Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

I figured we should start a new thread to discuss Josh/Graeme's debate.

From Josh's website:
"There is some powerful imagery in the Tabernacle of Moses regarding the ways of God. One of them is the Menorah. It was the lampstand in the holy place that shone light on the bread of the Presence (Jesus said “I am the bread of life”). It’s construction was of a centre post with three branches on either side. On the branches were 22 cups and up top were 7 lamps.

In my book “God of fire: The hope reformation” I talk about how we can undercover the pure apostolic message that was undisputed in the early church. What I found was stunning. The Menorah is revealed through three yes’s

1. Yes to Martin Luther, the father of the reformation. He asserted that certain books were not apostolic

2. Yes to Bishop Eusebius who wrote that certain books were dubious.

3. Yes to the apostle Paul who demands we reject the gospel that proclaims righteousness through the law.

Josephus records that at the time of Christ there were 22 undisputed books in the Jewish Scripture, the last being a book of twelve. These are the 22 cups.

If we, in the tradition of the Jewish scripture regard the epistles of Paul as a book of twelve we find 7 books of faithful apostolic testimony. The gospels of Mark, Luke and John, the book of Acts, the former epistle of Peter, the former epistle of John and the epistles of Paul.

Twenty two cups, seven lamps. This is the Menorah of scripture, the light of God to reveal Jesus Christ."

Josh, I think there are huge problems with deleting books from the Bible as we have it.

Anytime someone claims to recover the "pure" message that was "unquestioned" in the early church my skepticism meter hits 12. First, nearly everything was disputed in the early church. Second, how likely is it that you, after 2000 some odd years, discovered the lost "pure" message?

Do you have a source for Eusebius? Because I have a bunch of sources from the early church prior to and after Eusebius where nearly everyone had different lists of authoritative books. No two lists were alike - some included things like Didache and Shepherd of Hermas and some did not include Jude, 2 Peter and others. Most surviving lists included all four gospels though.

Further, you'll have to give me a good reason to set Luther and Eusebius against Athanasius. Besides I am a fan of Athanasius, why do we only look at these three? What about Irenaeus, Jerome, Tertullian, Origen, Clement, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyprian, Basil, the entire medieval church and so on?

Why separate Luke from Acts, makes no sense.

Sorry to sound harsh but the theory seems a bit out there.

For more fun, if you could add any text to the Bible, which would you add? I'd go with two:

1. Didache
2. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Didache over MLK's letters any day.

1. 1 Enoch
2. Didache
3. Gospel of Thomas
4. The Shepherd of Hermas

The first three seem important to understand early Christian thinking; the last is just an early favorite.

David wrote

my skeptic meter hits 12

and so it should, the proposition is preposterous, unless of course it's true. So I welcome your scrutiny.

For me this is a surprise, but I guess in anything God does someone has to be crazy enough to say yes. I suspect He is up to something. Israel is a nation again and this prophecy will be fulfilled.

"At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the LORD, and all nations shall gather to it, to the presence of the LORD." Jer 3:17

So Martin Luther prefaced his deuterocanonical books with criticisms that James was no apostolic work, Jude was a rework of 2 Peter and he could in no way detect the Holy Spirit in Revelation etc

Eusebius in his "History of the Church" chapter XXV makes no mention of Hebrews, he also writes

"Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless accepted by many are... James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John" (paraphrased)

He does make a distinction between those that were "accepted" and "dubious"

Finally Paul writes an entire epistle (Galatians) condemning a distorted gospel that teaches righteousness through the works of the law.

Matthew writes "if you would enter life keep the commandments".

If you study the book of Matthew you will find that it does indeed teach righteousness through the works of the law. Justification through believing or faith is entirely absent from it.

I know it's out there, if I am mistaken correct me!

The lists of scripture in the early church were indeed all over the place. However they didn't have a black and white perspective. If we aren't black and white I would say these writings should certainly be the benchmark by which we examine scripture.

I find writings outside this group diverge considerably in message. In fact if you split the new testament into these two parts "apostolic" and "dubious" then compare the two you would find you have two very, very different religions. The second as Lee mentions is heavily influenced by the book of Enoch.

Brent you make a good point about Martin Luther, his writings can be contentious. I find he adds some helpful perspective, however for this discussion his points are possibly redundant.

I must explain how I got to this Menorah thing. I wasn't looking for it. I was pondering what new testament writings would be considered "accepted" on the testimony of Bishop Eusebius and Apostle Paul. It seemed to me that there was about forty.

I sat with that for a while, however it seemed inconsistent to me that the Jews should consider the twelve minor prophets one book and then count Paul's epistles as separate books.

So I considered the possibility of Paul's epistles being one book (as Eusebius refers to them) following the precedent of Jewish scripture and I thought "crumbs! that's the Menorah!" I was stunned.

