Why are the Epistles Considered Scripture?

[royallighting7]

When the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy and told him the importance of scripture, is there any evidence that he considered his own words or the words of other Apostles to be scripture? and if we put the apostles words into a cannon and call them scripture, why is it that we don't put the words of other Christians as scripture? Are we to say that Paul or Peter were perfect and could make no mistakes?
You can say that the epistles were inspired by God, but you can also say that any Christian writer today is inspired by God. I hear Christians defending scripture all the time as if "scripture" should be a blanket term for everything in the Bible (a book that was put together by men).
To be clear, I'm not contesting the authority of the Old Testament scriptures, Gospels, or Revelation, but the epistles written by men just like us. While I do believe that they are useful and should be read, to say that they are infallible and call them scripture is too much in my opinion. Some thoughts please?

 

[Yarddog]

When the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy and told him the importance of scripture, is there any evidence that he considered his own words or the words of other Apostles to be scripture? and if we put the apostles words into a cannon and call them scripture, why is it that we don't put the words of other Christians as scripture? Are we to say that Paul or Peter were perfect and could make no mistakes?
You can say that the epistles were inspired by God, but you can also say that any Christian writer today is inspired by God. I hear Christians defending scripture all the time as if "scripture" should be a blanket term for everything in the Bible (a book that was put together by men).
To be clear, I'm not contesting the authority of the Old Testament scriptures, Gospels, or Revelation, but the epistles written by men just like us. While I do believe that they are useful and should be read, to say that they are infallible and call them scripture is too much in my opinion. Some thoughts please?

The Gospels were written by men just like us as well. Why do you separate what Luke wrote from what Paul or Peter wrote? Luke was Paul's disciple.

Was Matthew's Gospel any more inspired than the epistle of James or why would John's Gospel be more inspired than his epistles? These were all disciples of Jesus and received God's Holy Spirit before writing.

When the Church was determining which of the writings would be placed into a book which became the Bible, they considered many writings of the early Church fathers. The writings of the Apostles or their disciples were included while those of other writers are still revered and are part of tradition.

 

[royallighting7]

The Gospels were written by men just like us as well. Why do you separate what Luke wrote from what Paul or Peter wrote? Luke was Paul's disciple.

I'm separating them based off of their nature. Luke was an account of Jesus' sayings and events of what he did while he was on Earth. Paul wrote letters to help the early churches. While I do believe the epistles are important, I don't believe they shouldn't be viewed as having infallible authority. If you did that for Paul's writings, why not do that for any other Christian writers work today?

Was Matthew's Gospel any more inspired than the epistle of James or why would John's Gospel be more inspired than his epistles? These were all disciples of Jesus and received God's Holy Spirit before writing.

For the same reasons as above. John's gospel was an account of what Jesus did. James writtings were things to encourage the early church so that they could grow. When James though about scripture, he wasn't thinking about his own words, but those of the Hebrew scriptures. Why should we add to that?[/QUOTE]

When the Church was determining which of the writings would be placed into a book which became the Bible, they considered many writings of the early Church fathers. The writings of the Apostles or their disciples were included while those of other writers are still revered and are part of tradition.

Thank God for the ones who brought these books together, but calling the whole Bible scripture is a bit much. The early church didn't have the epistles to call scripture. They had to look towards the Hebrew Scripture they already know with Christ in mind. I don't understand what makes the Apostles writings so special that they can be canonized. I'm glad for the insight I've gained by reading Paul or Peter's writings, but it's more like the insight I would get from someone who's older and wiser than me, not canonized scripture.

 

[Yarddog]

I'm separating them based off of their nature. Luke was an account of Jesus' sayings and events of what he did while he was on Earth. Paul wrote letters to help the early churches. While I do believe the epistles are important, I don't believe they shouldn't be viewed as having infallible authority. If you did that for Paul's writings, why not do that for any other Christian writers work today?

Do you believe what Luke wrote in the Acts? Jesus revealed himself to Paul and appointed him to take the "Gospel" to the Gentiles. He found Luke and made him his disciple. How do you put Luke's writing over the one who taught him? That doesn't make much sense does it?

For the same reasons as above. John's gospel was an account of what Jesus did. James writtings were things to encourage the early church so that they could grow. When James though about scripture, he wasn't thinking about his own words, but those of the Hebrew scriptures. Why should we add to that?

Your logic doesn't make much sense. What does a person writing about what Jesus said and did make it better than what Jesus taught these men to do and say?

