Priesthood did not function in the Earliest Christian Communities

[Abulafia]

Okay, so I don't expect to be agreed with, either by Catholics or Mormons, but my study of the earliest Christian communities has led me to believe that Jesus, John the Baptist, many of the early disciples,  and Paul (and all the Greek/Roman) converts, operated and acted outside of priesthood.  It's just not there.  these were groups that began on the borderline of a diverse faith tradition, and were different to, say, the Essenes at Qumran who claimed  authentic Jewish priesthood authority on and against the usurpers operating in Jerusalem.

 

Because there was no male priesthood, women were involed and led in ways not recognised today.  They taught, baptised, proselytised, and called on the power of God in their work. They were invited to partake at Jesus table and to judge the tribes...... as gentiles, men and women were called to judge the world (by Paul).

 

The Pope seems to have doubled down, of late, on women...sadly...but at some point...both Catholic priests and Mormon priesthood will need to recognise the sandy foundation upon which their authority is built..

 

Comments...

Edited November 29, 2016 by Abulafia
Punctuation

[Calm]

References for your claims would be nice.

[Abulafia]

Apologies.  Will do.  

[Boanerges]

I agree that the idea of no ancient priesthood authority is plausible. The Bible references to baptism make no direct references to authority, and I think the church only uses it as part of the "one true church" rhetoric. Without having something that makes it special, the one true church idea tends to fall apart. Since I'm not an orthodox believer and I'm willing to think outside the box of the rhetoric, baptism to me seems more about a personal symbolic witness and commitment than authority. I likewise don't see evidence that Jesus organized a church during his ministry and it sort of bugs me when that idea is taught in church. I think the apostles organized a church of sorts out of necessity, but I think the modern church has little resemblance to that organization.

[snowflake]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Okay, so I don't expect to be agreed with, either by Catholics or Mormons, but my study of the earliest Christian communities has led me to believe that Jesus, John the Baptist, many of the early disciples,  and Paul (and all the Greek/Roman) converts, operated and acted outside of priesthood.  It's just not there.  these were groups that began on the borderline of a diverse faith tradition, and were different to, say, the Essenes at Qumran who claimed  authentic Jewish priesthood authority on and against the usurpers operating in Jerusalem.

 

Because there was no male priesthood, women were involed and led in ways not recognised today.  They taught, baptised, proselytised, and called on the power of God in their work. They were invited to partake at Jesus table and to judge the tribes...... as gentiles, men and women were called to judge the world (by Paul).

 

The Pope seems to have doubled down, of late, on women...sadly...but at some point...both Catholic priests and Mormon priesthood will need to recognise the sandy foundation upon which their authority is built..

 

Comments...

When I read the new testament I would completely agree that there is no more priesthood.  Jesus is the High Priest forever! We have direct access to the Father through Jesus. Anyone confused on the subject should read Hebrews. 

[BlueDreams]

7 minutes ago, snowflake said:

When I read the new testament I would completely agree that there is no more priesthood.  Jesus is the High Priest forever! We have direct access to the Father through Jesus. Anyone confused on the subject should read Hebrews. 

I did, several times. It was one of the readings that made me believe there was priesthood, so I don't follow. I do agree with everything but your first sentence. The idea is not in conflict with there being priesthood, particularly the LDS version. If I had to make a rough analogy on "connection" it's like having several different modes of online connection from different devices from one router.

But I'll wait for more of what abulafia has to show. I'm curious to see where the conclusions comes from. I personally don't have a lot of background in early christian anything. My first thought was at some pout our early history didn't function as well with organized priesthood authority, however short. 

 

With luv, 

BD

[Abulafia]

Okay,  I am looking at the (generally accepted), earliest documents only.  So, Hebrews,  written by an anonymous author, and dated later, doesn't occupy my immediate interest.

 

My sources are therefore Mark, Q and the unique contents of Matthew and Luke (particularly relevant for the  nativity stories), and also the 7 genuine letters of Paul, taken in date order.  I place more importance onthe gospel  material, despite Paul's earlier witness, because the gospels seeks specifically to record parts of Jesus' life, whether historical or not,  they can tell us much about the communities from which they sprang, and how later authors adapted Mark.

