Additions to the Bible ?

[Faithfulservant]

I agree completely: they were teachers and instructors. However, they were just like you and me, Darren, with the exception that they had been alive and had been chosen by Jesus as the messengers of the good news. Insofar as they preach the good news, I really enjoy reading their letters. To the extent that they sacrificed their own lives to preach that good news, I would say that they were inspired by God. However, I don't necessarily think that their words can be taken as God's own words because, unlike the prophets, they wrote by their own accord.

The Revelation is different; it is a prophecy delivered to John with the precise instructions to make it known.

The gospels are different; they are historical accounts of Jesus' life, and they contain Jesus' own words (as close as we're gonna get to them, anyways), which have the authority of God's own words because Jesus spoke what God wanted him to speak.

The letters are an important part of my faith; I just don't attach the same level of importance to them as I do to the rest of the Bible. After all, by the time they were written the victory had already been won, the message had been made straight, and there was nothing else that needed to be said. In a sense, the letters just paved the way for the theology that divides Christians today, even though they were not meant to do so, by taking a simple message and making it more complicated.

Im a bit surprised and disappointed by a few of your statements here. I usually agree with everything you say but this was dismaying to me.

The letters are what make the new covenant ...well new. The gospels were an account of Jesus life as the messiah for the Jews that didnt accept Him... but the path for the Gentiles wasnt opened up until the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ by His visit to Paul on the road to Damascus. By putting less importance to them you are making less the movement to bring Jesus to the Gentiles. Which is who WE are.

To say that Jesus didnt teach the books of Hebrews and Romans also takes away teaching that we are not under the law but under grace and that we are all saved by that grace. Jesus taught in the gospels but He also taught in the letters and to say that is not so I would speak as a Christian to a Christian and say dont ever say that again and claim to be a bible believing Christian because you will be accountable for every word and I do not think you grasp the fact that your words might affect someone elses walk with the Lord... which is also taught in yes... the letters.

Please reconsider what you say on this forum because false teachings are everywhere and some truth needs to be told without it being muddied up by the flesh.

 

[Marsh]

The letters are what make the new covenant ...well new. The gospels were an account of Jesus life as the messiah for the Jews that didnt accept Him... but the path for the Gentiles wasnt opened up until the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ by His visit to Paul on the road to Damascus. By putting less importance to them you are making less the movement to bring Jesus to the Gentiles (objection #1). Which is who WE are.

To say that Jesus didnt teach the books of Hebrews and Romans also takes away teaching that we are not under the law but under grace and that we are all saved by that grace (objection #2). Jesus taught in the gospels but He also taught in the letters and to say that is not so I would speak as a Christian to a Christian and say dont ever say that again and claim to be a bible believing Christian because you will be accountable for every word and I do not think you grasp the fact that your words might affect someone elses walk with the Lord... which is also taught in yes... the letters.

Please reconsider what you say on this forum because false teachings are everywhere and some truth needs to be told without it being muddied up by the flesh.

Well, I can certainly understand your reaction, F, and I know how hard it is to consider what I am saying and not to jump to the conclusion that I am dismissing two-thirds of the New Testament. I'm not. As I said before, I believe that Paul was a faithful servant of the Lord, as was John, as was James, as was Peter, and Jude, and Luke, and whoever wrote the book of Hebrews (I think authorship is still up for grabs, no?). Thus, I don't think that there is anything in these works that does not make them worthy of being part of the Bible because, as you said, these letters are written to new Christians, and as someone who grew up in a Christian family and didn't know life without Christ, maybe that's why I don't attach as much significance to them as others do. All I'm saying is that, having read the Bible thoroughly and thoughtfully, I haven't found anything in the letters that hasn't already been said. Let me illustrate:

To your first objection, please consider that it was not Paul who brought us Gentiles to Jesus per se, but we had already begun to be drawn to Christ. Greeks came to the disciples and told them that they wanted to see Jesus, and when the disciples told Jesus what the Greeks had told them, Jesus replied that the time had come for him to be glorified. Paul, and Silas, and Timothy, and countless others have taken the message into the wilderness, and have established churches, but in the end it is Christ who draws people to himself.

To your second objection, it was not Paul who took us out from under the harshness of the law and into the grace of God; the Lord himself did that, yeah? Jesus is the one who told us to have faith, and to forgive, and to know that when we forgive that we ourselves are forgiven. Paul just put this message into other words, that's all.

I certainly don't mean to offend on this topic, because the Bible and all of its teachings are extremely important to me. Like I said, though I am not a Bible scholar I have been diligent to read though each book several times (even the Chronicles!), and I have not been able to find any teaching in the letters that had not already been taught-- which in my opinion is what validates the letters in the first place, stamping with God's authority rather than their own.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Marsh.. you basically repeated my own objections back to me.. which is why I said that Jesus taught those things not Paul or the rest.. because Jesus taught them.

