Why are letters from John and Paul included in the Bible?

by Lore 22 Replies latest jw friends

  • Lore
    Lore

    I don't see much difference between Paul writing a letter to the Corinthian Congregation and the GB writing a letter to the Timbucktoo Congregation.

    Is what Paul wrote to the Ephesians just as fallible and subject to 'new light' as the letters the WTS writes to congregations today?

    If a letter from the governing body today which says it's immoral to have an organ transplant can be dead wrong and changed later. Can the letter from Paul which says it's wrong to eat blood be dead wrong and subject to change later?

    I'm just curious why simple letters would ever become considered the inspired word of god. (I'm also curious why anything written by a human would be considered the inspired word of god, but lets not go there in this topic mmmkay?)

    Lastly, in Revelation it says not to add or remove anything from these words.
    I'm purdy sure this was just talking about the book of Revelatoin, but witnesses apply that to the ENTIRE bible.
    If nothing should have been added to the scriptures after Revelation, and 1st 2nd and 3rd John were written AFTER Revelation, then they can't be scripture can they?

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    I agree with you. Paul was central to orthodox Christianity. His form survived. He is the earliest author. There was nothing magical about scripture. God did not ordain it. Constantine enforced the canon b/c he needed political unity to strengthen his hold on the empire. John of Patmos was writing before cannoization. He probably had only a few of the books we now call the NT. If you read other Christian or Jewish apocalpyses, a popular literary genre, they prob. contain the same warning about not changing the word.

    Few people today how the Bible was compiled. If God was present, he acted through human bishops and Roman emperors, not an edict from heaven with angels singing alleulias. How does one explain the vicious, amoral war god in the early Bible books to the God of Jesus and Paul? I don't believe they were meant to be a seamless books with one theme.

    My priest said it was a major mistake to close the canon for all time. It is a signal that God no longer works on earth. Mere Christianity by C.S.Lewis and Merton's writings would make great scripture. Merton's Wisdom of the Desert, a collection of sayings of the early Christian hermits, would also be excellent. Very pithy, strong, and oh so meaningful. Much better than Numbers or Judges.

  • Balaamsass
    Balaamsass

    Excellent question Lore. There were a LOT of early Christian letters NOT included. A lot of groups have "Red Line Bibles". These Bibles underline JESUS actual quotes in Red. The Jews seperated writtings, Talmud etc.

  • Bella15
    Bella15

    My question is WHY Paul call himself an APOSTLE? There are only 12 Apostles not 13, and Judas was replaced. I think there is a book challenging the veracity of Paul, can't remember the name now, but I found many facts in the reviews of that book interesting.

  • stapler99
    stapler99

    Interesting question. There were other letters which came later, as Balaamsass said. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers .

  • tec
    tec

    I agree completely with the points you are making. The warning in Revelation refers to that book alone. Nor do I believe that Paul considered his letters to be infallible scripture.

    Peace,

    Tammy

  • Rydor
    Rydor

    My opinion would be that followers in a religion have a tendency to look up to the leadership. At first they view them with deep respect, and over time that respect progresses into reverence, and sometimes even outright worship. I think we see the same thing today with the JWs. Though they would probably never admit it, I'll bet the majority of the rank and file witnesses view any publications coming out of New York as of divine origin, deserving of the same consideration you would give to the Bible.

    As for the divinity of Paul's letters, I used to believe that they were right from the mouth of God. That all changed when I stopped to consider this verse:

    "When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments." - 2 Timothy 4:13

    The idea that God whispered that verse into Paul's ear for the benefit of all mankind just seemed too ridiculous to believe!

  • tec
    tec

    Also Paul makes a point in one place at least, of saying 'this is from God, not me..." and then, "this is from me, not God"

    You don't make a statement like that if you consider all of your writings/letters as scripture, imo.

    Peace,

    Tammy

  • finallysomepride
    finallysomepride

    Why was revelations not originally in the bible, but added at a later date?

    Why was the book of Peter (different to 1 peter or 2 peter) originally in the bible, but removed at a later date?

    plus lots of other instances.

    It's all 'we'll make it up as we go along' sort stuff from men who want to stay in control.

    I'm not trying to sidetrack the topic, but I think these questions really add to what was asked

  • Rydor
    Rydor

    Also Paul makes a point in one place at least, of saying 'this is from God, not me..." and then, "this is from me, not God"

    Ah yes, the verse in question would be this one:

    To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. (1 Cor 7:10-12)

    And later this one:

    Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. (1 Cor 7:25,26)

    I think the latter quotation is laughable. Far more people are born into Christianity, than those who are converted as adults. If all Christians were to heed this supposedly inspired counsel, the total number of adherents would probably flatline, or start dropping!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit