Rejecting the apostle Paul's letters

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zundrah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zundrah

Guest
Has there ever been a time or event passed (maybe still present?) when some group of Protestants or even early Church fathers have rejected the apostle Paul’s writings, or at least just been unsure about them?

From what I know, he wrote these;

Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessolonians
2 Thessolonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
 
Tradition tends to hold that he either wrote Hebrews, dictated it, or one of his own disciples wrote it in his name. Off-hand, that’s the only Pauline book I know that was questioned by this or that ECF according to various websites. Some early lists may not have included Philemon either. In either case, a lot of times you will see people claim an ECF “rejected” a book if it was not in their “list” but I have found that to be an argument from silence, owing rather to that ECF identifying what they’ve received as Scripture, and not saying one way or the other what they thought of unmentioned texts. You may want to keyword search this article here for Pauline titles.
 
before the canon was fully established there were times when groups were not among the majority in having a full canon of Scripture, but Tradition seemed to fill the gaps enough to keep them within the Catholic faith and doctrine. There were and are groups who have rejected books of the Bible in opposition to the Church, which means that they reject portions of the canon and to get right down to it they are rejecting portions of Christianity. There is a “liberal” movement out there that rejects Paul’s letters and theology because it opposes their agenda.
 
Scholars list 7 of the epistles as authenticly Paul…the others are doubtful and most likely written by one of his associates OR written by someone looking to add “apostolic” authority to their views.

Romans
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
Galatians
Philippians
First Thessalonians
Philemon

Of course, most “conservative” believers disagree.
 
Zundrah said:
**Has there ever been a time **or event passed (maybe still present?) when some group of Protestants or even early Church fathers have rejected the apostle Paul’s writings, or at least just been unsure about them?
Click to expand...
Yea now, there are some Messianic Jews who reject Paul’s writings.
A very few Messianic believers are troubled by the writings of Paul and may reject his writings, holding them in less esteem than those of the Gospel writers, or even reject him. Often, the emphasis is on the idea that the Old Testament is the only scripture the early believers had (most scripture scholars agree that there was not an established New Testament canon until the 4th century) and that, except for the recorded words of Jesus, the New Testament was meant to be an inspired commentary on the Old Testament.
christianity.wikia.com/wiki/Messianic_Judaism
 
Another such example: Marcion used only one Gospel (Luke, edited), and only 10 of Paul’s letters, some of them also edited down. These were a shorter Galatians and Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Laodiceans (=Ephesians), Philippians, Philemon and Colossians.

Yet another: didn’t Pres. Thomas Jefferson edit the bible to remove what he considered doubtful or misleading? But then, he was a Rationalist and Enlightenment philosopher.
 
bmonk said:
Another such example: Marcion used only one Gospel (Luke, edited), and only 10 of Paul’s letters, some of them also edited down. These were a shorter Galatians and Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Laodiceans (=Ephesians), Philippians, Philemon and Colossians.

Yet another: didn’t Pres. Thomas Jefferson edit the bible to remove what he considered doubtful or misleading? But then, he was a Rationalist and Enlightenment philosopher.
Click to expand...
He removed 3 of the gospels? That’s quite something.
 
Zundrah said:
He removed 3 of the gospels? That’s quite something.
Click to expand...
No…he didn’t “remove” 3 gospels…he used one gospel…edited…no birth narratives that most likely was a version of “Luke”…what would Marcion have “removed” gospels from…there wasn’t a single volume or set canon of scripture yet…in fact Marcion was the first to suggest that a “Christian canon” needed to be put together since the Jews had a book of scriptures…and so should Christians…Marcion…a “heretic” was the first to seek to establish a “canon” of scripture for Christians to use.
 
Publisher said:
No…he didn’t “remove” 3 gospels…he used one gospel…edited…no birth narratives that most likely was a version of “Luke”…what would Marcion have “removed” gospels from…there wasn’t a single volume or set canon of scripture yet…
Click to expand...
Oh, I hadn’t heard of this guy. I see he was about in the early years of 144 now.
in fact Marcion was the first to suggest that a “Christian canon” needed to be put together since the Jews had a book of scriptures…and so should Christians…Marcion…a “heretic” was the first to seek to establish a “canon” of scripture for Christians to use.
Click to expand...
He was excommunicated apparently according to Wikipedia. What was the heresies he spewed?
 
John7 said:
Yea now, there are some Messianic Jews who reject Paul’s writings.
A very few Messianic believers are troubled by the writings of Paul and may reject his writings, holding them in less esteem than those of the Gospel writers, or even reject him. Often, the emphasis is on the idea that the Old Testament is the only scripture the early believers had (most scripture scholars agree that there was not an established New Testament canon until the 4th century) and that, except for the recorded words of Jesus, the New Testament was meant to be an inspired commentary on the Old Testament.
christianity.wikia.com/wiki/Messianic_Judaism
Click to expand...
Do you think it is possible to be fully Christian with only the 4 gospels?
 
