Nazarene Space

Did the Nazarenes use the Gospel of Peter?

Theodoret (5th century CE) commented that the Nazarenes made use of the Gospel of Peter. Some scholars today think his statement was made in error, but I am curious if anyone has researched this supposed connection.

Views: 254

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Child, did you read my messages?
The Christ uses the Psalms as a nickname for the Ketuvim, much as "law" is used as a nickname for Genesis, which is not a judicial book. But you don't even bother to read my messages, so maybe you shouldn't bother answering either.

Why does a book have to typify the Christ? Because he says so (Luke 24:27 "ALL the Scriptures"), and you'd know that if you bothered laying down your idiotic non-inspired texts and actually read the gospel of Luke for once.
Esther of course includes a Christ and YHWH-type figure in the shape of the King, as any Jew would tell you.

Try again, child.



Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:

Christian, the actual proper designation is the Law, Prophets, and the WRITINGS.

 

I ask you, why does it need to mention or typify the Christ or be prophetic to be Scripture?

 

Surely you don't think Esther is prophetic or typifying of Christ, do you?  Of course, you could just strain it out, and justify your inclusion of Esther by making it typify Christ.  But, truth is, you could probably make anything typify Christ if you tried hard enough and were cheap enough.

The NT is Scripture, the OT is Scripture, nothing else.
Everything else can be inspired, authentic, uncorrupt, but not "SCRIPTURE".

J. Jury said:
Interesting. So would you contend that the Apostolic Writings are not Scripture?

Christian said:
As I've said, a piece of text can be fully
  • authentic
  • inspired
  • uncorrupt
and STILL not be canonical Scripture !


That doesn't mean it cannot be gathered into some "apochryphal" collection, read, used for reproof and instruction in discipline and prudence, but it's not a part of the special, set-apart collection of books called Scripture.
The Messiah specifies three TaNaKic sections of Scripture, extant in the days prior to the writing of the NT, being:

Luke 24:27,44-45

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in (1) the Law of Moses, (2) the Prophets and (3) the Psalms. Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures."


He says "ALL the Scriptures", which he later defined as the contemporaneously extant Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim.

"The Law" refers to the Torah, the T in the Tanak, the five books of Moses, even the non-judicial parts.
"The Prophets" refers to the books of Joshua and Judges, the books of the kingdoms, the 4 major prophets and the 12 minor prophets, being the N in the taNaK.
"The Psalms" is a common way of referring to the Ketuvim, the K in the tanaK.

Incidentally, if you decide to ever read Luke 24, you'll find it abundantly clear that in order for something to be canonical, it MUST:
  • Mention the Christ, in type, literal description and/or prophecy.

In your "logical version" of Luke 24:44, Andrew, I'm sure you'd add to the word, by having the Messiah say: "...in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms, the Apochrypha, the pseudepigrapha, the apocalyptica, the elder edda, the qur'an, the lost writings of the areo-pagan, the pseudo-deutro-bladiblabla, the (list goes on for 5 chapters)"

 

where do you get the ridiculous notion that the old testament and new testament only is Scripture/canon?

 

from the Christians?

 

you can all snicker now, because it is clear that Christian's justification of this extremely flawed canon arises from the antinomian christians, who hold to a canon that is less than 600 years old (show me the existence of the 66 canon prior to 1500 AD; i'm not aware that one exists that is only the 66 books; all other lists either omit some of the 66 or have some extra ones outside of the 66, or both).

it does not mean all the Scriptures talk of Christ, but that He expounded to them all of the Scriptures that talked about Christ.  All of the Scriptures that did not speak about Christ He did not expound.
TRY AGAIN.

Read Luke 24:27, preferably the entire chapter, it makes it all abundantly clear, even to a troubled child as yourself.

Incidentally, all the true scriptures were considered canonical since the beginning.
UN-canonical scripture was sometimes honored alongside it, but never vice versa, so there is no problem.

Furthermore, you have yet to prove to me that any books beside "the 66" are scripture, and until you do that, your points are moot (don't you get that?); maybe you want to begin arguing that I should reject any of the 66 scriptures, in which case you should be killed.

I also find it annoying and childish how you always start asking new questions, whenever you cannot answer one of mine; whenever you feel flustered within one debate you start another, classy.


Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:

where do you get the ridiculous notion that the old testament and new testament only is Scripture/canon?

 

from the Christians?

 

you can all snicker now, because it is clear that Christian's justification of this extremely flawed canon arises from the antinomian christians, who hold to a canon that is less than 600 years old (show me the existence of the 66 canon prior to 1500 AD; i'm not aware that one exists that is only the 66 books; all other lists either omit some of the 66 or have some extra ones outside of the 66, or both).

1
Origen was a scholar well educated in the realm of both theology and pagan philosophy. Origen decided to make his canon include all of the books in the current Catholic canon except for four books: James, 2nd Peter, and 2nd and 3rd epistles of John.[15] He also included the Shepherd of Hermas which was later rejected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

I accept his 2nd century canon, excluding the Shepherd, and adding the four books he excluded.
I have a 2nd century canon which doubtlessly is the true one, and you have a modern, laughable invention.
Where's your stupid theories now ?

2
you have yet to prove to me that any books beside "the 66" are scripture, and until you do that, your points are moot (don't you get that?). You have yet to give me a reason to accept Jubilees or the deutro-psedo-shizzle you espouse.
Apparently you want to begin arguing that I should reject any of the 66 scriptures, in which case you should be killed. Calling the Scriptures for non-Scripture is a false witness, and you should be killed.

By the early 200s, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the Catholic New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation,[6] known as the Antilegomena. Likewise, the Muratorian fragment is evidence that perhaps as early as 200 there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[7] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the third century.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

All the 27 NT Scriptures have basically been always canon, whereas certain texts have been canonized alongside them.
I, like my forebears, have found these particular scriptures at fault, and therefore they have been removed from the Bible, to which they never rightfully belonged, such as the OBVIOUSLY corrupt versions of Enoch we have today.
EVERYBODY, inspired Christians, "logical atheists", Jews, EVERYBODY knows that the book of Enoch is corrupt, and the fact that you cannot see this makes your judgment totally unrespectable and impossible to take seriously.

only one problem anayahu..

 

most scholars agree that what you call the "gospel of peter" is not the same as the ancient original gospel of Peter which that one church father talked about that was used by Nassara..

 

it is evidenced that the original was destroyed by the church for it's "heretic" nature.. the current docetic "gospel of peter" has no resemblance to the original

Origen included many other books not in the 66, but any rate, he did include at least some other books than the 66, that much you agree with.  fact is, there is not extant record of any canon that matched the 66 prior to the protestant reformation.  Christian, you do NOT have second century canon which is the 66 books.  you edited Origen's canon to fit your modern day convention.  If you are going to base the canon on what was regarded as Scripture in the older times, you'd have no case to make for just the 66.  furthermore, some of the books of the 66 never has been universally regarded as Scripture.

 

Christian, where's the logic/reasoning in the criteria for your canon?  what is your criteria?  the way i see it, your criteria is based on nothing at all.  what makes the 66 books better than the others?  why do you reject the gospel of peter, which is proven to be accepted as Scripture by some people in the early second century, but you accept 3 john, which isn't proven to be accepted as scripture by some people until the third century?  i actually have an objective criteria for canon.  we can't say the same for you.  I accept all of the 66, as well as all the rest of the Scriptures that Yahuwah inspired for the chosen ones only.  You obviously are not a chosen one, for the fools reject the extra books, but the wise will always have the bigger canon that contains the so called "extra" books.  but, even if i didn't accept the 66, that does not warrant me the death penalty according to torah.  Also, if it did you'd have to condemn those wellintentioned nazarenes that reject paul because they think he is a hellenist.  They are messing with your untaintable canon, christian, you better condemn to death each and every one of those worms.  In the muratorian fragment, the Revelation of Peter was included as Scripture.  Again, there is no canon extant that matches the 66.  none whatsoever.  yes, there are many canons (though not all) that have the 66, there is no prior to the protestants that has all and only the 66 as their canon.  also, the muratorian canon is not dated so early by all scholars, and i myself am not sure when i'd date it, but its possible it was written much much later, as the scholars originally asserted.

