Ayomivic:

Apocrypha -according to dictionary meaning- n. Those bonk of Old Testament not accepted as part of Hebrew Scripture

Apocryphal - : Adj. (of a story widely circulated but unlikely to be truth.

Realy, the verse you quoted sound like cook up verse.Pls don't quote from that book again.

Do you honestly think the history of Christianity begins and ends with the Bible? Don’t you consider others had view -points that were perhaps not recorded in the NT canons ? The question was asked whether there was rancour between Peter and Paul, given the Job Luke has done in the NT presenting a unified front between men, there were others who had plenty to say, many apocrypha books you dismiss so airily formed a part of your early scriptures, ever heard of the Shepherd of Hermas ?

maestroferddi: Proofs? Marcion was an excommunicated heretic/Ebionite...

You really should get your facts right. Marcion was a champion of Paul. He affirmed Jesus to be the saviour sent by the Heavenly Father, and Paul as his chief apostle. In contrast to the Christian church at the time, Marcion declared that Christianity was in complete discontinuity with Judaism and entirely opposed to the Old Testament message. Yes he was considered heretical.....he was never an Ebionite.

maestroferddi: @Sarassin. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On the question of whether Paul was a Roman citizen, I refer you to a certain Cornelius (see references in Acts), a high ranking commander of the Italian band whose devotion was attested to in the bible. Cornelius was in all probability not practising Roman paganism but was nonetheless a Roman citizen. The Roman empire was not a theocracy like say the latter-day Islamic caliphates.

Do you ever answer a simple question?
I ask you again, did Paul ever refer to himself as a Roman citizen ?

Here are more contradictions from Paul on the teachings of Christ. Please focus on the message and not the messenger, I did not write the bible:

On whom God has mercy:
Paul says:

Rom.9
[15] For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
[16] So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy.
[18] So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.

Jesus says:

Matt.5[7] Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

On forgiveness of trespasses:

Paul says:

Eph.1[7] In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace
Rom.4 [25] who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Jesus says:

Matt.6[14] For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you;
[15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

On being justified:

Paul says:

Rom.3[24] they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
[28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Rom.5[9] Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Jesus says:

Matt.12[37] for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

On the cost of eternal life:

Paul says:

Rom.6[23] For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Jesus says:

Matt.19[29] And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.
Luke.14[28] For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?
[33] So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

On what is honorable among men:

Paul says:

2Cor.8[21] for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord's sight but also in the sight of men.
Rom.12[17] Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all men.
Rom.14[18] he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
1Cor.10[33] just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

Jesus says:

Luke.16[15] But he said to them, You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
Luke.6[26] Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

On your father:

Paul says:

1Cor.4[15] For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Phlm.1[10] I appeal to you for my child, Ones'imus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment.

Jesus says:
Matt.23[9] And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

My take is this:
"God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through?" - Numbers 23:19

Sarassin:

Quite disappointing really, to think I actually took you seriously for one second, this is nothing but high-falutin incoherency. “Quasi-historical” indeed, is that biblical speak for “half-truths”?

Are you having comprehension issues or what? The book of the Acts of the Apostles is a quasi-historical read partly historical. It laid the building blocks on the evolution of the New Testament church after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. You don't expect basic chronological facts/information provided in the Acts to be redundantly repeated further in the New Testament. Why? Because God who we believe inspired the entire Bible possesses infinite knowledge and does not make sloppy mistakes. The very fact that the Acts, written under divine inspiration by Luke The Evangelist-a different author-but yet the facts and historicity of the book dovetailed seamlessly with the rest of the New Testament ought to have been clear to you.

Sarassin:

Do you honestly think the history of Christianity begins and ends with the Bible? Don’t you consider others had view -points that were perhaps not recorded in the NT canons ? The question was asked whether there was rancour between Peter and Paul, given the Job Luke has done in the NT presenting a unified front between men, there were others who had plenty to say, many apocrypha books you dismiss so airily formed a part of your early scriptures, ever heard of the Shepherd of Hermas ?