I'm not actually trying to come up with new ideas here, I'm just simply saying how about we consider if Paul and Eusebius warrant higher regard than Athanasius?

I am not proposing I have special knowledge, I defer to the wisdom of these men, Eusebius and Paul, who are much greater than I.

Athanasius however did no such thing. Rather he takes it upon himself to define the canon of scripture, and identifies himself with Luke to commend his own undertaking!

If you study the book of Matthew you will find that it does indeed teach righteousness through the works of the law. Justification through believing or faith is entirely absent from it.

You make a leap from pointing out what the disputed books were (Hebrews, James, etc.) to an argument from silence by including Matthew. The facts, so it seems to me, is that Matthew was never questioned in the early church, from very early on the agreement was on four gospels. I'd need something more concrete to all of a sudden reject Matthew.

Further, different people accepted and reject different things. Why agree today on what some reject and not go along with them in what they accept, such as Shepherd?

Finally, I personally cringe at statements like the one you made above. The whole "if you study, you will find..." logic seems to hint of arrogance, which I don't think you intend. But it seems to imply that the myriad of brilliant Christians from Augustine to NT Wright did not actually study Matthew because, well, if they had then they'd agree with your conclusions.

Call me naive, but I don't see two different religions in the NT. I see diversity, different places of emphasis, but that is not enough to jettison one. I think such diversity is healthy. I want a church that includes theologians like Athanasius and Calvin, mystics like Antony and Theresa of Avila, evangelists like Billy Graham and ethicists like MLK Jr. I mean, you want me to get rid of the sermon on the mount?

If we aren't black and white I would say these writings should certainly be the benchmark by which we examine scripture

I think the entire tradition of the church ought to be the benchmark, which favors the 27 books. Maybe I should just become Catholic.

Haha, Brent, come on! I'm a bit tongue in cheek, but the Letter from the Birmingham Jail goes a long way to reminding us that the Bible's oft-endorsing of slavery is not the final word on the subject. I'd say the seeds planted in Philemon come to bloom in this letter and help us see that Ephesians 5's words on slavery are not for all time.

Actually, I didn't make a point at all, Joshua.

It think that you should just start your religion, Josh, which all orthodox Christians will view as overwhelmingly heretical. Perhaps you can convince enough people to buy land in South America with you as well!

David,
I have my reservations for MLK for a variety of reasons, one of which was that he wasn't in any way orthodox at all, and knew that he could use Christianity as a means to his political endeavors. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the Civil Rights movement happened, but MLK as a theologian and pastor, ehhh

For me, the most useful book I have read on the canon is Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament. He points out that there are two thoughts on what the canon is:
(1)An authoritative collection of books or (2) A collection of authoritative books. The first puts the emphasis on the boundary or the fence around the books whilst the second puts the emphasis on the books themselves.

My own view leans toward the second: the books in the canon are so extraordinary that they essentially self-selected themselves.

Metzger makes this point better than I can make it (on page 286):

"... instead of suggesting that certain books were accidentally included and others were accidentally excluded from the New Testament canon ... it is more accurate to say that certain books excluded themselves from the canon."

To keep the quote from getting too long ...
"As Arthur Darby Nock used to say to his students at Harvard with reference to the canon, 'The most traveled roads in Europe are the best roads; that is why they are so heavily traveled.' William Barclay put the matter more pointedly: 'It is the simple truth to say that the New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them from doing so.'"

So I suppose an enterprising person could publish their "new revised Bible", containing The Shepherd of Hermas (a good read), The Gospel of Thomas, and say Letters from Birmingham Prison, and perhaps Dietrich Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship. Perhaps some would buy this new Bible just to get something new and controversial. However, I don't think this "new Bible" would survive in any significant numbers for 20 years, much less two hundred years from now. Christ-followers would go back to the original because it works and has personal power to change us and proven able to speak to successive generations of Christ-Followers over the millenia. I think this is what Metzger, Nock, and Barclay meant.

@David, thanks for your comments, as you say no arrogance intended, I was more hoping that you would look at it and form your own opinion. Actually the origin of Matthew was a mystery to the early church. You are right it was generally accepted after Iranaeus, but prior to him it was used exclusively by law groups like the Ebionites to the exclusion of the other gospels.

@Brent, very funny! ta.

So in summary no-one has any particularly helpful except to say I'm wrong because this is the way we have always done it.

Fair point, I get that, I actually feel that way too. But what if I'm right? What then? None of you have given me one reason to think otherwise, aside from tradition. It tradition is the benchmark we should all be Greek Orthodox, they have the best.

Millions suffer and reject Christ because of this eternal torment doctrine, and it's not in the core apostolic writings anywhere! In fact it contradicts Paul and Mark and perverts the message of the fire of God presented by Moses and the prophets.

If you won't listen for my sake, consider it for the sake of those you know and love who don't know Christ. How can you love them well if you have accepted with resignation that they are destined to eternal suffering and torment!!