 

The order of Paul's genuine letters I assume as 1Thess, Galatians, 1, 2  Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, and Romans. (50 to 57ce)

 

All texts have been edited, and messed with, if you like, but they are the best we have. 

 

Background practice for rites that became central Christian institutions such as the eucharist and baptism  are interesting to look at because they are,  at heart, Jewish practices, so Synagogue traditions are interesting to investigate (Lee Levine and B Brooten's research in particular is enlightening).

 

Is there also a relationship between a view of God as Hermaphrodite/Divine Couple, that impacts upon how women  could function, (based around Genesis 1:26, 27)?  I believe there is, and this is shown in groups that developed with women as prophetesses,   coequals, in later groups who came to be seen as heretical. 

 

So, lots of strands.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Abulafia
Sp

[snowflake]

45 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I did, several times. It was one of the readings that made me believe there was priesthood, so I don't follow. I do agree with everything but your first sentence. The idea is not in conflict with there being priesthood, particularly the LDS version. If I had to make a rough analogy on "connection" it's like having several different modes of online connection from different devices from one router.

But I'll wait for more of what abulafia has to show. I'm curious to see where the conclusions comes from. I personally don't have a lot of background in early christian anything. My first thought was at some pout our early history didn't function as well with organized priesthood authority, however short. 

 

With luv, 

BD

When you look at the levitical priesthood of the OT and the role of the priests, and compare it to what the LDS church has created they look nothing the same. There is no "restoration", it is a gross perversion. For example Numbers 8:24-26 tells us the age requirements of the Levites.

²⁴ This is it that belongeth unto the Levites: from twenty and five years old and upward they shall go in to wait upon the service of the tabernacle of the congregation:

²⁵ And from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting upon the service thereof, and shall serve no more:

²⁶ But shall minister with their brethren in the tabernacle of the congregation, to keep the charge, and shall do no service. Thus shalt thou do unto the Levites touching their charge.

So the LDS have teenagers who are not levites claiming to have "priesthood authority", totally unbiblical! 

[Abulafia]

So, to take Mark specifically. The narrative reflects a society led  by men, economically, religously and politically.  This was a text (as were all the texts), written  by a man, with a man's perspective emerging from each page.  However, within the male  bias, is the nuance. Mark's Jesus is liberal with authority.   So, the disciples, (Mark prefers this term in some of the early texts, over apostle), are given a role of teaching, authority to cast out demons, and later to call to repentance and anoint and heal the sick.  Mark appears to recall a time when there were only 4 core followers.  Simon, Andrew, James, and John...later joined by Levi, making five.  

The lack of knowledge and contradictions between the gospels onwho the *twelve* were, may suggest a later development,  but this view is ameliorated somewhat by Paul's recollection of 12 in 1 Corinthians,...though his listings have problematic issues attached. So, Paul, separates the 12 from Cephas...for instance.

John functions outside of priesthood in  Mark.  Although Tertullian (On baptism ANFVol 03.07-2nd CE) feels only men should baptise, we just aren't told much in the gospels either way.  Purification rituals took a variety of forms within Judaism,  including self baptism,  being baptized naked (where men would stand at the side for modesty with women in the water), and being baptised fully clothed..practice was most likely diverse, and the theological reasonind developed.

 

See also Shaye Cohen..Judean Legal tradition, in Fonrobert and Jaffee, Camb  Companion to the Talmud, also Josephus, Jewish War, Bk 11, 8.13,  also Satlow, Jewish Constructions of  Nakedness.., JBL Vol.116, 3, 446, and finally Apostolic  Constitutions, ANF, 3.2.16

 

 

[Abulafia]

Continuing on Mark, it isn't necessarily the men who organise and make the passover meal.  Yep, sure, they turn up later in the day..but women were almost certainly there. (See Philo Spec. 2.14y, and Smith and Taussig, Meals in the Early Christian World,  93, 94).