Let me try to explain what I mean better.

If you go to college and your professor teaches the basic laws of physics.. he didnt invent the laws he just taught it to you. Also, the author of the text book didnt invent the laws he just wrote it down as it was taught to him and the book is for purpose of teaching others...

Does that make sense?

 

[Marsh]

Marsh.. you basically repeated my own objections back to me.. which is why I said that Jesus taught those things not Paul or the rest.. because Jesus taught them.

Let me try to explain what I mean better.

If you go to college and your professor teaches the basic laws of physics.. he didnt invent the laws he just taught it to you. Also, the author of the text book didnt invent the laws he just wrote it down as it was taught to him and the book is for purpose of teaching others...

Does that make sense?

Why... yes, I did repeat them back, with the intent that you would see that I am not disowning the letters. I do, however, question whether they should be accepted as the inspired word of God (i.e. equal to the prophets), or as words of inspiration from faithful men (i.e. important, yet not absolute). The thing is, Jesus verified the importance of the Old Testament by either citing individual books, or by referring to their content in his teachings and parables. He also verified the authenticity of the Revelation, because he is the one who gave it to us. The letters fall into a different category, and while their teachings are based on those that Jesus gave to us, can we really consider them to be the inspired word of God? I'm not sure that we can, or that we need to.

Let me use your analogy to illustrate: The gospels are the physics text, and the letters are the accompanying study guide. Without the text, the study guide is useless. Without the study guide, the text still stands.

Just to remind you where I was coming from, the original question was why nothing else has been added to the Bible since it was put together. My point was that, aside from the gospels and the Revelation, there is nothing else that necessarily needs to be added, aside from perhaps the book of acts. The rest is good, but not necessary.

Proof: Has anyone fully understood the sermon on the mountain yet? The teachings in those three chapters alone could take an entire lifetime to understand and internalize...

 

[Faithfulservant]

Im still not sure if I agree or am understanding your thought on this and because this is weighing heavy on my heart I go to the tried and true method of asking for discernment so I went to prayer. This is what I believe was revealed to me.

I think the answer is my own personal experience with God and how the Holy Spirit reveals scripture to me when I need it (which is often) Its uncanny really how it happens but a verse pops in mind just when I need it for any number of situations... He certainly doesnt bring to mind words of many wonderful Christian writers that I read..lol I could go into detail about these scriptures that pop in on these situations but given your own relationship to Jesus Im sure you know what Im talking about.

The fact that we cannot grasp the meat of scripture without the Holy Spirit is also proof to me. I have gotten some mighty juicy bits from these letters, Marsh. These bits have sustained me as much as the Psalms and the comforting words of my Lord Jesus in the gospels. This is how I know that the letters were inspired by the Holy Spirit as well as the OT and the gospel.

Im glad this came up because anytime that I have doubts about something He is so faithful in providing an answer one way or another. I hope that you can somehow find wisdom in this because I think you are missing something so integral to our faith as believing He, Himself provided something living and completely holy as these precious words in these letters. Inspired and written through His power and for His glory using mere man.

Many thanks for the opportunity to have validation, Marsh

May God continue to bless your walk.

 

[Marsh]

Im still not sure if I agree or am understanding your thought on this and because this is weighing heavy on my heart I go to the tried and true method of asking for discernment so I went to prayer....

...I hope that you can somehow find wisdom in this because I think you are missing something so integral to our faith as believing He, Himself provided something living and completely holy as these precious words in these letters.

See, the thing is that we aren't very far apart on this, F. I have never disagreed that the thoughts and expressions and exhortations that the disciples made are not beautiful and encouraging; just the opposite, in fact. One of my favourite books in the whole Bible is James' letter, because he is just so blunt and matter-of-fact, and blows the cover off of a multitude of false practices (divisions within churches, self-righteousness, and religiosity to name a few). Like you, God puts certain of these verses into my heart when I need encouragement, guidance, or (quite often) criticism. These are the writings of people just like me: people who had accepted Jesus as their saviour, and who were living new lives of forgiveness and sacrifice and loving others as they loved themselves-- the difference being that they were farther along the path than I am right now, I think, which makes them excellent role models in a world of few role models.

My objection has never been that the letters are unimportant, or untrue. Insofar as they are the expressions of the faith of men who live for God, they are inherently true. I just don't like the way that some people fish a phrase out of them (i.e. women aren't allowed to speak in church), and assign God's authority to it-- particularly when doing so goes against what is said in the rest of the Bible. This happens so often; no part of the Bible is abused as much as the letters are.

Can you accept the idea that I can find the voice of God within the writings of these letters without finding it necessary to deem them the absolute word of God?

My faith is not lacking because I don't ascribe authorship of these letters to God himself; it is strong, because I use it to discern the voice of my shepherd from within them. Thank you for your concern, though, and please know that even as I write this reply, I am seriously considering all you have said, because I know you're being a friend.