I challenge you to believe this eternal torment doctrine with all your heart and meditate on it day and night. God said to Joshua "meditate in the book of the law day and night and you will have good success".

If you meditate on eternal torment in this way you not have success, you will surely be driven to madness! Let us not be hypocrites for the sake of tradition. There is a better way.

The Jews kept the traditions of their fathers faithfully and Jesus accused them of hypocrisy, What makes us any better than them?

Haha, Josh, is this one of those "you just need to read my book" things?

Okay, I'll make my objections more clear:

1. Your argument seems to follow from stating that Eusebius and Martin Luther rejected some books in the NT as dubious and since Galatians gives a different gospel then Matthew we ought to reject Matthew. If I am following correctly, such an argument is problematic:

a. Eusebius and Luther do not reject Matthew so the function they play in your argument does not seem to be helpful. You are making a conclusion that neither one would support.
b. So your argument then seems to rest on Paul vs. Matthew. First, you give no reason why we should favor Paul. Perhaps get rid of Galatians? Second, you make no effort to reconcile the two. I hate constantly bringing up my favorite Bible scholar, but have you even read NT Wright?

2. Tradition - I am fine with accepting tradition. Whatever canon you accept, you rely on tradition to some degree. I think the Spirit works through the church community and thus we don't need to refight every battle in every generation. In other words, I can accept the 27 NT books and the doctrine of the Trinity by referencing tradition. Or, to put it another way, I'll take the tradition of the millions over the reason of the few any day. It is on you to prove why I ought not accept tradition and I don't think you've done it (refer to my point b above).

3. I too question eternal conscious torment (ECT) but I don't think it is solely found in Matthew. Heck, one of the best verses to refute ECT is found in Matthew (10:28). And you have not provided any evidence that rejecting Matthew will all of a sudden lead to revival or that millions reject Christ because of Matthew. Perhaps millions do reject Jesus because they find the traditional view of hell abhorrent (I am not even convinced that is true) but you need to provide some evidence that getting rid of Matthew is the way to go. People from John Stott to Edward Fudge to Greg Boyd hold to annihilation and still have Matthew in their Bibles.

4. Testimony of the early church is that there are four gospels. The earliest I know of is Tatian's Diatesseron which was a harmony of the four and then the Muratorian canon which listed four. I'd argue that despite some who want to add gospels (like Thomas) there was never debate in the mainstream church over the four; and I'd argue the same for those who want to reject one of the four.

5. Ebionites - Irenaeus mentions that the Ebionites only use Matthew, so you're right there. But Irenaeus does not then reject Matthew. Like with using Eusebius and Luther, you seem to take one thing from history and draw a conclusion that those persons did not draw themselves. If Irenaeus (or Origen or Tertullian or any who referenced Ebionites) said "and this is why we reject Matthew" then you'd have something.

6. Finally, tradition is not the problem. Yes, Jesus accused some of the Jewish leaders of hypocrisy and he overturned many traditions. But he also was a first-century Jew who kept many traditions, so too did Paul. The problem is not tradition, the problem is traditionalism ("tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living"). I don't think we're necessarily "better" as we all are hypocrites on our worst days. We also learn a lot from those who came before us - one of the most influential books I've read is Cost of Discipleship which is an extended reflection on the Sermon on the Mount. I'd add books by people as diverse as Dallas Willard (Divine Conspiracy) and Martin Loyd Jones (Studies in Sermon on the Mount). I think we'd lose too much if we got rid of this.

Besides which, I'd argue that some of the worst of Christian history came when people ignored the teachings of Jesus in Matthew. If you believe you are the elect and that God has set up your government, you can then go on a crusade against Muslims. If you believe you are saved by grace no matter what you do, you can live a life of decadance. I am not saying this is what Paul teaches, but I am saying that if you pick out the worst interpretations of Matthew to support your argument I can pick out the worst in Paul to support mine :)

Brent, I don't want to get into a political argument...though as a Liberty student I'd love if you shared more. I think your statement about MLK using Christianity is questionable. Are you questioning the sincerity of his faith? More, do you say the same about conservatives today because from Falwell to Huckabee we could say the same thing and I think there is more evidence they are using Christianity to get what they want politically.

I'd also be interested in discussing your use of the term "orthodox". Perhaps MLK was not orthodox by certain definitions. But what evidence do we have that someone like James was "orthodox"? Just from those 5 chapters we know James did not necessarily reject orthodoxy but he certainly did not affirm it. More than that, can we call any biblical author "orthodox" without a bit of anachronism. I don't think Paul taught Nicene trinitarianism, though I think if he had a time machine he would have been okay with it.

I suppose that's maybe why James and other books were questioned - by the standards of the 200s and 300s they did not seem as orthodox (useful to defend trinity?) as other texts.

David wrote: "Haha, Josh, is this one of those "you just need to read my book" things?

