Replacing the 12th Apostle

[yedida]

Let's take Maccabees. If the temple were desecrated and destroyed, wouldn't it have to be a judgment from YHWH? And if he is judging the people, who was Judah Maccabee to stand in the way? Would he have been better off leading the people to repent rather than to fight?

Maccabee isn't in the picture. We're talking about two specific men doing specific things - the scenarios are different no matter how you line them up. Using other senarios is only trying to deflect off that fact - they were different - period.

 

[pat34lee]

Maccabee isn't in the picture. We're talking about two specific men doing specific things - the scenarios are different no matter how you line them up. Using other senarios is only trying to deflect off that fact - they were different - period.

Then we look at Saul's perspective. He was zealous, he knew the Tanakh by heart, and he studied under the most prestigious rabbi around. What was he likely to do in the future? Possibly the sanhedrin. He would have been involved in rabbinic politics. Now, there is a movement rising that the religious leaders not only consider blasphemous, but also threatens their power. Paul could have been motivated by either or both reasons to try to help break up this movement.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

And why is that? Perhaps because the ruling group who became the RCC killed off all that didn't believe as they did? Today the church doesn't have the same power it once did.

It was never the ruling group who became the RCC that killed them off, as other Jewish believers in Messiah NEVER agreed nor supported them and took beef with them when it came to the many twistings of what Yeshua/the Torah said---and ironically, many of the Ebionites fighting back in the name of "keeping the Torah" when they didn't even do that much. More has already been discussed on the issue before on various aspects of Ebionite Christianity (as seen here and here in #91 ,#156 and #157 )

Ultimately, what it comes to is that there's a renewal of Ebioniote Jewish ideology---seperate from what Messianic Judaism advocates---and that renewal is being pushed when it comes to the attempts at denouncing Paul or anyone supporting him even though what he said was never seperate from the apostles or what Christ noted and one has to make a host of false arguments to claim otherwise.

And to say that the true believers believe Paul is slanderous to them who Love HaShem and his son. There is no where in all 66 books that says to be a true believer one must believe what Paul taught.

One, it should be noted that the scriptures never advocated for 66 books alone since there were always more books besides that. The 66 book logic is a Protestant ideology that the early believers never shared when it came to the scriptures they supported, be it Macabees or the Testament of Moses (quoted in the Book of Jude) or the Book of Enoch (also quoted in the Book of Jude concerning Enoch's prophecy), Epistle of Barnabas (as Ethiopian Christians of Eastern Orthodoxy/Eastern Christianity do in consistency with what the Church Fathers noted), Shepherd of Hermas and a host of others (more discussed here in #89 #336 and #410 , here, here, here, here , here , here and here ). Other writings besides that, with those in Eastern Christianity/Eastern Orthodoxy (which is seperate entirely from Catholicism, for those arguing that it's only Protestants and Catholics) accepting other works as well. Barnabas, like I. Clement and Hermas, became canonical in some circles: it is quoted by Clement of Alexandria as Scripture. Technically, for the Jewish people, they didn't even have a cannon necessarily in the days of Christ/the apostles outside of the Tanak (and even that was debated as it what counted in the Writings)...and later, all the early believers had in addition were the Epistles, be it the General Epistles or the Pauline ones to give guidance. Thus, talking of a unified cannon as if it's only 66 can be problematic.....especially when considering that the Lord never promised or said he'd ONLY speak through 66 books anyhow.

Two, as it concerns accuracy, I'd say slanderous is when there are multiple things brought up against Paul that he never advocated and that are false scenarios. The same ideologies and arguments have been applied equally to every other apostle, from Peter to John and others, when it comes to others saying that the apostles already were out of line with the Torah for proclaiming that a man was God and that the man known as Yeshua brought something radically different than what was done before......and there's more than enough reason why people choose to not even believe in Christ and go into full blown Judaism when they see the arguments laying the foundation for disbelieving the NT. One can't denounc against Paul selectively and not lay the foundation for having the rest of the NT taken apart. One of the reasons why the moderators of the forum and CF have noted repeatedly where it is not allowed for others to openly denounce Paul on the forum since that's not what they/other believers stand for.....and the fact that there are attempts to do so again is dishonorable toward what has been asked of us.

I seriously wonder how the slippery slope of ignoring Paul/treating him as if he can be ignored can be taken seriously without ever questioning what to do with other texts. One would have to ignore the Gospel of Luke (which was made by the very man accompanying Paul, advocating for His ministry/Christ's approval of it and DISCUSSING its history in the Book of Acts).

