Should the Christian Bible consist only of the four gospels?

Foxfyre said:

Without Paul's letters and others who wrote on and to the growing Christian Church, we would have nothing to draw from to see the development of Christian thought and its applications in a changing world. And do not forget that Paul too met the risen Christ face to face, was tutored by the disciples, and was called by God along with the other apostles to take the Church into the whole world. While I believe Paul's letters must be read through his eyes and within the context of his experience and the culture at that time, his writings help us understand the less focused material in the synoptic gospels and the Book of Acts.

Click to expand...

You should take a look at the Early Church Fathers, as well. God's word doesn't end with the NT. They also provide context to the meaning of Scripture.

danbuter said:

Honestly, I think the life of Jesus and his teachings are FAR more important than anything Paul said, yet many churches seem to be based more upon Paul than the gospels. Since Jesus' teachings surpassed the Old Testament, is there any real reason to study it, other than for historical background?

Click to expand...

How would you do without Acts of the Apostles? It has the Ascension, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the stoning of Stephen and the Council of Jerusalem for starters.

Paul's description of Communion in Corinthians is frequently quoted while giving out Communion.

In Philemon, Paul says that he opposes slavery.

I find that the Letters to the Churches in Revelation do have a lot to say to us. Revelation also contains the Final Judgment and other things we need to know about.

The Old Testament prophets denounced idolatry and people are still worshiping idols today. Just look at Hinduism. The OT prophets also tell us that God judges nations as well as individuals.

I am sure there is more that could be said, but think about those points awhile.

In my opinion, making the Christian Scriptures shorter would only encourage people to look to other sources that have never been in the Bible for guidance.

JackRT said:

An excellent start would be John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) Appendix 1, pp. 427-50.

Click to expand...

I have a book tape by Dr. Robert Odin, an expert in ancient languages and Old Testament times. He comments that since the middle of the 19th century scholars have been trying to find "the historical Jesus." Odin says that as far as he can tell, the search for a Jesus different from the one described in the Gospels is a waste of time. Like it or not, the Jesus of the Gospels is the one we have.

Surprising question, but in short order... we only know who Jesus was and why he mattered because of the old testament. That's his origin. The whole thing points to him. God has revealed himself throughout the whole of Scripture. Every bit of it gives us more information about him, his nature. It's the same God throughout the Bible. Those things going on "back then," Jesus did. That was him doing it. He's God. He's unchanging, the same yesterday, today, and forever.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All Scripture is needed to have the complete and whole word of God. Even those endless genealogies and census counts serve a purpose in telling us something about God.

JackRT said:

That is quite true of most of them. However a number of excellent bible scholars are convinced that the earliest layers of GThom might actually predate the canonical Gospels. We also know that there were later additions to the gospels and epistles. In fact some of the epistles attributed to Paul were actually written well after his death. The entire issue of scripture is very clouded in the mists of time.

Click to expand...

Not really. You have to know that the Councils of Rome and Carthage nailed down the Canon of Scripture.

danbuter said:

Honestly, I think the life of Jesus and his teachings are FAR more important than anything Paul said, yet many churches seem to be based more upon Paul than the gospels. Since Jesus' teachings surpassed the Old Testament, is there any real reason to study it, other than for historical background?

Click to expand...

The entire bible is the teachings of Jesus...Why do you think Paul is not teaching Jesus Word?

Denadii said:

The entire bible is the teachings of Jesus...Why do you think Paul is not teaching Jesus Word?

Click to expand...

Right. As soon as someone starts picking and choosing what they think is important, they make themselves a god.

letmeseeyourphone said:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All Scripture is needed to have the complete and whole word of God. Even those endless genealogies and census counts serve a purpose in telling us something about God.

Click to expand...

That verse does not mean what you think it does.

2 Tim. 3:14 - Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition. . Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures.

2 Tim. 3:15 – Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul’s teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 – this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. “All Scripture” uses the words “pasa graphe” which actually means every (not all) Scripture. These inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

Root of Jesse said:

You should take a look at the Early Church Fathers, as well. God's word doesn't end with the NT. They also provide context to the meaning of Scripture.

Click to expand...

I have studied the early Church Fathers extensively, also those we know of the middle ages, Renaissance, Reformation, and into modern times. Some have done well to represent God's word and others not so much. Some of the most terrible and destructive Church fights ever were over the doctrine of the Trinity and there is no way I can believe God condoned that. But there have been enough to take their guidance from the Holy Spirit and obey God to keep his Church alive in an often hostile world. And in my opinion, scripture is still being written even today. No, it won't ever make it into the book, but I don't think God is more silent now than he was in scriptural times.

Foxfyre said:

I have studied the early Church Fathers extensively, also those we know of the middle ages, Renaissance, Reformation, and into modern times. Some have done well to represent God's word and others not so much. Some of the most terrible and destructive Church fights ever were over the doctrine of the Trinity and there is no way I can believe God condoned that. But there have been enough to take their guidance from the Holy Spirit and obey God to keep his Church alive in an often hostile world. And in my opinion, scripture is still being written even today. No, it won't ever make it into the book, but I don't think God is more silent now than he was in scriptural times.

Click to expand...

God didn't condone that. But men still fought over the seriousness of that doctrine, because of how important it was. It's true there were serious fights over serious doctrine. But one would not be considered a Church Father or Doctor of the Church if they didn't represent God's word well.
Good to know you try to listen to God as he speaks now. We believe that, too, though I don't know how much God speaks to Pope Francis.