Okay, I'll make my objections more clear:

1. Your argument seems to follow from stating that Eusebius and Martin Luther r..."

Thanks David for your excellent post. It clarified things a lot for me. I particularly liked your quote:

"The problem is not tradition, the problem is traditionalism ("tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living")."

Thanks David, what a great post.

So, to begin, I would have to say with regards to tradition. It is great however Martin Luther made scripture available to the public on the Sola scripture. This is a belief I'm sure most here would agree with.

It is therefore an inherent requirements that scripture in it's plain reading represents truth. The use of tradition to explain how all the pieces fit is a great mechanism for moving us toward truth and it is used for most of the Christian church. However for evangelicals Sola scripture actually removed this dynamic. If you want to live on tradition you better join the orthodox church as I said, and many have.

So on this foundation I am discussing the plain reading of scripture, each book in it's own context. The author of James for example did not write with a view to be re-interpreted through comparisons, it was written to be understood.

So 90% of my understanding rests with Luther and Eusebius. As you say the crux is Matthew. So does Galatians speak against Matthew?

Galatians is clear regarding a gospel which Paul does not define by name but by character. His comments in Galatians 1 are the sharpest criticisms in all his books. So the defining characteristic of this distorted gospel?

Righteousness through works of law.

So what does Matthew say regarding righteousness?

"Whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments will be called least in the kingdom of heaven... unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew5:19,20

don't forget the commandments at the time of Christ included circumcision.

"You therefore must be perfect, even as your heavenly father is perfect." Matthew 5:48 ESV

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the law and the prophets... .. the gate is narrow and the way hard that leads to life." Matthew 7:12-14

"If you would enter life keep the commandments" Matthew 19:17

There are many more, righteousness through keeping the law is the theme of Matthew. It's all through it.

So Paul clearly opposes the teachings of Matthew.

If I have to pick between Paul and Matthew I choose Paul. Paul was commissioned by Christ as our apostle, whether we like it or not.

Matthew on the other hand is a plagiarist. The book is based on Mark to my assessment, almost the entire gospel of Mark is contained in it. In Mark 1 the gospel is preached, however the message doesn't translate to Matthew, in spite of the stories being copied over.

Mark and Luke both claim Jesus went to the house of Levi. Matthew makes a grab for a camio and says he went to the house of Matthew.

Mark recorded the preaching of Peter, it is verified by historical reference and internal evidence. The stories in the book of Matthew are not the stories of Matthew. They are all out of Mark. Why would the real Matthew tell Peter's stories? The uniqueness of Luke and John testify they are original works.

If I was retelling my experiences with Lee for example I would paint a very different picture to Rod! haha.

So yes, in my mind Paul clearly opposes Matthew.

Do I think the Spirit was guiding Athanasuis? Eusebius called him to account and he refused. Under his leadership the church descended into bitter feuding. In 380 Priscillian was executed for being a heretic. The current canon was ratified in AD397. The next topic of the council of carthage, by the way, was how to get Roman muscle to remove the Donatists. hmm, doesn't make much sense to me. Eusebius writes of a time of great peace. Athanasius committed his life to warring the heretics. What do you think?

You can read my book of course, but I'm happy to rewrite it piece by piece in this forum.

Alright, send me a copy of your book, Josh, and I'll read it and review it here on Goodreads and my site.

Ok cool. just message me your address and I will send it to you. The pdf is free here and on my website, but pdf's are no fun.

It is great however Martin Luther made scripture available to the public on the Sola scripture. This is a belief I'm sure most here would agree with.

It is therefore an inherent requirements that scripture in it's plain reading represents truth. The use of tradition to explain how all the pieces fit is a great mechanism for moving us toward truth and it is used for most of the Christian church. However for evangelicals Sola scripture actually removed this dynamic. If you want to live on tradition you better join the orthodox church as I said, and many have.

Did Luther reject Matthew's gospel? If not, then he is just not someone you can really invoke to support your thesis.

I also disagree that the "plain reading" represents truth. Though I can see how such a statement supports your view. Rather then studying context, realizing Jesus in the gospels spoke into different situations then Paul later and trying to get to the real message we just do a surface level plain reading and assume a contradiction...then pick our favorite one.

I don't think sola scriptura removes tradition, nor do I think you need to become orthodox or catholic to appreciate, even trust in, tradition. Ever hear of the Wesleyan quadrilateral? Or ever read Stan Grenz, an evangelical theologian, who had a large place for tradition.

Your arguments puts us in a place to start Christianity from scratch every generation, to constantly refight every battle and to create a faith on the "plain reading" of scripture. The simple truth is the Spirit has worked in the consensus of the communion of the saints to provide us with much truth we can gather as accepted.

I'd argue that even you accept some traditions - whatever books you accept you receive from others long dead. Unless you make yourself the authority over the text, to pick and choose which you think are true, you must trust someone else. You choose Marcion it seems.

