Should the Christian Bible consist only of the four gospels?

[Radagast]

The Book of Acts, written some 40-60 years later than Paul, represents an unreliable source for information about Paul

The Book of Acts was almost certainly written at the point in time where the narrative (abruptly) stops, i.e. before the death of Paul.

And there's no reason to believe it's unreliable.

 

[Ken Rank]

The actual quote I was directing you to:

I know the quote, thanks. The Greek word just means "writings." When WE USE "Scripture" we think bible, but that underlying word just means "anything written." Anyway, Peter is simply saying that people twist Paul's writings the way they do OTHER WRITINGS.... in other words, they can't even properly discern the writings of the day AND they can't discern Paul. This is >>NOT<< calling Paul's work "Scripture." Now, again... I consider Paul's letters canon, Scripture.... but I don't see Peter making that claim here nor do I see Paul writing with any clue his works would be held along side books like Deuteronomy. You are welcome to believe whatever you want but you are imposing YOUR modern Western paradigm into an ancient near east culture.

The Council at Jerusalem was actually a strong testament that the Apostles and elders, even some believers who were Pharisees approved of Paul.

Paul was not the head of the church of Jerusalem, James was. And that aside, Paul was a Pharisee... and not WAS and in past tense... he said near the time of his death, "I am a Pharisee" (ego ami)... So before you get on the mainstream Christianity "all Pharisees are bad" bandwagon... you might take a step back and ask if there aren't any other holes that need filling. Like your take on Acts 15? All Pharisees thought "circumcision unto salvation" or ONLY those who adhered to the teachings of Beit Shammai? Because those who held to the Beit Hillel teachings, like Paul, certainly didn't believe this.

 

[Ken Rank]

The word that Peter uses in 2 Peter 3:16 is graphē (γραφή). Jesus uses exactly this word in Matthew 21:42 and John 19:24 to refer to the book of Psalms, in Mark 15:28 to refer to Isaiah 53:12, and in Luke 4:21 to refer to Isaiah 61:1. In Luke 24:27, Acts 17:11, Acts 18:24, and 2 Timothy 3:16 the word is used to refer to the Old Testament as a whole.

In fact, every single use of the word graphē (γραφή) in the New Testament refers to the Bible.

Go and look for yourself here.

Yes, I know... thanks for trying to teach me. Now, how many examples from ancient near east culture would you like where graphe' is used to denote ANYTHING WRITTEN? That is what it means... AND.... Peter is saying that people are twisting Paul's words just like they twist and misunderstand other writings. It isn't a statement elevating Paul's work... it is a statement about the declining condition of the STUDENTS of the gospel.

 

[Abraxos]

I know the quote, thanks. The Greek word just means "writings." When WE USE "Scripture" we think bible, but that underlying word just means "anything written." Anyway, Peter is simply saying that people twist Paul's writings the way they do OTHER WRITINGS.... in other words, they can't even properly discern the writings of the day AND they can't discern Paul. This is >>NOT<< calling Paul's work "Scripture." Now, again... I consider Paul's letters canon, Scripture.... but I don't see Peter making that claim here nor do I see Paul writing with any clue his works would be held along side books like Deuteronomy. You are welcome to believe whatever you want but you are imposing YOUR modern Western paradigm into an ancient near east culture.

As Radagast had pointed out, the Greek word used here graphē (γραφή), is used 51 times in the NT, and it is always directly associated with holy scripture. This is relevant because as it appears in your comments you are unaware of the Greek language where there are usually multiple words used to describe one English word.

In Greek in the Bible, there are six words attributed for "writing." (I won't go into detail on all of them at this time) If there was an insistence that 2 Peter 3:16 was referring to "other writings," it would make sense to utilise the more common secular usage of the term, grámma. There are examples where grámma is used instead of graphē to refer to "non-scripture writings" throughout the Bible. So there is certainly a linguistic misconstruction hinging on semantic ambiguity on your part.

If we use standard Bible hermeneutics of allowing the Bible to interpret itself to discern 2 Peter 3:16, there is certainly an association to the holy scriptures. This isn't imposing anything into the text other than simply pointing out what the text is referring to which is backed up theologically, scripturally, and culturally. You would probably struggle to find biblical support for your interpretation as it is based on nothing more than you say-so.

But I don't see Peter making that claim here nor do I see Paul writing with any clue his works would be held along side books like Deuteronomy.

Do you believe there are different levels of the word of God? Or that the OT is "stronger" than the NT?
What do you make of these verses which you seemed to have ignored? Just so I can understand where you are coming from biblically, and theologically.

