Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Romulus I must ask, are you saying that you do not consider ANY of Paul's writings to be Canonical?
If so is it ONLY Paul's writings or are there other NT books you consider to be non-canonical?
I assume that by some of your other posts you would at least consider the OT to be wholly canonical. Is that right?
I personally try to take Paul's writings as Gospel because of his endorsement by Peter (I think) though I do have similar reservations to Romulus. While I like to believe that with the bible, God gave us what exactly what he wanted us to have, Ultimately Paul's writings really are just letters to different churches and the idea of a set of Catholic counsels deciding that they are divine word for word writings of God because of a few vague verses has never completely sat well with me. The all or nothing argument many conservative Christians make regarding the bible has for a long time now struck me more as a slippery slope fallacy than a good argument. The important thing about his writings and the rest of the bible is that it testifies to the main points of Christianity. That being said, I still try to resolve arguments about scripture with scripture rather than just assuming its the authors opinion and up to debate as to whether if is over-ruled by the two greatest commandments.
I personally try to take Paul's writings as Gospel because of his endorsement by Peter (I think) though I do have similar reservations to Romulus. While I like to believe that with the bible, God gave us what exactly what he wanted us to have, Ultimately Paul's writings really are just letters to different churches and the idea of a set of Catholic counsels deciding that they are divine word for word writings of God because of a few vague verses has never completely sat well with me. The all or nothing argument many conservative Christians make regarding the bible has for a long time now struck me more as a slippery slope fallacy than a good argument. The important thing about his writings and the rest of the bible is that it testifies to the main points of Christianity. That being said, I still try to resolve arguments about scripture with scripture rather than just assuming its the authors opinion and up to debate as to whether if is over-ruled by the two greatest commandments.
Peter? The coward who had such enormous doubt he DENIED Christ THREE times?? Personally, I demand a better endorsement...
I personally try to take Paul's writings as Gospel because of his endorsement by Peter (I think) though I do have similar reservations to Romulus. While I like to believe that with the bible, God gave us what exactly what he wanted us to have, Ultimately Paul's writings really are just letters to different churches and the idea of a set of Catholic counsels deciding that they are divine word for word writings of God because of a few vague verses has never completely sat well with me. The all or nothing argument many conservative Christians make regarding the bible has for a long time now struck me more as a slippery slope fallacy than a good argument. The important thing about his writings and the rest of the bible is that it testifies to the main points of Christianity. That being said, I still try to resolve arguments about scripture with scripture rather than just assuming its the authors opinion and up to debate as to whether if is over-ruled by the two greatest commandments.
"God gave us exactly what he wanted us to have" - That is what I believe as well.
Now on the one hand you say "because of his endorsement by Peter", but then say "a set of Catholic councils deciding..."
They weren't "deciding" but rather "confirming" that which was already established first by Peter and then later among the early church. I am not sure when Paul became a source of derision, but the early church certainly held the Pauline Epistles to be canonical from its inception straight through to the Council of Nicea.
Peter? The coward who had such enormous doubt he DENIED Christ THREE times?? Personally, I demand a better endorsement...
....really?..Yeah, that 'coward' who was also the 'rock' Jesus said he would build his Church on and allowed himself to be crucified upside down because he didn't want to be considered Jesus' equal The point is that a well known disciple endorsed him so he's not just some converted Jewish guy. Unless you think a persons worth and authority is measured by the lowest point in their life when their rest of their life was essential to a huge cause, give Peter some credit.
I personally try to take Paul's writings as Gospel because of his endorsement by Peter (I think) though I do have similar reservations to Romulus. While I like to believe that with the bible, God gave us what exactly what he wanted us to have, Ultimately Paul's writings really are just letters to different churches and the idea of a set of Catholic counsels deciding that they are divine word for word writings of God because of a few vague verses has never completely sat well with me. The all or nothing argument many conservative Christians make regarding the bible has for a long time now struck me more as a slippery slope fallacy than a good argument. The important thing about his writings and the rest of the bible is that it testifies to the main points of Christianity. That being said, I still try to resolve arguments about scripture with scripture rather than just assuming its the authors opinion and up to debate as to whether if is over-ruled by the two greatest commandments.
The all or nothing standard is what Jesus said of Scriptures:
John 10:35 ... and Scripture cannotbroken —
which includes all of the NT especially Paul's
2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother
Paul also wrote you with the wisdomthatGodgavehim.
2 Peter 3:16 He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters(Paul) contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do theotherScriptures, to their own destruction.
"God gave us exactly what he wanted us to have" - That is what I believe as well.
Now on the one hand you say "because of his endorsement by Peter", but then say "a set of Catholic councils deciding..."
They weren't "deciding" but rather "confirming" that which was already established first by Peter and then later among the early church. I am not sure when Paul became a source of derision, but the early church certainly held the Pauline Epistles to be canonical from its inception straight through to the Council of Nicea.
There has always been some form of debate about Paul (especially in reconciling his writings with James)been I'm mainly just giving my opinion on how scripture is viewed in general. You may have a point regarding the counsels since its true that most of the church considered roughly most of the New Testament Gospels as Scripture long before the Third Counsel of Carthage, but there were still plenty of books that were excluded, so they were still essentially "decided scripture" so some degree. I mean heck, the book of Revelations was nearly excluded and scholars still debate today about whether certain books were really written by their claimed authors.
Anyways, I guess my point goes beyond just the counsels deciding and more how about openmindness on how we understand the bible and how its not the end of Christianity if we stop assuming every jot and tittle of the New Testament we have today came directly from God...given the number of differences between the early manuscripts, that becomes nearly impossible to believe anyways since we don't have the originals. At least we can still have faith in what we do have
They weren't "deciding" but rather "confirming" that which was already established first by Peter and then later among the early church. I am not sure when Paul became a source of derision, but the early church certainly held the Pauline Epistles to be canonical from its inception straight through to the Council of Nicea.
Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with what went into the Bible.The first Council of Nicaea was to do with the nature of the Trinity. The second Council of Nicaea was about re-establishing the veneration of icons. They didn't deal directly with what went the Bible. That was addressed at the Synod of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397.
....really?..Yeah, that 'coward' who was also the 'rock' Jesus said he would build his Church on and allowed himself to be crucified upside down because he didn't want to be considered Jesus' equal The point is that a well known disciple endorsed him so he's not just some converted Jewish guy. Unless you think a persons worth and authority is measured by the lowest point in their life when their rest of their life was essential to a huge cause, give Peter some credit.
Peter was not the ROCK Jesus built the church on. It was his exclamation "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" and Jesus telling him "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven" which is the ROCK on which Jesus builds his church.
The Roman Catholic claim that Peter is the rock and the first pope, etc... is just plain wrong as I see it. Peter deserves no more credit than any other one of us sinners. The problem with human thinking is when those who God chooses begin to think "I must be really special since God chose me". That was the main problem God had with the children of Israel - it went to their heads and they hated outsiders and treated foreigners badly. Same problem in American Christianity today -- huge sense entitlement and hypocrisy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point is that a well known disciple endorsed him so he's not just some converted Jewish guy. Unless you think a persons worth and authority is measured by the lowest point in their life when their rest of their life was essential to a huge cause, give Peter some credit.
