Should the Christian Bible consist only of the four gospels?

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has had a clean.
A reminder of a portion of CF's 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.

Gnosticism may not be discussed in any CF forums.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[ToBeLoved]

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.

I just see that as a big issue. Christians don’t stake their faith on that.

 

[Ken Rank]

I just see that as a big issue. Christians don’t stake their faith on that.

Didn't say they did, I just said Moses didn't write all 5 books.

 

[mark kennedy]

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?

The Old Testament starts off with five historical books, just as the New Testament, redemptive history is the keystone of our faith. For years I just browsed the Psalms and other poetic books, not thinking much of the Chronicles of the Kings, Joshua's conquest or the saga of the Judges. Then I learned the historical basis of the prophets and saw the eighth century prophets in a new light. Paul's writings are good if you just need basic doctrine, those letters were generally written to by encyclical (circulated). The Gospels give us the Apostolic testimony and the are focused primarily on the last week, it all build up to and stems fro they events of passion week.

Sure we need the historical books, Old and New Testament, but the priority is going to be essential doctrine and devotional reading to enhance prayer and worship.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm going out on a limb here but if someone belongs to a church who only teaches on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, you're missing a boat load of life changing information. And personally, I'd get out of that church.

That being said, I've also found a lot to feed on in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But that is not all we need to know to have a complete picture. I know that Paul's teachings sound different, they are supposed to. He taught what Jesus had told him to teach. Paul is not insignificant, quite to the contrary, he completes some things you can't piece together without him.

I went to a Pauline church off and on for a while, they don't practice baptism either. Seemed like fairly typical fundamentalist churches, their missionary office was in the same building as the church. It was peculiar focusing just on Paul, they certainly didn't convince me of the necessity of it. They did know the other Scriptures, ran circles around me in Bible Trivia.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Didn't say they did, I just said Moses didn't write all 5 books.

Almost everything about the Old Testament is built on the Old Covenant and Israel being set aside by God and what God gave Moses. So if God was not organized enough to get Moses right, then I am really glad we have the New Covenant.

I just think it’s a shaky proposition for a Jew or Judaism. Staking all on the Old Covenant even today. Interesting

 

[Ken Rank]

Almost everything about the Old Testament is built on the Old Covenant and Israel being set aside by God and what God gave Moses. So if God was not organized enough to get Moses right, then I am really glad we have the New Covenant.

I just think it’s a shaky proposition for a Jew or Judaism. Staking all on the Old Covenant even today. Interesting

If it all points to Christ, and they await the coming of Christ without understanding that he has come already... then they are still awaiting Christ and just need some gaps in understanding, filled. I consider Zech. 12:10 one example of God filling in those gaps in His timing.

 

[Strong in Him]

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.

Jesus' words are obviously important, but Paul's are too.
Firstly, he was called by Jesus and filled with his Holy Spirit.
Secondly, he expanded upon Jesus' teachings, and ministry, and showed how to apply it. Note, I said "expanded upon", not "added to" or contradicted". Paul's epistles were written before the Gospels.
For example, Jesus said "this is my blood shed for the forgiveness of sins", Matthew 26:28. But how many of us would know that we have peace with God, Romans 5:1; are reconciled to God, Romans 5:11, 2 Corinthians 5:18; have been made alive with Christ and saved through grace, Ephesians 2:4-5; are heirs with Christ, Romans 8:17, Ephesians 2:6 and have been adopted as sons of God, Romans 8:16, Ephesians 1:4 - if it were not for Paul's writings?
Would we have teaching about the nature of love, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7; Romans 8:31-39, the resurrection of Christ and our resurrection bodies, 1 Corinthians 15, the gifts of the Spirit, 1 Corinthians 12:12-28, Romans 12:4-8, Ephesians 4:11 - as well as many other subjects, were it not for the epistles of Paul?

Since Jesus' teachings surpassed the Old Testament, is there any real reason to study it, other than for historical background?

Jesus' life, ministry, death, betrayal and resurrection are all prophesied in the OT.
The OT were the only Scriptures that Jesus, the disciples and the early church had, and they quoted from them often. The Gospel writers, especially Matthew, show how Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy.
Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac, who was saved at the last minute when Abraham sacrificed a sheep; foreshadows that God gave his Son, Jesus, the Lamb of God, as a sacrifice for us.
Moses saved the Israelites from slavery and death - and Jesus saved us from slavery to sin and spiritual death. The Passover meal was a prequel to the Lord's supper.

