Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[WolfgangvonUSA]

How do you know that any of those were written by apostles? How do you know that Mark was written by a disciple of Peter?

Oops, I forgot to respond to your question about Mark being a disciple of Peter. Most bibles introduce this gospel by mentioning this commonly accepted view, but I also found the following by doing a quick Internet Search.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1692An Introduction To The Gospel Of Mark

By: David Malick

I. AUTHOR: JOHN MARK A. Strictly speaking, the Gospel is anonymous B. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE strongly supports John Mark as the author of the Gospel of Mark in association with the Apostle Peter1 1. Pseudo-Barnabas ([5:9; Mark 2:17] c. A.D. 70-130) 2. Polycarp (c. 110-150) 3. Hermas (c. 115-140) 4. Papias (the bishop of Hierapolis A.D. 140) wrote in his last work (Exegesis of the Lord's Oracles) the strongest evidence for Marcan authorship tied to Peter:2The Elder said this also: Mark, who became Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately, though not in order, all that he remembered of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had neither heard the Lord nor been one of his followers, but afterwards, as I said, he had followed Peter, who used to compose his discourses with a view to the needs of his hearers, but not as though he were drawing up a connected account of the Lord's sayings. So Mark made no mistake in thus recording some things just as he remembered them. For he was careful of this one thing, to omit none of the things he had heard and to make no untrue statements therein.3 For more go tohttp://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1692

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Actually we don't know for sure. Most bible scholars agree these works were inspired by their namesakes but the final text was written by several layers of redactors (including the gospel of Q). Still these books are accepted as gospels originating from the alleged authors, and these books never make any mention of Paul or Luke.

Accepted by whom as "originating" from the alleged authors. The majority of Bible scholars accept no such thing. The dating that most scholars agree with would make Paul's authentic epistles older than all four "Gospels."

And Jesus was able to accomplish His teaching without quoting Paul or Luke, so if He didn't need Paul or Luke, then it is quite possible to maintain a Christian doctrine without including the books of Paul or Luke.

And you know this how? Because you read it in the "Gospels"? That would be circular logic.

I still do not understand why Christians are so dependent on Pauline doctrine.

I understand why. I don't agree with it. Nor do I agree with the literal reading of any "sacred" text.

Thw Words of Jesus should be sufficient.

We don't have those.

Have you heard of the Jefferson Bible? It is solely a compilation of the Words of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson said that "Paul was the first corrupter of the gospels".

There is no evidence that there were even Gospels to corrupt when Paul was writing. The "first corrupter of the Gospels" is a title that should belong to Ireaneus followed closely by Eusebius.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Oops, I forgot to respond to your question about Mark being a disciple of Peter. Most bibles introduce this gospel by mentioning this commonly accepted view, but I also found the following by doing a quick Internet Search.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1692An Introduction To The Gospel Of Mark

By: David Malick

I. AUTHOR: JOHN MARK A. Strictly speaking, the Gospel is anonymous B. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE strongly supports John Mark as the author of the Gospel of Mark in association with the Apostle Peter1 1. Pseudo-Barnabas ([5:9; Mark 2:17] c. A.D. 70-130) 2. Polycarp (c. 110-150) 3. Hermas (c. 115-140) 4. Papias (the bishop of Hierapolis A.D. 140) wrote in his last work (Exegesis of the Lord's Oracles) the strongest evidence for Marcan authorship tied to Peter:2The Elder said this also: Mark, who became Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately, though not in order, all that he remembered of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had neither heard the Lord nor been one of his followers, but afterwards, as I said, he had followed Peter, who used to compose his discourses with a view to the needs of his hearers, but not as though he were drawing up a connected account of the Lord's sayings. So Mark made no mistake in thus recording some things just as he remembered them. For he was careful of this one thing, to omit none of the things he had heard and to make no untrue statements therein.3 For more go tohttp://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1692

The reading from Papias, aside from being from around 140 C.E. is taken from a quote of Papias in Eusebius who describes the text you quote above as "a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words . . . ". That not only makes it double hearsay but simply makes it not credible. Nothing attested to by Iraeneus or Eusebius should be considered credible in the first instance for the simple reason that both were determined to establish their own apostolic succession in order to justify their stance against those who would disagree with them - all of whom were labeled "heretics."