 

Mark and Matthew ( not Luke and John) preserve a tradition of a woman anointing Jesus' head.  Not his feet.  His head.  Although the gospels are coy about this episode,(in terms of its function) head anointing was, in some circles, a priestly tradition. Yet here is a woman performing this important function, which  may have only later been assigned to a death ritual (the traditional realm of women).

 

 

[Abulafia]

The end of Mark, is really where women come into their own. (Mark15)  We finally hear that women, all along, have been following Jesus, and providing for the earlist group.   Diakonoun is used here, and parikolouzisas implies active following (sim to the Therapeutae).  These were not passive women.  Mark also praises women, who stay with Jesus at his  crucifixion.   Unlike the men, they don't leave.

[Abulafia]

All this needs to be seen in terms of a tradition emerging from the margins.  The sick, the disenfranchised, the powerless, the underdog, (as can be seen most clearlyfrom Q).  

 

I'll deal with that next,  if that's okay, and I am not  boring people too much.

[Michael Sanders]

5 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Okay,  I am looking at the (generally accepted), earliest documents only.  So, Hebrews,  written by an anonymous author, and dated later, doesn't occupy my immediate interest.

 

My sources are therefore Mark, Q and the unique contents of Matthew and Luke (particularly relevant for the  nativity stories), and also the 7 genuine letters of Paul, taken in date order.  I place more importance onthe gospel  material, despite Paul's earlier witness, because the gospels seeks specifically to record parts of Jesus' life, whether historical or not,  they can tell us much about the communities from which they sprang, and how later authors adapted Mark.

 

The order of Paul's genuine letters I assume as 1Thess, Galatians, 1, 2  Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, and Romans. (50 to 57ce)

 

All texts have been edited, and messed with, if you like, but they are the best we have. 

 

Background practice for rites that became central Christian institutions such as the eucharist and baptism  are interesting to look at because they are,  at heart, Jewish practices, so Synagogue traditions are interesting to investigate (Lee Levine and B Brooten's research in particular is enlightening).

 

Is there also a relationship between a view of God as Hermaphrodite/Divine Couple, that impacts upon how women  could function, (based around Genesis 1:26, 27)?  I believe there is, and this is shown in groups that developed with women as prophetesses,   coequals, in later groups who came to be seen as heretical. 

 

So, lots of strands.

How about starting in the Book of Acts - several accounts found there that support priesthood calls via the holy ghost to authorized servants, degrees of priesthood authority (some can baptize with water, but not confer the holy ghost), priesthood structures over local church assemblies with higher priesthood over the church abroad.  Again, you just have to know what you are looking for and read it with the right lens!!! 

Several proof texts that square quite nicely with latter-day revelation claims.

Mike

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Abulafia said:

So, to take Mark specifically. The narrative reflects a society led  by men, economically, religously and politically.  This was a text (as were all the texts), written  by a man, with a man's perspective emerging from each page.  However, within the male  bias, is the nuance. Mark's Jesus is liberal with authority.   So, the disciples, (Mark prefers this term in some of the early texts, over apostle), are given a role of teaching, authority to cast out demons, and later to call to repentance and anoint and heal the sick.  Mark appears to recall a time when there were only 4 core followers.  Simon, Andrew, James, and John...later joined by Levi, making five.  

The lack of knowledge and contradictions between the gospels onwho the *twelve* were, may suggest a later development,  but this view is ameliorated somewhat by Paul's recollection of 12 in 1 Corinthians,...though his listings have problematic issues attached. So, Paul, separates the 12 from Cephas...for instance.

John functions outside of priesthood in  Mark.  Although Tertullian (On baptism ANFVol 03.07-2nd CE) feels only men should baptise, we just aren't told much in the gospels either way.  Purification rituals took a variety of forms within Judaism,  including self baptism,  being baptized naked (where men would stand at the side for modesty with women in the water), and being baptised fully clothed..practice was most likely diverse, and the theological reasonind developed.

