WI A BIBLE limited to the Gospels

If the Old Testament, Paul's spin doctoring and revelation were not part of the Bible as accepted by Christians how diffferent would the Church and Western European society be
 
Weren't St Paul's teachings the factor that turned Christianity from a simply large Jewish sect into a fully-fledged religion? I'd imagine that with just the Gospels, Christianity would almost certainly fade into obscurity.
 
They could still be influential, just not canonical. A lot of the stuff that makes the modern church go is nowhere in the Bible. But it isd still hard to see why the early Christians would want to do that. There was a group that favoured using the NT only (IIRC the Marcionites), but just the gospels takes that to a very radical point.

A way of achieving this would be to say early church fathers agreed on a formula by which the four Gospels were copnsidered divinely inspired, and the reast of the canon (Acts, Epistles, OT books, alternate Gospels, shepherd etc.) were considered useful, but not of equal rank with Scripture (something like what the Lutherans do with Maccabees). Throwing it all out seems too radical to be practical in an evironment where your claim to an ancient Jewish tradition is very important.
 
IMHO if they were going to use JUST thhe Gospels, you'd probably have a New Testament consisting of a dozen Gospels (Philip etc)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
1. I take offence at "spin doctoring".

2. You'd need to completely re-write and re-work the Gospels, as they're grounded through and through in the Law and Prophets. How can you declare Jesus the son of David and seed of Abraham if you cut out Genesis, Kings, Chronicles, the Psalms? Nonsensical. You'd also need something akin to Paul's letters to further delve into how, why and what Jesus was doing on the Cross, the New covenant, etc etc.
 
1. I take offence at "spin doctoring".

2. You'd need to completely re-write and re-work the Gospels, as they're grounded through and through in the Law and Prophets. How can you declare Jesus the son of David and seed of Abraham if you cut out Genesis, Kings, Chronicles, the Psalms? Nonsensical. You'd also need something akin to Paul's letters to further delve into how, why and what Jesus was doing on the Cross, the New covenant, etc etc.

Good point, I hadn't seen that the OP had removed the Old Testament too. Jesus' own teachings don't make sense without everything that he is referencing! All the "it is written" etc often references Isiah etc and was the religious standard of proof at the time!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
If the Old Testament, Paul's spin doctoring and revelation were not part of the Bible as accepted by Christians how diffferent would the Church and Western European society be

I am unsure whether or not I should tell how the Nazis agreed with that and wanted to eliminate those portions. Is it considered ad naseum Hitler?
 
I am unsure whether or not I should tell how the Nazis agreed with that and wanted to eliminate those portions. Is it considered ad naseum Hitler?

Nothing sinister about it, actually. It's twentieth-century fashion, basing your theology on the purported historical Jesus, going "back behind Paul" and using the OT to understand Jesus' teachings.
 
Nothing sinister about it, actually. It's twentieth-century fashion, basing your theology on the purported historical Jesus, going "back behind Paul" and using the OT to understand Jesus' teachings.

The poster was talking about removing the Old Testament, though.
 
Removing the Old Testament would also bring about an immediate break with Judaism far earlier, almost certainly leading to the persecution and extinction of Christianity within a generation of Christ's death. Christianity's early growth depended a lot on the legal protection afforded to it as a Jewish sect and the use of synagogues as pulpits to reach the local community. Unable to preach in the Temple or synagogues, they'd be branded as an atheist sect meeting in private, which I believe was illegal under Roman law.
 
Well, as has been pointed out, you'd need different gospels, and end up with a totally different Christianity. Probably actually one that was far less successful and didn't survive, but that's a different matter.

My biggest point is it wouldn't be "the Bible", as "Bible" is from the Greek "ta biblia" (the books) which was originally used to describe the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament/Tanakh/Hebrew Scriptures). Using "Bible" to name a collection that adds additional books to the existing "bible" makes sense. If you are throwing out the existing "bible", you're going to come up with a different name for it. "Scripture" might work (i.e. holy writings), but "gospels" (=Good News, =evangelion) is more likely, if that's all it is.
 
Removing the Old Testament would also bring about an immediate break with Judaism far earlier, almost certainly leading to the persecution and extinction of Christianity within a generation of Christ's death. Christianity's early growth depended a lot on the legal protection afforded to it as a Jewish sect and the use of synagogues as pulpits to reach the local community. Unable to preach in the Temple or synagogues, they'd be branded as an atheist sect meeting in private, which I believe was illegal under Roman law.

It was. The Pax Deorum (or peace with/of the Gods) was believed to be an integral part of the Pax Romana and the survival of the state, which included the Imperial Cult. Worshiping the gods was helping all those under Rome. That is why Christians were branded for "hating humanity."
 
Top