Should the Christian Bible consist only of the four gospels?

[JackRT]

Really?

Although much could be said about the many interesting sayings contained in the Gospel of Thomas, perhaps the most famous (or infamous) of them is the final saying in the book:
Simon Peter said to them, "Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "Look, I shall guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the heaven's kingdom." (Gospel of Thomas 114)

What's so worthy about it? Or any of the apocryphal gospels for that matter?

That saying is easily understood in the light of the extreme patriarchy of that day. All writings have to be understood in the light of cultural context of that time and place.

 

[Abraxos]

That saying is easily understood in the light of the extreme patriarchy of that day. All writings have to be understood in the light of cultural context of that time and place.

The "lost gospels" were written centuries after the 4 gospels in the Bible. The 4 gospels in the Bible were clear that Jesus did not have that view that is written in the book of Thomas. Was it the patriarchy pretty extreme in the 2nd and 3rd centuries?

 

[JackRT]

The "lost gospels" were written centuries after the 4 gospels in the Bible. The 4 gospels in the Bible were clear that Jesus did not have that view that is written in the book of Thomas. Was it the patriarchy pretty extreme in the 2nd and 3rd centuries?

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.

 

[Abraxos]

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.

Really? Who are these excellent scholars? So I can examine their conclusions.

 

[JackRT]

Really? Who are these excellent scholars? So I can examine their conclusions.

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

 

[mathinspiration]

No, the letters of Paul are useful and Revelations as curse in it if you remove it from the Bible.

 

[Abraxos]

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

You might want to list them all so I can get a cumulative consensus and not some fringe elements of Jesus mysticism. Already off the bat with John Dominic Crossan seems quite dodgy.

 

[Doug Melven]

To not use the writings of Peter, Paul, John and James would be to dismiss what Jesus said in John.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

So if Jesus Himself said there were things that needed to be said but weren't because the disciples at that time weren't able to understand I think we should listen to Jesus.

 

[salt-n-light]

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?

To some degree yes, but remember part of His teachings was bringing up references of the Old Testament to tie everything together, His teachings were never meant to be a standalone. Just like Paul's teachings are not meant as standalone but in reference to Jesus' teachings as well as the teachings of the Old testament. I think why alot of church reference a lot of Paul's writings, is because of how he addresses the model of the church in detail that Jesus didn't focus too much on. Alot of the struggles that people face in fellowship and in their individual christian walk, Paul addresses through his letters. It answers the "ok I believe, now what?" questions. So there is a place for Paul's teachings greater than just an historical background, of course not outshining Jesus' teachings, but more complimenting what Jesus establish.

 

[Drifter Kybe Scythe Kane]

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?

Maybe to understand God better from the Old Testament wouldn't be too strange of a purpose. As the events were unfolding in the Old Testament, it can possibly teach things like that or at least have the effect of teaching people feel themselves grow calmer in the spirit.

 

[OzSpen]

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?

Dan,

That's not what Scripture teaches. This is the view of the Bible:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work(2 Tim 3:16-17 NIV).​

So, as far as the NT is concerned, 'all Scripture' is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Do we want to be equipped for every good work? Then use ALL of Scripture.

In fact, at the time Paul wrote to Timothy, the "all Scripture" referred primarily to the OT.

In my private devotions this morning, I was working through 3 chapters of Leviticus and one in Hebrews. Sometimes I find the Book of Leviticus hard going with all the laws. But I know that it was written to demonstrate the law of God, the boundaries God placed around the Israelites, and to make it known to all that " I am the Lord your God" (Lev 23:22 NIV).

Your view is that "Jesus' teachings surpassed the Old Testament". The NT view is that "All Scripture is God-breathed" and not just the words and writings of Jesus.

Oz

 

[thesunisout]

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?

Have you ever heard of typology? If you want to understand why Christians should look into the Old Testament, understanding what typology is will help you with that: A Study of Biblical Types

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

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?

If one were to only study the Gospels, you would miss the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in Acts, you would miss the words of Jesus himself in Revelation, and all the prophecies and law which came before in the Old Testament which pointed towards Christ. The Bible as a whole is the message, not just bits and pieces as is the argument here. Satan himself was proficient at this method of deception.
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Also see Genesis 3.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
It does beg the questions, when asserting that the gospels are "all that is needed", why would you forsake the words of those moved by the Holy Spirit in ages past? Why would you ignore the words of the law which God gave in those times of old? Why would you ignore that Jesus himself used the Old Testament extensively? He fulfilled, he did not destroy the words that came before.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

God's word equips us with more than just history. It contains life. It teaches us everything there is to know in how to get to heaven. It teaches us how to discern right teaching from wrong teaching. It equips us to serve God. Meditating on God's Word brings success in life even...
And the whole of the Bible shows how Jesus is God's own word made flesh.

Daniel 3:24-25 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellers, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Matthew 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him....
You have to read what is written to see. Otherwise you will be led astray.
Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

The Lord God gave us the Bible. The gospels are only a portion of it.

 

[Radagast]

From the rules:

Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum). You may disagree on the interpretation and application of his writings, but not their place as canon or Paul as an inspired author of Scripture.

 

[JoeP222w]

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?

Paul did not teach a different gospel, which is what you are implying without any evidence.

 

[dqhall]

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?

I like the Sermon on the Mount and other Gospel passages. I also like Paul. Without Paul there might not be any Gospels. The oldest complete Gospel texts we have are written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew. This is because Paul went to the Jews living among the Gentiles and accepted Gentiles into his meetings. Paul's meetings included the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 15). He mentioned his friend Luke the physician in Colossians 4:14. Luke wrote a Gospel and the book of Acts. No church should totally ignore Paul's letters or the Book of Acts. One may need to read carefully. Paul testified he was not Christ and people should seek Christ more than himself (1 Corinthians 1:11-17). The people went to Paul as they needed to hear his Gospel teachings. Paul testified that Jesus' teachings are greater than the law (of Moses) in Philippians 3:7-12.

 

[Yarddog]

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?

Do you think that our Bible should only have two books, Matthew and John?

 

[Dave G.]

Paul did not teach a different gospel, which is what you are implying without any evidence.

Right , Paul's overall message is different in that he clarifies, loaded with grace after salvation, work after salvation but not for salvation or to get saved. However his Gospel message is the same, that is to say " the Gospel in and of itself ," that God in the second person of the trinity came incarnate on earth as the Son, died for our sins was buried and resurrected, ascended into heaven and now sits with the Father. Same Gospel, no different. Jesus is the one and only way to heaven, period.

 

[Dwells]

Really?

Although much could be said about the many interesting sayings contained in the Gospel of Thomas, perhaps the most famous (or infamous) of them is the final saying in the book:
Simon Peter said to them, "Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "Look, I shall guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the heaven's kingdom." (Gospel of Thomas 114)

What's so worthy about it? Or any of the apocryphal gospels for that matter?

There is no male or female, God holds both aspects and more. Jesus is affirming that what the world calls male elements are also embodied in the female and vice versa .....and when entering the kingdom there will be no distinction.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

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.