 

See also Shaye Cohen..Judean Legal tradition, in Fonrobert and Jaffee, Camb  Companion to the Talmud, also Josephus, Jewish War, Bk 11, 8.13,  also Satlow, Jewish Constructions of  Nakedness.., JBL Vol.116, 3, 446, and finally Apostolic  Constitutions, ANF, 3.2.16

 

 

I've heard that some people think that Luke was written by a woman, given the prevalence of strong female characters in the Lukan text. 

[juliann]

5 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Okay,  I am looking at the (generally accepted), earliest documents only.  So, Hebrews,  written by an anonymous author, and dated later, doesn't occupy my immediate interest.

 

My sources are therefore Mark, Q and the unique contents of Matthew and Luke (particularly relevant for the  nativity stories), and also the 7 genuine letters of Paul, taken in date order.  I place more importance onthe gospel  material, despite Paul's earlier witness, because the gospels seeks specifically to record parts of Jesus' life, whether historical or not,  they can tell us much about the communities from which they sprang, and how later authors adapted Mark.

 

The order of Paul's genuine letters I assume as 1Thess, Galatians, 1, 2  Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, and Romans. (50 to 57ce)

 

 

I don't understand why you would eliminate Hebrews but then use such sources as Tertullian. 

Quote

Is there also a relationship between a view of God as Hermaphrodite/Divine Couple, that impacts upon how women  could function, (based around Genesis 1:26, 27)?  I believe there is, and this is shown in groups that developed with women as prophetesses,   coequals, in later groups who came to be seen as heretical. 

Nice to have you back!  Are you referring to the Montanists? I have seen nothing to indicate that those prophetesses were coequals. Tertullian, a Montanist,  was a misogynist on steroids. Woman was the "gate of the devil" or something like that. 

I certainly do think the claims of a restoration of an exact NT church are exaggerated by the church (and that they will have to back up and deal with this as they are now doing on other topics.) But even so, it does not erase the claims of modern revelation when it comes to modern priesthood. 

[Jude2]

Well I believe the Bible very much establishes the priesthood and a male one at that! 

In 1 Peter he is addressing several different groups, the first group are the men or ‘brethren’ of the Church. The second group are  those who are “Servants” in chapter 2:18. The third group in chapter 3 “ Likewise, ye wives,”  and then the husbands. Then in vs. 8 he address the church as a whole. 

*In Peter’s opening statement in chapter 1 to the brothers of the church Peter writes

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers  ….Elect/chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit,…..

Speaking of the Melchisedec priesthood the writer of Hebrews said;

“…no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” 

And that is Peter’s point, 

Peter is referencing Jeremiah’s calling 

4 Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. 

He says like Christ who was “foreordained before the foundation of the world” they too were chosen before the foundation of the world. 

“ Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently…”

He’s  speaking of the brethren of the priesthood .

In chapter 2 he calls Jesus a living stone and also says;

“Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ…. ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth …. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood….” 

They most definitely had a brotherhood or priesthood of men. 

Even Jesus did not take this power unto himself, he was given the power 

Heb 5
 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Jesus gave this power to his apostles to heal the sick and cast out devils. He also gave them the power to baptize and give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.  
He gave Peter given “ the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven….” 
Ananias layed his hands upon Paul healing him and giving him the Holy Ghost. 
Paul went about ordaining Elders and Bishops. 
James said if anyone is sick among you call in the Elder to anoint with oil. 

And in Rev 1 John writes;

“Jesus Christ, ….And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father;…”  

The Bible is very clear about this priesthood power and warns us that in the last days there would be men which  would have  “..a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” 

Are you part of that group? 

[RevTestament]

12 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Okay, so I don't expect to be agreed with, either by Catholics or Mormons, but my study of the earliest Christian communities has led me to believe that Jesus, John the Baptist, many of the early disciples,  and Paul (and all the Greek/Roman) converts, operated and acted outside of priesthood.  It's just not there.  these were groups that began on the borderline of a diverse faith tradition, and were different to, say, the Essenes at Qumran who claimed  authentic Jewish priesthood authority on and against the usurpers operating in Jerusalem.