One could also say that the other scriptures supporting Paul by the other apostles must be thrown out, as is the case with Peter---the one whom Christ said in Matthew 16 and John 21 he'd build the Church upon/gave leadership of it to. II Peter 3:15-16 shows where Peter told the believers to listen to/support Paul. By the time of Peter's writing, Paul's letters already had a widespread reputation....and Peter spoke of Paul's letters as if they were on the same level as with the other "Scriptures." And although Paul emphasized salvation by grace, not law, Peter preferred to talk about Christian service and life. The two men did not contradict one another and always had each other in high esteem.....and when false teachers tried to intentionally misuse Paul's writings by distorting them to condone lawlessness (which Paul condemned in Romans 6:15), Peter spoke clearly on it being wrong and echoed many of the same things that Paul said plainly.

II Peter 3:10
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
​

Of course, the latest thing is claiming that I and II Peter were forgeries and therefore there's no way that Peter would ever be supporting Paul in either leadership or influence of the Church. That's always an interesting discussion to get involved---and thankfully, it has not been the case that it hasn't been addressed. For some good articles on such:

• Is II Peter Forged? « The Good News
• he Authenticity of 2 Peter — Michael J. Kruger j
• Is 2 Peter Peter's? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

With Peter in His blantant support of Paul, it seems odd whenever there's claim that one should accept what Peter said and then treat what Paul wrote as if its a matter of simple commentary that can be dismissed. Even with saying that one should only go with what Yeshua did, the reality is that what Yeshua did was directly IN LINE with the example of Paul---and thus, its not really accurate when trying to make it out as if Paul was counter to Christ since they both had the same mindset---and if taking the text of Acts literally, then ONE MUST acknowledge where Acts 9-10 makes clear that Christ appeared to Paul and said that He would use Him for his glory in reaching out to the Gentiles. One cannot be selective in saying that wish to take the book of Acts/the history of the Church in action seriously...and yet be selective with what they BELIEVE about it.

Taking it further, Something I always found interesting is how often there seems to be a focus upon Paul---as if he was unique in what he advocated on many points when it comes to things many take issue with such as love being the fulfillment of the law/things others equate to being "anti-Torah"---and yet, with other books in the Bible, they seem to be even more radical than Paul and yet they're left alone.

Specifically, I'm reminded of the Johannine Epistles, which have long been recognised as contributing a vital element to the theology of the New Testament. Usually it is to the Gospel (Gospel of John) that the reader turns first in order to explore that contribution. The First Epistle is treated as a supplement, while 2 and 3 John - on account of their brevity - receive little attention. But the things noted in Johannine theology are very powerful when it comes to clarifying what it means to either.

The three letters of John after the Gospel He wrote are among the shooter books in the New Testament. In fact, 2nd and 3rd John are the shortest books in the New Testament. This point quite often leads us to gauge them as being of lesser importance and results in neglect on our part...but they are far more.

It often seems that people try to place both Paul and the other apostles into opposition with each other continually...but Johanine theology doesn't seem to support that. In example, Paul made exceptionally clear that he only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love ( Galatians 5:5-7, Romans 13:7-9, , Galatians 6:1-3, etc )---and even the other apostles echoed this same concept in their epistles, such as John when he summed up God's commands/Torah into simply LOVING your neighbor ( 1 John 4:20-21 , 1 John 3:22-24, )

2 John 1:6
And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.
​

For some good review:

• Peter & the Beloved Disciple
• Early Christian Writing - I John
• Moses-Like Prophet in John -Yeshua in Context
• Introduction: The Johannine Epistles: The Faith In The Crucible

As they are used JUST as much as the Pauline Epistles when it comes to formulating doctrine within Christianity, its odd to see so many focus upon interpreting Paul...for there would still be others similar to His interpretations that one would need to deal with.
James, the brother of Jesus, noted the same exact concept when it came to demonstrating one's heart for the Lord by their deeds---and his stance was that the ULTIMATE expression of devotion to the Lord was whether or not one truly loved their neighbor ( James 2:8 ), prior to any kind of discussion on faith/works...and even his stance of works/faith went directly in line with what Paul noted.

IMHO, if people continually focus upon Paul, it does seem that there should be a focus on others as well

And ultimately, much of the arguments against Paul have zero to do with Messianic Judaism or even Jewish culture....and they ultimately equate to people MAKING IT UP as they go along and not really having any ground for discussing trusting in scripture.

And numbers are not a true example of anyone's credentials as to be from G-d.