 

Hey, Christian, this is a serious question for the sake of open mindedness.  could you sent me an email at some point of all the corruptions and errors and etc in the book of enoch that you think are such?  I've read it, and i am not aware of these massive errors, but perhaps you could point out to me them indepth.  though, i'm sure a few of them are viewed as corruptions by you only because you don't agree with its doctrines, so you have to resort to labelling it as corrupted, as there is no other way for you to deny it, because you know the authority the book of enoch would have if it wasn't corrupted.  so, you cling to your belief that is corrupted so that you don't have to follow its authority.

 

As to what you said friend Ishmael, most scholars say a lot of silly things.  There's nothing heretical in the Gospel of Peter.  sure htere are passages that are abused for heretical means, but nothing that actually was heretical in its intended meaning when written by Peter.

 

Gospel of Peter is not docetic in any way shape or form.  if it was, then it would rightfully be rejected.

You keep forcing me to repeat myself:
I accept Origen's 2nd century canon, excluding the Shepherd, and adding the four books he excluded.
I have referenced this canon with links and quotes, you just offer anecdotal unproven emotions, as is your hallmark.
I have a 2nd century canon which doubtlessly is the true one, and you have a modern, laughable invention.
Where's your stupid theories now ?

You keep condemning us all for not believing in your worthless books, though you've given us no reason to place any faith in them.
You have YET TO PROVE TO ME that any of the books you propagate are inspired, uncorrupt and worthy of being called canonical, whereas the HOLY SPIRIT, I don't know if you're familiar with her, she has revealed to me the canonicity of the 49 books, which you mistakenly count as 66.
The Holy Spirit is also the one who has revealed to me the existence of God; certain things come by faith, not that your "logical" mind can handle that.


You have clearly never done any real research on the development of the NT canon, and you completely reject the Holy Spirit's words through the Rabbis in regards to the OT canon; the fact that you consider Enoch uncorrupt is laughable.
You are so immature and absent-minded you disagree with every single Christian, Jew and logical Atheist scholar on everything, and you're basically asking the world to take your childish inventions more seriously than the weighed scholarly opinion of billions of elders.

All the 27 NT Scriptures have been canon since they were written, whereas certain texts have been canonized alongside them. There is no need whatsoever for "universal recognition" as you mention, as that would entail universal conversion to the true religion to begin with, idiot.
I, like my forebears, have found certain particular scriptures at fault, and therefore they have been removed from the Bible, to which they never rightfully belonged;
consider for example the corrupt versions of Enoch we have today.
Everybody, inspired Christians, "logical atheists", Jews, yes everybody knows that the book of Enoch is corrupt, and the fact that you cannot see this makes your judgment totally unrespectable and impossible to take seriously.

you are ridiculous.  i'll reply to this later, its way too late right now, and i want to go to sleep soon.

If we're going for "older is better", then what about the canon prior to the second century, which included books like Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, etc?

 

I do tend to agree that Enoch must be taken with a grain of salt. As Rabbi Trimm has said, the Nazarene beit din has canonized the Book of Enoch in its original form. Unfortunately, we do not have that form today. Thus, while I cherish the Book of Enoch, I am hesitant to accept its words as 100% straight from the mouth of God.


Christian said:

You keep forcing me to repeat myself:
I accept Origen's 2nd century canon, excluding the Shepherd, and adding the four books he excluded.
I have referenced this canon with links and quotes, you just offer anecdotal unproven emotions, as is your hallmark.
I have a 2nd century canon which doubtlessly is the true one, and you have a modern, laughable invention.
Where's your stupid theories now ?

You keep condemning us all for not believing in your worthless books, though you've given us no reason to place any faith in them.
You have YET TO PROVE TO ME that any of the books you propagate are inspired, uncorrupt and worthy of being called canonical, whereas the HOLY SPIRIT, I don't know if you're familiar with her, she has revealed to me the canonicity of the 49 books, which you mistakenly count as 66.
The Holy Spirit is also the one who has revealed to me the existence of God; certain things come by faith, not that your "logical" mind can handle that.


You have clearly never done any real research on the development of the NT canon, and you completely reject the Holy Spirit's words through the Rabbis in regards to the OT canon; the fact that you consider Enoch uncorrupt is laughable.
You are so immature and absent-minded you disagree with every single Christian, Jew and logical Atheist scholar on everything, and you're basically asking the world to take your childish inventions more seriously than the weighed scholarly opinion of billions of elders.

