The Inclusion of the Pauline Epistles in the NT must be Reconsidered

Thanks for the Round 2 post. I’m going to have to make a major concession. My opponent pointed out that I made an error although he took my error to be the wrong one. This is not his fault; it is entirely mine as I did not double check some of the things that were in my head. He pointed out my error regarding the Council of Trent. I want to make sure that we’re on the same page regarding history, so I will clarify my error now. Rather than thinking that the canon was made in the 16th Century Council of Trent, what I did was mistakenly refer to the 382 Council of Rome as the Council of Trent. So, I was aware of the general time period but got my Council Names mixed up, and I didn’t know that name of the Pope was Damascus. So now that’s cleared up. I reject the Council of Nicaea on more than just the canon. First of all, Nicaea was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine. This begs the question as to whether or not God would consider proclamations made by a majority of the clerical elite as summoned by a Roman Emperor to be authoritative. I don’t think YHWH wants people to take the dictates of such councils without question. It certainly follows that one can reject the canon decisions of Nicaea and accept everything else. But I don’t think that’s the right thing either. I do agree with the Nicaea in that the Arian theology has no real basis in the claims that Christ made about himself. There are a number of holidays and observances that were started by God, but the annual celebration of the resurrection of Christ (or his birth, for that matter) is not among them. So when (if at all) a Christian chooses to celebrate this should not be a matter of church dogma. Paul, of course, does not believe that holidays matter (Romans 14). Modern Paulists tend to celebrate extra-Biblical celebrations likes Easter and Christmas (which is more closely correlated with pagan tradition than the birth of Jesus) and totally ignore feasts and holidays ordained by YHWH. What the Council of Nicaea did to Easter is consistent with an institutional error that was made by the early church that I believe can partly be attributed to Paul (or an interpretation of him) – that is, the utter divorce of Christianity from its Jewish roots (new holidays, a new “sabbath,” and a very different God). Nicaea decided to celebrate the resurrection independently of Passover (with which the death and resurrection were intimately connected). Jesus added something to the Passover when he passed the bread and wine and said “Do this in remembrance of me.” Modern Christianity has done a real number on that tradition.The Council of Rome had a different canon than the modern Church. If we accept the Council of Rome as authoritative, we must also include the Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith, and the Roman Catholic Church’s assertion of its own authority. Needless to say, both of us reject the proclamation of the Council of Rome. It’s NT canon should be subjected to much scrutiny for contradiction, pseudographia, and fraud – and we should reject any findings they made that don’t stand up, much like we reject their assertion of their own catholic authority as bogus. Martin Luther did not trust the canon from Nicaea or Rome either. I’ve already pointed out that Reformation leader Martin Luther certainly did not consider the assertion of Rome to be authoritative on the canon, as is evidenced by his take on the Book of James. Even if Peter wrote 2 Peter, does Peter have the authority to unilaterally call something Scripture? I decided to leave the issue what books other than Paul should be accepted open. Calvin did not believe that 2 Peter was written by Peter (he says as much in is Commentaries on 2 Peter), but he still believed that it was worth reading. So, I’ll agree to consider it for reading and to tentatively grant that it was written by Peter. Now, I have studied ancient Hebrew a little bit but I have not slightest understanding of Biblical Greek (other than some stuff I’ve read about ‘Nomos’ trying to figure out if its consistently meaning the Torah or not). So, while I don’t know the syntax I’ll accept that he means Paul is Scripture by saying “other.” Does Peter have such authority? Deut 18 presents fulfilled prophecy as a test for messengers of God. And most importantly, we can’t allow a new person to contradict a previous person and try to hold them both up. So, if we accept the Law and the Prophets we must examine Jesus. If we choose to accept Jesus as well, we must carefully ponder the letter sent by the Apostles saying that the law does not apply to the gentiles – except for eating meat offered to idols and adultery. Then we have Paul. Paul rubs up against the Torah. This is abundantly clear. If that wasn’t enough, he has a salvation message that is much easier than the one preached by Jesus. This is the part that is most serious. We must be extra careful now because if we meet Paul’s salvation criteria and not the criteria of Jesus, there is trouble (After all, what don’t you call the person with the highest failing grade in medical school?). Furthermore, Paul even disagrees with the other Apostles on the issues of what is and isn’t permissible for Gentiles. If Paul contradicts the Law and the Words of Jesus, then Peter’s supposed endorsement is hardly worth considering. Not everyone included Paul’s ideas. Paul’s doctrines were pushed heavily by Marcion. When Tertullian wrote against Marcion, he rejected that Paul should be weighed equal with Jesus. Clement rejected salvation by faith alone in the first paragraph of his writing on the Rich Man (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...). In Polycarp 2:2 (in his letter to the Philippians), Polycarp also emphasizes works (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...). In Chapter 43 of his First Apology, Justin Martyr explicitly rejects the Pauline notion of predestination. The Eastern Orthodox and many churches today that aren’t of the Reformed Tradition (while they may try to keep Paul in the canon), reject the doctrine of predestination as explicitly laid out by Paul. In summary, the institutional church should not be trusted and there is no reason to accept Nicaea. The canon has changed since Nicaea yet Nicaea and Rome are often cited in defending the modern canon! Paul contradicts Jesus on salvation and the law and some in early church did not accept Paul’s writings as equal in authority to the gospel of Jesus. Most modern Christians include Paul, but they play games with the meanings of both Paul and Jesus in order to make their words congruent with each other’s. So, in that sense, many modern churches reject Paul and distort Jesus. Only the Reformed Tradition truly teaches Paul, and in my opinion they must minimize the doctrines of Jesus in order to do so.