Moreover, the author of Mark, whoever it was, was completely unfamilar with the geography of the region as Randall Helms details. The work itself is almost entirely derivative. It is composed of the "passion/ressurection" account from the "Gospel of Peter" and/or the Cross Gospel mixed with the Q sayings. You can even see where the author changed details from GPet to suit his political purpose without understanding that certain details in GPet had a theological significance in that work. For one example, read this:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?p=13235&highlight=gall#post13235

The first statement you made is probably the only accurate thing that can be said. Its author is anonymous. Even if it weren't, it still wasn't an apostle that wrote it. And its accuracy is attested to by Papias - according to Eusebius - writing long afterwards. Neither Papias nor Eusebius would know anyway because the apostles, if there ever were any, would have been long dead by then. They have about as much authority to attest to the accuracy of Mark's supposed recollection of Peter's stories of Jesus as I do, since none of us (me, Eusebius and Papias) never heard any of them first hand.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

So, in the end, you have an extremely politically motivated Eusebius (he was the biographer and personal whitewasher to the Roman Emperor Constantine), writing around 300 CE about a "tradition" regarding the author of Mark written about by Papias in 140 CE who supposedly attests to the author and accuracy of a book written around 70 CE describing events in 30 CE.

Not much evidence when you really look at it.

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

So, in the end, you have an extremely politically motivated Eusebius (he was the biographer and personal whitewasher to the Roman Emperor Constantine), writing around 300 CE about a "tradition" regarding the author of Mark written about by Papias in 140 CE who supposedly attests to the author and accuracy of a book written around 70 CE describing events in 30 CE.

Not much evidence when you really look at it.

Whatever. Most scholars accept that Mark was a disciple of Peter. It's not an important point to me. My main point was simply that Paul and Luke were never mentioned in the gospels of Matthew, Mark or John. Thus Paul and Luke are operating autonomously. JJIM asserts this was because they arrived in a time period after the content of the events of the gospels, but the Second Coming is also anticipated in these gospels so his argument fails on that account.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Whatever. Most scholars accept that Mark was a disciple of Peter. It's not an important point to me.

Be careful what you say. Most scholars also accept that Paul is perfectly consistent with Christianity.

Just look at the evidence for "Mark's" authorship for yourself. It isn't convincing. Since you are making an "argument by appeal to authority" citing the Gospels, you have to establish the source of that "authority" or your argument simply fails. That's why it was so important for Iraeneus and Eusebius to establish the basis for the gospels even though in hindsight there was no basis for any of it.

My main point was simply that Paul and Luke were never mentioned in the gospels of Matthew, Mark or John. Thus Paul and Luke are operating autonomously. JJIM asserts this was because they arrived in a time period after the content of the events of the gospels, but the Second Coming is also anticipated in these gospels so his argument fails on that account.

That argument makes no sense. The "Second Coming" is mentioned because Jesus talked about it as part of the story.

 

[JJM]

JJIM asserts this was because they arrived in a time period after the content of the events of the gospels, but the Second Coming is also anticipated in these gospels so his argument fails on that account.

I'm assuming that JJIM is me. Like Abogado del Diablo says Jesus spoke of the second coming so it would make sense that books about Jesus would contain Information about it. However Luke (a Gentile Born in Syria a region Jesus never went) and Paul (someone who didn't become a Christian until after the ascension) shouldn’t be mentioned because Jesus never had dialogue nor even met with them during his earthly life. Unless one of the Pharisees mentioned in the Gospels happens to be Paul.

 

[JJM]

Read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy, "Beyond Belief" by Elaine Pagels and start examining the Gnostic Gospels.

As far as the author of James, I don't know who he is but he is clearly on the other side of the Law/Faith debate from Paul.

Why do you think they disagree? That is what are your Interpretations of Paul and James? I would say that Paul is saying that a man can't earn his salvation and that it is achieved by Grace. The saving Grace is achieved by living ones faith but one can't live their faith without the helping Grace of God and this Grace is achieved through Faith and wanting to live your faith.



James is saying that Faith is necessary but Faith without work is dead. In other words one must live their Faith for even demons have faith but they don't live according to it.



Now I think Paul is saying that any Part of the Hebrew Law that doesn’t involve the following of Jesus' law of Love isn't necessary because the Pharisees and other similar groups had gotten to the point where their following of the Law was actually hindering their devotion to God and their love of their neighbor. Thus if one truly love God and his neighbor one would do away with that part of the Law. I really don't think James touches on that issue. If you do could you point it out to me?

