Of course you can, Christianity has never had a consensus on the canon ever in its existence. Neither did Judaism. If we had to accept every book that any Christian tradition called expired it'd be a Bible over 100 books big at this point.
-
-
Marcion's canon + John, Thomas, Judas would do it for me. Revelation, Luke-Acts, & the other stuff could go.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NocturnalSatyr @govt_slave
Hard disagree, we can't pick what we like and discard what we dislike, this will only amount to a kind of consumerist and syncretist mentality of creating a uniform 'canon' without understanding the underlying unity of Scripture
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AnarchicEvolist @govt_slave
You're presupposing a univocal series of scripture which isn't what we find when we read the Bible. Sometimes singular books don't agree with themselves, never mind the entire artificial corpus. I can't reconcile the Pastorals & Acts with Paul. I'd argue it's impossible.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NocturnalSatyr @govt_slave
Must remember that every book can be read on 4 levels, and that what seems contradictory on a lower level is resolved on a higher level, this is especially relevant for 'inspired' works (but is also relevant for something like the Divine Comedy)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AnarchicEvolist @govt_slave
In some cases but the pastorals were deliberately (in my view) written to be polemical works against the original gnostic Paul. Co-opting his movement. Acts is an unreliable historical narrative that fucks with Paul's message and introduces ahistorical junk w/ Peter/Paul
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NocturnalSatyr @govt_slave
Eh, are there any major christian churches that exclude Acts?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AnarchicEvolist @govt_slave
No. But I could give a fuck. It's historically unreliable and I'd argue it's apart of that Lukan redaction community that messed with Marcion's gospel. There might be some true parts of it (I think the part where Christ quotes Dionysus is authentic) but it stems from prior trads
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NocturnalSatyr @govt_slave
Nah, I trust more in the early church fathers than in modern criticism of "historical unreliability"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AnarchicEvolist @govt_slave
The same church fathers who initially suspected the Petrine epistles of being forgery? The same fathers who didn't mention the pastorals til something like the 3rd century? The same fathers who never had a consensus on the canon? Please, you're grasping here.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Source for those claims?
-
-
Replying to @AnarchicEvolist @govt_slave
Yeah as a Catholic I used to study the formation of the Bible to combat Protestants. I know Origen first referenced 2 Peter and said it was alleged to be a forgery. Peshitta canon never included it either.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.