Oga, I believe a little grasp of definitions will help your cause. What is canon? Why were the anecdotal writings you are flaunting all over the place considered apocryphal?

Sarassin:

You really should get your facts right. Marcion was a champion of Paul. He affirmed Jesus to be the saviour sent by the Heavenly Father, and Paul as his chief apostle. In contrast to the Christian church at the time, Marcion declared that Christianity was in complete discontinuity with Judaism and entirely opposed to the Old Testament message. Yes he was considered heretical.....he was never an Ebionite.

I am afraid your assertion is conspicuous by its sheer illogicality. I am sure you know that Paul predated Marcion. You do need to tell us that Paul's ministry were Marcion's invention; that the full gamut of Paul's bibliography was not know to the church till Marcion appeared on the stage. You also need to let also know how Marcion, a supposed major contributor/Paulite of the New Testament cannon only succeeded in getting himself daubed with the hue of heresy when he ought to have been celebrated. I suppose you know the attitude of the extant church on heretics and their postulations. Can you see that your wild speculations do not hold water? Who, BTW, is an Ebionite?

Sarassin:

Do you ever answer a simple question?
I ask you again, did Paul ever refer to himself as a Roman citizen ?

Not to detract that you have unwittingly gotten yourself in a double bind. You challenge/doubt Paul's Roman citizenship solely because he did not categorically say so himself. By extension, you are implying that because he did state same in any of his letters then it must be untrue. How pathetic! Your train of thought, you can see, is a blatant mockery of scholarship. So we should,for example, repudiate historical narratives on Julius Caesar just because Caesar did not write that he was a Roman emperor...? In any case, I see no reason why Paul should have been wearing his Roman citizenship on his sleeves to whoever cares to listen. If he had done so, I am sure you and your co-travellers would have accused him of pomposity. Prove to us also that Paul never made it to Rome in any case...

maestroferddi: Not to detract that you have unwittingly gotten yourself in a double bind. You challenge/doubt Paul's Roman citizenship solely because he did not categorically say so himself. By extension, you are implying that because he did state same in any of his letters then it must be untrue. How pathetic! Your train of thought, you can see, is a blatant mockery of scholarship. So we should,for example, repudiate historical narratives on Julius Caesar just because Caesar did not write that he was a Roman emperor...? In any case, I see no reason why Paul should have been wearing his Roman citizenship on his sleeves to whoever cares to listen. If he had done so, I am sure you and your co-travellers would have accused him of pomposity. Prove to us also that Paul never made it to Rome in any case...

I take it your answer is a No then !

maestroferddi: Oga, I believe a little grasp of definitions will help your cause. What is a cannon? Why were the anecdotal writings you are flaunting all over the place considered apocryphal?

If I were you, I would worry about your own definitions, a cannon is something you shoot!

The post was not directed at you, but since you take a scatter gun approach, the same question applies to you, have you read the now apocryphal Shepherd of Hermas ?

Sarassin:

I take it your answer is a No then !

Should I assume that you did not follow/read my thesis...?

Sarassin:

If I were you, I would worry about your own definitions, a cannon is something you shoot!

The post was not directed at you, but since you take a scatter gun approach, the same question applies to you, have you read the now apocryphal Shepherd of Hermas ?

Don't deflect issues over a minimal typographical error. The word intended was canon in lieu of the extra n "cannon" so please do get yourself back on track... PS: correction has been duly effected.

Sarassin:

If I were you, I would worry about your own definitions, a cannon is something you shoot!

The post was not directed at you, but since you take a scatter gun approach, the same question applies to you, have you read the now apocryphal Shepherd of Hermas ?

In addition, the apocryphal work you are referencing is not germaine to this discussion, at least from established scholarly standpoints.

maestroferddi: Should I assume that you did not follow/read my thesis...?

A simple Yes or No would have sufficed.

Sarassin:

A simple Yes or No would have sufficed.

*Deleted repetition*

Sarassin:

A simple Yes or No would have sufficed.