Through his written word, God has provided us with everything that we need.

 

[Strong in Him]

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

And it is the earliest account of the Lord's Supper that we have - being written before the Gospels.

 

[Righttruth]

And it is the earliest account of the Lord's Supper that we have - being written before the Gospels.

Looks like the Gospel books and also other letters and writings were written to clarify on Paul's assumptions since he was not in earthly ministry of Jesus. So, it follows, that ritual that Paul started as Eucharist was not advocated by Jesus!

 

[Strong in Him]

Looks like the Gospel books and also other letters and writings were written to clarify on Paul's assumptions since he was not in earthly ministry of Jesus. So, it follows, that ritual that Paul started as Eucharist was not advocated by Jesus!

It doesn't follow at all.
If that had been the case, the Gospel writer's would not have mentioned it. Paul didn't start the Eucharist.; it was a Passover meal. Jesus said "do this in memory of me". In other words from that point onwards on when they ate that meal, they were to remember their deliverance, not from Egypt, but from sin.

 

[Righttruth]

It doesn't follow at all.
If that had been the case, the Gospel writer's would not have mentioned it. Paul didn't start the Eucharist.; it was a Passover meal. Jesus said "do this in memory of me". In other words from that point onwards on when they ate that meal, they were to remember their deliverance, not from Egypt, but from sin.

Where else Jesus asked to observe as remembrance barring Paul's letter.

 

[Strong in Him]

Where else Jesus asked to observe as remembrance barring Paul's letter.

It doesn't need to be anywhere else.
Paul's letter is in Scripture; it was the earliest written account that the churches had before the Gospels.

Unless you are starting from the position that Paul is unreliable,his epistle should be sufficient.
And if that IS your starting point, that you don't trust Paul and question his writings read forum rules and the Mod's notice at the top of this page. You are not allowed to question those things in this forum.

 

[Foxfyre]

Didn't say they did, I just said Moses didn't write all 5 books.

Personally I think it unlikely that he penned any of them in entirety as he was pretty busy from the time he was called by God until his death. Was he and his generation's teachings the inspiration for the Torah? Almost certainly just as all of the New Testament is inspired by Jesus of Nazareth and/or the Holy Spirit while Jesus, so far as we know, didn't write anything personally except for a few words in the sand.

The way I see it, who actually wrote down the words is unimportant. What is important is that we have the words pretty much as they were written down. There is no other body of manuscripts from those ancient times that have survived so intact and in such quantity as the Old Testament manuscripts and most especially the Torah. Given the amount of effort to stamp out the Chosen People of God and their religion, that they all have survived is strong evidence of God's blessing.

 

[Ken Rank]

Personally I think it unlikely that he penned any of them in entirety as he was pretty busy from the time he was called by God until his death.

That is actually my position as well. I think he penned the Torah, the commandments and judgments but not the history both past and present (in his time). Like you said, he was a little busy.

 

[Righttruth]

It doesn't need to be anywhere else.
Paul's letter is in Scripture; it was the earliest written account that the churches had before the Gospels.

Unless you are starting from the position that Paul is unreliable,his epistle should be sufficient.
And if that IS your starting point, that you don't trust Paul and question his writings read forum rules and the Mod's notice at the top of this page. You are not allowed to question those things in this forum.

Truth matters, not age old beliefs. Jesus questioned such beliefs.

 

[The Times]

When Jesus said the scriptures testify of me, what does that mean to you people as Jesus loving family?

The Old Testament is what Jesus referred to.

If it was good for Jesus to refer to Old Testament scriptures, is it alrighty for you Jesus loving family?

 

[Soyeong]

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?

The NT is commentary on the OT. The NT authors quoted or alluded to the OT thousands of times in order to establish their authority and to show that they did not depart from it either to the right or to the left. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against the OT to see if what he said was true. Wanting to use just the Gospels would be like wanting to have just the 2nd floor of a building without the 1st floor.

 

[Righttruth]

When Jesus said the scriptures testify of me, what does that mean to you people as Jesus loving family?

The Old Testament is what Jesus referred to.

If it was good for Jesus to refer to Old Testament scriptures, is it alrighty for you Jesus loving family?

Yes, He did not supersede the OT, rather superposed with spiritual meaning of the Law and its works

 

[Strong in Him]

Truth matters, not age old beliefs. Jesus questioned such beliefs.

It is truth. God's word, is truth, inspired by the Spirit of truth.

You seem to be biased against Paul and can't accept it.