Indeed, although numbers were never argued as an example of credentials alone. The argument, however, cannot be applied consistently when it comes to talking on the need of the Jewish people to return to Messiah en masse and ignoring where the Bible focused on numbers in noting repeatedly where the Lord ADDED to their numbers because of them walking right with him.

• How many people attend Benny Hinn's revivals?
• How many people attend those big, 'feel good' Mega-churches. like the one in Lakewood,Texas? they preach a lot of love too.
• How about Todd Bentley? How many 'true believers' flocked to his revival meeting to 'experience and receive the Holy Spirit', mainly by kicking them in the face, or stomach, knocking them on the ground to roll around, laughing hysterically, and modestly, like animals? They lined up from around the world to do so.

Great numbers, but true believers? not what G-d says...

Minus the fact that no one knows the salvation of all in any of the churches you listed, just as believers in Messiah have been found ALL OVER THE Place and seeking Him and the Lord ultimately knows those who are his, one really has no credible way of assuming that all in certain churches must not be true believers anymore than others are believers simply because they speak of loving Torah/GOD..even when a host of things are done that are nowhere near what God asked for and judgements toward other believers are still given.

We are to question, it doesn't matter who it is, we are responsible for using the gifts he gave us, not to our betterment, but for our protection.
And there are believers, and followers. There

Indeed. The same thing applies as it concerns those who make it a habit of denouncing Paul (as many can be sincere believers and yet still make a multitude of errors in the process that damage the Faith). It is because of that reason that Jewish believers did not tolerate it in the early church---and still don't today

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This is not said enough!

Ditto

 

[yedida]

Then we look at Saul's perspective. He was zealous, he knew the Tanakh by heart, and he studied under the most prestigious rabbi around. What was he likely to do in the future? Possibly the sanhedrin. He would have been involved in rabbinic politics. Now, there is a movement rising that the religious leaders not only consider blasphemous, but also threatens their power. Paul could have been motivated by either or both reasons to try to help break up this movement.

Yep, movin' on up the ladder of politics he was....

 

[Avodat]

The Scriptures included in The Book, part 1, were set before Yeshua walked this earth. Part 2 was set by Athanasius in the 4th Century and has remained so ever since.

Protestantism was not introduced until the 16th Century by the Reformation (or we would all be Catholics today).

The Roman Catholic Church accepted the books that cover the 400 year gap, between Part 1 & 2, with various degrees of legitimacy in so far as it is Scripture. Neither Jews nor Protestants recognise those books as being valid Scripture for a number of reasons. Not least because it does not reconcile with that of the Church Fathers.

It is not, therefore, down to Protestants that there are only 66 books to read between the covers of The Book - it was set by the Church Fathers centuries before we came into being and we have continued with their decision, whilst others have sought to add in more.

"Consensus developed, and in A.D. 367 the respected church leader Athanasius published a universal list of
twenty-seven accepted New Testament books, the same books in our Bibles today. As this
decision-making process unfolded, several important criteria guided early church leaders. It’s
important to understand, however, that these criteria did not appear as a checklist by which
bishops “voted” books in or out. Rather, they gradually emerged as Christian communities
elevated certain texts as having significant and lasting value for the Christian faith. There were
three primary criteria for evaluating a work:

1) Apostolic authorship. It was important that a work be authored by or associated with an
apostolic witness—one of those first generations of people who had actually seen the risen Jesus.
This excluded documents that were written much later, as useful as they may be. Second and
third century Christians understood that these first apostles could best convey the truth about
Jesus’ life and its significance.

2) Widespread usage and acceptance. The early church grew quickly and broadly. As a result,
Christians of different backgrounds, nationalities, and even schools of thought developed. But
when a text maintained or gained universal usage and acceptance among the vast majority of
diverse groups, this attested to its authenticity.

3) Conformity to the rule of faith. Perhaps the most significant factor regarding the value of a
document was its consistency (or lack of) with the general beliefs and practices recognized in
early churches. Therefore, writings with especially questionable theology or practices dissimilar
to those passed down from the apostles were intensely scrutinized".

 

[ContraMundum]

Please show me where we have two or more first-hand witnesses for Paul's life & unique doctrines? I must have missed them.

Have you not read Acts and Peter? Do you not know also about the correlation of evidence from the early Christians?

What would you accept as "proof"? Nothing I suspect.

Many messianics here accept Paul and interpret him to support a Torah-observant lifestyle - to that I say, "great"! Some messianics, including myself, reject Paul, and interpret him to be a double-minded man who both supports and rejects Torah; we reject him in order to support a Torah-observant lifestyle. The common endpoints are the same. What's the problem here?