Thank God for the ones who brought these books together,

Amen.

but calling the whole Bible scripture is a bit much.

Then calling anything in the NT scripture is a bit much.

The early church didn't have the epistles to call scripture.

They didn't have the Gospels to call scripture either and many of the epistles were written before the Gospels.

They had to look towards the Hebrew Scripture they already know with Christ in mind.

This is true but then those men who walked with Jesus began to write down the accounts of what Jesus taught and wrote instructions for the Churches that they started so that they would remain strong and true to the Gospel which Jesus taught.

I don't understand what makes the Apostles writings so special that they can be canonized.

Then you have to say the same about the whole NT. Canonization is the declaration by the Church that something is worthy to be believed as being worthy or sacred.

NT canon was not set until around the 4th or 5th century. There was a dispute about which books were worthy. As an example, the book of Hebrews was doubted by the Roman Church as being from Paul while many other areas believed that it was.

When the Bishops come together as one and discuss matters, it is believed that the Holy Spirit leads them to the truth. Thus, they set the NT canon.

They did not reject all other writings, only that they didn't include them in the one Book we call the Bible. Certain areas, such as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church have additional books.

I'm glad for the insight I've gained by reading Paul or Peter's writings, but it's more like the insight I would get from someone who's older and wiser than me, not canonized scripture.

You are free to feel about the books as you choose. I get much insight by reading the writings of the Early Church Father.

Here is a site where you can read many of their writings.
Early Church Fathers | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[royallighting7]

Do you believe what Luke wrote in the Acts? Jesus revealed himself to Paul and appointed him to take the "Gospel" to the Gentiles. He found Luke and made him his disciple. How do you put Luke's writing over the one who taught him? That doesn't make much sense does it?

Luke's gospel was a historical account. Acts was a historical account. They, just like the Hebrew Scriptures, portray events as they happened (including Jesus' ministry). Paul's writings were not historical accounts by nature (although he mentioned historical events in them). My reason for putting Luke's gospel over Paul's epistles has nothing to do with their seniority, but the fact that Luke's were historical and Paul's was not. We can agree that Paul wasn't perfect, right? So, how come everything he writes is considered perfect? It's the principle of the matter.

Your logic doesn't make much sense. What does a person writing about what Jesus said and did make it better than what Jesus taught these men to do and say?

Same as above. It's one thing for me to tell you exactly what happened the best I can. It's another thing for me to try to encourage you and give you my insight into what happened. For example, let's look at Paul. He wrote that women should be silent in the church meetings (Correct me if I'm wrong). I don't believe that is something that should be seen with absolute authority. He was wise enough to understand the culture and did his best to help Timothy (I think it was Timothy). By us reading the Hebrew Scriptures and looking into the Gospels, we would have had the same experience and knowledge that Peter had. He was a Jew, so he would've known the scriptures, and he basically experienced what was in the Gospels. I don't see why we should make his or any other Epistles canon.


Amen.

Then calling anything in the NT scripture is a bit much.


They didn't have the Gospels to call scripture either and many of the epistles were written before the Gospels.

But most of them experienced the Gospels anyway. The reason why I would put the gospels in the mix is because they are historical and portray Jesus' teachings.

This is true but then those men who walked with Jesus began to write down the accounts of what Jesus taught and wrote instructions for the Churches that they started so that they would remain strong and true to the Gospel which Jesus taught.

IMO, taking what Paul or Peter says as absolute is like taking the word of your preacher without heeding and using wisdom. Yes, they have very wise words to say and we should consider them, but it's the principle of the matter. Even Paul wanted us to work out our own salvation. Even though I don't think he was directly talking about scripture, the same principle applies.

Then you have to say the same about the whole NT. Canonization is the declaration by the Church that something is worthy to be believed as being worthy or sacred.

I don't believe the group that did the canonizing (I think Nicea) had malicious intent. They did what they could. I believe our Gospels are an accurate portrayal of history. There's much evidence to show this.

NT canon was not set until around the 4th or 5th century. There was a dispute about which books were worthy. As an example, the book of Hebrews was doubted by the Roman Church as being from Paul while many other areas believed that it was.

When the Bishops come together as one and discuss matters, it is believed that the Holy Spirit leads them to the truth. Thus, they set the NT canon.

They did not reject all other writings, only that they didn't include them in the one Book we call the Bible. Certain areas, such as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church have additional books.

