Can you reject Paul and still be a Christian?

[Joseph Antley]

Anyone can come up with hypotheticals. But, yes, I would. The bible testifies of itself. And the reason Paul's teaching about being saved by faith alone are not in the synoptics nor in the letters FROM a jew TO jews is because Paul has a particular mission to the gentiles. Apparently, because of Israel's unique relationship, the only way to save gentiles (or, perhaps, the best way) is via the church and grace alone.

That's great that you can rationalize the differences away like this, but it still casts doubt on your former claim that Paul agrees perfectly with the rest of the New Testament, when clearly you just admitted he does not.

That's your allegation. A minority one at that.

It's actually the majority opinion of modern biblical scholars (i.e., those who are trained and qualified to make judgments like these).

Paul meets all the criteria, not just one (or two)

Of course he does. You based the criteria around him. Were he never included in the New Testament and Barnabas and Clement had been, I'm sure you would have created a set of criteria that they fit perfectly but that excluded him.

Not in the same sense. Even you will agree with that.

Actually I don't agree with that -- I am of the opinion that Barnabas and Clement were authorized servants of Christ, and therefore just as qualified. It seems that Barnabas, as a Seventy, was even a disciple of the mortal Christ -- something Paul can't even claim.

Paul immediately after converstion began to preach in the synagogues. If he were not approved his preaching would have been stopped immediately. However, there were rumblings among the jewish community, to be sure. It seems reasonable to me that Paul was growing in knowledge - specifically of the church - and as he grew the jews were ready to have him move on, so to speak. God was drawing him away from the influence of kingdom theology to that he could pursue his primary mission of preaching grace/church.

That's great. Yet Barnabas was accepted immediately. Paul refers to him as an apostle.

You have to establish why they should be. Mere mention in holy scripture does not mean they ARE holy scripture.

I thought that it was obvious, but I can state the obvious if you wish. The books of Nathan and Gad contained prophecies from prophets mentioned in the Old Testament. The Old Testament refers readers to those books to read their prophecies.

As for Paul's other letters, they have every reason to be considered "holy scripture" as do his letters in the New Testament. His letter to the Laodiceans was apparently important enough that he instructed the Colossians to have it read to their members (Col. 4:15).

On what basis do you believe they are "scriptural" works? That is something you must establish and provide evidence for before you can tell us the bible is incomplete in some way.

See above. They meet the same criteria as scripture as do the books in the Bible. Yet they're gone. But other books--which ancient Christians did consider scripture--are perfectly preserved today, but you do not consider them scripture. The only reason I can deduce is because they weren't bound together in the New Testament by some ancient Catholic bishops.

I'm continuously amazed at how lds think that disparaging the bible helps their case. On the one hand, they proclaim that the bible is, at least, a word from god, then, on the other hand, they must cast suspicion on it to allow for "further revelation." Interesting.

None of this has anything directly to do with Latter-day Saints. However, if you think disparaging us will help your argument, feel free to continue liberally casting blame on us for your insecure theology.

[coolrok7]

The main point here is "what is", not "what if". Paul is an integral part of presenting the

[Joseph Antley]

The main point here is "what is", not "what if". Paul is an integral part of presenting the

[Ron Beron]

Quote

Actually, they don't. There are more than just a few occasions that Paul's testimony contradicts the synoptic gospels as well as the account in Acts and elsewhere.

Not contradicts, Jesus through Paul is changing the program, that is, the establishment of the church.

Since James is the appointed head of the church wouldn't it make sense that Jesus would let his brother know of his plans. Ironically, you are stating the Mormon opinion of "johnny-come-lately" Joseph Smith dictating to the established church a new program given directly to him by Jesus.

Quote

There are few if any place within the epistles that Peter's true voice is heard. Much is made up after the fact through legend and assertion. What specific scriptures were you thinking of?

How could you possibly know this?

