are there Christian denominations that reject the gospels and the old testament and only accept Paul's letters?

are there Christian denominations that reject the gospels and the old testament and only accept Paul's letters?

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Obviously not because Paul's letters referenced the Gospels and the Old Testament. There was a movement in the 2nd century called Marcionism, which rejected the Old Testament, but they kept only some of Paul's letters and an abridged form of Luke.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Paul's letters referenced the Gospels
      no they didn't.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Paul's letters predate the gospels.

        >Paul's letters referenced the Gospels
        They don't. His letters predate the Gospels. The only teaching of Jesus while he was alive that he references is the Last Supper.

        He quotes Luke. There was definitely an older tradition that the Gospels were based on, and that's what he references.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          According to https://youtu.be/qUtwaN7lQbU?si=JlpqxLBU6wvkc6M8&t=398 he quotes one of them outright

          That would be Q. The real Christian heresy should be rejecting everything but Q and Thomas.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which do you think makes more sense: that Paul is quoting the book by one of his closest companions, who he says in 2 Timothy 4:11 is the only one with him, which everyone since that time has universally called scripture; or that Paul is quoting an unknown ghost document that nobody else ever talks about which just happens to say the exact same things and just happened to put the words in the exact same form as Paul’s companion (despite the fact the Gospel writers were fine with modifying the words slightly as long as they gave the essence), and which people somehow completely forgot about?

            Its disappearance would be astoundingly strange: here you have something that a major Apostle is calling scripture, that is so well known that all he has to do is quote it and people know exactly what it is…but then it promptly vanished with nobody ever mentioning it again?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Book of Enoch is quoted throughout the NT and also vanished everywhere but Ethiopia, next

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No it didn't, we have Greek and Latin manuscripts (in fragmentary condition, but we have them) and it's discussed by early Christians quite a decent amount.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            And we have the full content of Q preserved in the gospels, next

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            And despite this phantom document supposedly being reworded in each Gospel, it just so happened that Luke directly quoted it and it just so happens that Paul did too?

            But despite two titans of the early church directly quoting it (according to you), and it being so well known Paul could just say to his audience "scripture says" and quote the thing, no source ever names it or describes it or discusses it and no copies exist or have ever even been mentioned as having existed?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If Q does exist it was probably just a collection of sayings of Jesus written down by one or several of his followers. I wouldn't be surprised if such a document did exist at one point. Luke noted in his own gospel he did research before writing so consulting such a document wouldn't be too strange.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly. The introduction of Luke clearly proves the existence of otherwise uncopied scriptural sources, so these anti-Q morons are deeply confused.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Q theory is ridiculous. We have every obscure little document anyone ever considered to perhaps be scripture discussed by early Christians but not one single person ever has the briefest mention of anything even like this document that's supposedly the very bedrock of the religion that the Gospels themselves are based on? It's borderline delusional.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Gospel of Thomas exists and like 2/3 of it accords with the synoptics. That very obviously proves that these sayings documents existed.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's because the "Gospel" of Thomas, like all Gnostic literature, is based on the New Testament. Gnostics were very well aware of the New Testament and make extensive use of it, with some like Marcion making their own edited versions. Gospel of Thomas is no different than those.

            Q is called a "sayings document" because it's a phantom generated by looking at similarities in the Gospels and imagining a written source behind all similarities. Quotes of the same words are the part of texts that are most likely to be similar, and so if you're lumping the similarities together into a pseudodocument then your result is going to include a lot of quotes.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is nothing inherently Gnostic about Thomas other than the incidence of its presence among other Gnostic texts in a library. The Gospel of John is more Gnostic than Thomas.
            Q likely did not even have a name, "the scripture" was probably how it was informally referred to by the very early Christian community. Its obsolescence, and lack of transmission to the majority of churches who had better narrative gospels, explains the lack of explicit discussion.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There is nothing inherently Gnostic about Thomas
            It's definitely Gnostic. Take where it says "congratulations to those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the kingdom. For you have come from it, and you will return there again". A major Gnostic idea was that spirit became trapped in the material world and needed to return.
            It's taking what Jesus taught in the Gospels and adding that Gnostic spin to it. Now instead of the Kingdom being something new like in the NT as we have it, it's where you originated in this document.

            Or where he says "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered a carcass, and whoever has discovered a carcass, of that person the world is not worthy" and "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered the body, and whoever has discovered the body, of that one the world is not worthy".

            Compare that to the Manichaean Kephalaia, which says "The worlds that are [above] are of soul and of spirit, but [the worlds that are] below are of body and [of] carcass...For this reason, then...he has sealed them upon their bodies and their carcasses that are in the lands...".

            That connection with Manichaean teachings is no surprise since we have an ancient source from the time explicitly telling us that the Gospel of Thomas is a Manichaean document. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote that "Manichæans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort", as you can read here: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.viii.html

            So really the only question on whether the Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic or not is whether you want to label Manichaeism as a type of Gnosticism.

            >other than the incidence of its presence among other Gnostic texts in a library
            It was a whole entire whopping collection of Gnostic texts, it's as if we found a book praising Muhammad beside a collection of tafsirs and had someone saying it was written by a Muslim.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Gospel of John is more Gnostic than Thomas
            literally in john 1:3 we read:
            > "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. "
            how is this gnostic you moron?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't care, Thomas is close to 0% Gnostic and John is maybe 10% Gnostic. The existence of non-Gnostic passages is completely irrelevant.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Paul's letters predate the gospels.

        According to https://youtu.be/qUtwaN7lQbU?si=JlpqxLBU6wvkc6M8&t=398 he quotes one of them outright

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          That guys voice is comically scary

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        how do you reconcile Acts without the Gospels?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Paul's letters predate the gospels.

        >Paul's letters referenced the Gospels
        They don't. His letters predate the Gospels. The only teaching of Jesus while he was alive that he references is the Last Supper.

        St Paul was with St Luke when he was writing his gospel, so it could be a retroactive reference in a way.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Paul's letters predate the gospels.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Paul's letters referenced the Gospels
      They don't. His letters predate the Gospels. The only teaching of Jesus while he was alive that he references is the Last Supper.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    im sure there has been. theres been at least one of anything. it would be so schizo tho they wouldn't have gotten enough people for it to be remembered.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's effectively Calvinism.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not really. Calvinism is very much indebted to the Old Testament, even more so than Catholicism, Lutheranism or Anglicianism

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe they weren't quoting an earlier written source, but the actual words and actions of Jesus?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Paul specifically says that "scripture says", so it must have been something written he was referring to in that specific passage

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah reformed baptists

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *