Why do we need St. Paul, or specifically, why do we need his writings in the Bible?

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Why are St. Paul’s letters recognized as Christian canan? All the apostles were charged with spreading the gospel to the gentiles, and St. Peter was the first to accept non-Jews and he’s the one God informed that the dietary laws could be ignored, not St. Paul. Given this and given that so many Protestants misunderstand St. Paul’s writings, I am wondering why they are needed in the Bible at all.

What theological doctrines does Paul preent in his letters that must be included in the Bible? I am not suggesting that St. Paul’s letters be removed…I am only asking why the letterswere there in the first place.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tom of Assisi:

Why are St. Paul’s letters recognized as Christian canan? All the apostles were charged with spreading the gospel to the gentiles, and St. Peter was the first to accept non-Jews and he’s the one God informed that the dietary laws could be ignored, not St. Paul. Given this and given that so many Protestants misunderstand St. Paul’s writings, I am wondering why they are needed in the Bible at all.

What theological doctrines does Paul preent in his letters that must be included in the Bible? I am not suggesting that St. Paul’s letters be removed…I am only asking why the letterswere there in the first place.

You’re looking at it the wrong way – look at it as if you were an early Christian, trying to preserve what Justin calls “the memoirs of the Apostles.”

Peter left little written material – he was, after all, illiterate, and whatever he authored had to be written by someone else.

On the other hand, Paul was prolific, writing many letters, and sending them to many different churches. He was also the founder of many churches – so they looked on him as their special Apostle

Fairly early in the game, Christians began to gather the meagre writings of the Apostles – and there were more Pauline texts than anything else, and they were more widespread. People in several cities might have a letter direct from Paul, and be inspired to look for more.

 

[Fidelis]

vern humphrey:

Peter left little written material – he was, after all, illiterate, and whatever he authored had to be written by someone else.

We presume that it the case, because, being a fisherman in a less literate society than ours, it is likely the case. However, we don’t know that for a fact. It is at least possible for someone in a very humble occupation to be literate. The most we can say is probably.

(Not germane to the topic or other wise important in itself, of course; just trying to encourage clarity of expression.)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Fidelis:

We presume that it the case, because, being a fisherman in a less literate society than ours, it is likely the case. However, we don’t know that for a fact. It is at least possible for someone in a very humble occupation to be literate. The most we can say is probably.

(Not germane to the topic or other wise important in itself, of course; just trying to encourage clarity of expression.)

Peter tells us he is not an educated man – which in those days meant able to read and write. Traditionally, Mark was his amanuensis.

The point in this thread, however is, Paul was the most prolific writer of all the Apostles. Moreover, his letters were written to many different churches, so collecting them was something that would naturally come to mind when seeking to preserve any memoirs of the Apostles.

Or to put it another way, the Apostles didn’t leave a lot of written documents. The later generations of Christians had to take what was available, not pick and choose from 50 or 60 shelf feet.

 

[Lorarose]

The fact that Paul’s letters are misused as a misguided attempt to discredit the Church should not cloud our judgement of what a great treasure his writings are.

The early fathers tell us that Peter and Paul worked together in missionary work. They worked together in building the Church at Rome, and they both were martyred in Rome.

His writings were included because the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, decided to include them.

Paul helped build the Church we belong to. He loved the Church and gave his life for her.
We should be thankful for his gift.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Lorarose:

The fact that Paul’s letters are misused as a misguided attempt to discredit the Church should not cloud our judgement of what a great treasure his writings are.

The early fathers tell us that Peter and Paul worked together in missionary work. They worked together in building the Church at Rome, and they both were martyred in Rome.

His writings were included because the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, decided to include them.

Paul helped build the Church we belong to. He loved the Church and gave his life for her.
We should be thankful for his gift.

One of the earliest collections of Paul’s epistles was in the possession of Marcion, who used them to advance his particular heresy. Later, they were used by other Gnostic leaders.

But the fact that a particular book can be misused is no reason to reject it – look how Revelation has been misused!!

 

[Fidelis]

vern humphrey:

Peter tells us he is not an educated man – which in those days meant able to read and write.

Really? Where?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Fidelis:

vern humphrey:

Peter tells us he is not an educated man

– which in those days meant able to read and write.

Really? Where?