I Peter is not written exclusively by Peter, but through the assistance of Silvanus (Through Silvanus,¹ whom I know to be a faithful brother,² I have written to you briefly, in order to encourage you and testify³ that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it.^{4 )}. More thoroughly, one commentary, The Interpreters Bible, states...

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ," the epistle begins. Very near its ending (5:12) we read, "By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you." The letter purports to have been written by the apostle Peter with the help of Silvanus, who is probably Paul's old comrade, called, in Acts, Silas for short.

External evidence supports this claim. Indeed, there is no book in the New Testament which has earlier or better attestation, and attempts to shake the strength of that evidence (e.g., Streeter, The Primitive Church) have not succeeded. All the relevant testimony cannot be given here, but these are the four chief pieces:

(a) Clement of Rome, writing ca. A.D. 95, echoes the language of I Peter. (Lightfoot counts twelve parallelisms and Harnack twenty.) Barnabas and Hermas also seem to have known I Peter.

(

Polycarp, who died ca. A.D. 155, is steeped in the language of I Peter.

© Irenaeus, who wrote ca. A.D. 185, testifies, "Peter says in his epistle, 'Whom though you see him not, etc.'" 3

(d) Eusebius, the father of church history, who classified the sacred writings as "accepted," "disputed," and "spurious," placed I Peter in the first category.

The absence of any reference to I Peter in the Muratorian Canon (a list of books deemed canonical in Rome toward the end of the second century) is probably due to the fragmentariness of the document. Clearly the epistle was reckoned canonical from the time when the word "canonical" began to have any meaning. In the words of "The Thirty-nine Articles," it is one of the books "of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church." And the church's unanimity about its authority is very hard to explain unless its claim to Petrine authorship be really true.

Does a study of the internal evidence confirm or refute this claim?

Many modern scholars reject the testimony of tradition. They challenge the Petrine authorship on four main grounds:

(a) The letter shows a command of the Greek language incredible in a person like Peter.

(

It is dearly indebted to Paulinism.

© It does not bear the marks of one who had known Jesus and heard his teaching.

(d) It implies a time when the mere profession of Christianity was a crime--that is, the first decade of the second century.

If these objections can be sustained, there is obviously an end to the Petrine authorship. We must examine them one by one.

(a) Peter (the first objection runs) could not have written the Greek of this epistle.

It is possible to exaggerate the excellence of the Greek; yet it must be admitted that the writer of I Peter could write Greek freely and with some literary skill. Could Peter have done this? Although we do not know much about his literary attainments, the New Testament does not lead us to believe that Peter was a skilled writer in Greek. A Galilean like Peter must have had some understanding of the koine, or common Greek, which was the lingua franca of the age; but there is no basis for supposing that he could write the language with a sense for correctness and idiom.

If then we were shut up to the view that Peter must have written this epistle without Help from another, the case for the Petrine authorship would have to be abandoned at once. But the letter expressly tells us that in the writing of it Peter had the help of Silvanus. "By Silvanus ... I have written briefly to you" (5:12). Thus, it seems dear, Silvanus had a share in the composition of the epistle. We may well believe that in this case Silvanus acted as a trusted secretary who was given considerable scope in interpreting his master's mind. Furthermore, we have evidence that Silvanus was just such a person as could have written the good Greek of the letter.

To begin with, there is no reason for disputing the identity of this man with the Silvanus who is named as the joint author, with Paul and Timothy, of the Thessalonian epistles, nor again his identity with the Silas of Acts. Now this man was clearly a person of considerable gifts and ability. We know that he was a member of the mother church in Jerusalem and was sent by them as an accredited delegate to the church at Antioch (Acts 15:22, 32). Further, we know not only that he was a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37), but that he was a coadjutor of Paul during the momentous second missionary journey which took the gospel to Greece and Europe. A man who was chosen to draft and convey the apostolic decree to the Gentile churches, who could preach the gospel in Greek to Gentiles, who had journeyed far and wide on Gentile soil with Paul, was clearly one well able to write the Greek of I Peter. We need therefore worry no more about "the good Greek" of the epistle. We may reasonably hold, with most English-speaking scholars, that in I Peter the voice may well be Peter's voice, though the literary hand is the hand of Silvanus.