Could you, please, revisit my argument and engage accordingly? You are dragging me back.

maestroferddi: In addition, the apocryphal work you are referencing is not germaine to this discussion, at least from established scholarly standpoints.

The discussion was between myself and another, on a corollary issue.
So, since you apparently consider all apocrypha heretic, do share with us your valued opinion of the apocryphal Shepherd of Hermas.

The castigation so far received (mostly private) I guess is to be expected in dealing with any issues relating to Paul, for sure there are contradictions within the accounts of the author of the gospel Luke and Paul’s accounts of his life and ministry but I do not consider them falsehoods, they remain conflicting accounts, however there is a deeper issue with Paul, nobody encapsulates it as much as the words of the man I quote below, he is not a heretic, He is recognised as a saint by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church, and the Church of England (Anglican Communion).I have quoted extensively beyond the paragraph I required in order to provide adequate context and to avoid being accused of selective quotations. These are the words of none other than St. Jerome.

"......I will only mention the Apostle Paul, whose words seem to me, as often as I hear them, to be not words, but peals of thunder. Read his epistles, and especially those addressed to the Romans, to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians, in all of which he stands in the thick of the battle, and you will see how skilful and how careful he is in the proofs which he draws from the Old Testament, and how warily he cloaks the object which he has in view. His words seem simplicity itself: the expressions of a guileless and unsophisticated person-one who has no skill either to plan a dilemma or to avoid it. Still, whichever way you look, they are thunderbolts. His pleading halts, yet he carries every point which he takes up. He turns his back upon his foe only to overcome him; he simulates flight, but only that he may slay. He, then, if any one, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: "The proofs which you have used against the Jews or against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your epistles. We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory which in the volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all."

– St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13)

Sarassin:

The discussion was between myself and another, on a corollary issue.
So, since you apparently consider all apocrypha heretic, do share with us your valued opinion of the apocryphal Shepherd of Hermas.

The apocrypha in their entirety cannot be reliable reference materials for historicity and authenticity of the church canon. They grievously failed the crucible test for biblical canonicity.

Sarassin:
The castigation so far received (mostly private) I guess is to be expected in dealing with any issues relating to Paul, for sure there are contradictions within the accounts of the author of the gospel Luke and Paul’s accounts of his life and ministry but I do not consider them falsehoods, they remain conflicting accounts, however there is a deeper issue with Paul, nobody encapsulates it as much as the words of the man I quote below, he is not a heretic, He is recognised as a saint by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church, and the Church of England (Anglican Communion).I have quoted extensively beyond the paragraph I required in order to provide adequate context and to avoid being accused of selective quotations. These are the words of none other than St. Jerome.

"......I will only mention the Apostle Paul, whose words seem to me, as often as I hear them, to be not words, but peals of thunder. Read his epistles, and especially those addressed to the Romans, to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians, in all of which he stands in the thick of the battle, and you will see how skilful and how careful he is in the proofs which he draws from the Old Testament, and how warily he cloaks the object which he has in view. His words seem simplicity itself: the expressions of a guileless and unsophisticated person-one who has no skill either to plan a dilemma or to avoid it. Still, whichever way you look, they are thunderbolts. His pleading halts, yet he carries every point which he takes up. He turns his back upon his foe only to overcome him; he simulates flight, but only that he may slay. He, then, if any one, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: "The proofs which you have used against the Jews or against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your epistles. We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory which in the volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all."

– St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13)

My man no-one was castigating you. We have convincingly neutralised all the spurious arguments you were projecting to malign/impugn the canonicity of Pauline epistles. Stop whipping sentiments to paint a picture of victimhood.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I don't see anything in what St Jerome stated in the piece you quoted that harms or contradicts our case in the topic/matter under discussion. Infact, the quotation highlights all we have been saying all along...

maestroferddi: The apocrypha in their entirety cannot be reliable reference materials for historicity and authenticity of the church canon. They grievously failed the crucible test for biblical canonicity.