If you reject Paul, you are not Messianic. You are something else altogether. I'm not saying you are unsaved- whatever you might take that to mean. Just that MJs accept Paul and always have.

I quote the Greek mainly for my own benefit & practice, thanks.

Then there's really no need to quote it on a public forum. You ought to submit yourself to a proper accredited course on it first anyway.

 

[ContraMundum]

In which volume can I find the "whole canon of scripture"?

In all the times I've asked that question here on CF, I have never gotten a satisfactory response.

I actually believe in a living God, not a theoretical one. The God I follow promised His people that the Holy Spirit would guide them into remembrance of what the Messiah said whilst on earth, and He also spoke through those He called, and His chosen Apostles ratified and confirmed that word. The God I follow doesn't make mistakes with His word, nor does He abandon His people and leave them in darkness and ignorance of it. So: because I follow a God who is alive, and because I believe He speaks through His chosen called out ones as He promised, I have no trouble believing that He has faithfully guided the members of His body to organize and compile the canon of scripture.

So, what guarantee do you have that He is personally guiding you, and only you, against 2000 years of history? Where is your place in His history and where is His promise to you as an individual that you a) will know why the canon and everyone else for 2000 years is wrong, b) you are infallible in your assembling and critique of ancient texts (you only know about through the Church in the first place), c) your understanding of the texts in question will be perfect? Also- what guarantee do you have that any of the books you have in your version of the Bible are truly the Word of God in the first place? If it wasn't for the Church you hate and call misguided- you'd have nothing at all!

Do you have an idea why I cannot agree with you? I never trust individuals claiming extra knowledge and insight.

 

[ContraMundum]

Technically, the main camps that've not done so in the history of the body were those primiarily in the Ebionite Camp---and it does seem that there's a resurrection of Neo-Ebionite theology again in our days.

I know what you are saying. But let's call it for what it is here- there's no such thing as Ebionite theology. All we know about this group is second hand knowledge at best. It seems to me that there is a romantic myth about them that is being promoted by people who find NT living a bit too hard. There are no systematic theologies or lasting written masterpieces by any Ebionite.

Let's look at false teacher identifying mark no.1 here: try to find some ancient friends so you don't look like the person inventing a new religion. If you get enough of them, maybe your religion might fly. However, every sect and cult I know of tries to find their friends in history but always have to cover up the whole story. This is the elephant in the room here. While people want to hang their hats on ancient sects, those sects are long gone. They did not proceed or survive in God's blessing. Why? The usual answer is to demonize those who continued to thrive and still do (eg. the church), but that still makes God a weakling unable to maintain His truth and sustain His people. Looks like God's favor rests upon the NT and the Gospel taught by Paul in complete agreement with the other Apostles.

 

[ContraMundum]

And why is that? Perhaps because the ruling group who became the RCC
killed off all that didn't believe as they did?

..and perhaps they just withered and died out because most heresy has a short life span. The more likely story is that they all became orthodox, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

As I said in the post above...God has blessed the works of Paul, and true believers have always understood his writings as in concord with the rest of scripture.

And to say that the true believers believe Paul is slanderous to them who Love HaShem and his son. There is no where in all 66 books that says to be a true believer one must believe what Paul taught.

And numbers are not a true example of anyone's credentials as to be from G-d.

You claim to have a Jewish "mindset" and you don't understand that God sustains His people and His truth????????????????? You have a 19thC liberal Protestant mindset.

All the things you mention are fads, they will pass. The scriptures- including all 27 books of the NT- will remain.

 

[ContraMundum]

You cite the Clementine Epistles as authoritative, and then dare call into question the existing canon, suggesting it has been manipulated by later Catholic writers??? And you aren't even citing anything that mentions Sha'ul. The supposed adversary in that text is a fellow named, "Simon". What's your point in quotng that section here?

Even the Catholics view as "spurious" the alleged Clementine Homilies by Clement of Rome.

Your bias is showing.

QFT.

 

[ContraMundum]

Saul was not a Rabbi, as the Christians will tell you he planted churches, he did not teach students. The book of Acts says he sat under Gamaliel but there are plenty of scholars, many Jewish that say this wasn't possible and the most incriminating evidence comes from Paul himself as one who is quick to tout his credentials in most of his letters to people who already know who he is, he not once, not once, mentions who he studied under.

This part of your post reads like something from an alternate reality. Paul taught students. He wrote long letters of teachings. We have them today. They're in the Bible. The Book of Acts mentions Paul teaching in synagogues. Obviously, the people who knew him knew of his credentials. All they had to do to find out if he was lying about them was to ask in Jerusalem, and the whole thing would have been over immediately. This is the same for of argumentation for the resurrection of Jesus- they could have pointed to His body and the whole religion crumbles immediately.