(

But (the objector will proceed) the epistle is too full of Paulinism to be the work of Peter.

The objection seems fair enough till you ask, "What precisely is Paulinism?" Then it becomes much less cogent. For the time is past when scholars could picture Paul as a spiritual pioneer voyaging alone through strange seas of thought, and practically every idea in his epistles could be set down as the invention of his own seminal mind. We are now able to see that a great deal of what we once labeled "Paulinism" is really common, apostolic Christianity.4 But, to come down to particulars, what evidence is there in I Peter that the writer has borrowed freely from Paul? The usual answer is that the letter shows clear knowledge of both Ephesians and Romans. But I think we may at once affirm that the case for the dependence of I Peter on Ephesians is, to say the least, highly dubious. When one examines the alleged parallels, one finds that they amount to no more than a few phrases like "blessed be God" (which any pious Jew might have used), and some instructions to husbands and wives, masters and slaves, which, as Weidinger and Dibelius have shown, were derived from a common ethical tradition used by all the apostolic writers. The case for a dependence of I Peter on Romans looks at first sight to be stronger. Examined in detail, it loses impressiveness. For of the eight passages listed by Sanday and Headlam as showing Peter's dependence on Romans, two are Old Testament prophecies, two give lists of common Christian duties, a fifth is semiliturgical, a sixth depends on thought rather than words, and the last two are quite doubtful.5 None of them is enough to prove Peter's dependence on Paul. On the other hand, there are such decided differences between I Peter and the Pauline epistles as to make any case for dependence extremely precarious. It is not only that the great Pauline doctrines like justification by faith are conspicuous by their absence, but that even in small details like the nuances of words (compare, for example, Peter's use of the words "grace" and "soul" with Paul's), Peter gives no hint that he had sat (spiritually) at the feet of Paul.

On the other hand, to say all this is not to say that here and there we may not find a phrase in 1 Peter which may have sprung originally from the brain of Paul. After all, Silvanus, who helped Peter in the writing of this letter, had been too long in the company of Paul not to have caught something of his "great accents." Could any man live long with Paul and not find himself using some of his phrases? Besides, it is probable that the Epistle to the Romans, written about A.D. 56, was already a treasured possession in the church at Rome, where, as we shall see, I Peter was almost certainly written.

In fine, the second objection is no more decisive than the first.

© The third objection may be handled more briefly. To say that the epistle shows little knowledge of the life and teaching of our Lord is simply not true. Let us recall, first, that the epistle runs to no more than 105 verses and, second, that its main purpose was not to reveal the writer's knowledge of Jesus, but to fortify a suffering church; and then, I think, we may well marvel at the number of references there are to Jesus' life and of quotations of his teaching.

The writer implies that he had seen Jesus (1:

in a way that his readers had not. In 5:1 he probably claims to have been a witness of the Transfiguration (see Exeg.), as he expressly claims to have been a witness of Jesus' sufferings. Moreover, his language shows a knowledge of the foot washing (5:5; see Exeg.) and of the trial of Jesus (2:21-24), while his command, "Tend the flock of God" (5:2), is most easily interpreted as a reminiscence of the command which the risen Jesus had given to Peter (John 21:17). As for the moral teaching of Jesus, we shall see, when we come to consider the theology of the epistle, that there are at least ten echoes of Jesus' sayings in the Gospels. So far then from marveling at the meagerness of the references to Jesus in the days of his flesh, we are surprised to find so many, and would rather argue that these references point the other way, and are confirmatory evidence that Peter stands behind this letter.

(d) The last objection, which incidentally involves also the question of date, is that the letter implies a time when the mere profession of Christianity was a crime, that is, a time about the beginning of the second century, which Peter could not possibly have lived to see.