You state your argument rests with Luther/Eusebius but you did not respond to my point 1A - Luther and Eusebius both accepted Matthew. Really, you sound more like Marcion.

You did not address my point 3, 4 or 5 (post 12). I take that to mean you realize Matthew alone cannot be blamed for the traditional view of hell (point 3). You also have no one in the early church to agree with you in rejecting Matthew (point 4). You also can't case Matthew as accepted only by Ebionites as those who spoke of Ebionite reliance on Matthew also accepted Matthew too (Point 5).

Do I think the Spirit was guiding Athanasuis? Eusebius called him to account and he refused. Under his leadership the church descended into bitter feuding. In 380 Priscillian was executed for being a heretic. The current canon was ratified in AD397. The next topic of the council of carthage, by the way, was how to get Roman muscle to remove the Donatists. hmm, doesn't make much sense to me. Eusebius writes of a time of great peace. Athanasius committed his life to warring the heretics. What do you think?

You mean under Eusebius' leadership the church descended into feuding? Because Eusebius was much closer to Emperor Constantine then Athanasius was. Athanasius was exiled six times by Constantine and his successors while Eusebius wrote The Life of Constantine, praising the emperor.

I am not sure what executing a heretic in 380 has to do with anything as Athanasius died in 373.

Besides, as I said in point 6, getting rid of Matthew does not get rid of Christian atrocities. If more people followed Matthew 5-7 there would be less Christian atrocities! The problem, historically, is more the legalization and favoring of Christianity after Constantine, which Eusebius was greatly in favor of. Athanasius was never the problem.

Solid refutation, David. Josh, your rebuttal?

Lee wrote: "1. 1 Enoch
2. Didache
3. Gospel of Thomas
4. The Shepherd of Hermas

The first three seem important to understand early Christian thinking; the last is just an early favorite."

I think I am in agreement with you on a couple of these.

Points to consider:

Authoritative books prior to Nicea. Rather irrelevant for establishing orthodox doctrine.

Books that were canonized after Nicea; i.e. Greek Old Testament (Septuagint LXX) including the apocrypha/deuterocanon and all the current New Testament writings.

Later, Vulgate used primarily in the West. Translated by Jerome.

Canon after the reformation. LXX rejected including apocrypha. Masoretic Hebrew OT used instead.

Canon of the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox churches remain unchanged since Nicene councils. Hmmm.

Ok,

David said of Martin Luther

he is not really one you can invoke to support your thesis

You may note in my discussion I didn't invoke Martin Luther with reference to Matthew. It was in reference to tradition.

You write i don't think sola scriptura removes tradition

In fact this is the primary reason for Martin Luther's reformation. His thesis was entirely about refuting the right of tradition to reinterpret scripture. In his day tradition had caused the churches belief system to stray so far from scripture that lay people thought they could purchase a place in heaven with monetary donations called indulgences.

The concept that the Spirit works in the consensus of the communion of the saints is false. This is in fact the reason for the reformation. The consensus had strayed from the truth.

This theme is also consistent throughout scripture. I would challenge you to find one example in scripture where consensus equaled truth. The opposite is actually the pattern, hence Jesus rebuke to the Pharisees for keeping traditions at odds with what was plainly written by Moses.

When a carpenter want's to replicate a pattern he will use the original over and over again. If the copy is copied, and that copy copied etc the result will soon look nothing like the original. I have no problem with traditions, however the apostles left us a pattern to follow. If our traditions fit the pattern we are ok, if traditions contradict the pattern we must return to the original.

For every generation to reassess their beliefs based on the original pattern is to me great wisdom.

Do I choose Marcion, haha that's funny. Not at all. I choose Peter, John, Paul. I understand Luther and Eusebius both accepted Matthew.

My position on Matthew is based exclusively on the writings of the above mentioned apostles. Firstly because Paul specifically warns against it's doctrine, secondly it generally conflicts with apostolic doctrine and thirdly because it appears to be a plagiarised work.

It would mean more if you could demonstrate to me how Matthew teaches righteousness through faith. This was my point which you haven't refuted, yet. Or alternatively you could explain how I have misunderstood the scriptures previously posted.

I am not claiming Matthew alone is responsible for the traditional view of hell. There are a number of dubious books that concur with these beliefs, yes.

You say I have no-one in the early church who can agree with me in rejecting Matthew. I do, Paul, as I said.

I am not trying to say it was only the Ebionites who accepted Matthew. I was actually trying to say that the Ebionites considered it to be the "only" truth, to me this demonstrates Matthew had origins that were acceptable to the Ebionites, who taught necessity of Jewish law and rejected the other gospels. Matthew came out of obscurity, it's origin a mystery to the early church.

you write Athanasius was never the problem

Athanasius was a powerful leader in the church. My comment regarding the execution was a comment on culture. You can't separate a leader from the culture he/she creates.

