Rejecting the apostle Paul's letters

[christosdavid]

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.

The original liberal German scholars wernt arguing for inerrancy but historicity. Which letters actually were written by Paul?

Certainly there are plenty of non-canonical/apocryphal works that are written under apostolic names…

 

[Zundrah]

Romans
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
Galatians
Philippians
First Thessalonians
Philemon

Are the “undisputed” letters.

I was hoping Corinthians wouldn’t be there.

 

[JohnVIII]

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?

Marcion was not the only early Christian that believed that the Father of Jesus was not the god of the Old Testament. It may surprise some to see that even some of the early Ebionites held this view! Ebionites were Jewish Christians who saw St Paul as a false apostle. It is not known whether all Ebionites also held this Marcionite-like view that God the Father was only good whereas the god of Creation (Jehovah) was both good and evil, but at least one sect of the Ebionites did and that sect had Cerinthus as it’s leader. Some have referred to Cerinthus as a “Gnostic Ebionite”. The Cerinthus Ebionites were a very old group and Cerinthus may have even been present at the council of Jerusalem presided over by St James the Brother of the Lord (Acts 15). Cerinthus didn’t say that Jehovah was the creator (as Marcion did) but rather said that the angels collectively were the creators of the world with Jehovah being among them; but like Marcion he said that the Father of Jesus is the Supreme God but not the creator god (not the angels nor Jehovah). See: newadvent.org/cathen/03539a.htm.

It is a common understanding that ancient Hebrews saw both good and evil coming from Jehovah. The idea that evil comes from a fallen angel (Lucifer) rather than from Jehovah came later on. The Marcionites and the Gnostic Ebionites who believed in a Supreme God greater than Jehovah Who was only good had no concept of a “fall” of Adam and Eve. Evil came into the world not because Adam fell (an idea that may have first started with St Augustine), but because those who created the world were themselves both evil and good, so the creation was akin to the creator.

As far as I know only the Ebionites outright “rejected” the letters of Paul, but there is a good deal of evidence that several early Catholic Church fathers (before a Catholic canon of scripture was established) questioned the letters of Paul. As another poster had mentioned, the first canon of Scripture was made by Marcion in about 120 AD which included 10 letters of Paul. Since the Marcionites were the main group that saw the letters of Paul to be scripture and since the Catholics saw the Marcionites as heretics and the Catholic Church didn’t have an official canon of scripture yet, it was only natural that many Catholic Fathers were reluctant to accept Paul’s letters as scripture because they may have suspected that the letters were just the writings of heretics that were written to support their “heretical” ideas.

Even today, if you read through all the epistles of St Paul it is very hard to get a doctrine of a physical resurrection from them (Marcionites believed in only a spiritual resurrection). The concept of ‘Salvation by Grace alone’ apart from the works of the Law taught in Paul’s epistles (in contrast to the need for works as taught by James) was also a primary teaching of the Marcionites. And the Marcionites did not believe that Jesus was physically born of the Virgin Mary and even though the letters of Paul make up more than half of the New Testament you can search them in vain to find any mention of a virgin birth of Jesus.

If you were a strong believer in Catholic dogma and the Catholic canon of scripture was not yet established would you think it a good idea to include the letters of Paul in the yet to be formed Catholic canon when the letters of Paul didn’t teach some Catholic dogma and a major heretical group held them up as scripture? What do you think?

Peace!

 

[Mintaka]

If you’re familiar with the whole of Jewish thought and Scripture and oral teachings, and if you understand the true meaning of covenants (like, say, an early Christian of Jewish background), you’ll see God in the OT as the same loving God as Jesus.

If you’re Marcion of Sinope, growing up a Greek bishop’s kid in a pagan Greek (albeit in Asia Minor) colony town that also hosts a large and proselytizing Jewish community, and your dad is probably always doing apologetics against Jews without having the in-depth knowledge that a Jewish Christian bishop would have had… well, you probably won’t see Jews as living in a loving (though partial) family relationship with God.

 

[wiggbuggie]

I read the book of esther a few days ago and noticed something interesting. In Esther 3:8-14 We see that kings used secretaries and trusted close friends to write letters or orders under the name of the king. Now can it be the same in 1st centuary that paul gave permission to let a disciple of paul or traveler to write in his name?

 

[TimothyH]

I read the book of esther a few days ago and noticed something interesting. In Esther 3:8-14 We see that kings used secretaries and trusted close friends to write letters or orders under the name of the king. Now can it be the same in 1st centuary that paul gave permission to let a disciple of paul or traveler to write in his name?

I don’t think it inconceivable that some of Paul’s students may have wrote in his name later. It was a common practice of Rabbis, to teach under the authority of the person under whom they were trained.

We see hints of this practice in the Gospels, including immediately after Jesus great teaching sermon (on the Mount) in Matthew 5 through 7.

***When Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes. *(Matthew 7:28-2)

The Chief Priests ask Jesus point blank about where his authority to teach on matters of the mosaic law derived from.

One day as he was teaching the people in the temple area and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and scribes, together with the elders, approached him and said to him, “Tell us, by what authority are you doing these things? Or who is the one who gave you this authority?” (Luke 20:1-2)

The question of authority was important in the Jewish tradition and many taught under the authority of their teacher. Jesus addresses this directly with his disciples.

***No disciple is superior to the teacher; but when fully trained, every disciple will be like his teacher. *(Luke 6:40)

Jesus goes on to do what a rabbi would be unlikely to do - he calls his disciples friends.

The idea of authority was clearly laid out by God under Judaism so that it could be carried over into Christianity and perfected in the Church. It is likely that anyone trained by Paul for a long period of time would have seen themselves as having Paul’s authority handed down to him. The right to write and teach under Paul’s name might have been assumed.

-Tim-

 

[Usagi]

It’s enough to make anyone wonder.

The transition isn’t actually that abrupt, though. God in the Pentateuch and Joshua is portrayed as pretty harsh fairly often, but as you move along into later books the view of Him changes considerably. The prophets tend to be fairly big on the same sorts of things Jesus would later emphasize. Even in the early books, you get passages about His anger being brief whereas His favor lasts for generations.

The major difference seems to be that the OT conception of God dealt with people collectively and held out physical death as the ultimate punishment. So you get stories of Him wiping out entire cities of people or encouraging His people to do the same.

In the NT, God/Jesus is appealing to people on more of an individual level, and death (while still the enemy in one sense) is increasingly seen as just a necessary step on the way to resurrection. Ananias and Saphira is the only case I can think of in which God strikes someone physically dead as a punishment in the NT. On the other hand, the NT is where we start getting details on Hell (which seems to have been a concept in the Jewish culture of Jesus’ time, but doesn’t appear to go back far enough to show up in the OT writings).

Usagi

 

[InJesusItrust]

It’s enough to make anyone wonder.

You must keep in mind that the Father waited centuries for repentance before smiting people. He is slow to reveal His wrath and patient. He will smite us in the future too. Many people taunt “Where is God? Why isn’t He smiting us?” But God warns and waits for repentance. Many people see the signs but cannot believe, like the fact that statues cry human tears and human blood or that the Eucharist sometimes turns into heart tissue. These signs should make people repent but most people do not. You read the OT and wonder how it’s possible people lose faith in God despite the miraculous deeds done and the answer is that people are quick to disbelieve other’s testimonies until they experience them for themselves.