The problem of course is that today’s apocrypha is tomorrow’s canon. The shepherd of Hermas was considered scripture, it is still contained in the Codex Sinaiticus. Irenaeus referred to it as Scripture in his “against heresies” the “Muratorian Fragment” which is the earliest known compilation of the NT canons, also refers to it. I might add for good measure that the Muratorian Fragment did NOT contain the books 1 and 2 Peter, but I digress.

Maestro
I don't see anything in what St Jerome stated in the piece you quoted that harms or contradicts our case in the topic/matter under discussion

I didn't expect you to. I am sure the more erudite commentators here will come along and enlighten you.

Sarassin:

I didn't expect you to. I am sure the more erudite commentators here will come along and enlighten you.

Can you read between the lines to decipher what St Jerome was trying to point out? It goes beyond drawing impulsive conclusions.BTW, Your innuendo is way sterile...

Sarassin:

The problem of course is that today’s apocrypha is tomorrow’s canon. The shepherd of Hermas was considered scripture, it is still contained in the Codex Sinaiticus. Irenaeus referred to it as Scripture in his “against heresies” the “Muratorian Fragment” which is the earliest known compilation of the NT canons, also refers to it. I might add for good measure that the Muratorian Fragment did NOT contain the books 1 and 2 Peter, but I digress.

*Repetition deleted*

Sarassin:

The problem of course is that today’s apocrypha is tomorrow’s canon. The shepherd of Hermas was considered scripture, it is still contained in the Codex Sinaiticus. Irenaeus referred to it as Scripture in his “against heresies” the “Muratorian Fragment” which is the earliest known compilation of the NT canons, also refers to it. I might add for good measure that the Muratorian Fragment did NOT contain the books 1 and 2 Peter, but I digress.

Stop beating the air! The current biblical canon is over 1500yrs old. As the inerrant word of God, it has survived a fusillade of textual corruption from sundry sources. Even cataclysmic events like The Great Schism, the Protestant Reformation and the pentecostal movement were unable to change or add to the established bible canon. Instead the canon has been a rallying point among all christendom viz Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and all Protestantism. In few cases where some apocryphal works made it in some bibles, they were not subsumed with bible canon but kept separately as legendary literature.

maestroferddi: Stop beating the air! The current biblical canon is over 1500yrs old. As the inerrant word of God, it has survived a fusillade of textual corruption from sundry sources. Even cataclysmic events like The Great Schism, the Protestant Reformation and the pentecostal movement were unable to change the established bible canon. Instead the canon has been a rallying point among all christendom viz Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and all Protestantism. In few cases where some apocryphal works made it in some bibles, they were not subsumed with bible canon but kept separately as legendary literature.

All bluster and no substance ! You have a singular inability to deal with simple facts. So you do not accept that the book was ever considered scripture.

maestroferddi: Can you read between the lines to decipher what St Jerome was trying to point out? It goes beyond drawing impulsive conclusions.BTW, Your innuendo is way sterile...

The lines are direct, clear and succinct, you cannot possibly give it another interpretation. St. Jerome acknowledges Paul’s prowess in carrying out his evangelical work. He also accuses Paul of twisting the words of his doctrinal adversaries, the word I believe is “Calumny”.

And please try not to duplicate your posts, reading it once is tough enough, twice...is too much to take.

Sarassin:

All bluster and no substance ! You have a singular inability to deal with simple facts. So you do not accept that the book was ever considered scripture.

I will keep shooting down your speculative and futile arguments.xxxxxxxxxxxx Considered, but was ultimately thrown out. Has remained forgotten and spurious for over a millennium till you appeared. Let's see how far your feeble attempts will go in relaunching it to some degree of relevance especially to the very unwary...

Sarassin:

The lines are direct, clear and succinct, you cannot possibly give it another interpretation. St. Jerome acknowledges Paul’s prowess in carrying out his evangelical work. He also accuses Paul of twisting the words of his doctrinal adversaries, the word I believe is “Calumny”.

And please try not to duplicate your posts, reading it once is tough enough, twice...is too much to take.

