Cretinist

Jesus could not have appeared to Paul, physically or spirituality, because spirits don’t exist and dead people stay dead. Ergo, the story in Acts is either entirely false or possibly based on a hallucination Paul experienced.

And anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. Case closed.

FunkyRes

I'm of the belief that there very well may be inspired word of God that is not in our current cannon- and that older canon's are more for historical view of what (at least some) of the early church fathers held as canonical.

The wisdom of solomon may be listed in that one- but the Greek Orthodox church, if I recall, wants (or at least did) to keep all of the LXX (it was the old testament of the early Greek Speaking church) including parts of the LXX that are not in my Bible (added portions to Daniel and some other stuff)

But what I do find interesting is that AFAIK we don't have a listing an early listing of Paul that DOESN'T include all 13 (except the one noted in my post above).

By the 100 year rule that doesn't mean a lot (100 years > 2 generations- an acceptable rule of thumb) but it does indicate that if the latter epistles were NOT Pauline, that they were all generally accepted sometime in that 100 year window OR we haven't found yet the remnants of a school of thought that rejected them.

If they are genuine, than it is not surprising that we haven't found remnants of a school of thought that rejected them. That kind of criticism would not grow until long after.

At any rate- my biased view as a Christian says to accept the tradition of the early church until it can proved otherwise, since I believe the gospel accounts and that the church was founded by good people, not deceivers- and that the church (at least for awhile) largely continued in honesty (though even Paul mentions those that were already perverting the truth).

For those that don't have the benefit of my biased view, I can understand your hundred year rule.

It would be nice if some late first or early second century documentation could be found, but since we don't have it, we can't assume it exists (from an unbiased viewpoint, anyway).

FunkyRes

By your definition, I'm an idiot.
As such, there is no need for my inferior intellect to bother discussing anything with you.

Agreed?

Peter Kirby

FunkyRes: If they are genuine, than it is not surprising that we haven't found remnants of a school of thought that rejected them.

How quickly we forget! We do have at least one remnant of a school of thought that rejected them, as you have already allowed. Marcion of Sinope collected a set of Paul's epistles that he called the Apostolikon. The interesting thing here is that, while the earliest reference to all 13 epistles comes from Irenaeus or the Muratorian Canon near the end of the second century, the collection of Marcion was undertaken approximately in the year 140. Now, the standard apologetic response is that Marcion would not have agreed with the views of the pastoral epistles and would have deemed them inauthentic if he knew of them. This may be right, if only for the reason that Marcion may have been taken aback by this verse: "O Timotheus, keep the entrusted deposit, avoiding profane, vain babblings, and oppositions [antitheses] of false-named knowledge [gnosis]." (1 Timothy 6:20, Darby) Marcion may have taken offense because he was called a gnostic and because he had written a book called 'Antitheses', meaning contradictions or oppositions, in which Marcion set the depiction of the OT God against the depiction of the NT God, the former of which was a lower, false god. But that Marcion would not have liked the pastorals does not mean that the pastorals came before Marcion -- quite to the contrary! The most obvious solution to the mentioned reference is that the pastorals were written to confute Marcion with the words of Marcion's favorite apostle, which is Paul.

Note that Marcion should be sufficient to set the later church tradition in doubt because Marcion is earlier than the likes of Irenaeus and the author of the Muratorian Canon. But even so, Marcion is not alone -- perhaps your teachers forgot to tell you this too! For, as I pointed out, the Chester Beatty Papyri (P46), which is usually dated around 200, does not include the pastoral epistles although it does include the other epistles of Paul found in today's Bible. This is somewhat later than Irenaeus, but the omission of the pastoral epistles even at this time is significant, because it shows that there remained pockets of Christians who held no truck with the pastorals even at the same time as other Christians used the pastorals.

So, you say you accept the traditions of the early church. But the early church traditions are not uniform. Both Marcion and p46 offer a collection of Pauline epistles that do not include the pastorals.

So, I have to ask, why do you accept the early Christian tradition of Irenaeus and the Muratorian Canon but reject the early Christian tradition of Marcion and the p46 collection? I might suggest that it has to do with 1800 years of subsequent tradition. But you are not a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox member, are you? So why are you depending on traditions that are far removed from the apostolic age, such as that of Irenaeus in the year 180 CE? And why do you accept some of these late legends but not others of these late legends? (By which I mean, 'late' as in over 100 years later, and 'legends' in that they are not substantiated but depend on hearsay piled on hearsay.)

Finally, it seems that you don't even accept the traditions of the Christians to whom you appeal in favor of the pastoral epistles. The Muratorian Canon accepts two epistles of John. Which of the three do you wish to give up?

Or, do you admit that your selection of inspired books rests on arbitrariness - or, worse, unthinking obsequiousness to later traditions?

Because here is another thing that they might not have taught you at your school: the first extant list of the same 27 canonical books as are found in the NT today only goes back as far as Athanasius in 367.

best,
Peter Kirby

[spelling error]

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: peterkirby ]</p>

FunkyRes

There are older canon's that do acknowledge all 3 works of John.

