Why are all Pauline letters in the Bible?

[Thomas White]

The gospels were not written by Jesus, but by men inspired by the Holy Spirit to remember the words and acts of Jesus and write them down.

That is the same Holy Spirit who inspired the writing of the rest of scripture by those and other men, and the same Holy Spirit who inspired those through the years who cherished and preserved those scriptures.

The same men who preserved the gospels also preserved the Pauline epistles.

The same Holy Spirit all the way through, inspiring all of it. If you don't accept the reliability of the Holy Spirit in the writing and preservation of the Pauline epistles, then you have no rationale for accepting the reliability of the Holy Spirit in the writing and preservation of the gospels. They all come to us through the same group of men inspired by the same Holy Spirit.

Sure they were inspired. Inspired is not the same thing as infallible. People make mistakes.

 

[Philip_B]

I said: The New Testament scriptures we have come to us by way of gentiles

The men who collected and preserved those works all these centuries were all gentiles. Without gentiles inspired by the Holy Spirit, we would not have the New Testament.

OK I see the argument. Yet the author may have more impact on the meaning than the collator and collector.

 

[RDKirk]

OK I see the argument. Yet the author may have more impact on the meaning than the collator and collector.

The Holy Spirit is the author of it all.

 

[timothyu]

The New Testament scriptures we have come to us by way of gentiles--all of it--so you're essentially saying that none of the New Testament is reliable.

The gentiles are not reliable. Jesus sent the HS, the guiding wind, to help keep those of the Kingdom on the narrow path. (Remember that Paul taught the Gospel of the Kingdom, but man preferred to use his other writings to go in a different direction. Not Paul's fault but man's) Anything that diverts from the Kingdom is not on the path and therefore not of the Kingdom. Scripture is right, but there is nothing that gives either the religion or how it is used the same credibility. That is entirely man controlling the narrative and the winner takes all and gets to assert themselves over fellow man in the name of God, while most often not changing their ways to suit the will of God. It is a mixed bag of worldly and those of the Kingdom in Christianity.

 

[RDKirk]

The gentiles are not reliable. Jesus sent the HS, the guiding wind, to help keep those of the Kingdom on the narrow path. (Remember that Paul taught the Gospel of the Kingdom, but man preferred to use his other writings to go in a different direction. Not Paul's fault but man's) Anything that diverts from the Kingdom is not on the path and therefore not of the Kingdom. Scripture is right, but there is nothing that gives either the religion or how it is used the same credibility. That is entirely man controlling the narrative and the winner takes all and gets to assert themselves over fellow man in the name of God, while not changing their ways to suit the will of God. It is a mixed bag of worldly and those of the Kingdom.

You're moving the goalpost. We've been talking about the spiritual reliability of scripture, not how people may choose to use it.

 

[timothyu]

You're moving the goalpost. We've been talking about the spiritual reliability of scripture, not how people may choose to use it.

Right and as I said in #44 the HS focuses on the Kingdom while man and a good part of the religion does not simple because attention is diverted away. The HS has it right, man diverts. It's always been that way. The HS may have inspired the original narrative but man has diverted it and now controls the narrative to lead us back to the world.

 

[Philip_B]

The gentiles are not reliable.

Poor argument. Certainly fails to measure up to a proper consideration of John 4.

The Holy Spirit is the author of it all.

If you mean by that the disciplines of literary, textual and contextual criticism are utterly null and void, then I reject the argument. The authors of the New Testament were Christian, committed, determined, and open to the Holy Spirit. That does not mean that the Holy Spirit wrote the words. The presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives does not make us robots. To dismiss the humanity of the writers of the New Testament documents would see to imply a very poor view of God.

2 Corinthians 5:19
that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us.

 

[Lawrence87]

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that they were considered 'of Paul' in other words despite possibly not having been authored by him, they were of his line of thought, from his students etc.

Of course the other line of reasoning says they were authored by him, and modern scholars just have it wrong.

 

[RDKirk]

Poor argument. Certainly fails to measure up to a proper consideration of John 4.


If you mean by that the disciplines of literary, textual and contextual criticism are utterly null and void, then I reject the argument. The authors of the New Testament were Christian, committed, determined, and open to the Holy Spirit. That does not mean that the Holy Spirit wrote the words. The presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives does not make us robots. To dismiss the humanity of the writers of the New Testament documents would see to imply a very poor view of God.

Are you arguing that 2 Timothy 3 is false?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

If you're not arguing that this is false, then you're simply quibbling with me for the sake of being contentious.

 

[Philip_B]

Are you arguing that 2 Timothy 3 is false?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

If you're not arguing that this is false, then you're simply quibbling with me for the sake of being contentious.

Of course this is an interesting text, but not one that was on my mind. This text leaves wide the consideration of what it means, as it might mean everything written, but probably means all scripture. That however leaves one to ask what was considered scripture, and for the average Greek Speaking Christian that was probably the LXX, including the deuterocanonical text.

I have no interest in being contentious. If you mean that 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the 27 books of the New Testament, then you are ultimately arguing the text exists in some sort of altered state or alternate reality. If you would mean to apply 2 Timothy 3:16 in order to support 2 Timothy 3:16 then the argument would seem superficially to be circumlocutious, and ultimately only sustained by faith and not reason.