For me.. at 1st it was reading the OT and NT and I was like.. wow you DONT want to get that God of the OT mad. When I 1st started reading I read the book of John. Then as you take the time to seek pray know Him.. is as if you can see. The word is ALIVE... Jesus is REAL. The sweet sweet Holy Spirit is real. For me what I see is like.. when I was at Collage. Not a Christian Collage. They were playing some movie out side one night. I was standing next to some pole watching. Some girl comes up and asks me "your a Christian arent you?" I say "yes how did you know?" She said "theres just something about you".

For me.. I can read books... some as Jesus would say.. have no life in them. Others .. theres SOMETHING there. Some understand what I see. So when I read what our brother Paul wrote. I don't see Paul... its the SAME as if I was reading Matt-John. Now reading the OT.. and OLD is the wrong word. Gods words are ALIVE..never ever die. I now read.. and see the SAME Father as I do in Matt-John. I now see JESUS in the OT everywhere. This LOVING GOD has ALWAYS been.. never Changed.

Forgive me... if we dont know Him.... then I can understand how it can look like..something someone added. When we get saved.. fallen in LOVE with someone we dont know did we? No.. saved yes.. as we draw near to HIM He draws near to us. Were free...so.. HE will NOT do anything against your will. The more you seek Him the MORE YOU SEE and receive. As I see and understand.

The book is alive.. it has He would say.. is FULL of LIFE!

oOKnights TemplarOo said:

That verse does not mean what you think it does.

2 Tim. 3:14 - Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition. . Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures.

2 Tim. 3:15 – Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul’s teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 – this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. “All Scripture” uses the words “pasa graphe” which actually means every (not all) Scripture. These inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

Click to expand...

Not discounting what you're saying, but yes, it means exactly what I implied.

I'm in theology class this very moment in university. It's one of the key Scriptures cited for the Doctrine of Inerrancy. It means exactly what it says. We just discussed this Friday. I'm not discounting tradition either, as we learned in this class last week, it's one of the things considered when establishing doctrine, when compared against Scripture. But Scripture is always key.

letmeseeyourphone said:

Not discounting what you're saying

Click to expand...

You just have here:

letmeseeyourphone said:

but yes, it means exactly what I implied.

Click to expand...

letmeseeyourphone said:

I'm in theology class this very moment in university.

Click to expand...

So?

letmeseeyourphone said:

Doctrine of Inerrancy

Click to expand...

?

letmeseeyourphone said:

considered when establishing doctrine

Click to expand...

You are in university establishing doctrine?
Your post merely describes what you are up to.

oOKnights TemplarOo said:

2 Tim. 3:16 – this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work,

Click to expand...

Actually, that is not what that verse says. Unless of course you remove the words I put in bold.
3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Also Peter said in 2 Peter 3:16 that Paul's Epistles were Scripture.
:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

danbuter said:

Honestly, I think the life of Jesus and his teachings are FAR more important than anything Paul said, yet many churches seem to be based more upon Paul than the gospels. Since Jesus' teachings surpassed the Old Testament, is there any real reason to study it, other than for historical background?

Click to expand...

The basic answer is the four gospels are all that could be linked to the Apostles. Jesus likely did not write one himself because people would worship or make an idol of his writings. We are told in John that everything he did would fill too many books to write.

The fact that Jesus appeared to Paul is good reason to read his letters.

Doug Melven said:

Actually, that is not what that verse says. Unless of course you remove the words I put in bold.
3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Click to expand...

It is the correct Hermeneutics of that verse.

Doug Melven said:

3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Click to expand...

2 Tim. 3:17 – Paul’s reference to the “man of God” who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.” Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman.

Doug Melven said:

Also Peter said in 2 Peter 3:16 that Paul's Epistles were Scripture

Click to expand...

Dates of Pauls letters:
Romans 57
1 Corinthians 55
2 Corinthians 56
Galatians 56
Ephesians 58
Philippians 58
Colossians 58
1 Thessalonians early 50
2 Thessalonians 50-51

oOKnights TemplarOo said:

You are in university establishing doctrine?
Your post merely describes what you are up to.

Click to expand...

You are severely confused and reading into things. Obviously looking for someone to argue with, some kind of fight. The Scripture I quoted means what I said it means. Doesn't mean there aren't multiple layers of meaning to it. Yes, it's used for establishing doctrine. No, we're not establishing doctrine ourselves, we're looking at where it came from in the first place. I was merely establishing the fact that all of Scripture is useful and the word of God, which is exactly what that Scripture implies. Why do I mention I'm in theology class? Because we just discussed this exact thing on Friday. Again, you're just looking for conflict and I'm not interested. Move along.

*Apocalypse was written after 2 Peter 3:16.

Reading into the Biblical text what isn't there in order to force the interpretation of the text to conform to certain preconceived ideas or theories.

letmeseeyourphone said:

You are severely confused and reading into things. Obviously look for someone to argue with, some kind of fight. The Scripture I quoted means what I said it means. Doesn't mean there aren't multiple layers of meaning to it. Yes, it's used for establishing doctrine. No, we're not establishing doctrine ourselves, we're looking at where it came from in the first place. I was merely establishing the fact that all of Scripture is useful and the word of God, which is exactly what that Scripture implies. Why do I mention I'm in theology class? Because we just discussed this exact thing on Friday. Again, you're just looking for conflict and I'm not interested. Move along.

Click to expand...

I apologise.