Even the Roman Church had doubts as to whether one of the books should be canonized. That should show us that we're not all perfect. They did their best and what they have done was used by God ever since (when the Catholic Church actually started letting people read it).
Those other books had just as much of chance in getting into the Bible as the ones that are already in (not considering the merit of the books).

You are free to feel about the books as you choose. I get much insight by reading the writings of the Early Church Father.

Here is a site where you can read many of their writings.

Thanks for the link! I'll look into it.

 

[Goinheix]

When the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy and told him the importance of scripture, is there any evidence that he considered his own words or the words of other Apostles to be scripture? and if we put the apostles words into a cannon and call them scripture, why is it that we don't put the words of other Christians as scripture? Are we to say that Paul or Peter were perfect and could make no mistakes?
You can say that the epistles were inspired by God, but you can also say that any Christian writer today is inspired by God. I hear Christians defending scripture all the time as if "scripture" should be a blanket term for everything in the Bible (a book that was put together by men).
To be clear, I'm not contesting the authority of the Old Testament scriptures, Gospels, or Revelation, but the epistles written by men just like us. While I do believe that they are useful and should be read, to say that they are infallible and call them scripture is too much in my opinion. Some thoughts please?

There is a huge difference between what Paul concidered Scripture and the writing of the apostles. The Scriptures mentioned by Paul had indisputed authority. We know those Scriptures as the Old Testament. Notice that the "new" writing was not added to the Scriptures but collected in a New Testament. Any how, I dont see you disputing the authority of the NT; are you? The inspiration of the NT is not indispute; is it?

There is also a huge difference between the writting of the apostles and all other writter of today and yesterday. The so called Phaters of the Chruch as Agustine, Jeronimo etc; or christians like Luther, Wesley ot even our contemporaries; keep a big desvantage to the writers of the NT. The authority of the NT is on the fact that all authors (including Paul, Luke and Mark) did witnesses with the own eyes, the ministery of Jesus.

There is only a small problem...out of all of those who witnessed the ministery of Jesus...who is cannonical? If it happens that we found a writting from another apostle or disciple of Jesus...shall we concider it cannonical?

 

[ebia]

I'm separating them based off of their nature. Luke was an account of Jesus' sayings and events of what he did while he was on Earth. Paul wrote letters to help the early churches. While I do believe the epistles are important, I don't believe they shouldn't be viewed as having infallible authority. If you did that for Paul's writings, why not do that for any other Christian writers work today?

None of the Gospels are just straightforward accounts of the facts. They are carefully crafted theological accounts just as much as Paul's epistles or Acts of the Apostles (which is basically scroll number two to the Gospel of Luke). That's why it's the four canonical gospels that are in the bible, not any telling of the Jesus' story. It's those particular tellings of the stories that are Scripture, and they are theological documents just as much as the Epistle to the Romans or Isaiah.

Originally the church would have regarded only the OT as scripture, but very quickly they were distributing copies of Paul's letters and reading them in church as part of the liturgy as well, then the gospels (which were largely written after the epistles). As time went on it became obvious that much the same texts were being used across the church, and that these were appropriate texts to use in that way. Canonisation then, was largely a process of recognising what was already fact - that Christian communities across the board were using these texts as scripture in forming their lives and communities, and that was working. These were the texts that formed the community - Paul's epistles every bit as much as, say, Luke's Gospel.

 

[ebia]

If it happens that we found a writting from another apostle or disciple of Jesus...shall we concider it cannonical?

It's a good question. I think not. If it wasn't in widespread use in the liturgy throughout the Christian community by the late 2nd century then it simply wasn't even in the running.

 

[royallighting7]

There is a huge difference between what Paul concidered Scripture and the writing of the apostles. The Scriptures mentioned by Paul had indisputed authority. We know those Scriptures as the Old Testament.

Agreed. Paul never mentioned his own words as being scripture.

Notice that the "new" writing was not added to the Scriptures but collected in a New Testament.

New writing?

Any how, I dont see you disputing the authority of the NT; are you? The inspiration of the NT is not indispute; is it?

I'm disputing whether or not we should consider the Epistles to be absolute authority.
The Gospel and Acts are historical accounts and portray events of Jesus as they happened. I don't dispute them.

There is also a huge difference between the writting of the apostles and all other writter of today and yesterday. The so called Phaters of the Chruch as Agustine, Jeronimo etc; or christians like Luther, Wesley ot even our contemporaries; keep a big desvantage to the writers of the NT. The authority of the NT is on the fact that all authors (including Paul, Luke and Mark) did witnesses with the own eyes, the ministery of Jesus.