Because there was no male priesthood, women were involed and led in ways not recognised today.  They taught, baptised, proselytised, and called on the power of God in their work. They were invited to partake at Jesus table and to judge the tribes...... as gentiles, men and women were called to judge the world (by Paul).

The Pope seems to have doubled down, of late, on women...sadly...but at some point...both Catholic priests and Mormon priesthood will need to recognise the sandy foundation upon which their authority is built..

Comments...

I have nothing against women - I believe they are some of our finest citizens and church members, however, there is not one scriptural iota of evidence, and almost no historical evidence to support there ever being women in the priesthood or performing baptisms, etc. There is, however, a plethora of both scriptural and historical evidence to for a "male priesthood" contrary to your assertions. Bishops and priests are recorded as attending the Nicene Council - and no, none were women. So your bald assertions hold no scriptural nor historical weight.

10 hours ago, Boanerges said:

I agree that the idea of no ancient priesthood authority is plausible. The Bible references to baptism make no direct references to authority, and I think the church only uses it as part of the "one true church" rhetoric. Without having something that makes it special, the one true church idea tends to fall apart. Since I'm not an orthodox believer and I'm willing to think outside the box of the rhetoric, baptism to me seems more about a personal symbolic witness and commitment than authority. I likewise don't see evidence that Jesus organized a church during his ministry and it sort of bugs me when that idea is taught in church. I think the apostles organized a church of sorts out of necessity, but I think the modern church has little resemblance to that organization.

There is plenty of evidence that "Jesus organized a church during his ministry." He may not have built buildings but He called 12 apostles, and the NT also mentions Him calling "other seventy." Then we are told about priests in Peter, and bishops and deacons in Timothy. I don't know how you can conclude from that Jesus did not organize a church. Quite the opposite.

8 hours ago, snowflake said:

When I read the new testament I would completely agree that there is no more priesthood.  Jesus is the High Priest forever! We have direct access to the Father through Jesus. Anyone confused on the subject should read Hebrews. 

They should also read Timothy, which talks about their prerequisites for being called as a bishop or a deacon. They should also read Peter who talks about being members of a holy priesthood. An yes, they should also read Hebrews:

Hebrews 8:3

3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

7 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Okay,  I am looking at the (generally accepted), earliest documents only.  So, Hebrews,  written by an anonymous author, and dated later, doesn't occupy my immediate interest.

My sources are therefore Mark, Q and the unique contents of Matthew and Luke (particularly relevant for the  nativity stories), and also the 7 genuine letters of Paul, taken in date order.  I place more importance onthe gospel  material, despite Paul's earlier witness, because the gospels seeks specifically to record parts of Jesus' life, whether historical or not,  they can tell us much about the communities from which they sprang, and how later authors adapted Mark.

The order of Paul's genuine letters I assume as 1Thess, Galatians, 1, 2  Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, and Romans. (50 to 57ce)

All texts have been edited, and messed with, if you like, but they are the best we have. 

Background practice for rites that became central Christian institutions such as the eucharist and baptism  are interesting to look at because they are,  at heart, Jewish practices, so Synagogue traditions are interesting to investigate (Lee Levine and B Brooten's research in particular is enlightening).

Is there also a relationship between a view of God as Hermaphrodite/Divine Couple, that impacts upon how women  could function, (based around Genesis 1:26, 27)?  I believe there is, and this is shown in groups that developed with women as prophetesses,   coequals, in later groups who came to be seen as heretical. 

So, lots of strands.

These "strands" do not support your position. You have made specific allegations, which you have completely failed to support. See the other scriptures I have alluded to above to learn that the scriptures do teach of a continuing priesthood, and they do NOT teach of a hermaphrodite god.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Jude2 said:

 

The Bible is very clear about this priesthood power and warns us that in the last days there would be men which  would have  “..a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” 

Are you part of that group? 

The only reason to include this rudeness is because you offer so little before it. You have given theological reasons that do not stand up to academic scrutiny. You cannot just pop out verses from different authors, times, and places and create a sermon as a substitute. You do have to deal with what is there....and where it is. 

