Replies

"Thank you very much for the history and background. I haven't thought before of there being "reasons" for the writing of the Gospels, or the whole NT."

If I might interject a comment here. The Scriptures often indicate that they were written for specific reasons. For example:

" Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1: 1-4)

Here we see that Luke is compiling the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles with a very specific purpose in mind, in fact, it appears that it was originally written for a single person, Theophilus.

The human authors of Sacred Scripture seem to have had a purpose in mind when they wrote. Another example is St. Paul's Epistle to Philemon. The Apostle writes on behalf of an escaped slave, Onesimus, to Philemon, who apparently had held authority over Onesimus."

"I suppose I have always just thought that God wanted to reveal His word in written form, therefore the Bible came into being."

If you remove the "just", I think everyone would be on the same page with you. The Scriptures were revealed by the will of God, and the human authors acted under divine Inspiration. This is the understanding that we Christians have received from the Church. (The Scriptures themselves do not tell us this, rather it is the Church. I would say that, off hand, only the Revelation to John tells us that it is divinely revealed.

Incidently, you and I still rely on the Church, however, to tell us that the Revelation to John is Scriptural. It is not an obvious point in and of itself. Martin Luther, for example, is said to have believed that the Revelation to John was not Scriptural. Clearly he was in a higher class as a Scripture scholar than I am, but he nonetheless rejected books that you and I consider Scriptural.

"The NT is inerrant and good, but it came to be more by happenstance than necessity, or God's will."

No one here believes that the New Testament came to be by accident. Rather, God worked through the human authors working within His Church to create the individual books of Scripture, and He worked through His Church to canonize and preserve the Scriptures. We also believe that he works through the Church to preserve and develop the understanding of the Scriptures. We do not believe that the preservation of the Church or the Bible occurred by "happenstance."

" It doesn't make sense to me that everything Paul EVER wrote since his conversion made its way into the Bible. "

Forest Keeper, it appears to me that not everything Paul wrote made it into the Bible:

"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you." (1 Cor 5: 9-13)

Here we have the Apostle Paul writing to the Corinthians and referencing a previous letter that he has written them. Since this is the first letter to the Corinthians, it is reasonable to assume that St. Paul had written them a previous letter, "0 Corinthians" and that this letter has been lost to us. (One alternative hypothesis are that 1 Corinthians was edited, and contains several Pauline letters were cut and pasted together, and hence both letters are in fact represented in 1 Cor. Another is that St. Paul is referencing another letter that was addressed to another Church. Both theories are speculative, and I think, forced.)

If I might interject a comment here. The Scriptures often indicate that they were written for specific reasons. For example:

" Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1: 1-4)

You are singing my tune! :) The little inside gag here is that I am currently using this EXACT passage to try to make a case to Jo Kus (and everyone) that the idea of Sola Scriptura is supported by scripture. So, I'll join you in that specific purposes were in mind. I'll even specify and say that one of them was to clarify that the written word (from an authoritative source) was superior to oral tradition. :)

The Scriptures were revealed by the will of God, and the human authors acted under divine Inspiration. This is the understanding that we Christians have received from the Church. (The Scriptures themselves do not tell us this, rather it is the Church. I would say that, off hand, only the Revelation to John tells us that it is divinely revealed.

I have found it to be a matter of friendly disagreement as to what "divine inspiration" actually means. It boils down to a free will issue, and it has surprised me how many other issues "boil down" to free will. As to scripture for supporting its divine revelation, what would you say about this oft quoted passage? :

2 Tim. 3:16-17 : 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (emphasis added)

---------------

Incidentally, you and I still rely on the Church, however, to tell us that the Revelation to John is Scriptural.

I actually give the nod to God on that one. :)

Martin Luther, for example, is said to have believed that the Revelation to John was not Scriptural.

I think I have read on this thread that he did have objections to it, and some other books, but ultimately he did not excise any books of today's Bible from his beliefs.

Rather, God worked through the human authors working within His Church to create the individual books of Scripture, and He worked through His Church to canonize and preserve the Scriptures.

You have phrased that in a rather thought-provoking way. :) My question would be that if God worked within His Church to create the individual books of the scripture, then why is it that so much interpretation is needed of the scripture to match extra-scriptural Tradition? It would seem to me that if the scripture and Tradition were truly harmonious, then the actual text of the scripture should stand on its own, within reason. Instead, it has been my experience on this thread that the text of scripture must be interpreted to mean things that the words do not say.

Just a very few examples are that "all" does not mean "all" in Rom. 3:23, "Eternal" does not mean "eternal" in verses like John 3:16, and grace is insufficient for salvation despite Eph. 2:8-9. This is never mind important theological issues such as Mary's sinlessness and infant baptism, which are not strongly supported in the Bible. It puzzles me that if God had wanted His Bible to clearly agree with the Tradition practiced, that He would have arranged for the two to more easily work together, without all the stressing and straining.

From what I have learned on this thread, by the standards of today's Catholicism, the Bible is virtually obsolete as a revelation of faith, ON ITS OWN. The Bible appears to only become useful to anyone, through the prism of the Catholic Church. Such a prism is not evident in large part in the Bible itself, it must be added. This seems to me to be a pretty secretive way for God to get the message out and preach to all nations.

[On 1 Cor 5: 9-13] Here we have the Apostle Paul writing to the Corinthians and referencing a previous letter that he has written them. Since this is the first letter to the Corinthians, it is reasonable to assume that St. Paul had written them a previous letter ...

Good find, IQ. That is reasonable support.