I knew someone was going to ask that – now I’ll have to dig it out.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon8.gif

Certainly, there are those who oppose attributing authorship of the two Epistles of Peter to Peter himself, based on the sophisticated language – assuming Peter lacked the education. Those who counter, usually ascribe this to his amanuesis, possibly Mark or Silvanus.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized them as companions of Jesus.The footnote of the New Oxford Annotated Bible says this just means “lacking legal training”. Not neccessarily meaning he can’t read or write.

Strangely enough, 1 Peter is written in almost classical greek; the fanciest writin’ in the New Testament. 2 Peter aint so hot.

Peter probably had to know some greek in order to run his biz and later on to do some important writing. But did he author the letters attributed to him? You be the judge!

 

[vern_humphrey]

whowantsumadebo:

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized them as companions of Jesus.The footnote of the New Oxford Annotated Bible says this just means “lacking legal training”. Not neccessarily meaning he can’t read or write.

Sort of like saying the word translated “parthenos” doesn’t TECHNICALLY mean a biological virgin in the original Hebrew. But it’s close enough.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

whowantsumadebo:

Strangely enough, 1 Peter is written in almost classical greek; the fanciest writin’ in the New Testament. 2 Peter aint so hot.

Peter probably had to know some greek in order to run his biz and later on to do some important writing. But did he author the letters attributed to him? You be the judge!

Most people did speak some Greek in the Eastern Mediterrainian. Note that all the scriptural quotes attributed to Christ in the Gospels are from the Septaugent – which was used by more Jews than the Hebrew version.

There are two explanations for Peter 1 and 2. One is that the language is from the amaneuensis (the person who wrote down what Peter said.) The other is that the epistles were in the Petrine Tradition, but not by Peter himself.

The similarity between the thinking and style of the Epistle of Jude and 2 Peter has also been remarked.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Tom of Assisi:

Why are St. Paul’s letters recognized as Christian canan? All the apostles were charged with spreading the gospel to the gentiles, and St. Peter was the first to accept non-Jews and he’s the one God informed that the dietary laws could be ignored, not St. Paul. Given this and given that so many Protestants misunderstand St. Paul’s writings, I am wondering why they are needed in the Bible at all.

What theological doctrines does Paul preent in his letters that must be included in the Bible? I am not suggesting that St. Paul’s letters be removed…I am only asking why the letterswere there in the first place.

== There are several questions here - one of the great doctrines of St. Paul is that of God’s grace; another, is election; another, is that Jews and Gentiles together form one Body in Christ; a third, is that of our indwelling Christ; a fourth, that of the unity of the Body of Christ, the Church; a fifth, is the primacy of charity - and so on. Those who endlessly criticise him, should read him instead ==

 

[Stephen_Mills]

Tom of Assisi:

Given this and given that so many Protestants misunderstand St. Paul’s writings, I am wondering why they are needed in the Bible at all.

Paul’s letters seem to be among the most clear cut, black and white books of the Bible. No interpretation is really needed. I’m not really very familiar with Protestant theology, but why is their interpretation so objectionable?

 

[serendipity]

I have heard that amny Biblical scholars questions the authenticity of Paul’s ltters to Timonths and I think Titua too. Has any one heard about thsi and do they know why?

Also, I ahve heard that Revelations was only narrrowly accepted into the Bibles. Can anyone recommend a source that explains the controversy of this book?

Many thanks!

 

[twf]

Paul speaks on much more than justification (which I assume is the primary doctrine that you allude to when you say that Protestants distort Paul’s writings). He gives us many helpful instructions on Christian living, the nature of the Church, evangelization, love and charity, faith, and other fundamentals. Just read through the letters…there is just so much there. They are included because the Spirit inspired Paul to write them for the churches. Protestants may distort them, but that does not mean that they are not valuable for us. Even in the first century, Peter informs us that some distort Paul’s writings (it is here that Peter, our first pope, accords Paul’s writings the status of Scripture) in 2 Peter 3:16. There is so much that one can glean from his writings. What is there that we need? Every last verse! Paul’s epistles rock!

