Do Paul's Letters Really Count?

almostbitten

If there is anyone here with some heavy Bible knowledge, I would like to throw this nugget up in the air.

In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul reminds us that "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching...." NWT (because that was the version that was sitting nearby).

My question is: Did Paul consider the personal letters he wrote to the various churches and to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon as SCRIPTURE? What about Paul, James and John?

For you Bible readers, if you notice, Paul always quotes the OT/Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures. It is a well known fact that the OT was written down and also referred to orally (even Jesus referred to them), but does that mean that Paul was calling "Scripture" anything he or his contemporaries wrote? I realize they were giving counsel to others in the newly emerging church, but does counsel necessarily equate with scripture? After all, the NT/Greek Texts were compiled by the so-called "church fathers" at a later date, with some writings being accepted and others flat out rejected.

steve2

If you can get passed his dreary legalistic mindset, blatant misogyny and off-putting self-importance, his letters might count...I suppose.

nomoreguilt

I consider it this way. The scriptures that Paul referred to were, like you said, already established as related to the god of the hebrews. These were quoted by and referred to by first century christians. In the compilation of the bible canon though, all of the later apostles writings were include in the bible.

I, however, do not consider them, the letters of Paul, to be "Scripture per say", in the sense that the hebrew scriptures were inspired of god. This is of course IF YOU believe the bible to be the WORD of god, which I can not. Too many stories, wrestling with angels, talking snakes, babies in baskets on the Nile, you get the idea.

I especially object to Paul's teaching's on df'ing. These are contrary to jesus' teaching of FORGIVENESS and himself associating with SINNERS.

My opinion like others, and not to be considered GOSPEL

NMG

journey-on

I've always had a problem with Paul...even when I was a Witness. When I read his writings, he uses "I" and "me" way too much.

He never even met Jesus or heard Jesus speak. He comes along at an "oh so opportune" time and takes over, claiming to have

had a vision on the road to Damascus. Then he proceeds to usurp the whole Christian movement and the final nail is put in the

coffin when the Church later completely adopts the Pauline version of Christianity. He is anti-women, anti-gay, anti-this and anti-that.

He began all the rules and regulations that the later church emphasized. His teachings, imo, were nothing like that of Jesus. I think

the Gnostics actually were more in line with Christ's teachings and according to some, the Church tampered with the gospels and the

final result is what we have today. They rejected important writings and tweaked others that were included. No, I don't think Paul's letters

are worthy of such high esteem. But who am I?

almostbitten

NMG,
Thank you for weighing in. This concerns me because many churches and JWs especially, put a LOT of weight on Paul's writings, probably more than they do the teachings and examples of Christ.

This is another line of thought, but it just seems to me that Paul, though converted, never seemed to be able to separate himself from his legalistic background and training as a Pharisee. Though he offers counsel for an organized church, do we give more weight to the rules and regulations he puts forth versus the spirit of Jesus' teachings?

Paul was the Rutherford of his time

Exactly! I think Rutherford saw how Paul took over Christianity and turned it into an empire and decided to do the same thing with the otherwise mostly harmless bible students.

Do Paul's Letters Really Count?

almostbitten

steve2

nomoreguilt

journey-on

almostbitten

MissingLink

Awakened at Gilead

Awakened at Gilead

littlerockguy

MissingLink

Share this