Does it occur to you to factor in the context in which St Jerome made that statement or were you just rash in a vaulting desire to discredit apostle Paul?

maestroferddi: Does it occur to you to factor in the context in which St Jerome made that statement or were you just rash in a vaulting desire to discredit apostle Paul?

There can…and should be no doubt as to the meaning of the words of St. Jerome, I have given the context, he prefaces that statement with the following words;

“….And does not this meaning always make for victory? Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris write at great length against Celsus and Porphyry. Consider how subtle are the arguments, how insidious the engines with which they overthrow what the spirit of the devil has wrought. Sometimes, it is true, they are compelled to say not what they think but what is needful; and for this reason they employ against their opponents the assertions of the Gentiles themselves. I say nothing of the Latin authors, of Tertullian, Cyprian, Minutius, Victorinus, Lactantius, Hilary, lest I should appear not so much to be defending myself as to be assailing others……….”

He then goes on to speak only of Paul. There is no rush to discredit Paul on my part, Jerome hit the nail on the head.

Sarassin:

There can…and should be no doubt as to the meaning of the words of St. Jerome, I have given the context, he prefaces that statement with the following words;

“….And does not this meaning always make for victory? Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris write at great length against Celsus and Porphyry. Consider how subtle are the arguments, how insidious the engines with which they overthrow what the spirit of the devil has wrought. Sometimes, it is true, they are compelled to say not what they think but what is needful; and for this reason they employ against their opponents the assertions of the Gentiles themselves. I say nothing of the Latin authors, of Tertullian, Cyprian, Minutius, Victorinus, Lactantius, Hilary, lest I should appear not so much to be defending myself as to be assailing others……….”

He then goes on to speak only of Paul. There is no rush to discredit Paul on my part, Jerome hit the nail on the head.

Let me state that I am dwelling on the St Jerome angle of your argument purely on academic grounds. St Jerome, we all know was a respected church father and theologian as well as a bible translator. What you are building an argument on is nothing but a treatise/commentary on the style of Paul. The work was principally analysing Paul's theology and methodology by comparing him to extant scholars of his days. You don't truncate an author's arbitrarily to serve a devious purpose. In any case, there is no documented negative critique of Apostle Paul by St Jerome except this one you are trying to muster.

maestroferddi: Let me state that I am dwelling on the St Jerome angle of your argument purely on academic grounds. St Jerome, we all know was a respected church father and theologian as well as a bible translator. What you are building an argument on is nothing but a treatise/commentary on the style of Paul. The work was principally analysing Paul's theology and methodology by comparing him to extant scholars of his days. You don't truncate an author's arbitrarily to serve a devious purpose. In any case, there is no documented negative critique of Apostle Paul by St Jerome except this one you are trying to muster.

To say I truncated the author arbitrarily to serve a devious purpose is disingenuous at best, the quotation shows otherwise. Whichever way you consider the argument i.e on academic grounds (a new one for you) or on theological grounds, the outcome remains the same.

St. Jerome is very clear when he states that the latin authors use subtle arguments against Celsus. He criticizes them that they may sometimes say things considered "needful" and on occasion they may even employ the assertions of the Gentile themselves understandably. Of Paul, his criticisms are scathing, he accused him of calumny, you should look up the meaning of the word to grasp the seriousness. If Paul were truly inspired by God as Christians never tire of telling us, then why the need to resort to such underhand methods? Perhaps it is now your position that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to such calumnious acts.

You say there are no other negative opinions of Paul by Jerome? what a joke, how many more would you think would suffice? The statement is the opinion of Jerome on Paul the progenitor of Christianity as we have it today, a calumnious founder for all posterity.

And just out of curiousity, what does Justin Martyr have to say about Paul? Nothing, not a word, what about Josephus the historian who it is documented studied under Gamaliel and would have been a contemporary of Paul if not a fellow student had Paul actually attended? Not a comma concerning Paul, Lucian perhaps...? their silences......deafening, indictments....implicit.