Paul's Epistles
- Thread starter canadianicon25
- Start date
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,422
- 26,864
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
They were readily and rather well received in the early Church and came to be read alongside the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings as Scripture.
As such they, like the rest of received Scripture, came to be regarded as holy and inspired, carrying the mark of divine authority for the Faithful.
The letters of St. Paul are among the least disputed books that came to be the New Testament, with them the Four Gospels and the Acts were received unanimously and without dispute or controversy. Even when others were such as the epistles of John, Peter, James, Jude, to the Hebrews, or the Revelation.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
- Jul 9, 2002
- 2,929
- 725
- 50
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
The above answers are correct. I would only add that the content of these letters resonated with the Spirit within the early Christians, and those letters were consistent with the understanding they had of what Jesus' life, death, and resurrection meant.
Upvote
0
GrayAngel
Senior Member
Peter, the leader of the first century church, also affirmed Paul's writings.
2 Peter 3:15-16 - Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Like the rest of the Bible, Paul's writings were God-breathed.
2 Peter 3:15-16 - Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Like the rest of the Bible, Paul's writings were God-breathed.
Upvote
0
The answers so far are correct, but may not be helpful to someone who is trying to understand Paul's role.
First, Paul's letters are our earliest source for Jesus. While the books aren't dated, it's nearly certain that at least the core letters were written before the Gospels. Paul's presentation of Jesus isn't as explicit as the Gospels, but he had met Peter and other disciples, so it's reasonable to think he had good sources.
But the real role of Paul was interpreting the significance of Jesus. First, the Gospels are before Jesus' death. Thus they don't deal very much with the significance of his death and resurrection for his followers. Second, they were written for Jews, and represent Palestinian culture. Paul interpreted Jesus' significance for Gentiles. Third, Paul helped early Christians deal with lots of practical issues that came up in livings as Christians.
It's pretty clear why Paul would be significant. However since a lot of what matters in Paul depends upon his interpretation, his personal authority is critical. He was controversial even in his time. There are a number of comments in the letters reflecting people who didn't accept his authority. He believed he had been commissioned directly by Christ. The early Church accepted this, and as far as I can tell treated him as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The approach generally continues today. However there are two caveats. First, a lot of Protestant thought seems to start with Jesus' death and resurrection, as interpreted by Paul, and gives that a lot more prominence that Jesus' teaching. The basic definition of what the Gospel is tends to be taken from Paul. You don't have to reject Paul's inspiration to wonder if this is the right approach. Second, Christians who accept critical thought wonder whether the change in perspective between Jesus' approach and Paul's reinterpretation may have lost something. During the 20th Cent a myth became common that Paul was the real founder of Christianity, and that his teaching had little to do with Jesus'. That's going way too far. But you don't have to be a skeptic to think it might be better to start with Jesus' own teaching, and use his concepts as the core structure, even while accepting Paul's interpretation as helpful.
First, Paul's letters are our earliest source for Jesus. While the books aren't dated, it's nearly certain that at least the core letters were written before the Gospels. Paul's presentation of Jesus isn't as explicit as the Gospels, but he had met Peter and other disciples, so it's reasonable to think he had good sources.
But the real role of Paul was interpreting the significance of Jesus. First, the Gospels are before Jesus' death. Thus they don't deal very much with the significance of his death and resurrection for his followers. Second, they were written for Jews, and represent Palestinian culture. Paul interpreted Jesus' significance for Gentiles. Third, Paul helped early Christians deal with lots of practical issues that came up in livings as Christians.
It's pretty clear why Paul would be significant. However since a lot of what matters in Paul depends upon his interpretation, his personal authority is critical. He was controversial even in his time. There are a number of comments in the letters reflecting people who didn't accept his authority. He believed he had been commissioned directly by Christ. The early Church accepted this, and as far as I can tell treated him as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The approach generally continues today. However there are two caveats. First, a lot of Protestant thought seems to start with Jesus' death and resurrection, as interpreted by Paul, and gives that a lot more prominence that Jesus' teaching. The basic definition of what the Gospel is tends to be taken from Paul. You don't have to reject Paul's inspiration to wonder if this is the right approach. Second, Christians who accept critical thought wonder whether the change in perspective between Jesus' approach and Paul's reinterpretation may have lost something. During the 20th Cent a myth became common that Paul was the real founder of Christianity, and that his teaching had little to do with Jesus'. That's going way too far. But you don't have to be a skeptic to think it might be better to start with Jesus' own teaching, and use his concepts as the core structure, even while accepting Paul's interpretation as helpful.
Upvote
0
GrayAngel
Senior Member
On the road to Damascus, before he was a Christian, he was blinded by a great light. The light identified itself as Jesus. He continued to be blind until a Christian, led by the Holy Spirit, found him and prayed for him. It was pretty clear by that point that Jesus had something special in mind for him.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
This opens an other urgent question: Why 12 2 Peter letter considered inspired?
A well founded question: actually most scholars are sure that 2 Peter is pseudoepigraphical and anyway it is dated to the second century, far later than Paul's letters
Upvote
0
You bet there was! When Paul had had no contact with anyone from the church, he knew things only known by those taught directly by Jesus. They considered that he was on their level, and in fact soon allowed him to sway opinion over Jewish leaders. That's effectively as authoritative as it gets, and the reason is God confirmed him.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
