DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Opinion noted.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
KJV "OT" quoters: a recommendation ...
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
Opinion noted.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
It would be more accurate to suggest that the recipient had the letters, but that they had neither been collated nor widely distributed.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I rather doubt many christians know anything about that....
Nor do many even know how the new Christian communities organised themselves, or how and what they celebrated in the Eucharist, and baptism nor even the significance of the Lords prayer to those new recruits. Yet all these things are to be found in the Didache. Very well discussed by Aarom Milavec in his book of the same name.
Most Christians know almost nothing of pre-Gospel Christianity. Nor would they recognise that it was largely Unitarian in nature, worshiping only God.
Last edited:
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Which "New Testament Letters" are you referring to? Paul's? If so, why would the Apostles have, or even need, copies of letters sent to nascent church groups of the times?
Because Paul knew more than Jesus, obviously.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Well, there ya go then...
To be absolutely honest, I find it astonishing that someone would or could ask such a thoroughly stupid question. Why would we need this?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
There is a group mentioned the NT, the 'Paulinists'.
Paul never started that group, they followed Paul and apparently had some differences with a couple other Xian groups. Paul mentions them.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Just a clarification, are you saying my question was stupid?
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Most Christians today are Paulinians as opposed to Jesusonians.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
For the most part Pauls letters were not aimed at the other Apostles, but at the new churches he had founded on his missions to the gentiles. Their importance was clearly recognised immediately, or they would not have been preserved and distributed so promptly. It is not clear if the other Apostels ever saw them.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Why would they even need to except as a point of curiosity? You're talking about a johnny-come-lately schooling those that actually sat at the feet of Yeshua.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Your johnny-come-lately knew far more, and had far more success in establishing churches amongst the gentiles than the Apostles had amongst Jewish communities.
It is largely his heritage that has survived. By the time his epistles were collected and distributed all the Apostles were dead. Few of them would have seen any of them at all.
Much of the dogma that has come down to us was derived, by sucessor churches, from his work.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
But this is not what the OP was about.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
simply answering your question.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Actually you sorta misdirected my hypothetical observation.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
You put it as a question with a ? mark. If it is hypothetical leave out the mark.
What do you mean by "misdirected" or is that an intensional malapropism.
kiwimac
Brother Napalm of God's Love
Nope!
David! Long time no see! Hope things are good at your place.
Okay, you have a fixed view, a hard definition, of what "scripture" is.
Why did you choose that one? What test did you apply to determine which was best?
But Paul isn't talking about the NT there, because when he wrote there wasn't one. The only gospel Paul can be talking about is his own, and it doesn't exist in any coherent form comparable to the four gospels. Indeed the factual information that Paul gives about Jesus' life on earth is very scanty indeed ─ it fits in just a few lines. like so:
Jesus was born in human fashion – Galatians 4:4.
He was born a Jew ─ Galatians 4, Philippians 2).
He was of the line of David – Romans 1:3.
He had a brother (or, ‘brother’) named James – Galatians 1:19.
He had a ministry to the Jews – Romans 15:8.
He taught about the end-times – 1 Thessalonians 4:15 [But this may be one of Paul’s visions]
He had disciples and one of them was called Peter – Galatians 1:19
He initiated the Lord’s Supper – 1 Corinthians 11:23.
He was παρεδίδοτο "handed over" on the night of the Lord’s Supper – 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.
His death was by crucifixion and was at the hands of earthly rulers ─ 1 Corinthians 2:8
He was physically buried –1 Corinthians 15:4
.
Oh, and according to Thessalonians 2:14:16, Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus’ death. There's scholarly opinion that the passage is a forgery or incidental gloss incorporated by a copyist, but if I remember correctly, you only agree with scholars who agree with you, so I mention it.
So that's 11 lines ─ 12 if you count the last one.
It will already have struck you that the first three points contradict Matthew and Luke (though not Mark or John.)
The long and short being that your Paul quote isn't much help to your argument.
Anyway, I'm still interested in how you derived your definition of "scripture" so grateful for your explanation.