The references to suffering and persecution in the letter are as follows: 1:6; 2:12, 15; 4:12 ff.; 5:9. All these are of a quite general character except 4:12 ff.: "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you. ... But rejoice in so far as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a wrongdoer, or a mischief-maker; yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God."

This passage (note especially "if one suffers as a Christian") must have been written, so it is argued, in the time of Pliny, ca. A.D. 112, because Pliny's famous rescript to Trajan is the first evidence we have of Christians being punished for the mere profession of Christianity.

But this is surely a very rash conclusion. For, in the first place, the word "suffer" is quite general and need not involve more than public malevolence and abuse such as was the lot of Christians from the earliest days of the faith. But suppose we grant that the context demands that we take "suffer" in the sense of "be punished by the state," we have no right to declare dogmatically that such punishment was first inflicted in the time of the Emperor Trajan. On the contrary, as J. V. Bartlet has pointed out, if Paul was condemned to death by Nero in A.D. 62, the mere profession of Christianity must have become a crime very generally. In short, there is nothing in the language of I Peter which compels us to believe that it could not have been written before the beginning of the second century.

To sum up: We have surveyed both the external and the internal evidence. External attestation, as we have seen, is very strong. The general tone and temper of the epistle suggests that it comes down to us from the early days of the faith, nor can any of the objections raised against Petrine authorship be sustained. We may therefore safely accept the tradition which links this epistle with the apostle Peter. The only qualification we need make is that probably Silvanus had a large share in the actual composition of the letter. Peter wrote, as we have seen, with the help of Silvanus; and in a case like this, remembering of course that the apostle probably had no great facility in Greek, we may suppose that the usage was exactly the same as that which still prevails in Eastern life--the great man dictates to his secretary the terms of his proposed communication, perhaps revises it rapidly, and maybe adds a few words of his own. 6

Quote

Where? Are we reading Paul's word or someone else's?

Acts 20:7-

Where's the connection?

QuoteAgain, where and when? He didn't visit Jerusalem until long after his ministry began.

Peter explicitly tells us that Paul is from God.

Where? And under what circumstances?

Quote

This is somewhat contradicted by the account in Paul's own hand in Galatians where he attests that he hadn't visited Jerusalem and the synoptic apostles until much later.

I'm not sure how this relates. Paul tells us that he received his revelation (of course) directly from God. Why would this be necessary?

Simple. Paul shows up claiming to be an apostle of Jesus through theophony. He hasn't any direct authority from the recognized leaders of the church of the day, yet he preaches a different gospel than they and if fact, accuses them of not teaching the correct principles. The only reason we have come to accept Paul is because of his ascendency to power in the 1st and 2nd century.

[Joseph Antley]

bump.

[Hoops22]

That's great that you can rationalize the differences away like this, but it still casts doubt on your former claim that Paul agrees perfectly with the rest of the New Testament, when clearly you just admitted he does not.

I don't rationalize them away, I simply take the text for what it reads. When the Bible tells us "to the twelve tribes" i take that seriously. And I also recognize that the spiritual state of the world, and it's relationship to God, is mightily different post atonement vs. pre atonement. You don't. As if Jesus' death had no meaning whatsoever.

It's actually the majority opinion of modern biblical scholars (i.e., those who are trained and qualified to make judgments like these).

Dubious at best. I'd call for references for this silly claim but I wouldn't want you to waste an entire november trying to find evidence for a claim that is impossible to support.

Of course he does. You based the criteria around him. Were he never included in the New Testament and Barnabas and Clement had been, I'm sure you would have created a set of criteria that they fit perfectly but that excluded him.

If you begin with the view that The Bible is somehow suspect, then you'll accept anything. I begin with the view that The Bible is God's word and it's up to you to provide evidence that something should be there that is not, or something is not in there that should be. So far your argument can be boiled down to "Paul is suspect so why not include X, Y, and Z."

Actually I don't agree with that -- I am of the opinion that Barnabas and Clement were authorized servants of Christ, and therefore just as qualified. It seems that Barnabas, as a Seventy, was even a disciple of the mortal Christ -- something Paul can't even claim.

