How much of the NT do we need?

[exiled]

I was wondering why it is anyone thinks we need any part of the New Testament other than the Gospels?
The words of Jesus Christ Himself should be enough, I would think as long as we are guided by the Holy Spirit, which is part of what Jesus tells us in the NT.
How dare we add to the words/teachings of Jesus with the words of the fallible Apostles. Were Christ’s words insufficient?
As a Catholic I think this is patently absurd, but for all of the Bible only Christians I wonder why their need for nobody other than Jesus does not extend to the writings of the NT? The apostles taught things that were not specifically covered by Jesus Himself in the course of the Gospels?
Catholics easily answer with the offices that were established within the Gospels, but I don’t think it’s so easy for protestants.
Some I know claim only the apostles had some degree of infallible authority, but there were NT writers and teachers who were not of the original 12, therefore they were successors.
Why do protestants accept each book within the NT, when none of them even claim within themselves that they are inspired Scripture?
If the apostles did have some degree of infallible authority, who decided for you that only those teachings contained within the Bible were the ones you needed to heed?

 

[mrs_abbott]

I was wondering why it is anyone thinks we need any part of the New Testament other than the Gospels?
The words of Jesus Christ Himself should be enough, I would think as long as we are guided by the Holy Spirit, which is part of what Jesus tells us in the NT.
How dare we add to the words/teachings of Jesus with the words of the fallible Apostles. Were Christ’s words insufficient?
As a Catholic I think this is patently absurd, but for all of the Bible only Christians I wonder why their need for nobody other than Jesus does not extend to the writings of the NT? The apostles taught things that were not specifically covered by Jesus Himself in the course of the Gospels?
Catholics easily answer with the offices that were established within the Gospels, but I don’t think it’s so easy for protestants.
Some I know claim only the apostles had some degree of infallible authority, but there were NT writers and teachers who were not of the original 12, therefore they were successors.
Why do protestants accept each book within the NT, when none of them even claim within themselves that they are inspired Scripture?
If the apostles did have some degree of infallible authority, who decided for you that only those teachings contained within the Bible were the ones you needed to heed?

Have you read any part of the NT besides the gospels? The writings of Paul are remarkable!!! If you haven’t read anything by Paul, I suggest you do so because you’re missing out.

 

[NotWorthy]

Because Christ left His Church to men to guide us in His absence. Look at the words of Christ in Matthew 16 - “Upon YOU I will build My Church”. To say that God didn’t inspire the Apostles and other authors of the NT, is to claim that God is not guiding the men of the Church today.

 

[exiled]

Have you read any part of the NT besides the gospels? The writings of Paul are remarkable!!! If you haven’t read anything by Paul, I suggest you do so because you’re missing out.

I guess my point wasn’t very clear. I totally agree that there is much to value. What I’m trying to get at, though, is why are Christ’s words being added to? Isn’t that a violation of some of the most basic platforms of protestantism, that Christ alone is sufficient?
His words, His suffering, His work is all that any one needs, right?
From a Catholic perspective I believe that the rest of the NT is the establishment of the authority of the Church and the authority of Tradition. Somewhere Jesus says that the advocate will come and remind you of all that I have said. (paraphrase, obviously). Well, I think from Acts onward we have examples of the infallibility of the Church. The Holy Spirit came to the Church and reminded them that Christ had made all things clean, for example. This was not something I remember reading in the Gospels, so Acts was the Biblical precedent to all that the Church determines infallibly. The doctrine of the Trinity which all of Christianity accepts today, was a later “reminder” by the Holy Spirit.
So in a nutshell, what is the basis for the protestant acceptance of the rest of the NT?

 

[exiled]

Because Christ left His Church to men to guide us in His absence. Look at the words of Christ in Matthew 16 - “Upon YOU I will build My Church”. To say that God didn’t inspire the Apostles and other authors of the NT, is to claim that God is not guiding the men of the Church today.

I’m obviously not a great communicator. I’m thoroughly and completely in the Catholic Scripture and Tradition corner. I’m trying to make a point to Bible only Christians. Maybe I’m not a very good point-maker!

 

[mrs_abbott]

So in a nutshell, what is the basis for the protestant acceptance of the rest of the NT?

2 Tim. 3:14-17
14
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
15
and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17
so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m obviously not a great communicator. I’m thoroughly and completely in the Catholic Scripture and Tradition corner. I’m trying to make a point to Bible only Christians. Maybe I’m not a very good point-maker!

Ahhhhhhh, I get it. Maybe I need to finish your original post before I get my gander up and defend that which needs no defense.

My bad!

 

[Epistemes]

Yes, the Gospels could stand on their own; but what’s to keep from someone 2000 years after the Gospels to say, ‘This is bogus. We’re resting our lives on purported parables from a purported Jewish mystic wiseman?’

We forget too easily that there are people, including scholars, who have devoted their lives to proving that Jesus was a complete myth.

With Paul and the rest of the NT, the process of “tradition” is only set in place and the Gospels verification. When a doubter comes along and says, “Jesus doesn’t exist and Christianity is a myth,” we can turn them to Paul and his conversion and say, “If it’s a myth, then it sure fooled one of its most staunchest opponents!”