EMAIL November 28, 2012

What Is The New Testament Inspired Canon?

Hi Friend,

My Reply

Hi Angelo

Mark was written by a friend of Paul's -- and later an inaccurate mythology tried linking this to Peter. See Marcan Priority Claim.

Thus, the Gospel of Mark has no apostolic credentials. Yet, it is valuable as an historical corroboration of Matthew and Luke.

Luke is a special case where the evidence suggests he was trying to preserve the Original Gospel of Matthew (OGM) written in Hebrew, which was the first gospel. The OGM was honored as a fifth gospel for the first 400 years of Christianity.

Thus, Luke is historical evidence of an inspired book -- the OGM -- which for reasons of doctrine was let slip out of memory, and into oblivion. From the OGM, 49 quotes were preserved in quotes dating 96 AD to 425 AD, which Mr. Rives incorporates into our present Greek-translation based Matthew. You can read the final product at Original Gospel of Matthew Reconstructed. (The first 2 volumes are scholarly reviews of all the variants, their sources, issues over validity, etc.) Thus, when you see Hebraisms in Luke, such as sentences beginning with "And," Edwards recently explained that this means it came from the OGM in Hebrew.

Neither Peter nor John ever claim they write their letters under inspiration. Their intent is to edify. In the Law, a work could not be recognized as prophetic unless the prophet says the Lord "burdened" him with a message / he spoke for Yahweh, etc,, or in Moses' case, God spoke from heaven in the hearing of the people that recognized Moses as His agent. (Jesus too had this at his baptism and transfiguration.)

James is the first bishop of the church, and Jude was the second. Both are siblings of Jesus. Neither claims inspiration, nor that they are prophets, nor that they are apostles. Hence, they are edifying.

The Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Barnabas, according to Tertullian writing in 205 AD. (See link.) Hence, it lacks any prophetic or apostolic credentials.

That said, this does not mean we exclude any of these secondary authorities from the Bible. (Paul is a special case.)

Why? Because in the assembly of the OT, there was a tier of authority in the Bible -- with the Law  / Torah in #1 position, then the Prophets in level #2 (who were measured by consistency with Torah), and finally the Writings / Scripture section. See Carlstadt Research.

The Writings / Scripture section signified either totally uninspired works which were edifying or potentially deemed prophetic in the future, such as Daniel, or were sometimes inspired and sometimes not, such as Psalms and Proverbs. When our NT was put together, it was with this same view in mind. If we restored that approach, we can attach purely edifying works, as Carlstadt recommended. Only in the 1500s was canon ruled to be 100% inspired in each book. It included many more books than we have today -- specifically the Apocrypha used to be part of the KJV Bible of 1611. (It was removed in 1885. See Kingjamesbibleonline.org at this link.)

But Paul is something one has to consider differently for a specific reason. Jesus told us not to follow false Christs who come using Jesus' name who appear in the wilderness where not every eye saw him. Jesus specifically says this is how you will know this is not the true Jesus. Our Lord Jesus instructs us "do not follow them." (Matt 24:4-5, 24-27.)  I believe if Christians prayed and asked God what to do, that if we realize now that the "Jesus" Paul thought was Jesus could not possibly be the true Jesus by the criteria Jesus gave in Matt 24 (see our discussion link), then we should likely excise and remove Paul's epistles, even though there are many edifying things in those epistles.

The emphasis of Yahweh speaking about Jesus from heaven twice -- once at the baptism and once at the transfiguration of Jesus -- was to "Listen to Him" "Obey Him." Yahweh was referring to Jesus -- the one known to the 12, not the one known to Paul. To obey that instruction from Yahweh, I think we must remove Paul from canon or put him in a separate section with a Preface identifying this modern realization of what should become an overwhelming consensus among true Christians that finally we must reject Paul and turn back to Christ. (That day is fast approaching, I sense.) Otherwise, Paul's words clearly interfere with the acceptance of Jesus' message on salvation, morals, and God Himself.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Doug

NOTE

Two Tiers Within the Book of Revelation (added 2017)

Steven recently challenged me about the book of Revelation. His comments made me take a second look at Revelation. It appears more accurate to say this book has two distinct tiers of authority based upon what God explains in Numbers 12. That passage says visions by prophets are less authoritative than first-tier communication by Moses with God Almighty. I believe that Deut 18:17-18 extends at least an equal and arguably superior authority to The Prophet prophesied by Moses in that passage. The Prophet was Jesus.

Thus, when we look at Revelation, we see first the angel physically appears to John, and then speaks the words of Jesus. Jesus' words are first tier -- on par at least with Moses (or higher if Deut 18:8-9 means that as we contend in JWO Principle Explained).

Incidentally, the reader is helped by the text being put in red in most Bibles.

Otherwise, before John is raptured into heaven, he also sees a vision of Jesus, and then in heaven has a series of visions as well. This would be the second tier authority, as God explained in Numbers 12. We are not to put the same emphasis on second tier; it can never be manipulated or twisted to change the meaning of first tier.

Then at the end of Revelation, Jesus is speaking again.  We are thus back to first tier authority.

Hence, if we use the rule from Numbers 12 that true prophetic visions alone are not on the same level as Moses (and likewise Jesus when we apply Deut 18:17-18), then we would say the "visions" by John and the words spoken there are to be regarded as enigmas and unclear. God in Numbers 12 tells us not to use such enigmatic revelations to trump the clear words of Moses and derivatively I would say likewise about Jesus' words by virtue of Deut 18:17-18. I don't see any problems directly anywhere in the vision accounts in Revelation. But if they contradict the words of Jesus, or are amenable to a conflict, we must treat them as second tier and not of equal weight in reaching doctrinal conclusions.