Haven't you ever wondered (if you've studied Hillel and Gamliel) how a Rabbi with open views and tolerant could be claimed the teacher of the student who was after watching Stephen being stoned, was 'still breathing murderous threats'?

Let's get this straight. You've never attended a real Jewish yeshiva. You haven't studied Hillel or Gamliel, so don't try to claim to be an expert on this. Let's look at this logically. Whatever Shaul did at Stephen's martyrdom was not done with the blessing of his teachers. We have no evidence to suggest that they escorted him everywhere. Shaul freely admits to having sin in his life, as we all do. While some may argue that the stoning of Stephen was completely scriptural and within the law, I'm not one of them. However, one thing I know- the characters of the Bible are largely rotten people redeemed by God's mercy. I think the story of Paul, read without prejudice and presumption, puts him in that category. Just like me.

 

[ananda]

Do you come with any preconceived notions about Paul?

Only that if he was guided by YHWH in what he wrote, then it would necessarily line up with the Torah.

That's the "if" I'm working on

It should give us pause before basing our doctrines & eternal destiny on hearing only one side of the story.

If you mean we cannot apply something he wrote about a specific problem to all situations, I agree. Much of what he wrote was generally applicable to everyone though. 1 Corintians 13 comes to mind here, where he speaks of the attributes of love.

Even if he plagarizes Plato?

Would you say you have spent equal amounts of effort studying both sides of this issue?

I spent enough to determine that all of the objections that I have seen written about him were baseless using the standard that Paul knew the scripture and did not go against the Torah. If a translated reading can be read both for and against Torah, then the pro-Torah stance must be understood.

So these are your preconceived notions about Paul!

I disagree. On something so basic and important, why, in his writings, would Paul fail to clearly distinguish between the various "law"s as we see & categorize them today?

I think most of the problem here is in the translation, not the original. Hebrew would have shown the differences, but the Greek did not.

There was nothing stopping Paul from using additional modifier words to clarify his uses of the word nomos.

My contention is this: Paul, as a Pharisee, likely referred to the whole of Oral & Written Tradition whenever he spoke about the "Law". Torah, as interpreted through his Pharisaical traditions & training, equaled "Law" to Paul, and to the Pharisees. He mixed up Torah & traditions & referred to the whole body of material as "Law"! I believe this explains why so many experience difficulty when attempting to identify which "law" he was speaking about.

Paul may have been more open to the oral tradition as a Pharisee, but he would have known which parts were against scripture.

More presuppositions & preconceived notions about Paul?

 

[ananda]

As said before, one cannot try arguing against Paul selectively and not lay the foundation for having the rest of the NT taken apart ... I seriously wonder how the slippery slope of ignoring Paul/treating him as if he can be ignored can be taken seriously without ever questioning what to do with other texts. One would have to ignore the Gospel of Luke (which was made by the very man accompanying Paul, advocating for His ministry/Christ's approval of it and DISCUSSING its history in the Book of Acts) ... One could also say that the other scriptures supporting Paul by the other apostles must be thrown out, as is the case with Peter---the one whom Christ said in Matthew 16 and John 21 he'd build the Church upon/gave leadership of it to. II Peter 3:15-16 shows where Peter told the believers to listen to/support Paul. By the time of Peter's writing, Paul's letters already had a widespread reputation....and Peter spoke of Paul's letters as if they were on the same level as with the other "Scriptures."

The rest of the NT, to my knowledge, does not contradict the Torah or the Prophets. There is no difficulty there. I don't keep or discard the Gospel of Luke because of the nature or relationships of its author. The test of authenticity is not the author, but whether the author speaks for or against the Torah and the Prophets.

Even with saying that one should only go with what Yeshua did, the reality is that what Yeshua did was directly IN LINE with the example of Paul---and thus, its not really accurate when trying to make it out as if Paul was counter to Christ since they both had the same mindset---

I disagree. I believe that there are a number of things Yehoshua & Messiah did & said that were quite different.

and if taking the text of Acts literally, then ONE MUST acknowledge where Acts 9-10 makes clear that Christ appeared to Paul and said that He would use Him for his glory in reaching out to the Gentiles. One cannot be selective in saying that wish to take the book of Acts/the history of the Church in action seriously...and yet be selective with what they BELIEVE about it.

What should one believe if the various accounts of Paul's conversion experience disagree with one another?