Well, then, you don't think meeting Jesus on a road - where was it going again - offers a certain amount of authority? In contrast with raising your hand some sunday morning as authority? Please.

That's great. Yet Barnabas was accepted immediately. Paul refers to him as an apostle.

Barnabas does not meet all the criteria.

I thought that it was obvious, but I can state the obvious if you wish. The books of Nathan and Gad contained prophecies from prophets mentioned in the Old Testament. The Old Testament refers readers to those books to read their prophecies.

Why should this make a difference? You are assuming that these books offer something new or different when such an assumption is not warranted.

As for Paul's other letters, they have every reason to be considered "holy scripture" as do his letters in the New Testament. His letter to the Laodiceans was apparently important enough that he instructed the Colossians to have it read to their members (Col. 4:15).

See above.

See above. They meet the same criteria as scripture as do the books in the Bible. Yet they're gone. But other books--which ancient Christians did consider scripture--are perfectly preserved today, but you do not consider them scripture. The only reason I can deduce is because they weren't bound together in the New Testament by

Show me.

some ancient Catholic bishops.

I remember those guys from catholic school

None of this has anything directly to do with Latter-day Saints.

It has everything to do with lds. The only way you can justify that further scripture is needed is to allege that the Bible we had for 1800 years was incomplete and corrupted by man. Additionally, your God must be so incompetent that a) he must operate by natural laws, he is incapable of guarding is word from those racally humans, and c) he doesn't know the difference between pre-atonement man and post-atonement. That's a stance you must take, and take it you do.

However, if you think disparaging us will help your argument, feel free to continue liberally casting blame on us for your insecure theology.

My theology, as well as millions of others, is quite secure. It was before JS came along, and it is after JS.

[Zakuska]

Joseph Smith nor anyone else but Jesus are necessary to be saved because Jesus is the Savior of the world and there is

[DLClark]

No. Why stop with Paul then and not the rest of the Bible. Where do you drw the line? All of the Bible is the inspired Word of God. The Apocripha though is not because there are errors in it.

Sinners, confronted with their need of salvation, frequently stumble over the simplicity of the salvation which God offers. Since Satan cannot take away anything from the conditions of salvation or the plan of salvation - for God has already reduced it to an irreducible minimum - if Satan is to confound the minds of the sinners he must do so by addition, not subtraction. If conditions were placed by God to salvation, Satan might take away those conditions so that men would not be saved. But since there are no conditions, and salvation is a simple fact to be believed, Satan's method of deceiving men has been to add to the simplicity of the gospel. That is why some will teach that salvation is by faith and good works; or, salvation is by faith and baptism; or, salvation is by faith plus church membership; or, salvation is by faith plus repentance. These are all attempts to darken the mind of the man who needs to be saved concerning the central issue and the basic plan of salvation.

There is only one word that represents all a sinner can do and must do to be saved and that word is believe.

Repentance is not the means by which we acquire eternal life. Luke

[Vance]

No. Why stop with Paul then and not the rest of the Bible. Where do you drw the line? All of the Bible is the inspired Word of God. The Apocripha though is not because there are errors in it.

Sinners, confronted with their need of salvation, frequently stumble over the simplicity of the salvation which God offers. Since Satan cannot take away anything from the conditions of salvation or the plan of salvation - for God has already reduced it to an irreducible minimum - if Satan is to confound the minds of the sinners he must do so by addition, not subtraction. If conditions were placed by God to salvation, Satan might take away those conditions so that men would not be saved. But since there are no conditions, and salvation is a simple fact to be believed, Satan's method of deceiving men has been to add to the simplicity of the gospel. That is why some will teach that salvation is by faith and good works; or, salvation is by faith and baptism; or, salvation is by faith plus church membership; or, salvation is by faith plus repentance. These are all attempts to darken the mind of the man who needs to be saved concerning the central issue and the basic plan of salvation.

There is only one word that represents all a sinner can do and must do to be saved and that word is believe.

