Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: carsup@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Fisher Library support) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Bible the word of God? Message-ID: Date: 28 Oct 90 08:14:06 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University Computing Service, Uni. of Sydney, Australia. Lines: 47 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Ok guys, I need help. I've been a christian for almost 4 years now, (gee.. getting old). I came to Jesus mainly through hearing arguments for the resurection.. historical stuff. Because I know the Bible is a good primary witness, I can accept that the gospels are the word of God, and that since Jesus said is was, the OT as well. HOWEVER, I have never realy heard a realy good reason why the rest (ie apistles etc) are the word of God. I respect Paul and the rest as very wise and holy people, but how do we know God was speaking through them? I find that the argument 'because James said so in the Bible' a little circular. Thanks for any help and peace James Uther 8841060@chico.cs.su.OZ.AU please mail any private replies to ^^^^^^^ or the others on this account may get touchy. [I think we need both the Gospels and the rest of the NT in order to get a complete picture of the significance of Christ. The Gospels (at least the first three) limit themselves mostly to what Jesus taught publically during his life. They do not discuss in much detail the significance of Christ's death and resurrection. But Christianity is based on what Christ did and what he was, as well as what he taught. Paul's letters and much of the rest of the NT is much more explicit than the Gospels about matters such as the nature of Christ and salvation. Of course if we imagine that these are simply theological reflections on the events of Christ's life, in more or less a private capacity, then Paul's letters have no more authority than my own speculations. However Paul certainly seems to think he is presenting Christ's own views in many cases. He was in a position to know what Christ taught his disciples, and he also claims to have met Christ himself. I'm inclined to think that Jesus said things to his disciples about himself and his mission that aren't reported in the first three gospels. John certainly gives that impression, though even there we don't necessary have a complete picture. There's some reason to think that John intentionally avoiding talking about some matters, because his Gospel was intended for non-Christians or catechumens. E.g. note that he uses eucharistic language a lot, but never actually describes the Institution. Whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke also intentionally left things out, or whether they simply took as their goal to tell the external story but not to go into theology, I'm not in a position to say. But I see no reason to think that Paul's letters are any less a part of the Gospel than the Gospels. If nothing else, Paul is our earliest Christian source. His writings are older than the Gospels, and additionally have the advantage that we know who wrote them and can reasonably estimate his sources of information. We can only make inferences about the Gospels. --clh]