Eusebius died in 339 AD, after this point Athanasius rose to become perhaps the most prominent figure of the mid fourth century. His leadership shaped the culture of the Church at this time. Around the time of his festal letter Emperor Julian abandoned the faith. One of his most famous comments is

"Lions are not so dangerous to Galileans as they are to themselves".

Julian was apostate but he wasn't stupid, he found the feuding bishops unbearable. The execution of Priscillian is a marker that shows what the church culture became.

Constantine and Eusebius sought to end strife to seek unity, and worked hard to that end. (See book 10 chapter V.) Athanasius, however, considered heresy wars his life calling. He considered those who disagreed with him enemies of God to be interrogated and exposed. He said of the Arians

"who would but justly hate them while possessed by such madness."

Against the Arians chapter 5 and 9.


Is the sermon on the mount the answer to the worlds problems? probably not. In it we are instructed not to resist and evil person. Just imagine life with no police or military! How long do you think we would last. Paul said they are God's ministers. One of my favorite quotes

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."


Erick said

books prior to Nicea. Rather irrelevant..

Eusebius presided over Nicea and drafted the creed is my understanding. Just in case you missed it the entire New Testament was written prior to Nicea.

The crux of this discussion is the Apostle Paul's comments in Galatians, again, written prior to Nicea.

Two things here: Matthew appears to be a plagiarized work? What substantial warrant do you have to make that claim? Also, David is right. It is wholly incorrect to say Luther rejected tradition, as he did not. Neither did Calvin and the other Reformers. Their doctrine was sola scriptura, not solo scriptura. Calvin and Luther drew heavily on the Fathers exactly for the reason that they did not reject tradition. And just to be sure, I'm going to ask my friend, a Lutheran theologian, what he thinks. I'll post his response soon.

Claiming Paul as your authority as an early church member that rejected Matthew is clearly begging the question!

Good response Josh. This may be my last post till I read your book.

So your argument is that Luther and Eusebius questioned the canon of 27 books therefore you can to. Though they did not question Matthew, they questioned and you'll go where they didn't. Sorry, but for me, the universal acceptance of Matthew is too much.

The concept that the Spirit works in the consensus of the communion of the saints is false. This is in fact the reason for the reformation. The consensus had strayed from the truth.

So you refuse the work of the Spirit in the community/church in favor of the Spirit revealing this new truth to you? Even Luther and Calvin and most Protestants still have recognized the Spirit working in the first 500 or so years which is, once again, why they did not refight the battle for the Trinity. Look what their battles were - in regards to salvation, baptism, eucharist - things which they thought the medieval Catholic church had departed the early church on. Luther/Calvin thought the Fathers were in their corner.

Do I choose Marcion, haha that's funny. Not at all. I choose Peter, John, Paul. I understand Luther and Eusebius both accepted Matthew.

My point is Marcion is the only one who agrees with you. And this is what is troubling to me. You seem to leave me with a choice:

1. Trust that the Holy Spirit worked in the church over the first five centuries to establish a biblical canon; trust the Spirit worked in Christians ever since who accepted those 27 books.
2. Trust the Spirit did nothing for 2000 years until revealing this new teaching to you.

I can't help but see this as you making yourself the authority. Ignore all those who have used Matthew, from Irenaeus and Tertullian and Athanasius to Luther and Calvin and Wesley...and listen to Josh. Or to put simply, where is the Spirit in your theology? What was the Spirit doing before revealing this new teaching to you?

As for Athanasius, all I can say is that I read his works in the post-Nicene Fathers collection but it was years ago. I've read a bunch of history in the early church. I wasn't looking for what you are referring to so maybe I missed it, but your view of Athanasius seems out there to me.

Athanasius was exiled six times so any power he had came from his arguments. He had nowhere near the political power of Eusebius. And Constantine surely wanted unity, as did his successors, which I would argue is more where persecuting heretics came from than Athanasius' theological writings. There are dots in your argument but they aren't connecting for me.

Here are two dots I don't see connecting:
*Matthew (and James) were favored by Jewish Christians (i.e. Ebionites) who did not hold to Trinity.
*Athanasius was champion of the Trinity which, as Lee will tell us, does not come from Matthew.

So where does the love affair between Athanasius and Matthew come from?

Besides, why stop at Matthew and James? Why not excise Proverbs and Job and Esther from the Old Testament? Why have an Old Testament at all? I think part of the root is that I appreciate diversity in the Christian church, we need both James and Paul and Matthew and John while you want to force a unity in detail that is not there.

As for the sermon on the mount, I identify in the anabaptist tradition and I also think it is clear the default position until about 300 AD was that Christians do not serve in military or kill people. But that's a separate debate. Though i will say, Romans 12 deeply echoes Matthew 5-7.

It would mean more if you could demonstrate to me how Matthew teaches righteousness through faith. This was my point which you haven't refuted, yet. Or alternatively you could explain how I have misunderstood the scriptures previously posted.