Repentance is not the means by which we acquire eternal life. Luke

[Vance]

The call to repentance is broader than the call to eternal life. It is rather a call to harmony between the creature and His Creator, a call to fellowship between sinful men and women and a forgiving God.

If we keep this fact firmly in mind, we will never make the mistake of thinking that repentance is a condition for eternal life.

Why didn't you just point us to 3. on this web site?

www.gospelpreceptor.com/Mowery10.htm

[volgadon]

Perhaps they are damned, along with Stephen and James.

If Paul is the necessary king-pin of Christianity, then the

Gospel preached by Jesus must have been about this forthcoming

Master Spirit, the latchet of whose sandals Jesus was unworthy

to unloosen.

UD

That made my day.

[volgadon]

Yeah -- the pseudo-Clementine writings are full of hints at this rejection.

I'm not at all convinced that James accept Paul as an Apostle -- or, at least

not in the sense that we moderns use the word.

Nor am I convinced that Paul was fully Jewish. He may have been about as

"Jewish" as Herod's family -- that is, he could claim to be Abraham's seed,

living within Jewish culture as a fringe member of that society. With a

Roman father (no matter the bloodline), I'm not even sure he was solidly

attached to the "fringes" of Jewish society.

Still, he could enter the temple -- so somebody in his family had either

been a convert (many were made in the days of the Maccabees) or actually

married into the tribe of Benjamin.

Paul all too easily dismisses the Mosaic covenant and goes back to Abraham

for his model. That sounds suspiciously like what an Idumanean might do.

UD

Roman father? Is there any support for that notion apart from his having a Latin name and Roman citizenship?

One of the high priests had a Latin style name. Latin names were not uncommon. Several inscriptions in Galilaean synagogues bear latin names. This were the donors!

The inhabitants of Tarsus, IIRC, were given Roman citizenship.

He was the disciple of Old Gamaliel, the foremost sage of the day and grandson of r. Hillel, one of the greatest figures in 'mainstream' Judaism. Their teachings and philosophy permeate the writings of Paul.

Do you have any instances of Idumaeans dismissing the Mosaic covenant and hearkening back to Abraham?

[cksalmon]

I've heard non-LDS Christians say something along the lines of, Why do we have to believe in Joseph Smith to be saved? Isn't Jesus Christ enough?

This has always confused me a little. So, the question is, can someone reject Paul as an Apostle--and therefore the majority of the New Testament--and still be considered a Christian? Can they still be saved?

Why or why not?

A more salient question would be, "Can someone reject Paul as an Apostle--and therefore the majority of the New Testament--and still be considered a Mormon?"

If you think the answer is "Yes," then you reject a significant chunk of officially canonical LDS scripture; you should perhaps inform your bishop of your rejection. If your answer is "No," then the question strikes me as just silly and baiting.

LDS, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, JW's, and Mormons, etc., accept Paul's writings as canonical. I didn't think there was an argument at that point.

Is your question, then, really, can one reject some portion of the canon and still be a Christian?

I'll throw it back at you: can someone reject the Bible, the Book of Mormon, D&C, or the Pearl of Great Price and still be a Mormon? Can he still be saved in the celestial kingdom?

cks

[Ron Beron]

He was the disciple of Old Gamaliel, the foremost sage of the day and grandson of r. Hillel, one of the greatest figures in 'mainstream' Judaism.

I think this position is becoming more and more tenuous to hold.

[Joseph Antley]

A more salient question would be, "Can someone reject Paul as an Apostle--and therefore the majority of the New Testament--and still be considered a Mormon?"

If you think the answer is "Yes," then you reject a significant chunk of officially canonical LDS scripture; you should perhaps inform your bishop of your rejection. If your answer is "No," then the question strikes me as just silly and baiting.

LDS, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, JW's, and Mormons, etc., accept Paul's writings as canonical. I didn't think there was an argument at that point.

Is your question, then, really, can one reject some portion of the canon and still be a Christian?

