end of statement.

Early "Christians" used the Tanakh, not the Septuagant. Why? They couldn't understand Greek, but they did understand Aramaic, and Hebrew...

Eventually, people began to learn Greek (just like I had to learn Latin), in order to understand all the translations flying around the joint.

Really, I find this argument on the Christian forum about removing Paul a bit unusual...or calculated...which is it? You have a Liberal Christian forum to go to, and in fact, I believe this issue belongs there, among that food for thought.

v/r

Q

[paul]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Well, Barnabas and Shepard are out of the game...as they are apocrypha.

As far as the "Septuagant" origins, well, it came from the Tanakh, end of statement.

Early "Christians" used the Tanakh, not the Septuagant. Why? They couldn't understand Greek, but they did understand Aramaic, and Hebrew...

Eventually, people began to learn Greek (just like I had to learn Latin), in order to understand all the translations flying around the joint.

Really, I find this argument on the Christian forum about removing Paul a bit unusual...or calculated...which is it? You have a Liberal Christian forum to go to, and in fact, I believe this issue belongs there, among that food for thought.

v/r

Q

the septuagint came from the tanach, but is it the same one the anti christian jews used after christianty emerged?
the septuagint is thought to have come from an earlier hebrew source, than the jewish scriptures used today.
the septuagint is dated before christ, the hebrew scripture you hold to is dated after christ, and what early christians used this scripture?
anti christian jews used this scripture.

if early christians couldn't understand greek, why was most of the new testament written in greek, or do your hold it was originally written in aramaic?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by paul

the septuagint came from the tanach, but is it the same one the anti christian jews used after christianty emerged?
the septuagint is thought to have come from an earlier hebrew source, than the jewish scriptures used today.
the septuagint is dated before christ, the hebrew scripture you hold to is dated after christ, and what early christians used this scripture?
anti christian jews used this scripture.

if early christians couldn't understand greek, why was most of the new testament written in greek, or do your hold it was originally written in aramaic?

Are you Christian? ... (you know what is coming next)...

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The "earliest Christians" were His mother, the apostles, and disciples, the Roman "soldiers", the cannanites, the samaritans...



lol.

The Ebionites were among the first organized groups to follow Yahshua.
And, btw, this also shows that He was not entirely rejected by His own, but instead was rejected by the foreigners, the Herodians, who ruled Judaea.

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Well, Barnabas and Shepard are out of the game...as they are apocrypha.

As far as the "Septuagant" origins, well, it came from the Tanakh, end of statement.

Early "Christians" used the Tanakh, not the Septuagant. Why? They couldn't understand Greek, but they did understand Aramaic, and Hebrew...

Eventually, people began to learn Greek (just like I had to learn Latin), in order to understand all the translations flying around the joint.

Really, I find this argument on the Christian forum about removing Paul a bit unusual...or calculated...which is it? You have a Liberal Christian forum to go to, and in fact, I believe this issue belongs there, among that food for thought.

v/r

Q

Wasn't this thread started by "I, Victor", an Administrator???