 

[cosmo]

My issue with Paul is that he wasn't a disciple, apostle or talmidim. He did not walk with Yeshua, was not taught by Yeshua nor did he even know him.

In one place Paul says he stayed with some of the disciples and were taught by them, then in another he claims to have been personally taught by Yeshua. These are very contradictory statements. Many, many times, Paul criticizes the other disciples including Peter, who (Peter) was the only one given the authority to make laws concerning the movement. Paul usurps Peter's authority and creates his own laws.

Yes, I do believe that if Paul was not cannonized Christianity would be very different today. In church doctrine, Paul has absolutely usurped the authority of Yeshua. When arguing NT theology, notice how it is the teachings of Paul that are adhered to even in direct opposition to the teachings of Yeshua.

How did Paul gain such a position?

cosmo

 

[JJM]

My issue with Paul is that he wasn't a disciple, apostle or talmidim. He did not walk with Yeshua, was not taught by Yeshua nor did he even know him.

In one place Paul says he stayed with some of the disciples and were taught by them, then in another he claims to have been personally taught by Yeshua. These are very contradictory statements. Many, many times, Paul criticizes the other disciples including Peter, who (Peter) was the only one given the authority to make laws concerning the movement. Paul usurps Peter's authority and creates his own laws.

Yes, I do believe that if Paul was not cannonized Christianity would be very different today. In church doctrine, Paul has absolutely usurped the authority of Yeshua. When arguing NT theology, notice how it is the teachings of Paul that are adhered to even in direct opposition to the teachings of Yeshua.

How did Paul gain such a position?

cosmo

May I ask what things does Paul say against the teachings of Jesus? And where does he claim to have been taught by the Apostles? Because a lot of people tell me this so it's probably there but I don't know where. Also technically all Christians are disciples of Jesus but I know what you mean.

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Be careful what you say. Most scholars also accept that Paul is perfectly consistent with Christianity.

Just look at the evidence for "Mark's" authorship for yourself. It isn't convincing. Since you are making an "argument by appeal to authority" citing the Gospels, you have to establish the source of that "authority" or your argument simply fails. That's why it was so important for Iraeneus and Eusebius to establish the basis for the gospels even though in hindsight there was no basis for any of it.



That argument makes no sense. The "Second Coming" is mentioned because Jesus talked about it as part of the story.

Whether Mark wrote the gospel of Mark on his own authority or whether Mark wrote it on the basis of his discipleship to Peter is not the point. (In any case, most scholars agree that the book was repeatedly edited and revised by a number of redactors.)

My point is simply that Jesus never announced in ANY of the gospels that new apostles would arrive to revise and contradict the doctrine of The Twelve original apostles. HOWEVER, He did warn of false prophets and false apostles!

And who else but Paul has claimed to be an apostle AND has also been accepted as an apostle and as a primary figure in "Christian" doctrine?

Do not think that Satan is simply relaxing in a lawn chair while he awaits his final barbeque! He has been active in employing his favored tactic of subversion and infiltration. Mainstream apostate "Christianity" is following the false apostle Paul in great numbers as they approach the wide gate that leads to damnation. Only the Elect will see past this delusion and enter the Kingdom by the narrow gate.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Whether Mark wrote the gospel of Mark on his own authority or whether Mark wrote it on the basis of his discipleship to Peter is not the point. (In any case, most scholars agree that the book was repeatedly edited and revised by a number of redactors.)

None of the gospels carry any authority over any of the other writings in the New Testament then. Whether something in a Pauline epistle contradicts something in a "gospel" is of no significance. Nor is it significant that the gospels don't mention Paul by name. It wouldn't make sense for them to mention Paul anyway, because they are narrative literature narrating a story that happended before Paul came along (except for Acts, the second part of Luke).

My point is simply that Jesus never announced in ANY of the gospels that new apostles would arrive to revise and contradict the doctrine of The Twelve original apostles. HOWEVER, He did warn of false prophets and false apostles!

And who else but Paul has claimed to be an apostle AND has also been accepted as an apostle and as a primary figure in "Christian" doctrine?

If Paul is an apostle, he wouldn't be a "false apostle", would he?

