Why aren't all of Paul's letters in the Bible if your perspective is correct?
The 66 "books" of the Bible are exactly what God wanted to communicate to us in writing. Did none of the 39 (?) authors write anything extrabiblical? A silly thought, but you are allowed to entertain it.
Looking specifically at the New Testament, we have historical accounts (gospels + Acts), pastoral letters (1&2 Tim, Titus), prophecy (Revelation), systematic theology (Romans, Hebrews), Christian living (Ephesians, 1-3 John) etc.
What isn't covered? Why should we try to add to it? Likewise, what can/should be removed, and for what reason?
Apparently you believe that Paul's writings should be removed? Good thing we can reconstruct most of his arguments from his extensive use of the OT!
'tis indeed the "season of deception"
Apparently you believe that Paul's writings should be removed?
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. No. I do not think Paul's writings should be removed, but I think they should be weighted correctly. That is t he point of rightly dividing the word. What is poetry, what is opinion and most importantly, what is instructions that should not be added to or taken away from.
I read Paul, but suppose I read the rest of the Bible without reading Paul at all? Could I still come to a saving knowledge of Jesus? I contend I could, but Paul gives some context that applies to us and some that doesnt.
Can we agree that churchianities interpretation of Paul excludes the teaching of Messiah and even Paul himself? For example, did you know that Paul explicitly states how much a good pastor should be paid? It is Double the portion given to widows and orphans.
(post is archived)