Why the Letters???

[WConn]

I am currently reading a number of letters from Paul and perhaps others such as Titus, Philemon, Timothy and others. I was curious as to why these letters were considered for inclusion in the Bible. Again, I am told that the writings in the Bible are words inspired by God and written by man. These seem to be personal letters to others and I am somewhat confused as to how they figure into the big scheme of things. That being said, I am confused by many of the inclusions in the bible but I do my best work when I am confused.

Thank you for your help and responses.

W

[jlay]

Great Question.

I will only take one part of this (Paul)and leave the rest for others to comment on.
Why the Pauline letters?

For one, we have a great deal of reliability and certainty that Paul's letters are authentic. Most attempts to even discredit a few epistles as authored by someone other than Paul didn't even arrise till the 19th century. All the letters were considered authentic in one form or fashion by the early church and even appear in canon as early as 140 a.d.

There are no preserved lists of a Christian New Testament canon from the first century and early second century. Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote c. 110, appears to have quoted from Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians, suggesting that these works, at least, existed by the time Ignatius wrote his works.[62] Ignatius does not appear to have quoted from 2 Thessalonians whereas Polycarp (died 167) not only quoted from 2 Thessalonians but also the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, Acts of the Apostles, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Epistle to the Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, 3 John.[63] Scholar Bruce Metzger stated "One finds in Clement's work citations of all the books of the New Testament with the exception of Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John."

The earliest extant canon containing Paul's letters is from the second century:

It is a canon compiled by Marcion, the founder of Marcionism (similar to gnosticism), a heretical sect. Marcion did not include any of the modern Gospels, only his Gospel of Marcion, which according to his enemies he had edited from the Gospel of Luke, whereas he claimed that it was their version which was edited from his original gospel. He includes ten epistles by Paul, omitting the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy), as well as To the Hebrews.
There is also a list by an unknown author in Rome, usually named the Muratorian Canon. This includes all thirteen of the letters containing Paul's name; it includes other texts since declared to be non-canonical.
Papyrus 46, one of the oldest New Testament manuscripts (c. 200), contains the last eight chapters of Romans; all of Hebrews; virtually all of 1—2 Corinthians; all of Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians; and two chapters of 1 Thessalonians. Because it is damaged there is no scholarly consensus on whether to consider the omission of a text definitive. Scholar Young Kyu Kim dated Papyrus 46 to the first century before the reign of Domitian (pre 81)[64] although other scholars have disputed his early dating. Source: Wikipedia

OK, so what? Why does this make them scriptural.
Paul was set apart for a very specific task to bring the gospel to the gentiles.
The Pauline letters are essential for non-Jewish folks to understand "why Jesus?"
If the book of Acts is trustworthy then we can trust that Jesus handpicked Paul to be His voice to the gentiles. The letters were widely circulated in the early church, and earned a scriptural reputation as the church rapidly spread through the known world.

I actually have some work I did a while back where I compared Paul's teachings verse by verse to those of Jesus. this is very significant because Paul and Jesus never met before His death. And, we have fairly certain evidence that the gospels were written down after Paul's letters.

Let me give you an example.
"And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other." Matt 24:31


"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus shall we always be with the Lord. Therefore, comfort one another with these words." 1 thess. 4: 17-18

There are many examples such as this.

[cslewislover]

Here is a summary:

"The councils of Carthage, in 393, and Hippo,in 397, fixed the list of New Testament books into its final form. But these books were not arbitrarily selected; they each had to meet certain criteria. They had to have apostolic origin, meaning each book had to have been written by an apostle or by an associate who preserved an apostle's teachings. The only exceptions were granted to James and Jude, brothers of Jesus who became His followers after His death. This requirement also means the books had to have been written during the apostolic age, the time when the apostles were still alive (ending with John's death probably in the late 90s). They had to have been generally accepted by the church and in continuous use in worship services. The teaching of the books had to cohere and agree with accepted and undisputed Scripture. Lastly, the books must be inspired by God. As such, they must display a self-evidencing quality and the power to transform lives. This criterion is a little tougher to nail down. Some thought the books were inspired because of their apostolicity. Whatever the reason for belief in inspiration, the books comprising the New Testament were set apart from all other books because they were believed to be inspired. The books meeting the criteria formed what is called the canon of the New Testament ('canon' comes from the Greek word kanon meaning measure or rule) because all teaching had to bow to its authority." (Holman Quicksource Guide to Christian Apologetics, pp 120-121)

Since this is just a summary, I'd like to go find something more detailed on the inspiration aspect.

[cslewislover]

Here is one that is more detailed, from When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidence, by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, pp 153-154 (no. 5 was left out since it was covered enough in my previous entry).

1. Was it written by a prophet of God? Deuteronomy 18:18 tells us that only a prophet of God will speak the Word of God. This is the way that God reveals Himself (Heb 1:1). Second Peter 1:20-21 assures us that Scripture is only written by men of God.

2. Was he confirmed by an act of God? Hebrews 2:3-4 gives us the idea that we should expect some miraculous confirmation of those who speak for God. Moses had his rod that turned into a serpent, Jesus had the Resurrection, and the apostles continued Jesus' miracles, all to confirm that their message was from God. Many of the prophets had prophecies fulfilled shortly after they were made to confirm their authority.

3. Does it tell the truth about God? "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8). Agreement with all earlier revelation is essential. This dictum also rules out false prophecies made in the name of God (Deut. 18:22).

4. Does it have the power of God? Any writing that does not exhibit the transforming power of God in the lives of its readers is not from God, "For the Word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword" (Heb. 4:12).

[WConn]

CSLewislover and Jlay, good answers. I am not trying to be difficult, again, I am the type of guy who needs to understand why and how. Your answers make sense.

W