Do not think that Satan is simply relaxing in a lawn chair while he awaits his final barbeque! He has been active in employing his favored tactic of subversion and infiltration. Mainstream apostate "Christianity" is following the false apostle Paul in great numbers as they approach the wide gate that leads to damnation.

Preach it, brother.

Only the Elect will see past this delusion and enter the Kingdom by the narrow gate.

The kingdom is already spread out upon the Earth, but people don't see it.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Why do you think they disagree? That is what are your Interpretations of Paul and James? I would say that Paul is saying that a man can't earn his salvation and that it is achieved by Grace. The saving Grace is achieved by living ones faith but one can't live their faith without the helping Grace of God and this Grace is achieved through Faith and wanting to live your faith.

If it makes you feel any better, I'll happily retract that line. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other.

I would be much more interested in the meaning of "salvation" and the goal of the "Christian" disciple, if you're game.

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

None of the gospels carry any authority over any of the other writings in the New Testament then. Whether something in a Pauline epistle contradicts something in a "gospel" is of no significance. Nor is it significant that the gospels don't mention Paul by name. It wouldn't make sense for them to mention Paul anyway, because they are narrative literature narrating a story that happended before Paul came along (except for Acts, the second part of Luke).


If Paul is an apostle, he wouldn't be a "false apostle", would he?


Preach it, brother.


The kingdom is already spread out upon the Earth, but people don't see it.

The Pauline epistles should not have been canonized in the first place, but the fallible and corrupt church liked Paul's command that people must respect and obey their earthly authorities (which would include both the apostate church and Satan's rule over the earth until the King returns). The church also prefers faith over reason, thus Paul's doctrine of faith edified the authority of the apostate church, which then launched centuries of torture and oppression upon its subjects. The so-called 'Holy Father' in Rome ruled in place of Christ, and that is the meaning of the term 'Antichrist'.

If Paul is a false apostle,then he is not really an apostle. Logic 101.

The Kingdom is not yet here. I wish it was. When the New Jerusalem descends from the sky, that will be the arrival of the Kingdom.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

The Pauline epistles should not have been canonized in the first place, but the fallible and corrupt church liked Paul's command that people must respect and obey their earthly authorities (which would include both the apostate church and Satan's rule over the earth until the King returns). The church also prefers faith over reason, thus Paul's doctrine of faith edified the authority of the apostate church, which then launched centuries of torture and oppression upon its subjects. The so-called 'Holy Father' in Rome ruled in place of Christ, and that is the meaning of the term 'Antichrist'.

Maybe I'm not being clear. I understand that that is your position. I also understand that the reason you hold that position is because you have a particular interpretation of certain lines from the gospels that you believe are in conflict with Paul. The issue is why is one source more reliable or authoritative than the other. The oldest known "Christian" writings are the authentic epistles of Paul. Even if your interpretation of the differences between Paul and other texts were correct, why can't Paul be the one that got it right? After all, his writings are the closest temporally to the time period to which the life of Christ is assigned.

If Paul is a false apostle,then he is not really an apostle. Logic 101.

And if he's an apostle then he is not a false apostle. Logic 201.

The Kingdom is not yet here.

Sure it is. I quoted that out of the Scriptures.

 

[JJM]

If it makes you feel any better, I'll happily retract that line. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other.

I would be much more interested in the meaning of "salvation" and the goal of the "Christian" disciple, if you're game.

I wouldn't want you to retract the statement if it's what you think I was just wandering why you thought they disagree. Most people think this because they have a misconception of what Paul teaches a misconception described in the first post WolfgangvonUSA made in the faith or faithfulness to the law thread. So I was just wondering if that was your reason you think they disagreed or do you think I was reading James incorrectly.



As far as the other subject. I think the word Salvation is used most commonly in 3 ways. Two of which are right and one of which is wrong. The first of the correct is when you are baptized you receive the Grace needed to achieve salvation. The second correct is that when you enter heaven you are internally saved. The incorrect one is a mix of the other two. It is the idea that by doing the first you automatically receive the second. This is false for your name can be removed from the book of life. The goal of a Christian disciple is to achieve salvation and bring others to that salvation. One does this by having faith and living it. However because he who has more is responsible for more and he who has less is responsible for less one is only responsible to what they Know/believe is the will of God. But once you get to the point where you know that you most likely also know that you are required to attempt to learn more about God’s will because he who has more will be given more but he who has little will loose what he has. In other words if you don’t attempt to get more grace and faith by doing the will of God you will loose what you already have.