[Abulafia]

Okay, let me try and explain my methodology a little better.  I am not arguing that a male priesthood didn't *become* orthodoxy.  It certainly did.  Ignatius, Tertullian were all about male leadership.  Male leadership is also seen in later writings that made it into canon...so Acts ( very likely also written, in part,  by Luke), 1 Peter,  Revelation, Hebrews and the Pastorals reflect that.  My interest is in the earliest writings from the earliest communities, which is why I concentrate on Mark, Q, L, M and the 7 undisputed letters of Paul.  

[Abulafia]

To explain *Q*, Matthew and Luke appear to copy from Mark, but they also change Mark in places.  They also appear to have another source which they both copy, but which is not part of Mark.  Thus Q...which I accept as a very early list of Jesus' sayings.

M and L refers to material that is unique to Matthew and unique to Luke, and again, analyzing unique aspects can reveal the bias of the authors...so M is very much more male orientated than L, though, for me, L is a man, but a man who takes note of his female audience.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Abulafia
Punctuation

[Abulafia]

For special Matthean and Lukan material, I use Brice C Jones useful book, which lays it out quite neatly in one place.  For Q, I use both Kloppenborg and  Miller's versions which differ slightly. Kloppenborg's version is available online.

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, snowflake said:

When you look at the levitical priesthood of the OT and the role of the priests, and compare it to what the LDS church has created they look nothing the same. There is no "restoration", it is a gross perversion. For example Numbers 8:24-26 tells us the age requirements of the Levites.

²⁴ This is it that belongeth unto the Levites: from twenty and five years old and upward they shall go in to wait upon the service of the tabernacle of the congregation:

²⁵ And from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting upon the service thereof, and shall serve no more:

²⁶ But shall minister with their brethren in the tabernacle of the congregation, to keep the charge, and shall do no service. Thus shalt thou do unto the Levites touching their charge.

So the LDS have teenagers who are not levites claiming to have "priesthood authority", totally unbiblical! 

I didn't think, at any point, that the restoration of priesthood was to mirror the levitical priesthood. Personally, I've come to think of it as a continuing echo and development as a restoration of all things, bringing into one. So I see echoes of the levitical priesthood acts in LDS priesthood order....and more. I also see a continued growth and development of our understanding in it as the restoration continues. So this kinda feels like a strawman to me. Gross perversion also seems a little extreme in description. I personally use that for something actually gross or perverted....at the very least maybe a little creepy. Teen priests aren't creepy. I mean their acne can get a little much. But they'll grow out of it . 

 

With luv,

BD

[Abulafia]

I don't use Hebrews as a source along with Mark, Q, M, L and the 7 undisputed letters of Paul, because I assume it to be written later, along with the Pastorals, Revelation, John, 1 Peter etc.  An anonymous author, probably from Rome.  Useful for seeing development but not for digging for the very earliest communities.  

[Jude2]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

The only reason to include this rudeness is because you offer so little before it. You have given theological reasons that do not stand up to academic scrutiny. You cannot just pop out verses from different authors, times, and places and create a sermon as a substitute. You do have to deal with what is there....and where it is. 

 

No, I did not intend to be rude but I wanted him to think through what he was saying, he's denying there is a priesthood power. So..... is he part of that group?  

P;ease stop the personal comments or you will be removed from the thread.

[Jude2]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Okay, let me try and explain my methodology a little better.  I am not arguing that a male priesthood didn't *become* orthodoxy.  It certainly did.  Ignatius, Tertullian were all about male leadership.  Male leadership is also seen in later writings that made it into canon...so Acts ( very likely also written, in part,  by Luke), 1 Peter,  Revelation, Hebrews and the Pastorals reflect that.  My interest is in the earliest writings from the earliest communities, which is why I concentrate on Mark, Q, L, M and the 7 undisputed letters of Paul.  

 

I prefer to use the whole word of God, we believe the Bible to be the word of God, and not try to second guess what is there.or cross out some of the Apostles over preference to others..