I would love to get into this. Maybe later.

Joshua wrote: "Eusebius presided over Nicea and drafted the creed is my understanding. Just in case you missed it the entire New Testament was written prior to Nicea."

You need to do a little more research I think. The canon was affirmed in subsequent councils. Eusebius was not the last word on what was canonized. I would appreciate a reference to an ancient source that confirms your contention that he was. Ultimately, I do believe that the Spirit is active in a congregation of the Faithful who have the Spirit. Why? Because Jesus said where two or three are gathered in My Name I am there. A decision on the canon was a necessary one. It prevents a plethora of books being cited to support everything under the sun.

Time to read Josh's book I believe! (;

You guys seem to be having a lot of fun with this, but the canon is fixed. "What If's are great and I engage in them sometimes: What if the dinosaurs didn't go extinct? What if Al Gore didn't get hanging chadded and became President? Oops, forgive me - I'd already mentioned multi-ton slimy reptiles.

haha, yes. Much more discussion to come!

Ok, Roberts post begs a response on the canon.

In the world different versions of Christianity have different canons.

Catholics 73, Orthodox 76, Evangelical 66, Ethiopians 84, Nestorians have 22 new testament (not sure about the old.) To think the canon is set is to assume evangelicals have exclusive truth.

The 27 book new testament canon most know was set by Athanasius.

What most don't know about Athanasius is that he was also the man who taught the church to hate, interrogate and expose heretics.

We all decry the inquisitions. The cruel interrogation of heretics that often resulted in death, what we don't realise is that it was Athanasius who taught it!! (Against the Arians ch 5.) What's more he writes the 27 book canon was his own undertaking.

Do I look to Athanasius for God's ultimate truth?! don't think so.

Has anyone read "The Formation Of The Christian Bible
by Hans Von Campenhausen"? In Europe it the book on the subject and it is the most referenced book in all the scholars work on this subject. I and my wife are always re-reading it (one printed book). I am asking as he comes to a quite different conclusion that is hard to summarize, but it is one of my favorite top 5 books and after the bible my favorite Christian book.

Sorry, I can't help but post again.

So Athanasius is your scapegoat for all that is wrong with Christianity...apparently based on one passage in his voluminous writings.

Maybe we should read Athanasius. What he really taught is the importance of understanding Jesus as God; that since we pray to and worship Jesus then the Arian view is inherently idolatry. The life of worship and prayer points to Trinity view of God.

What we actually do know is that it was Augustine using the parable of the wedding banquet in Luke 14 (note Luke, not Matthew) where Jesus says to compel them to come in, that provided foundation for attacking heretics.

Finally, your list of books is graying the waters as Roman Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox (with exception of Slavonic and Ethiopian and Armenian) accept 27 books in the NT. Which is key - prior to 500 when East and West were more or less united they agreed on 27 books. To think the canon is set is not to think "evangelicals" have exclusive truth but to think that one of the few things Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox agree on and have agreed on for 1500 years is true.

No one looks to Athanasius for "ultimate truth"...but I am still skeptical the Spirit waited 2000 years to reveal the truth that Matthew is not scripture to you...I guess I'll have to get comfortable and read your book. :)

Athansasius a scapegoat!! not at all. He barely gets a mention in my book. You brought him into the discussion not me. :)

Actually Joshua, the first I saw of Athanasius was in post 38 of the thread about polygraphs and ministers. Perhaps it was Graeme who brought him up, I'll admit I did not read your entire exchange there before I began this thread. But here is what you wrote:

1. Saying yes to Martin Luther's position of certain book being unapostolic
2. Saying yes to Bishop Eusebius writing that certain books are dubious
3. Saying yes to the apostle Paul who said we should reject the gospel of law.

Do I think these three deserve higher regard than Athanasius? Absolutely. Under Athanasius leadership the church descended into bitter feuding. The current canon of scripture is the legacy of Athanasius.

Cay, thanks for the recommendation. I added that book to my list. Looks like it is hard to find, but used on Amazon is the way to go!

you got me, I'd forgotten about that.

Originally the Old Testament that was canonized was the Septuagint. The Greek OT. It included the apocrypha or deuterocanonical intertestamental literature. During the Nicene councils those works were affirmed and reaffirmed as canon. Some Nicene fathers questioned the authority of some of these books after the fact. The Eastern Orthodox churches still use the Bible that was originally canonized.

A separate discussion on the merits of the Septuagint I think would be in order. There's no question that the New Testament writers quote the LXX most of the time.

Interesting thought...that the LXX gains merit because N.T. authors quoted it often. That would of course be because they were more familiar with Greek than Hebrew. But would that also not be a good argument for including books such as 1 Enoch in the cannon?

