In today’s post I want to give you an easy-to-understand breakdown of the 27 books that make up the New Testament.
First, I closed yesterday’s post by mentioning those four books that depict the life of Yeshua otherwise known as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Three of these books (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are called the synoptic gospels because they describe the events of Yeshua’s life from a similar point of view in sharp contrast to the book of John which is so Kabbalistic in nature, one would need a solid grounding in the more esoteric aspects of Judaism to even be able to begin to understand it.
This would be especially true when it comes to reading John’s prologue where it talks about the Word of God becoming flesh (which ain’t some new New Testament idea by the way).
Anyway, let’s get started.
The first thing you should know is that the Apostles Matthew, Mark and Luke did not…
…and I repeat they did NOT author the gospels that are named after them.
That’s right homies.
So who are the authors you say?
Well, nobody knows.
The author’s names are anonymous.
We also shouldn’t forget, there also exists a Gospel of Thomas and a Gospel of Judas that never made it into the NT canon (it’s pretty obvious why the Gospel of Judas wasn’t included).
The second thing you should know is according to the best historical information we have, at the earliest, the Gospels were written a good 20 years or so AFTER Yeshua was nailed to that Roman cross.
Finally, the third thing you should know is that the authors of all the Gospels were Jews.
And yes, that even goes for Luke who the Christian world looooooves to claim was some gentile physician who was prancing around with the apostles during the time of Yeshua.
Heck, even the Encyclopedia Brittanica isn’t 100% sure who Luke was.
Here’s what they say:
“Luke was a physician and possibly a Gentile. He was not one of the original 12 Apostles but may have been one of the 70 disciples appointed by Jesus (Luke 10). He also may have accompanied St. Paul on his missionary journeys.”
“Possibly a Gentile”?
That don’t sound to confident too me.
Here’s what good ‘ole Wikipedia has to say…
“Many scholars believe that Luke was a Greek physician who lived in the Greek city of Antioch, Turkey in Ancient Syria, although some other scholars and theologians think Luke was a Hellenic Jew.”
“Some other scholars and theologians think Luke was a Hellenic Jew”?
Now that’s more like it!
Well, of course he was a Jew.
What else would he be?
Let’s move on.
Outside of the gospels, the New Testament contains another category of literature called the Epistles.
So what exactly is an “Epistle”?
An Epistle is a letter written by a leader of a church that is normally directed to a specific people group.
For example you have Paul’s letters directed to the Corinthians or to the Romans etcetera.
And speaking of Paul, he’s the man who composed most of the Epistles we find in the New Testament.
Again, it’s pretty obvious that the content of these letters are totally different from what we find in the Hebrew Bible and should NOT be treated as Scripture.
You read that right and let me say it again for darn good measure.
The Epistles of the Apostle Paul should NOT be treated as God-breathed Holy Scripture like many Christian congregations mistakenly do.
That’s why we have this ridiculous mess of over 27,000 different Christian congregations each promoting their own slant of what Paul said minus any solid grounding whatsoever in Torah.
Paul’s letters mainly deal with the various disputes and problems that arose at the many numerous congregations sprawled throughout the Roman Empire (which was HUUUGE at the time!).
One of his more controversial statements was…
“For if a woman does not cover her head,
she might as well have her hair cut off;
but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have
her hair cut off or her head shaved,
then she should cover her head.”
-1 Corinthians 11:6
Now are we take to that as a Scriptural command?
My answer?
Heelllll no!
We’re reading the letters of a man.
Don’t get me wrong?
I believe Paul’s commentary on the theological meaning and consequences of Yeshua’s death and resurrection were and are necessary.
Why do I say that?
Because the religious authorities of his day had certain preconceived notions of what they were looking for in a Messiah and Yeshua didn’t seem to fit any of them.
Therefore, Paul (who was a very educated Rabbi) had to step in and make the proper connections between what was written in the Hebrew Bible concerning the identity of the Messiah and what his role in dealing with sin was all about
Onward.
Contrary to what most people think, in Paul’s day, the supreme leader of the church was NOT Paul.
It was actually James, the half-brother of Yeshua.
He was leading a church headquartered in Jerusalem and the epistle he composed dealt with matters he was dealing with in his congregation there.
Finally, we come to the last category of books contained in the New Testament.
I’m referring to “Apocalyptic Literature” and its chief representative is primarily The Book of Revelations.
This book is very esoteric and is prophetic in nature because it reveals what will unfold during the end times when the Messiah comes to establish Torah rule over the entire world.
I’m done for today.
Very interesting information.
Glad you liked this Pauline. Be blessed and Shalom!
I am certain that Paul, who focussed more on the Gentile Church than any other Church leader, did NOT intend to lead ANYONE into Kaballah or esoteric post-Babylon post-Temple destruction Judaism…so why in the world would you imply he did? You have a penchant for “shock value” statments and firmness to get your points across, which I can support, and I agree with your firmness that the NT is a MIDRASH of Torah (the only one that does not reject Torah, btw) with the exclusive perspective that the New Covenant, initiated by Messiah and the giving of the Holy Spirit, will be completely fulfilled when we are “with Him and like Him.”
However…your statement requiring esoteric Judaism to understand the book of John is a blatant error in teaching. Got it? (added since you use that question to indicate what you consider a unquestionable point)
Please expound on your “take” on the bread=body issue that precipitated your reference to Kaballah…to clear your own statements of any error in communication of what you believe John was saying! Keep in mind: THAT IS A KEY AREA OF CONFUSION TO THOSE WHO WERE RAISED CATHOLIC AND TAUGHT TRANSUBSTANTIATION, EUCHARIST, ETC…so, please clarify your opaque Kaballah/esoteric Judaism reference in noble Berean Torah-friendly language as I truly want to know what you could possibly have meant that could be “tested to Torah” as Paul and 1John2:3, 3:4 and 5:3 clearly exhort!
–Sincere iron.