1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.

Paul was not the head of the church of Jerusalem, James was. And that aside, Paul was a Pharisee... and not WAS and in past tense... he said near the time of his death, "I am a Pharisee" (ego ami)... So before you get on the mainstream Christianity "all Pharisees are bad" bandwagon... you might take a step back and ask if there aren't any other holes that need filling. Like your take on Acts 15? All Pharisees thought "circumcision unto salvation" or ONLY those who adhered to the teachings of Beit Shammai? Because those who held to the Beit Hillel teachings, like Paul, certainly didn't believe this.

Um... how is this relevant to what I wrote?

 

[Ken Rank]

As Radagast had pointed out, the Greek word used here graphē (γραφή), is used 51 times in the NT, and it is always directly associated with holy scripture. This is relevant because as it appears in your comments you are unaware of the Greek language where there are usually multiple words used to describe one English word.

In Greek in the Bible, there are six words attributed for "writing." (I won't go into detail on all of them at this time) If there was an insistence that 2 Peter 3:16 was referring to "other writings," it would make sense to utilise the more common secular usage of the term, grámma. There are examples where grámma is used instead of graphē to refer to "non-scripture writings" throughout the Bible. So there is certainly a linguistic misconstruction hinging on semantic ambiguity on your part.

If we use standard Bible hermeneutics of allowing the Bible to interpret itself to discern 2 Peter 3:16, there is certainly an association to the holy scriptures. This isn't imposing anything into the text other than simply pointing out what the text is referring to which is backed up theologically, scripturally, and culturally. You would probably struggle to find biblical support for your interpretation as it is based on nothing more than you say-so.


Do you believe there are different levels of the word of God? Or that the OT is "stronger" than the NT?
What do you make of these verses which you seemed to have ignored? Just so I can understand where you are coming from biblically, and theologically.

1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.


Um... how is this relevant to what I wrote?

I am well aware, and thanks again for reaching out and trying to teach me. However, what you both fail to realize is that Paul sat down, perhaps feeling impressed upon by the Spirit, to write a letter to those in Galatia, or Ephesis... and his words were designed to correct or instruct THOSE PEOPLE because of certain circumstances going on at the time in those places. Now, inspired? Sure! Can we apply the lessons to us? Sure! Did he sit down thinking he was writing something that would be considered "canon" and placed alongside the Torah, the Prophets, or the Writings? Nope.... not a chance... nor did Peter think what Paul was writing was going to, one day, be included. In fact, Paul's letter were compiled over 100 YEARS LATER and the NT wasn't canonized 150 YEAR AFTER Paul's last letter. He had no idea.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I am well aware, and thanks again for reaching out and trying to teach me. However, what you both fail to realize is that Paul sat down, perhaps feeling impressed upon by the Spirit, to write a letter to those in Galatia, or Ephesis... and his words were designed to correct or instruct THOSE PEOPLE because of certain circumstances going on at the time in those places. Now, inspired? Sure! Can we apply the lessons to us? Sure! Did he sit down thinking he was writing something that would be considered "canon" and placed alongside the Torah, the Prophets, or the Writings? Nope.... not a chance... nor did Peter think what Paul was writing was going to, one day, be included. In fact, Paul's letter were compiled over 100 YEARS LATER and the NT wasn't canonized 150 YEAR AFTER Paul's last letter. He had no idea.

It doesnt matter whether Paul or Peter or anyone who wrote any cannonized scripture thought it would become scripture.

Show me proof that Moses thought he wrote scripture? Besides the specific laws that were given to him at Mt. Sinai that he was specifically told by God to give the people.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to walk this tightrope than prove any of the Old Testament was written specifically and for the sole purpose, by the author knowing it would become scripture.

Even the idea of Torah, that Moses wrote about Adam how many years after the fact? We could then say that Adam never wrote about Adam, Abraham never wrote about Abraham, ect.....

 

[Ken Rank]

It doesnt matter whether Paul or Peter or anyone who wrote any cannonized scripture thought it would become scripture.

Show me proof that Moses thought he wrote scripture? Besides the specific laws that were given to him at Mt. Sinai that he was specifically told by God to give the people.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to walk this tightrope than prove any of the Old Testament was written specifically and for the sole purpose, by the author knowing it would become scripture.

Even the idea of Torah, that Moses wrote about Adam how many years after the fact? We could then say that Adam never wrote about Adam, Abraham never wrote about Abraham, ect.....

That isn't my point and you, in another way, nailed my point. The claim was that Paul knew he was writing Scripture, he was not. Moses did not know his writings would be canon, but he KNEW he was writing the words of the Lord because the Torah contains the line "and Moses wrote all the words of the LORD." But Paul, Paul thought he was writing to certain places about certain issues, period.

 

[ToBeLoved]

That isn't my point and you, in another way, nailed my point. The claim was that Paul knew he was writing Scripture, he was not. Moses did not know his writings would be canon, but he KNEW he was writing the words of the Lord because the Torah contains the line "and Moses wrote all the words of the LORD." But Paul, Paul thought he was writing to certain places about certain issues, period.

But Moses would be writing all the words given to him during his life. But he also wrote about creation, Adam and Eve, Abraham and he definately did not have those experiences himself.

So then I consider those to fall under the same type of scrutiny that you give to Paul.

 

[Abraxos]

I am well aware, and thanks again for reaching out and trying to teach me. However, what you both fail to realize is that Paul sat down, perhaps feeling impressed upon by the Spirit, to write a letter to those in Galatia, or Ephesis... and his words were designed to correct or instruct THOSE PEOPLE because of certain circumstances going on at the time in those places. Now, inspired? Sure! Can we apply the lessons to us? Sure! Did he sit down thinking he was writing something that would be considered "canon" and placed alongside the Torah, the Prophets, or the Writings? Nope.... not a chance... nor did Peter think what Paul was writing was going to, one day, be included. In fact, Paul's letter were compiled over 100 YEARS LATER and the NT wasn't canonized 150 YEAR AFTER Paul's last letter. He had no idea.

No one disagreed that Paul was initially writing specifically to those churches, because there was no conflict scripturally as I previously pointed out to you. Also, I don't think any person in the history of the Bible (other than Jesus) knew the extent of how God intended the word of God to be implemented to future generations, other than just write it or preach it faithfully and let God do the rest.

These were the main points I was correcting you on:

1. You touted that Paul didn't know he was writing "canon" - refuted.
2. You touted that Paul would have been arrogant if he knew he was writing "canon" - refuted.
3. You touted that Peter was referring to just some "other writings" - refuted.
4. You touted that the Greek word "scriptures" was just some "other writings" - refuted.
5. You touted that I was imposing modern Western thought into ancient near east culture - refuted.

...There is nothing wrong with admitting to your errors. I do it many times, it is how we grow as students of the Bible and further our understandings as we move forward. Far too many people allow broken egos and wounded prides to convince them to seek retribution before they seek understanding.

 

[Radagast]

Now, how many examples from ancient near east culture would you like where graphe' is used to denote ANYTHING WRITTEN?

Not really relevant. The question is: what does graphē (γραφή) mean in the NT?

And since it occurs many times, and every occurrence means "Scripture," that's what it means in NT Greek.

 

[Ken Rank]

But Moses would be writing all the words given to him during his life. But he also wrote about creation, Adam and Eve, Abraham and he definately did not have those experiences himself.

So then I consider those to fall under the same type of scrutiny that you give to Paul.

Moses didn't write the first five books, that is a myth. He couldn't have written about his own death which alone rules in a second writer for at least 1 book. When it comes to the Torah, however, and by that I don't mean the first 5 books, I means God's instructions, His directions... He wrote them down as God dictated and they were to be exalted as Israel's constitution and the manner in which the people of God were expected to live. So when Moses wrote THAT down, he wrote it down KNOWING it was the Lord's word and that they would endure for all generations. Paul sat down and wrote a letter to the Corinthians to address certain issues they had at their congregation(s). That doesn't mean what Paul wrote wasn't inspired, I believe it was. But Paul didn't sit down writing to Corinth thinking he was writing something just as weighty and important as what Moses did. If you think otherwise, fine... but no Jewish person alive then would have thought Paul was writing something equal to what Moses wrote. WE can see it as equal...but they did not. We have TIME on our side, they didn't... Paul's letters weren't even compiled for 100 YEARS after he died. Moses' work went into a vault for intents and purposes and was immediately passed on to the next generation.

 

[Ken Rank]

No one disagreed that Paul was initially writing specifically to those churches, because there was no conflict scripturally as I previously pointed out to you. Also, I don't think any person in the history of the Bible (other than Jesus) knew the extent of how God intended the word of God to be implemented to future generations, other than just write it or preach it faithfully and let God do the rest.

These were the main points I was correcting you on:

1. You touted that Paul didn't know he was writing "canon" - refuted.
2. You touted that Paul would have been arrogant if he knew he was writing "canon" - refuted.
3. You touted that Peter was referring to just some "other writings" - refuted.
4. You touted that the Greek word "scriptures" was just some "other writings" - refuted.
5. You touted that I was imposing modern Western thought into ancient near east culture - refuted.