Like James, we have to look at which book of John was not accepted and why.

James was often rejected because of its emphasis on works, even though it only claims works is a result of faith- and Jesus seems to agree with that as well.

That is why I can accept James even though many early canon's don't.

With respect to a canon by a gnostic not accepting later epistles, I don't consider gnostics to be the true church, and would expect them to have had disagreements with the truth.

I am not proposing that any of the John's be removed.

Some early lists not having all three does not bother me.

FunkyRes

Looks like the Pastoral Epistles were not all that Marcion rejected-

from <a href="http://www.ministryserver.com/dsmtext/nttext05.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ministryserver.com/dsmtext/nttext05.htm</a>

That sheds some doubt on how much his rejection of the Pastoral Epistles is worth.

He picked and chose what he liked, and was not in agreement with the early church fathers.

Cretinist

FunkyRes, I agree that there isn’t much use discussing the bible with you if you assume such things can happen.

Peter Kirby

FunkyRes writes: There are older canon's that do acknowledge all 3 works of John.

You have absolutely no evidence for that. If you did, you could name and quote from these canons that are known to be older than the Muratorian Canon. But you can't. Just try.

Is it a Christian thing to make stuff up to shore up your faith? Based on my experience with you and other Christians, I am guessing that it is.

FunkyRes: With respect to a canon by a gnostic not accepting later epistles, I don't consider gnostics to be the true church, and would expect them to have had disagreements with the truth.

You can call him a heretic if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that Marcion's canon came before that of Irenaeus or the Muratorian Canon.

FunkyRes writes: I am not proposing that any of the John's be removed.

But you said that the Muratorian Canon carried a lot of weight. Do you recant?

FunkyRes writes: He picked and chose what he liked, and was not in agreement with the early church fathers.

But these "early church fathers" came after Marcion of Sinope made his canon! Why should we take the word of later writers over earlier ones? And don't tell me some mumbo jumbo about the guidance of the holy spirit. How do you know who was guided by the holy spirit? And don't tell me that you test people by whether they agree with the Bible or Jesus in the Bible. How do you know which books belong in the Bible? Why, I suppose you know which books belong in the Bible because the church fathers picked those books under inspiration, and you know that the church fathers were inspired in their selection because they agree with the books of the Bible. And the circle is complete.

What makes you think that a man such as Irenaues or the author of the MC was doing anything other than picking the books that he liked, just as you claim Marcion of Sinope had done decades before?

That Marcion did not include books such as the catholic epistles and other gospels should not be held against him; Marcion had no way to tell what later church fathers would prefer to be in the canon. Marcion of Sinope made a bold first step in establishing a canon. Marcion included 'the Gospel of the Lord' and the Apostolikon, which contains ten epistles of Paul. Although Marcion didn't think to include other writings, Marcion did apparently want to include the letters of Paul. The fact that the pastorals are missing from Marcion's collection of the letters of Paul is significant. As is the fact that the pastorals are missing from p46. You keep forgetting about p46.

FunkyRes writes: Some early lists not having all three does not bother me.

But you had appealed to the Muratorian Canon as an authoritative source for selecting the inspired books of the New Testament. How do you know which parts of these early Christian traditions to accept? Again, by what method do you accept certain late legends and reject other late legends?

best,
Peter Kirby

FunkyRes

I'm sorry.
I wasn't specific enough.

I meant older than the 4th century canon.

The fact that he was excommunicated seems to indicate that his ideas were contrary to the church of his day.

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: FunkyRes ]</p>

Peter Kirby

FunkyRes writes:

I'm sorry.
I wasn't specific enough.

I meant older than the 4th century canon.

Please excuse me for overlooking the correct interpretation of your sentence.

But here is the rub: these canons before Athanasius do not have the exact same 27 books that are found in your Bible. So, you really cannot appeal to these canons as having any authority in the matter. If you really accepted the authority of these earlier canons, you would have to accept what they accepted (such as, say, the Shepherd of Hermas) and reject what they rejected (such as, say, the Revelation of John). Again, I must ask, what method do you use to select only these late legends and not those?

FunkyRes writes: The fact that he was excommunicated seems to indicate that his ideas were contrary to the church of his day.

More accurately, this proves that some of his ideas were contrary to some of the church of his day, specifically the excommunicators. Many people obviously thought Marcion had some good ideas, and that is why those who identified themselves as Marcionites survived for several centuries.

But that isn't what matters; I am not arguing that Marcion's theology is correct or orthodox. My only concern with Marcion here is the fact that Marcion's collection of Pauline epistles numbers only ten; this coincides with the fact that the p46 collection has only ten epistles also. Marcion was earlier than the other lists of Pauline epistles, and this strongly suggests that the pastoral epistles were not always accepted as Pauline.

Moreover, you didn't even touch the argument that 1 Timothy contains a winking reference to the work of Marcion. And you never did substantiate your claim that the pastorals were written in Paul's style. Finally, I still want to know how you decide which Christian traditions to accept.

best,
Peter Kirby