 

[Fidelis]

Originally Posted by whowantsumadebo
Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized them as companions of Jesus.The footnote of the New Oxford Annotated Bible says this just means “lacking legal training”. Not neccessarily meaning he can’t read or write

.

vern humphrey
Sort of like saying the word translated “parthenos” doesn’t TECHNICALLY mean a biological virgin in the original Hebrew. But it’s close enough.

My understanding is the same cited whowantsumadebo-- that they were looked down upon by the Jewish leaders because they were’nt recognized scribes or religious experts. So again, this does not equate with illiteracy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Fidelis:

.

My understanding is the same cited whowantsumadebo-- that they were looked down upon by the Jewish leaders because they were’nt recognized scribes or religious experts. So again, this does not equate with illiteracy.

But it usually does in that time and place – basic reading and writing was the hallmark of an “Educated man.”

Remember, reading and writing was mainly for religious and business reasons (books were hard to come by.) So if the Apostles were not religious authorities or scribes, and not men who engaged in trade that required written records and communications, they probably had no ability to read and write

 

[Maccabees]

vern humphrey:

Sort of like saying the word translated “parthenos” doesn’t TECHNICALLY mean a biological virgin in the original Hebrew. But it’s close enough.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Most people did speak some Greek in the Eastern Mediterrainian. Note that all the scriptural quotes attributed to Christ in the Gospels are from the Septaugent – which was used by more Jews than the Hebrew version.

There are two explanations for Peter 1 and 2. One is that the language is from the amaneuensis (the person who wrote down what Peter said.) The other is that the epistles were in the Petrine Tradition, but not by Peter himself.

The similarity between the thinking and style of the Epistle of Jude and 2 Peter has also been remarked.

Maybe Jude was noticing none of his writings were getting circulated only that Paul guy and Peter and John.
What about me says Jude I will just say 2 Peter maybe my book will finally get circulated.

Of course I am kidding here.

 

[Maccabees]

twf:

Paul speaks on much more than justification (which I assume is the primary doctrine that you allude to when you say that Protestants distort Paul’s writings). He gives us many helpful instructions on Christian living, the nature of the Church, evangelization, love and charity, faith, and other fundamentals. Just read through the letters…there is just so much there. They are included because the Spirit inspired Paul to write them for the churches. Protestants may distort them, but that does not mean that they are not valuable for us. Even in the first century, Peter informs us that some distort Paul’s writings (it is here that Peter, our first pope, accords Paul’s writings the status of Scripture) in 2 Peter 3:16. There is so much that one can glean from his writings. What is there that we need? Every last verse! Paul’s epistles rock!

You bring up a good point all to often catholics tend to downplay Paul’s letters because of Protestants butchering them.
Remember Paul was catholic! They do have a catholic interpretation to them. When read in its entirity and in context Paul sounds awfully catholic. His treatise on charity and love is as catholic sounding as Saint James can be. A protestnat view of Paul has him contradiciting himself. Catholics see the bigger picture with Paul his theology is complete with grace, faith, works of love and charity. Dare I say there is not the phrase faith alone anywhere. Lets no confuse Luther with Paul.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Maccabees:

You bring up a good point all to often catholics tend to downplay Paul’s letters because of Protestants butchering them.
Remember Paul was catholic! They do have a catholic interpretation to them. When read in its entirity and in context Paul sounds awfully catholic. His treatise on charity and love is as catholic sounding as Saint James can be. A protestnat view of Paul has him contradiciting himself. Catholics see the bigger picture with Paul his theology is complete with grace, faith, works of love and charity. Dare I say there is not the phrase faith alone anywhere. Lets no confuse Luther with Paul.

The more you read of Paul – assuming you read him in his entirity, and not look for “proof texts” to support a particular position, the more Catholic he appears.

In fact, when reading the anti-Nicene Fathers one is struck by how Catholic they all were.

 

[Convert97]

We need Paul because God says we do. His Church selected them as inspired and so should we. Besides, he had a gift. Peter had other gifts and used them in ways to build up the Body of Christ. We can see people using their gifts in different ways today. Some are writers, some are preachers, some help the poor. Where would we be in our understanding of marriage if not for Ephesians? Would we know about redemptive suffering without the writings of Paul? How about knowing that the Church is the Pillar of Truth? God uses each of us in different ways. He gave us Paul to reveal the Truth to us, and gave us Peter and his Church to guide us in that Truth.