I agree with you, but I wouldn't call it a disadvantage. We all know what the the gospel of Christ, and we have the Hebrew scriptures and the Gospels to study. I'm not saying that the Epistles should be disregarded, just not cannon. They Epistles have a lot of insight and wisdom for us to look into, but they are still men just like us.

There is only a small problem...out of all of those who witnessed the ministery of Jesus...who is cannonical? If it happens that we found a writting from another apostle or disciple of Jesus...shall we concider it cannonical?

Throughout this post, I wasn't sure if you were disagreeing, agreeing, or just giving me facts.

 

[ebia]

I'm disputing whether or not we should consider the Epistles to be absolute authority.
The Gospel and Acts are historical accounts and portray events of Jesus as they happened.

That's your problem - they are not simply historical accounts portraying events as they happened. They are finely crafted pieces of narrative theology. As all the narratives in scripture are.

 

[royallighting7]

None of the Gospels are just straightforward accounts of the facts. They are carefully crafted theological accounts just as much as Paul's epistles or Acts of the Apostles (which is basically scroll number two to the Gospel of Luke). That's why it's the four canonical gospels that are in the bible, not any telling of the Jesus' story. It's those particular tellings of the stories that are Scripture, and they are theological documents just as much as the Epistle to the Romans or Isaiah.

Of course, they have a theological purpose. I didn't mean that they were straightforward in the sense like story book, but they do portray what Jesus taught and did.

Originally the church would have regarded only the OT as scripture, but very quickly they were distributing copies of Paul's letters and reading them in church as part of the liturgy as well, then the gospels (which were largely written after the epistles). As time went on it became obvious that much the same texts were being used across the church, and that these were appropriate texts to use in that way. Canonisation then, was largely a process of recognising what was already fact - that Christian communities across the board were using these texts as scripture in forming their lives and communities, and that was working. These were the texts that formed the community - Paul's epistles every bit as much as, say, Luke's Gospel.

I knew that the gospels were written after the epistles (most of them anyway).

Canonisation then, was largely a process of recognising what was already fact - that Christian communities across the board were using these texts as scripture in forming their lives and communities, and that was working. These were the texts that formed the community - Paul's epistles every bit as much as, say, Luke's Gospel.

Yes, I believe this. It makes sense that a lot of times the only thing the early churches had was the Gospels and the Epistles.

 

[Goinheix]

New writing?



I'm disputing whether or not we should consider the Epistles to be absolute authority.
The Gospel and Acts are historical accounts and portray events of Jesus as they happened. I don't dispute them.


I agree with you, but I wouldn't call it a disadvantage. We all know what the the gospel of Christ, and we have the Hebrew scriptures and the Gospels to study. I'm not saying that the Epistles should be disregarded, just not cannon. They Epistles have a lot of insight and wisdom for us to look into, but they are still men just like us.




Throughout this post, I wasn't sure if you were disagreeing, agreeing, or just giving me facts.

By "new writting" i mean the writing of the NT, what today we know as NT. After the OT was completed, many more jew continued on writing. Some of those writings were include in the catholic cannon, some were not included on any cannon.

The gospels and act are more than historicals. They are the inspired word of God. Josefo was a hitory writter, but we are aloud to doubt of what he say, it cold be wrong or even lies. Not the gospels and act. Historically, they are perfect true in every single detail. Theologicaly are usefull to stablish doctrine and spiritual facts.

Thed authors of the NT were men as us and as all other authors of the OT. No differece between them (NT) and the others (OT). But a big difference with all the rest of us. They (NT) were designated by Jesus Christ to be witnesses of the Gospel. That is: to write down what they saw and ear. It could be in the manner of a historical acount, inthe manner on a doctrinal epistle, or even in the manner of a private letter.

Nobody else qualifies as they did.

 

[ebia]

Of course, they have a theological purpose. I didn't mean that they were straightforward in the sense like story book, but they do portray what Jesus taught and did.

They portray it in a particular way for a particular purpose. And therefore it's not simple fact that they tell the Jesus story that makes them scripture. It's exactly the same process that decides those particular 4 tellings of the story, and no others, are scripture that decides that exactly these letters to churches are scripture, and no others.

I knew that the gospels were written after the epistles (most of them anyway).

And, most likely, took slightly longer to get distributed around and universally adopted for liturgical reading. There's absolutely nothing historical that points to these particular tellings being adopted as official and universally useful earlier than Paul's epistles.