All the 27 NT Scriptures have been canon since they were written, whereas certain texts have been canonized alongside them. There is no need whatsoever for "universal recognition" as you mention, as that would entail universal conversion to the true religion to begin with, idiot.
I, like my forebears, have found certain particular scriptures at fault, and therefore they have been removed from the Bible, to which they never rightfully belonged;
consider for example the corrupt versions of Enoch we have today.
Everybody, inspired Christians, "logical atheists", Jews, yes everybody knows that the book of Enoch is corrupt, and the fact that you cannot see this makes your judgment totally unrespectable and impossible to take seriously.

Christian, you keep ignoring or just not getting the points.  So i will clarify.

 

I have stated that your canon is not testified by ANY one sole authority (for there is no extant record that i am aware of detailing all and only the 66 books being Scripture prior to the birth of the protestants.

 

You then argue that your canon is superior because it is the canon of the ancients but that's NOT true.  You add and exclude books from ancient canons, and then call your canon ancient; that's utterly absurd.  Christian, what you have done is akin to me rejecting the Apostolic constitutions but accepting the Book of Enoch.  For, you have rejected the Shepherd, which was regarded as Scriptural in most of the ancient canons, and have added four books that were rejected as Scriptural by some of the ancient canons.  Likewise, I could by the same logic claim my canon is ancient because I rejected the Apostolic Constitutions, which was regarded as Scriptural in some of the ancient canons, and have added the Book of Enoch and Jubilees that were rejected as Scriptural by some of the ancient canons.  When you use different canons and MIX them together contrary to how they were accepted, you cannot claim that that represents the ancient position.  So, the fact of the matter is, there is no canon that accepted only and all of the 66 books prior to the protestants.  There are canons that very close to the 66, but none are exactly the same.  So, for you to make the claim that your canon of 66 books is the one the nazarenes used from the start always while fine and dandy as an hypothesis, you have NO historical evidence that only and all the 66 were regarded as Scripture by all the early believers.  So, the question is, what is the basis of your foundation?  Its basis is quite clearly only founded in your extremely flawed notion of the Holy Spirit testifying only to these 66 books.  You believe that these 66 books just are special, and that they just seem different, and you just know that they are the only true canon, but your knowing of these things is not founded in anything observable, objective, rational, logical, or coherent.  Your claim to what the true canon is would be akin to me saying the Quran is Scripture because it's just so special, and it just seems different, and i just know that it is the only true Scripture (of course i reject Quran, but use it to illustrate the point).  I want an actual basis for you notion of canon, not some silly subjective notion of "the Spirit told me what I wanted to hear and would only believe".  You do NOT have a second century canon (at least in regards to what is extent).  You have a modern canon (at least in regards to what is extant) of less than 600 years old.  You have a canon that is perhaps close to a canon of the second century, or even third century, but to just arbitrarily include and excludes books from an ancient canon and then call that emmended version an ancient canon is unjustifiable.

 

As to the extra books and reason to the believe them, the reason would be rational, objective, and based on logic and reason rather than your blind faithism you hold to.  So, until you are willing to consider reasons for something that come from reason (this is only logical, for REASON comes from REASONing, not blind faithism)

 

As to how to count the 66 books, that is irrelevant.  Whether you count the number of books in your canon as 66, 60, 49, or 1, its still the same boundaries of content that are being concerned with, and thus it really is of no importance how you number it, except for historical understanding.

 

The Holy Spirit only reveals logical things.  She has NEVER once been known to reveal something that is founded in blind faithism rather logical rationanlism.

 

I have done extensive research in the development of the NT canon.  I have found that those that are prone to reject books come after the first three centuries.  You base your canon off apostate Jews and Christians.  That's about the silliest thing I have ever heard of.  I'm willing to consider Enoch is corrupt if you were to show me the evidence that its corrupt, not just to say "its corrupt" and then have me believe it.  The scholars of the world are, for the most part, major idiots.  I'm not saying to trust me on the canon.  I'm saying to trust logic on the canon, which you have ignored consistently.

 

I agree, there is no need for universal recognition, that was exactly my point. The fact that some of the 66 books were rejected allows for the possibility that those books are not Scripture, but not necessarily so.

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service