St pauls lost letters


#1

we know of 2 of his letters that are lost, if we ever found them, would we put them in the bible too?


#2

Unlikely for two reasons.

  1. They really are lost.

and

  1. The Canon has been closed for over 1200 years.

#3

what if we found them?


#4

lets just say we found them so we would have some of his inspired writings in the bible and some would not?


#5

No.

Why would they be necessary. They are not going to add any thing substantail to the faith of Christians. The “bible” comprised of the Hebrw [OT] scriptures from which Christianity has its roots and the NT writings are the Church’s Canon. Canon as in the core beliefs by which Christianity measures itself.

TheChristian writings do not represent the entirety of the Christian faith. It is the Church that comprises the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”. The ‘Bible’ is a product of a community of believers [the Church] for use by that community of believers.

Newly discovered writings are not going to substantially change or affect the Christian Faith that has exoated and been ‘in practice’ for 2000 years.

They [these newly discovered writings if they exist] would be interesting for study. Much arguement would insue * over authenticity etc. as it would be highly doubtful that original extant writings would be recovered. Like most of the Christina Bibles and the writings of the early church fathers they would be copies and perhaps copies of copies…

That at least is my take…

By the way the canon was officially closed at the Council of Trent during the counter reformation…even though it had been stable since around 400 AD [at least until Martin Luther and friends]. Which is why an “official” closing became necessary…

Perhaps our Protestant Brethren would have less qualms about adding newly discovered writings. The Protestant reformers took out some OT books and fought over removing some NT books [they ended up not doing so]. Some Christian factions have also changed the understanding and practice of some areas of the Christian faith and worship [Eucharist, comes to mind, along with a sacrament of marriage and even allowing gay marriage, ordained priesthood, baptism as in necessary? and infant - no etc.] So, at least, historically, they have fewer inhibitions about modifying the faith…*


#6

What if you landed on Mars and they knew about Jesus? (Ever read C.S. Lewis’ Out of the Silent Planet?)

“What if”, based upon unlikely events have little bearing on reality.

Is there a better point you can make? Sorry. :shrug:


#7

What if you landed on Mars and they knew about Jesus? (Ever read C.S. Lewis’ Out of the Silent Planet?)

“What if”, based upon unlikely events have little bearing on reality.

Is there a better point you can make? Sorry. :shrug:


#8

Hypothetically, i was just wondering what the church would do. it would seem strange to me, if the are real, to have some of his writings declared as inspired and others not. Why would the ones we have be any more inspired that the ones we found? I am just trying to get a debate going here.


#9

They could still be “inspired” and not a part of the canon…there may be writings that were 'inspired" that did not make it into the canon…The canon represents the core of our faith, not the whole of our faith.

IF they found the lost letters of Paul, they would be studied, discussed and read…those letters could not ADD or CHANGE any aspect of the Christian faith or the Christian Canon [the Bible] at least from a Catholic POV…now within the Protestant churches, they might as I discussed in my earlier post.

Why would you think they would need to be added to the Scriptures after 1500 years?


#10

[quote=YADA]TheChristian writings do not represent the entirety of the Christian faith. It is the Church that comprises the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”. The ‘Bible’ is a product of a community of believers [the Church] for use by that community of believers.
[/quote]

However, I reckon it would profoundly affect Sola Scriptura.

If the Scriptures are ‘sufficient’ today and new Letters are added tomorrow, then tomorrow people will have to admit that the Scriptures were not ‘sufficient’ today.

So all those people who believe things based on today’s ‘sufficiency’ would have to question tomorrow what they believed today.

Either that or they will have to admit that there is no need to add the new Letters. So why add them in the first place?

But then that is exactly the same situation we had back during the lifetimes of the Apostles? The Scriptures back then were the Old Testament. If the Scriptures were ‘sufficient’ back then, then there was no need to add the New Testament. So why add the New Testament?

But the passage in Scripture saying that the Scriptures are ‘sufficient’ are in the New Testament. So there would be nothing ‘authoritative’ saying that the Old Testament is ‘sufficient’. So how would Sola Scripturists know that the Old Testament is ‘sufficient’?

In that event, Sola Scriptura would leave Sola Scripturists with nothing to believe.

:juggle:

Oh dear. :ouch:


#11

I love it…:thumbsup:

I had not even considered the Sola Scriptura aspect…largely i think because Sola Scriptura does not work and is not actually practiced [because all Christian churches have some form of traditional teaching and practice]

But you are right…the door knockers could lose a major thematic argument to confuse the poorly catechised…

However, somehow I think they would spin the find as a win over the evil Catholic Church who id not want the common folk to know what was in the Lost Letters of St. Paul and Dan Brpwn will make another million $$'s writing the sequel to the Da Vinci Code :eek:


#12

Nothing. The canon is closed.

The criteria for scripture included several criteria-- Apostolic origin AND proclamation in the assembly (i.e., read in the public liturgy of the Mass). There were many writings in circulation in the early church that were considered for the canon but not included. Paul’s “lost” letters were not read in the assembly.

We don’t know whether they were inspired or not. They could have been merely ordinary personal correspondence.

What we may be sure of is that the Church preserves the Apostolic faith and all we need to know for Salvation.


#13

We could always say that the letters were hidden in the invisible Church so we couldn’t see them. Then we could get Mel Gibson to make a billion writing a movie on the Life of Our Lady.

Finding the letters would just be another window of opportunity, YADA. Just another window of opportunity. :wink:


#14

St Paul must have said many things of similar quality to his surviving letters, certainly in preaching, possibly also in writings that haven’t survived.
Should another Pauline epistle turn up the Church would have to decide whether on not to include it in the canon.


#15

Yep, you are so right…

I just need to trust the Holy Spirit to find away…and He will :thumbsup:


#16

i was just curious, as to what our church would do, paul said a lot of the same things in his letters, but in all the letters, he added a new idea, or twist. and what if he added a whole new theological area? just thinking, thats all


#17

The Canon was closed, so even if we found Paul’s lost epistles, we can say their purpose was fulfilled since God did not deem them to be worthy to be put in the Canon.


#18

The deposit of faith is complete. There is nothing more that can be added, no new revelation.


#19

Just curious about why it would bother you to not have them included in the Bible?

If a lost letter of Paul were found, it could be read studied and used for prayerful contemplation. What makes inclusion into the Bible so important?

Lots of early Christian writings did not make it into the Canon of the Church. Some may have also been ‘inspired’. There may have been many inspired Christian writings between the Apostles time and today, in fact I’ve read and been inspired by some.

There is no compelling reason to change the Canon…

It has to be more than some of Paul’s writings would be in and some out…

what [in you mind] would be the real reason to include them?


#20

i am a catholic,.but if i was to really name myself, i would call myself a paulist. I think he was the MAN. so any writings of paul, in my view, should be in the bible. The more i study him, i realize. he save jesus’s message. All the other apostle’s wanted to make christianity a offshoot of the judaism. I think it is wild, that after all the other apostles’s spent years with jesus, they did not see the true message. god had to get paul to save it.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.