It often seems that people try to place both Paul and the other apostles into opposition with each other continually...but Johanine theology doesn't seem to support that. In example, Paul made exceptionally clear that he only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love ( Galatians 5:5-7, Romans 13:7-9, Romans 13, Galatians 6:1-3, etc )---and even the other apostles echoed this same concept in their epistles, such as John when he summed up God's commands/Torah into simply LOVING your neighbor ( 1 John 4:20-21 , 1 John 3:22-24, )

John, in the verses you provided, does not say that YHWH's Torah is summed up in what Yehoshua identified as the second-most important commandment: loving your neighbor.

And ultimately, much of the arguments against Paul have zero to do with Messianic Judaism or even Jewish culture....and they ultimately equate to people MAKING IT UP as they go along and not really having any ground for discussing trusting in scripture.

I completely trust in everything Messiah identified as Scripture

 

[ananda]

It is not, therefore, down to Protestants that there are only 66 books to read between the covers of The Book - it was set by the Church Fathers centuries before we came into being and we have continued with their decision, whilst others have sought to add in more ... "Consensus developed, and in A.D. 367 ...

What happened before "consensus" happened in the 4th century - 300 years after the passing of the apostles?

To appeal to the 4th century "church fathers" is like saying those here in the 21st century now have a perfect understanding of what the 18th century founders of the united states meant when they wrote the constitution.

 

[mishkan]

What happened before "consensus" happened in the 4th century - 300 years after the passing of the apostles?

To appeal to the 4th century "church fathers" is like saying those here in the 21st century now have a perfect understanding of what the 18th century founders of the united states meant when they wrote the constitution.

You appear to be operating under the assumption that there was some sort of monolithic body of belief and practice--that there was no debate amongst the early believers on important points. That would be false. Spurious teachers and writings were quite common in the first few centuries.

That is precisely the reason a need was felt to establish a canon in the centuries after Yeshua. There were several attempts at creating such authoritative lists. The lists were generally derived from the common consensus of believing communities. They tended to be nearly identical, and all included the letters of Sha'ul. The main controversy involved Revelation and, if I recall correctly, II Kefa.

 

[ananda]

You appear to be operating under the assumption that there was some sort of monolithic body of belief and practice--that there was no debate amongst the early believers on important points. That would be false. Spurious teachers and writings were quite common in the first few centuries.

Not at all - my point I was trying to make was that, even for hundreds of years, the nature of the "canon" was in flux. I'd love to see some records of how the early believers debated the nature of Scripture, and to see what standards they used to guide them in identifying "Scripture".

That is precisely the reason a need was felt to establish a canon in the centuries after Yeshua. There were several attempts at creating such authoritative lists. The lists were generally derived from the common consensus of believing communities. They tended to be nearly identical, and all included the letters of Sha'ul. The main controversy involved Revelation and, if I recall correctly, II Kefa.

Not all included Paul's writings in their canons, as was pointed out, the Ebionites, or the Nazarenes.

Which canon do you identify to be "Scripture", and why?

 

[Avodat]

What happened before "consensus" happened in the 4th century - 300 years after the passing of the apostles?

To appeal to the 4th century "church fathers" is like saying those here in the 21st century now have a perfect understanding of what the 18th century founders of the united states meant when they wrote the constitution.

I was responding to a post that claimed that Protestant theology gave us the current Book. There is much that has been written about how it came about - my post is merely a bird's eye view; bird's fly high and fast and don't focus on everything at once!

BTW My home nation doesn't have, or need, a constitution! We have the Magna Carta!

 

[ananda]

I was responding to a post that claimed that Protestant theology gave us the current Book. There is much that has been written about how it came about - my post is merely a bird's eye view - bird's fly high and fast and don't focus on everything at once!

So, if I may assume, your canon is the Protestant canon. What motivated you to choose that as your standard, instead of the Catholic canon, or the Ethiopian Orthodox canon, etc.?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

What motivated you to choose that as your standard, instead of the Catholic canon, or the Ethiopian Orthodox canon, etc.?

There's a lot to be said as it concerns the differences between the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon and the Catholic Canon as well as the Protestant Canon. Most people are not aware of Eastern Orthodoxy/Eastern Christianity (in line with what the Church Fathers advocated) when it comes ot the Canons accepted in those groups and the other books that those advocating the 66 books do not accept.