 

[JJM]

The Pauline epistles should not have been canonized in the first place, but the fallible and corrupt church liked Paul's command that people must respect and obey their earthly authorities (which would include both the apostate church and Satan's rule over the earth until the King returns).

No you would not be required to obey Satan nor an apostate church because you are not required to follow authorities that go against the authority of God.

The church also prefers faith over reason, thus Paul's doctrine of faith edified the authority of the apostate church, which then launched centuries of torture and oppression upon its subjects.

The Church prefers that they coincide like they normally do. Such as Jesus saying that Satan would never prevail against the church thus by reason it only make sense that the church (not people within the church) never became corrupted in teaching. We also have faith that the teachings are correct. But sometimes reason doesn't work. Such as the Idea that Christ is God. By reason you wouldn't be able to achieve this Idea it requires faith

The so-called 'Holy Father' in Rome ruled in place of Christ, and that is the meaning of the term 'Antichrist'.

The definition of the antichrist is someone against Christ not ruling in Christ’s authority and absence before the second coming. The kingdom of God is at hand and when a Hebrew King is not ruling his kingdom he appoints a vicar to rule in his stead. And he gives this vicar the keys to his palace. Christ did this with Peter.

If Paul is a false apostle,then he is not really an apostle. Logic 101.



The Kingdom is not yet here. I wish it was. When the New Jerusalem descends from the sky, that will be the arrival of the Kingdom.

Mark 9:1

And he said to them: Amen I say to you that there are some of them that stand here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God coming in power.



Either someone from there has not died or the kingdom is here.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

I wouldn't want you to retract the statement if it's what you think I was just wandering why you thought they disagree. Most people think this because they have a misconception of what Paul teaches a misconception described in the first post WolfgangvonUSA made in the faith or faithfulness to the law thread. So I was just wondering if that was your reason you think they disagreed or do you think I was reading James incorrectly.

Like I said, I'm genuinely not interested one way or the other and truthfully, I hold no real opinion on the subject because I've never looked at it that closely. It would be rather negligent of me to discuss it.

As far as the other subject. I think the word Salvation is used most commonly in 3 ways. Two of which are right and one of which is wrong. The first of the correct is when you are baptized you receive the Grace needed to achieve salvation. The second correct is that when you enter heaven you are internally saved. The incorrect one is a mix of the other two. It is the idea that by doing the first you automatically receive the second. This is false for your name can be removed from the book of life. The goal of a Christian disciple is to achieve salvation and bring others to that salvation. One does this by having faith and living it. However because he who has more is responsible for more and he who has less is responsible for less one is only responsible to what they Know/believe is the will of God. But once you get to the point where you know that you most likely also know that you are required to attempt to learn more about God’s will because he who has more will be given more but he who has little will loose what he has. In other words if you don’t attempt to get more grace and faith by doing the will of God you will loose what you already have.

It's not a question of "how" one is "saved" - that's another question I have little to no interest in. It's a question of what it means to be "saved" or "what is salvation". How and why is obtaining personal salvation the centerpiece of a supposedly altruistic religion? Wouldn't it be more meaningful to be true to yourself and remain open minded rather than have "faith" out of fear of being or not being "saved?" Isn't that exactly the whole point - freedom?

I'll be honest with you, even though I was a rabid evangelical for years, I never really understood Christianity until I walked away from it for a decade and studied the myths of cultures I wasn't brought up in. When I came back to Christianity and studied it, not out of an obligation to tradition but looked at the early writings and examined its history and context for myself, it actually made sense to me - but I found it means something radically different than tradition had led me to believe - in fact, almost the opposite of what tradition teaches.

 

[lunamoth]

When I hear someone say they are "saved" I usually assume that they mean that they that they acknowledge Jesus as their Lord, that they believe the Holy Spirit resides in their hearts, and that they will get into heaven (be close to God) when they die. But what do these words mean? I think they are representations of a Truth that is beyond expression in words that cause us to lead a life of compassion, one where we try to keep in mind our connectedness to others. I agree that the Kingdom of God is all around us, and I don't think it is restricted to Christians, considered saved or otherwise.

 

[lunamoth]

Just noticed that there is an earlier interesting thread discusssing the idea of salvation:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102