Zundrah said:
Oh, I hadn’t heard of this guy. I see he was about in the early years of 144 now.

He was excommunicated apparently according to Wikipedia. What was the heresies he spewed?
Click to expand...
Marcion had a difficult time believeing the God of the OT was the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth. So…he postulated that the God Jesus revealed was NOT the OT God…but a God that up till the revelation of Jesus of Nazareth had been unknown…and humanity was bound by the laws of the OT God…Jesus basically “beat him at his own game” so to speak and paid the penalty for sin the OT God required for all who put their faith in Christ…and this OT God being subject to his own “laws” was required to accept the sinless sacrifice of Christ to “save” humanity that put their trust in Jesus.

The above is a very simplistic answer to your question…but that’s the gist of it.

Marcion Christianity spread throughout Asia Minor…and for quite a while…centuries even was the only version of Christianity anyone knew of. Marcion rejected the Jewish scriptures as having any meaning for anyone other than the Jews…he postulated that a “new set of scriptures” needed to be compiled. He felt that the apostles had misunderstood the message of Jesus and that was the reason Paul was called to be The Apostle that understood the message of Christ. The “true gospel” was revealed by Paul…and since “Luke” was a companion of Paul…his gospel was the one used by Marcion (though heavily edited OR an early version of “Luke”) as “Luke’s” gospel best reflected the life of Jesus as Paul’s companion.
 
Publisher said:
Marcion had a difficult time believeing the God of the OT was the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth. So…he postulated that the God Jesus revealed was NOT the OT God…but a God that up till the revelation of Jesus of Nazareth had been unknown…and humanity was bound by the laws of the OT God…Jesus basically “beat him at his own game” so to speak and paid the penalty for sin the OT God required for all who put their faith in Christ…and this OT God being subject to his own “laws” was required to accept the sinless sacrifice of Christ to “save” humanity that put their trust in Jesus.

The above is a very simplistic answer to your question…but that’s the gist of it.

Marcion Christianity spread throughout Asia Minor…and for quite a while…centuries even was the only version of Christianity anyone knew of. Marcion rejected the Jewish scriptures as having any meaning for anyone other than the Jews…he postulated that a “new set of scriptures” needed to be compiled. He felt that the apostles had misunderstood the message of Jesus and that was the reason Paul was called to be The Apostle that understood the message of Christ. The “true gospel” was revealed by Paul…and since “Luke” was a companion of Paul…his gospel was the one used by Marcion (though heavily edited OR an early version of “Luke”) as “Luke’s” gospel best reflected the life of Jesus as Paul’s companion.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t sound Christian at all. Almost LDS like.
 
Zundrah said:
That doesn’t sound Christian at all. Almost LDS like.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t sound LDS to me…but tried to answer an early Christian question…why was the angry, vengeful OT version of God so radically different than the lo9ving Father of Jesus?
 
Publisher said:
Scholars list 7 of the epistles as authenticly Paul…the others are doubtful and most likely written by one of his associates OR written by someone looking to add “apostolic” authority to their views.

Romans
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
Galatians
Philippians
First Thessalonians
Philemon

Of course, most “conservative” believers disagree.
Click to expand...
even more critical scholars narrow the list to just 4

Romans
1st & 2nd Corinthians
Galatians

these letters are cut and pasted as well, particularly Romans and 2 Cor which apparently contain different letters (by the same author - Paul) but were compiled into a whole.

Romans has a few different endings

The other letters have more or less support depending on how “radical” the scholar wants to be thought of.

One of the saddest thesis I have read was by a conservative baptist who could only use the 7 “authentic” letters of Paul because he was too embarrassed to be seen to believe the pastoral letters were penned by Paul…😊
 
Publisher said:
Doesn’t sound LDS to me…but tried to answer an early Christian question…why was the angry, vengeful OT version of God so radically different than the lo9ving Father of Jesus?
Click to expand...
It’s enough to make anyone wonder.
 
christosdavid said:
even more critical scholars narrow the list to just 4

Romans
1st & 2nd Corinthians
Galatians

these letters are cut and pasted as well, particularly Romans and 2 Cor which apparently contain different letters (by the same author - Paul) but were compiled into a whole.

Romans has a few different endings

The other letters have more or less support depending on how “radical” the scholar wants to be thought of.

One of the saddest thesis I have read was by a conservative baptist who could only use the 7 “authentic” letters of Paul because he was too embarrassed to be seen to believe the pastoral letters were penned by Paul…😊
Click to expand...
Since I don’t believe the scriptures are infallible nor inerrant…I have no problem accepting that the pastoral letters were not written by Paul…but by a well meaning disciple who used Paul’s name to led “credibility” to the letters…they reflect the direction the “proto-orthodox/catholic” factions of Christianity were headed.
 
christosdavid said:
One of the saddest thesis I have read was by a conservative baptist who could only use the 7 “authentic” letters of Paul because he was too embarrassed to be seen to believe the pastoral letters were penned by Paul…😊
Click to expand...
What seven books were they?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top