 

[RDKirk]

Of course this is an interesting text, but not one that was on my mind. This text leaves wide the consideration of what it means, as it might mean everything written, but probably means all scripture. That however leaves one to ask what was considered scripture, and for the average Greek Speaking Christian that was probably the LXX, including the deuterocanonical text.

I have no interest in being contentious. If you mean that 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the 27 books of the New Testament, then you are ultimately arguing the text exists in some sort of altered state or alternate reality. If you would mean to apply 2 Timothy 3:16 in order to support 2 Timothy 3:16 then the argument would seem superficially to be circumlocutious, and ultimately only sustained by faith and not reason.

Okay, we're going with contentiousness, then.

 

[Philip_B]

Okay, we're going with contentiousness, then.

NO! If I hold a different view to you on this or some other topic, that does not make me contentious, it makes me a person who has a different view.

 

[michael21]

Tertius wrote Romans-at Paul's instruction

 

[pescador]

Tertius wrote Romans-at Paul's instruction

While Tertius may have physically written what Paul dictated, he wasn't the author (if that's what you're implying). He was Paul's amanuensis. (Great word!)

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Gospels.

Though the four Gospels were written after Paul, even early date estimates for the Synoptics would place their composition near the end of Paul's life in the mid-late 60's. Whereas the bulk of Paul's letters were written in the 50's and 60's.

There probably were proto-Gospels already extent, ancient tradition attributed to Papias speaks of an Aramaic composition of Jesus' teachings (which is oddly consistent with the Q-Hypothesis). At the very least statements such as found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 point to a well established tradition among the churches. Paul almost never provides biographical details about Jesus, instead writes assuming his audience knows all this.

There is an interdependent relationship between the Gospels and both the Pauline and General Epistles that expresses and resonates the life and faith of the first Christian communities.

So Jesus' words do not originate from the Gospels, but rather the Gospels bring us back to Jesus' words--words, teachings, sayings, and the things He did being part of the living and common memory of the Church. That arose into the Synoptic Gospel tradition, the Johanine Gospel tradition, the Pauline Epistles, and the General Epistles.

The New Testament is the product of a living, thriving network of Christian communities that originated from Jerusalem by the mission and ministries of the Apostles.

So to suggest that these early communities had a reductionist doctrine is misleading at best; though it would be accurate to say that the doctrinal language of the Church wrestling with the concrete happenings involving Jesus, and the work of the Spirit in the apostolic ministry are given in the New Testament writings and in the continued conversation and debates of the Christian Church.

There was a living, breathing Christianity before any of the New Testament was written, and there continued to be a living, breathing Christianity after; and the New Testament is a profound snapshot of that early period. Even more than that, these writings were found to be so important, and so vital that these communities of Christians copied them and sent them to one another, and began to incorporate them into their liturgies. That's what the New Testament is.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jamiec]

Most scholars agree that not all of Paul's epistles were written by Paul. Almost all scholars think that Hebrews wasn't written by him, even Luther and Calvin believed it wasn't written by Paul. Luther thought it was written by Apollo.

So if most agree that Hebrews was forged by someone claiming to be Paul, why is it in the Bible?

The argument can be "it is inspired by God even if it wasn't written by Paul", but then again, I could argue that many apocryphal books could be included in the Bible based on that argument, for example, we know that 1 Enoch wasn't written by Enoch and many say it was Spin-off literature from ancient times, however, it is referd to by some of the authors of the NT, so, who is then to claim that its not inspired? or The Gospel of Thomas, it also wasn't written by Thomas and has a protognostic vibe, could be inspired thou....

But the biggest problem I see is: how can a letter be inspired by God if someone is comitting fraud by claiming he is Paul? and Hebrews is not the only letter in dispute...

I like the idea from early Christianity that the letter was written by Paul in hebrew and translated into greek by Luke, but still, many say that the letter is very different from Luke's other work.

Or maybe Paul told one of his disciples to write a letter whilst giving him some pointers on what the letter should cover.

Thomas Aquinas defended Paul's authorship, and some (very few) modern scholars claim it was written by Paul.

Either way, it is something that makes me doubt the infalibility of the Bible.

Hebrews nowhere claims to be by Paul. It is canonical Scripture, not because of its human authorship, but because, after a long period of uncertainty, it was received & recognised as inspired Scripture.

In so far as concerns its presence in the New Testament, it is far more important that it is regarded as having God for its Author, than that its human author should be identified. However interesting its human authorship may be, that aspect of the letter is of decidedly lesser importance.

 

[timothyu]

Is that called controlling the narrative by claiming God controlled the narrative in order to make the narrative of the controllers unquestionable?

 

[RDKirk]

Is that called controlling the narrative by claiming God controlled the narrative in order to make the narrative of the controllers unquestionable?

Yeah.

So?

 

[timothyu]

So?

So another case of people using God to justify their actions?

 

[RDKirk]

So another case of people using God to justify their actions?

No, a case of people using God to justify God's actions.