+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Epistles 'scriptural' ? (/showthread.php?tid=1300)
Epistles 'scriptural' ? - The Lector - 06-13-2005
Peace Dudes,
I have been discussing the issue of the epistles in the ktaba qadisha/bible, and wanted some opinions from you as to what actually constitutes 'scripture', and also, what the COE reckons on this. Here is what the debater told me:
Quote:... the reason why those verses are not often quoted by Christians is because Romans is not part of the scripture.
Romans is one of a number of Epistle documents that are placed at the back of the Bible. An Epistle document means a church document released for public viewing.
Romans is just a letter sent from Paul in his own words, to a Roman congregation.
There are a number of such Epistle documents at the back of the bible, and they are all clearly marked as being Epistle documents. Some others are Hebrews, Titus, Peter, Timothy etc...
Anything that comes under the sub heading of Epistle documents are documents released from the church archives for public viewing only and are not part of the scripture.
Following this, as he mentioned the 'back of the bible', I asked about the place of revelation thus [i know that this is not part of the original peshitta]
Quote:Yes Revelations is part of the scripture.
Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw--that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
It is a book of prophecies "what must soon take place"
Some of the prophecies in Revelations seem to be the same as the prophecies of Daniel in the OT, but from a different angle.
But there is one key difference to the book of Daniel. In the prophecies of Daniel, Daniel is told to seal up the book of prophecy because the time was not yet near Dan 12:4. But in Revelations, John is told NOT to seal up the scroll (Rev 22:10) because the prophecies are near or soon to start to unfold.
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
It is placed last because it is in chronological order.
The Scripture is the O.T, the gospels, Acts and Revelations.
So what of the epistles then? Are they part of the ktab/scripture or not? <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sleepy.gif" alt="" title="Sleepy" /><!-- s -->
Re: Epistles 'scriptural' ? - oozeaddai - 06-15-2005
The peshitta had most of the epistles in its early canon.
The only ones that were not included were the same ones, that did not make the other early NT lists.
Namely 2 peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation. All the other NT books made it in. These books being later writings were the most recently debated, so they were not included in even the western Canons until around nearly 400 Ad.
so I don't know what your friend is talking about.... The epistles are scripture, in that they are in the canon. I do know however that some people do not like the epistels. Like I've heard some people who are Messianic jews and very extreme, to the point of being Judaisers. So many of them consider PAul a false apostle because some things he said, regarding the nature of the law, the gentiles etc. And they would completely disregard him and his epistles.
But that opinion is not the norm by any means....
Re: Epistles 'scriptural' ? - oozeaddai - 06-15-2005
Come to think of it. I do also remember that the early Bibles also did use a different book order.
So the PAuline epistles did come towards the end. That was because to some extant they were later writings, and also that PAul was himself a convert and not an original apostle. But largely because of the idea, that PAul's work with the gentiles came out of the foundation of the oriignal apostles and the work of the Jerusalem church. So in order to put it, into contexts, so to speak. You were suppose to read the other works first.
While this is true. that is not the same as saying, "these are not scripture". The order and sequence of the books was simply different than what is typically used today.
But the PAuline writings were in no way treated as "deutero Canonical" books. Which seems to be what your friend is suggesting.
Re: Epistles 'scriptural' ? - John Stephens - 06-30-2005
oozeaddai Wrote:That was because to some extant they were later writings, and also that PAul was himself a convert and not an original apostle.
It always seemed to me that Paul's letters were actually the first writings coming after the Resurrection. The other writings all came about in the period after the destruction of Jerusalem. Interestingly, Paul is the only person writing in the context of the YHWH faith during the critical period between the Resurrection and the destruction of Jerusalem, whose writings have come down to us. Because the Destruction was such a world-altering event for the YHWH faith, Paul's letters offer us a unique glimpse into the world in which Yeshua lived, and to me, they reveal more about the nature of Christ and lthe new covenant than any of the other writings, as much as I love them.