 

[DamianWarS]

When the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy and told him the importance of scripture, is there any evidence that he considered his own words or the words of other Apostles to be scripture?

2 Peter 3:15b-16
...just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction

This is more than Peter thinking that Paul's writing is scripture this is him writing in to an audience that assumes this position as well. He is not defending this position he is just simply stating it like it is common knowledge. If Paul's letters were on this level it would foolish to think that Paul himself wasn't aware of this.

 

[royallighting7]

2 Peter 3:15b-16
...just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction

This is more than Peter thinking that Paul's writing is scripture this is him writing in to an audience that assumes this position as well. He is not defending this position he is just simply stating it like it is common knowledge. If Paul's letters were on this level it would foolish to think that Paul himself wasn't aware of this.

Ok. What made Peter want to call Paul's writings "scripture"? Before then, they only had the Hebrew Scriptures to go by. Did they regularly add things to the Hebrew Scriptures as they pleased in those days?
Warning: I'm asking because I'm curious, not because I'm cynical.

 

[ebia]

Clearly the Hebrew Scriptures are of diverse ages. We simply don't know much of how they went about deciding what was in and what was out, or much idea if, let alone when, that was a closed set. Presumably Deuteronomy, say, was viewed as scripture long before Daniel (which was only written around 160bc) , but quite how that worked is guesswork.

Bear in mind you couldn't buy a set of the scriptures in the way we buy a bible. You would need to go out and buy individual scrolls of individual books, each costing an absurd amount of money. Most synagogues would have some, but not all.

 

[DamianWarS]

Bear in mind you couldn't buy a set of the scriptures in the way we buy a bible. You would need to go out and buy individual scrolls of individual books, each costing an absurd amount of money. Most synagogues would have some, but not all.

its difficult to say how much scripture was available for the first churches, certainly Jewish born believers would have a better concept of their scripture than their greek brothers. I'm sure synagogues were not handing this stuff over and so these churches relied on the apostles teaching and when they did get something in written form it must have turned into immediate scripture. Also given this was a new revelation there needs to be something written down to help articulate what the difference between a Jew and a Christian so there is a natural need for scripture beyond old Hebrew text. Sure today we have thousands of Christian writers and experts but remove all the scripture, and leave only a handful of experts and see how much you covet even the smallest letters.

 

[heterodoxical]

When the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy and told him the importance of scripture, is there any evidence that he considered his own words or the words of other Apostles to be scripture? and if we put the apostles words into a cannon and call them scripture, why is it that we don't put the words of other Christians as scripture? Are we to say that Paul or Peter were perfect and could make no mistakes?
You can say that the epistles were inspired by God, but you can also say that any Christian writer today is inspired by God. I hear Christians defending scripture all the time as if "scripture" should be a blanket term for everything in the Bible (a book that was put together by men).
To be clear, I'm not contesting the authority of the Old Testament scriptures, Gospels, or Revelation, but the epistles written by men just like us. While I do believe that they are useful and should be read, to say that they are infallible and call them scripture is too much in my opinion. Some thoughts please?

They were either written by Apostles, that lived with Christ, heard Him speak, watched Him live, as first person witnesses, or by disciples who did the same. Or written by someone working with them, and written while they still lived. Also they had to be wide spread and acknowledged by those in the Church. JOHN was the last, and he was writing the same time Clement of Rome wrote 1 Clement, yet Clement isn't canonical. Although it's great History.

They are the application of the Gospels.

And Same reason a book today written about what Abe Lincoln was thinking, wouldn't be as impactful as His diary would.

 

[royallighting7]

Clearly the Hebrew Scriptures are of diverse ages. We simply don't know much of how they went about deciding what was in and what was out, or much idea if, let alone when, that was a closed set. Presumably Deuteronomy, say, was viewed as scripture long before Daniel (which was only written around 160bc) , but quite how that worked is guesswork.

I've heard from some source that the time between the last Hebrew prophet and Christ's birth was about 400 years, but you say that Daniel was around 160BC. I'll have to do some research and learn more.
I wonder what kinda process the Jews went through to decide.

Bear in mind you couldn't buy a set of the scriptures in the way we buy a bible. You would need to go out and buy individual scrolls of individual books, each costing an absurd amount of money. Most synagogues would have some, but not all.

I've always thought since the Jews were commanded to teach their children the law, they would have to have copies and teach their children to read very early.

 

[ebia]

The story of Daniel is set in the exile, but there are plenty of clues that the book as we have it was written during the time of antiochus epiphanes.