...There is nothing wrong with admitting to your errors. I do it many times, it is how we grow as students of the Bible and further our understandings as we move forward. Far too many people allow broken egos and wounded prides to convince them to seek retribution before they seek understanding.

Refute refute refute? I will write back to you when you learn how to be nice when you decide you don't agree with somebody. This is the aspect of Christianity I hate.. where we take sides against another believer in Jesus because on a subject that doesn't matter as much as we think it does... we use it to divide and polarize. We need to rally around what we have in common in order to stand against what's coming, not look for ways to create new denominations and sects.

Be well.

 

[Ken Rank]

Not really relevant. The question is: what does graphē (γραφή) mean in the NT?

And since it occurs many times, and every occurrence means "Scripture," that's what it means in NT Greek.

What does graphe' mean in ALL literature found in the culture and time period. I won't take a tiny sample to try to prove my point. Besides, if you think Paul sat down thinking "I am writing something that will be in a bible," you can believe it until you die. I don't care... I don't agree... but I don't care. This in the grand scheme is a non-issue but like so much in the faith today, it's just another tool to divide brethren.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Moses didn't write the first five books, that is a myth. He couldn't have written about his own death which alone rules in a second writer for at least 1 book. When it comes to the Torah, however, and by that I don't mean the first 5 books, I means God's instructions, His directions... He wrote them down as God dictated and they were to be exalted as Israel's constitution and the manner in which the people of God were expected to live. So when Moses wrote THAT down, he wrote it down KNOWING it was the Lord's word and that they would endure for all generations. Paul sat down and wrote a letter to the Corinthians to address certain issues they had at their congregation(s). That doesn't mean what Paul wrote wasn't inspired, I believe it was. But Paul didn't sit down writing to Corinth thinking he was writing something just as weighty and important as what Moses did. If you think otherwise, fine... but no Jewish person alive then would have thought Paul was writing something equal to what Moses wrote. WE can see it as equal...but they did not. We have TIME on our side, they didn't... Paul's letters weren't even compiled for 100 YEARS after he died. Moses' work went into a vault for intents and purposes and was immediately passed on to the next generation.

So maybe you can educate me then on why Judaism attributes the first five books to Moses?

Who do you think wrote the first five books?

 

[Radagast]

What does graphe' mean in ALL literature found in the culture and time period.

So can you give me any examples from Hellenistic Jewish culture where graphē (γραφή) means something other than "Scripture"?

As I said, graphē (γραφή) occurs many times in the NT, and every occurrence means "Scripture."

 

[Dave G.]

The Old Testament is extremely important since the Old and the New form a single integrated story about how God has redeemed His creation. In fact, it is Paul who makes this very case. I get the impression that some people think that the Old Testament is simply the historical backdrop to the really important stuff - the story of Jesus. I think a careful study of scripture shows this is decidedly not the case.

Indeed we need the whole counsel of God and His Word, no question.

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

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?

Ther is nothing contrary in that verse. The meaning is quite clear and has nothing to do with a sex change.

It was thought by Jews then, and even by many christians today, that females are lesser spiritual beings.
Jesus was being as kind as he could telling them that this was not the case.

[Staff edit].

Interestingly, the gospel of Mary was complete when first found, it is not known what happened to the missing parts.

 

[Radagast]

Interestingly, the gospel of Mary was complete when first found, it is not known what happened to the missing parts.

Really? What's your evidence for that?

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

[Staff edit].

[QUOTE]Really? What's your evidence for that?[/QUOTE]

The story might be apocryphal but was believed soon after the finding.
However there is no reason to believe that further fragments might be yet found.

 

[Ken Rank]

So maybe you can educate me then on why Judaism attributes the first five books to Moses?

Who do you think wrote the first five books?

Tradition. But not all tradition is 100% accurate, nor is it an attempt to deceive... it's just tradition. Again, did Moses record his OWN death? No... not possible. So there has to be a second writer for AT LEAST parts. There HAS TO BE regardless of what tradition says, at least in that area of Torah. As for Genesis, I doubt Moses wrote it... he could have but there is no hint that he wrote anything but the Law itself. I think it is possible that Shem wrote Genesis. He had a school (according to tradition) and he was alive through Abraham but also back through Lamech and others who were alive with Adam. So Shem is 1 generation from Adam but if memory serves (and I would have to look this up... can't now) Abraham was 50 or 70 when Shem died.