Lee wrote: "Interesting thought...that the LXX gains merit because N.T. authors quoted it often. That would of course be because they were more familiar with Greek than Hebrew. But would that also not be a good argument for including books such as 1 Enoch in the cannon? "

That is a very good question and should be addressed. As to your first point: yes, they quoted the LXX because they were Hellenistic Jews; or were Palestinian Jews that were missionaries to Hellenistic Jews and gentiles that used the Greek translation. The issue is complicated by the fact that the Masoretic text was compiled by non-Christian Jewish Rabbis. Looking at the Masoretic text that Jews use for the tanach, it is evident that they had a preference for variant readings that favored non-Christian interpretation. One example is Psalm 22:16 (tanach verse 17). The Tanach has "like a lion's are my hands and feet"; whereas the LXX, and most of our Christian Bibles, have "they have pierced my hands and feet." It is clear that when presented with the variant readings, the Masoretes chose a text for their version of the tanach that would be less Christian. The Dead Sea Scrolls give witness that the LXX reading is more correct than the Masoretic reading. There are other differences between the LXX and the Masoretic text in regards to messianic prophecies. Very few of our current Christian Bible's favor LXX readings, even when I think they should. So no, it isn't always just a translation of what we have come to know as the Hebrew OT; sometimes it has different readings than the Masoretic text. Yes, some of these variants are found in our New Testament, when the NT writers quote the OT. The problem is that these verses are no longer found in our OT in that form because we don't use the LXX.

While there is no question that the Book of Enoch is quoted and referred to in the NT, I support it's rejection as scripture. I have to make clear what that means for me. I reject Augustine's writings as scripture, but they have authority in verifying scriptural doctrine, not for establishing it. I think the book of Enoch and other Jewish writings (like the pseudepigrapha and the midrash) can be used to verify a particular interpretation of the OT, but not to establish doctrine. Enoch is the most authoritative interpretation of genesis 6. In that context it has merit. It also has merit due to the fact that early Christians considered it authoritative. It cannot be used to establish doctrine however, unlike canonical scripture. It can be used to substantiate a particular reading.

For comparison purposes:

Hebrews 10:5-8 quoting Psalms 40:6-8 LXX

5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.'

Psalm 40:6-8 Masoretic Text

6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require.
7 Then I said, "Here I am, I have come—
it is written about me in the scroll.
8 I desire to do your will, O my God;
your law is within my heart."

Psalm 110:3 Masoretic

3 Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy majesty,
from the womb of the dawn
you will receive the dew of your youth.

Psalm 110:3 LXX

3 With thee is dominion in the day of thy power,
in the splendours of thy saints:
I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning

Daniel 9:26 Masoretic

26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,'
the Anointed One will be cut off and
will have nothing. The people of the
ruler who will come will destroy the city
and the sanctuary. The end will come like
a flood: War will continue until the end,
and desolations have been decreed.

Daniel 9:26 LXX

26 And after the sixty-two weeks,
the anointed one shall be destroyed,
and there is no judgment in him:
and he shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary with the prince that is coming:
they shall be cut off with a flood, and to
the end of the war which is rapidly completed
he shall appoint the city to desolations.

Since we're speaking of Athanasius and Eusebius ;)

It seems the early church writers had two ways of discussing scriptural texts. One way, seen by Eusebius and many others, was to divide books into three (or four) groupings: 1. Accepted, 2. Disputed, 3 Spurious and 4 Heretical. With Athanasius there is simply 1. the Bible and 2. Everything Else.

Josh seems to want to put Matthew in the heretical category? I wonder, would there be benefits in utilizing the sort of division Eusebius had or are we long past that? Would Josh be okay putting Matthew and James into some sort of secondary category, not full scripture but still good for reading?

I'd put the apocrypha there, though I'll admit I am too influenced by tradition to re-examine the canon of 27 NT books. Any secondary literature would be Christian classics - not on level of scripture but good for reading.

The whole thing sort of puzzles me. Why isn't Matthew's Jewish opinion as worthy of preservation as the other three? Why do we feel the urge to exclude from the canon any view which doesn't completely match our own?

Lee, "we" do not feel the urge to "exclude from the canon any view which doesn't completely match our own." Josh does :)

you guys are classic. I absolutely concur with David's statement.

I wonder would there be benefits in utilizing the sort of division Eusebius had

There are some great stories and teachings in some of these books, and the apocrypha. The premise for what I have written is the widespread concept that every word in the evangelical canon is divine perfection. (Jesus did say scripture cannot be broken too). Also it's availability to people to read in plain english without the advanced learning you guys possess.

In our black and white society it is important to distinguish what is accepted and dubious. I am just pointing out what's dubious.

Are Matthew's writings worth preservation, sure, it's very interesting. However if you believe in truth of scripture it seems Paul opposes it's doctrine. Considering Paul was appointed by Jesus as our gentile apostle I fell compelled to reject it.

Many of the oral traditions in Matthew are also in Luke and I am content with that.