And then there's also, of course, the differing books accepted even within Jewish culture when it comes to the Tanak--something not everyone was ever in agreement on when it came to differing schools of thought. More on the Tanak, as well as the Apocrypha and the B'rit Hadashah, was shared before in another thread (seen here in #410 ). Additionally, if interested, there's actually an excellent book on the issue of how the Hebrew Bible came to be as it was---and how their view of "books" isn't necessarily the same as how we see it today. It's called Scribal culture and the making of the Hebrew Bible" by K. van der Toorn

​

For more, one can go online and consider the following:

• Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible
• Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible by Karel van der Toom - Biblical Archeology Review ...

The Apostles in their assembly didn't stay for long when they traveled from church to church. After all - how many churches can they visit and stay at, leaving others unvisited for months at a time? The Apostles taught them to listen to the Spirit. And they taught them to use the Septuagint for their Scriptural studies. It was only after the fact that their own letters, their memoirs written decades later, would be considered Scripture too. So does that mean that God was incomplete in their lives until these memoirs were written? And after their memoirs were distributed, does that mean God stopped revealing Himself to His children? Of course not...for there are others who've never had a Bible and yet did amazing exploits---and its amazing to see what went down with others who knew how to be led by the HOLY Spirit (just as it was with others whenever it came to their not having all the facts...like it was in Scripture who were only aware of the teachings of Christ or the Baptism of John rather than the new truth of the Holy Spirit (Acts 19)

As said before, there has been debates amongst many when it comes to Jesus referencing the Psalms (especially Messianic Ones) and calling them "Law" and others noting that Jesus Himself often referneced things from the Talmud itself--despite the fact that it wasn't considered "Torah" or "Law" either. His discussion in Matthew 23 is evidence of that when it comes to him denouncing the Pharisees.. as discussed elsewhere in #1 .

As the Jews often had discussion on some of the things that have been discussed here on the boards as edifying--such as debate about the role of Esther and whether or not that should be considered apart of the Cannon"

it concerns the Ketuvim (The Writings ), its understandable to argue that the definition of scripture that the Jewish people had (including Jesus) was radically different than what we have with us today....and of course, that doesn't mean one cannot be certain of what Christ/other Jews used in their early communities. Even in saying that what's considered a part of the "Holy Scriptures" today is different because of how the other Writings were not yet compiled, one cannot escape the fact that the Psalms were already in use (alongside the story of Daniel)...and thus, with the Torah (1st 5 Books) and the Prophets, there's already a good indicator of what was their version of "cannon" ....and of course, one can add to that the dynamic of the Oral Law.

For more in-depth discussion, one of the best references on the issue can be found if going online/looking something under the name of "Writings Section of Original Bible of the Jews - a knol of Staford Rives" ( ).

As said there (for a brief excerpt):

The Sadducees only accepted the Torah as inspired, and the "other books were prized and read as edifying books." The Jews of Alexandria and Egypt accepted the Torah as inspired, but also "revered the Prophets and Writings." The Samaritans only accepted the Torah as inspired and to be revered. Thus, Sadducees and Samaritans rejected the Writings section as inspired. It was edifying.


The latter view predominated by the time of Christ. Books that claimed to be prophetic but which did not yet have any prophecy fulfilled were thus kept in the Ketuvim section to reflect their as yet unproven inspired status. The most important example and proof of this fact is the book of Daniel:

The book of Daniel is found in the third section of the Hebrew Bible known as the 'Writings,' rather than the second section 'the Prophets.' (Joel Osteen, Hope for Today Bible (2009) ...

​

Who accepted the Writings section as more than edifying? The Pharisees. One scholar notes that the "Pharisaic Jewish historian" gives a picture of canon where the Law, Prophets and Writings were all sacrosanct. (Hayes, supra, at 22.)

Jesus spoke of the "Law and the Prophets" never fading away. He never spoke the same about the "Writings" (Kevutim) which would have meant to adopt the Pharasaical view of the Bible. Jesus thereby deliberately drops off the expanded Pharisaical view of the Bible when Jesus speaks only of the validity of the "Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 5:17.) See also Acts 28:23.

The way the ancient Jews divided canon was also done by explaining three levels of inspiration with the Law and Prophets clearly trumping the third level. While for a Christian these three levels would all appear equal, the point is that this is how Rabbis back then explained the three tiers of the canon so that "Writings" (Ketuvim) would never be on par with the Law and Prophets. In an article entitled "Inspiration" by Rev. James Gardner from 1858, we read:

The Jews were accustomed to speak of three different degrees of inspiration. Moses, they alleged, possessed the highest degree, with whom God spake mouth to mouth; the second, according to their view, was the gift of prophecy; and the lowest, the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, from which proceeded the holy writings or Hagiograplia. (Rev. James Gardner, "Inspiration," The faiths of the world: an account of all religions and religious sects, their doctrines, rites, ceremonies, and customs (A. Fullarton & co., 1858) ...