I'll throw it back at you: can someone reject the Bible, the Book of Mormon, D&C, or the Pearl of Great Price and still be a Mormon? Can he still be saved in the celestial kingdom?

cks

The original post was actually a response to the occasional accusation by critics that Mormons believe that you have to believe in Joseph Smith to go to heaven.

My OP was a response asking, do you think you have to believe in Paul to go to heaven?

If the answer is yes (which it appears to be), then why are Mormons attacked for saying that you have to believe in Joseph Smith to be saved (which, by the way, we don't believe--at least under the Evangelical definition of the word "saved")?

I never intended to imply that I reject Paul or his letters or any other part of the New Testament, nor did I mean to imply that Mormons as a whole or even a portion reject Paul or his letters.

But the Latter-day Saint canon is confirmed by a living prophet who assures us the Bible is the Word of God. We don't have to rely on the circular reasoning that other well-meaning Christians have provided in this thread (where, as evidence of Paul's authenticity, they provide Paul saying that his words are true). If the reason for believing in Paul is simply because Christians are trusting his words, why can they fault another for simply not trusting them, or trusting in other words?

[Ron Beron]

A more salient question would be, "Can someone reject Paul as an Apostle--and therefore the majority of the New Testament--and still be considered a Mormon?"

If you think the answer is "Yes," then you reject a significant chunk of officially canonical LDS scripture; you should perhaps inform your bishop of your rejection. If your answer is "No," then the question strikes me as just silly and baiting.

LDS, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, JW's, and Mormons, etc., accept Paul's writings as canonical. I didn't think there was an argument at that point.

Is your question, then, really, can one reject some portion of the canon and still be a Christian?

I'll throw it back at you: can someone reject the Bible, the Book of Mormon, D&C, or the Pearl of Great Price and still be a Mormon? Can he still be saved in the celestial kingdom?

cks

I would believe it would be a moot point since belief in revelation from one having authority is more important than documents drawn up post Jesus' death. Jesus, of course, accept the law, i.e., the Torah, but not necessarily did he find the rest of the OT much more valuable than its teaching influences. There is little evidence beyond the acceptance of the law that the majority of the OT was held to be more than just anecdotes.

[Hoops22]

As usual, Mr. Salmon is making my point. Only much more succintly and with quite a bit more whimsy.

(straigten up, Mr. Salmon, though I'm a big guy (or gal), I believe you have the theological muscle to carry me)

[coolrok7]

President Hinckley stated the following (a declarative statement):

. . .this is the pivotal thing of our story. Every claim we make concerning divine authority, every truth that we offer concerning the validity of this work, all finds its roots in the First Vision of the boy prophet. Without it we would not have anything much to say. . .This becomes the hinge pin on which the whole cause turns. If the First Vision was true, if it actually happened, then the Book of Mormon is true. Then we have the priesthood. Then we have the Church organizations and all of the other keys and blessings of authority which we say we have. If the First Vision did not occur, then we are involved in a great sham. It is that simple. (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p.237)

I reject the belief system of Mormonism and others (some listed below) that I believe are also false (or a

[volgadon]

I think this position is becoming more and more tenuous to hold.

How so?

Also, what position do you mean, that Paul was Gamliel's disciple, that Gamaliel was grandson of Hillel or that Hillel was one of the greatest figures of what became mainstream Judaism?

[cksalmon]

I would believe it would be a moot point since belief in revelation from one having authority is more important than documents drawn up post Jesus' death.

That certainly seems to have been Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's position, as well, if the anecdote told by Wilford Woodruff during 1897's October GC is to be believed:

[Joseph Antley]

How on earth can one know this, Ron? CFR. And, does Jesus get a say? Do you think he was not serious when he spoke of fulfilling the ????? and the ????????? Or, do you (along with Robinson and the Q folks) reject that verse as inauthentic?

Perhaps, like the ancient Ebionites, he disagrees over what Jesus meant by "fulfilling the law and the prophets." (Not sure why we're using Greek here when the English works fine.)