​

It is possible Jesus makes a reference to the third level of inspiration Himself in Matthew 22:43 where He says that David composed Psalm 110 "in the Spirit." This would be very consistent with the Jewish view of the Psalms which belonged to the Ketuvim. They are written "in the Spirit," but this is distinct from a claim of any claim of equivalence to the Torah or Prophets.

Indeed, Job is a book that illustrates the issue the Jews had with the Ketuvim and why they place Job within the Ketuvim despite Moses authoring Job (according to Jewish tradition).

First, in Moses's account in Job, the words of the man Job are clearly not inspired like a prophet. This is because God does not appear until very late in the story, and then speaks directly only to Job, and then says 'who is this darkening' God's counsels. (Job 38:2.)[4] The immediate next verse is God angrily saying to Job: "Brace yourself like a man; I will question you." This would have to mean God rejected the accuracy of Job's earlier conversation with his friends. Hence, quoting the man Job as a prophet cannot possibly be correct. While God praises Job for his steadfast faithfulness under dire stress, God never tells us the words of the man Job are true and prophetic.

Hence, for reasons such as this, the Jews obviously did not regard the book of Job as 100% inspired. It had moments of inspiration when God speaks, but one cannot lift quotes out of context, and say words from Job, for example, are a prophetic true message from God. Thus, this is likely why it was placed in the Ketuvim section of the OT, and not even the Prophetic section even though Moses wrote it. (Moses also wrote Psalm 90, and that too is not in the prophetic section of the OT canon. Psalm 90 is placed with David's psalms written many centuries later.) Thus, Jews must have regarded certain writings, even by inspired prophets, as not worthy of being treated on par with prophecy because only distinct portions were inspired and some portions were obviously not. The solution was to place them in the Ketuvim section.


​

Outside of that, there's also the issue of how Christ celerated Holidays not found in the Prophets or the Torah, as seen in his celebration of Channakuh---recorded in the Book of I-IV Maccabbessa and condoned by many Jews at the time.

On the ways "Law" seemed to be defiend differently, some things to consider are John 10:31-33, within its larger context:

John 10:20-33
Further Conflict Over Jesus’ Claims
The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[c]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
​

With John 10:31-33, remember that the Jews had already made clear that they claimed the ENTIRE Torah was theirs and that they were going to stone Jesus for it when he seemed to break it for claiming He was God. They felt that the Law God had given them in Exodus 20 was being broken when it came to Jesus doing what it was that they were going to stone Him for previously in John 8:59...and that issue was self-identificaiton as God, which they understood to be blasphemy. Their understanding of BLASPHEMY was based on how claiming to be God and, specifically, pronouncing God's name (as Yeshua had just done) were punishable by death (Leviticus 24:15-16 and Mishna Sanhedrin 7:5, "The blasphemer is not guilty until he pronounces the NAME.")

With John 10:34-36, the phrase "Your Torah" is something that is often read without other considerations. For here, "Torah" means "Tanakh, " since the passage quoted is from the Psalms, not the Pentateuch. When Jesus says "You people are Elohim", here Greek theoi ("gods"), in the Hebrew text of Psalm 82 the word "elohim" may be translated "God," "gods," "judges" or "angels." Yeshua's rabbinic mode of Bible citation implies the context of the whole psalm (Matthew 2:6), which plays on these meanings:

"Elohim [God] stands in the congregation of EL [God]:
He judges among the elohim [judges/angels/gods]: How long
will you judge unjustly?..I have said , "You are elohim [judges/angels/gods],
All of you are sons of the Most High."
Nevertheless you will all die like a man
And fall like one of the princes.'
Arise, Elohim [God (the Judge)], and judge the earth,
For you will inherit all the nations." (Psalm 82:1-2, 6-8).

​

And again, to be clear, it needs to be understood that in Judaism the citation of a Scripture text implies the whole context, not merely the quoted words. And with what Jesus quoted on Psalm 82, the first and last "Elohim" mean "God," but the others should be rendered "judges," "gods" or "angels." Yeshua's wordplay implies a rabbinic-style kal v' chomer argument (Matthew 6:30): if humans, who do evil works as they "judge unjustly" are elohim, how much more is Yeshua, who does good works (John 10:25, John 10:32-33, John 10:37-38, etc) Elohim; and if "all of you are sons of the Most High," how much more does the description "Son of God" apply to Yeshua.

But it is interesting to see the ways that Jesus would show His Divinity by referring to Himself in the Psalms---things that are not exclusively based IN TORAH....