[coolrok7]

The Ebionites were a Jewish-Christian sect that insisted on the necessity of following Jewish religious law and rites, which they interpreted in light of Jesus' expounding of the Law. They regarded Jesus as the Messiah but not as divine. The Ebionites revered his brother, or cousin, James as the head of the Jerusalem Church and rejected Paul of Tarsus because he was an apostate towards the Law. Their name suggests that they placed a special value on religious poverty.

Much of what is known about the Ebionites derives from the Church Fathers, who wrote polemics against the Ebionites, whom they deemed heretical Judaizers. Some scholars agree with the substance of the traditional portrayal as an offshoot of mainstream Christianity. Many scholars distinguish the Ebionites from other Jewish Christian groups, e.g. the Nazarenes, while others contest this. (Wikepedia)

The following excerpts are from the Feb. 2006 Ensign in an article concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls which also I think effects this mistrust between us (Latter-day Saints have sided with the wrong group and by association have left the Biblical basis for faith):

There was great excitement when, in 1947, Bedouin shepherds discovered the first Dead Sea Scrolls preserved in large clay jars in Cave 1 at Qumran. Ten jars were ultimately found, but only two yielded documents. One contained three scrolls, . . .These three were later identified as a copy of the biblical book of Isaiah; a copy of the Rule of the Community, sometimes called the Manual of Discipline. . . and a commentary on the biblical book of Habakkuk.

Four additional scrolls were later found in the cave; . . .Hymn Scroll; a partially preserved copy of Isaiah; the War Scroll. . .and a collection of Genesis-type narratives called the Genisis Apocryphon. . . .

The idea of Restoration

Another reason for Latter-day Saint interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls community is the theme of apostasy and restoration found among both groups. The scrolls indicate that the Qumran sectarians regarded themselves as the true Israel surrounded by spiritual traitors and false brethren in a corrupt world. They possessed the true covenant that God had restored or renewed with them. They went off by themselves to establish the

[cksalmon]

Perhaps, like the ancient Ebionites, he disagrees over what Jesus meant by "fulfilling the law and the prophets."

Disagrees with whom? Me? Is an Ebionite? I'm really not sure of your point. I highly doubt Ron denies the deity of Christ and eschews Paul, but he can speak for himself, I suppose.

My simple point is that "law and prophets" manifestly does not refer to the "law" only. At any rate, the point is not the nature of Christ's fulfillment of the Law, but the fact that Christ claimed to have come to fulfill not just the law, but also the prophets (if one accepts Matt. 5:17 as authentic). And, if that is the case, then Jesus certainly regarded the writings of the prophets to be "more than just anecdotes." Or, perhaps, Ron really means that Jesus believed the Nevi'im and Ketuvim to be merely (what, ahistorical?) "anecdotes." But, then, he'll have to reckon with Luke 24:27, as well. And Matt. 22:34-40.

(Not sure why we're using Greek here when the English works fine.)

Ron can keep up just fine, I'm sure.

Best.

cks

EDIT: I would suggest that ??? ????? ? ???? ???????? militates more toward our reading here a reference to the Tanakh entire, rather than to Torah alone.

[Joseph Antley]

Disagrees with whom? Me? Is an Ebionite? I'm really not sure of your point. I highly doubt Ron denies the deity of Christ and eschews Paul, but he can speak for himself, I suppose.

Purportedly the ancient Ebionites disagreed over the interpretation of that single passage. I was suggesting that Ron likely agrees with their interpretation. I'm not sure why you would think I was suggesting he agrees with all of the Ebionite doctrines, but perhaps I didn't make that as clear as I should have.

[cksalmon]

Purportedly the ancient Ebionites disagreed over the interpretation of that single passage. I was suggesting that Ron likely agrees with their interpretation. I'm not sure why you would think I was suggesting he agrees with all of the Ebionite doctrines, but perhaps I didn't make that as clear as I should have.

I see. That makes more sense. Do you have a reference?

Best.

cks