Epistles missing from New Testament

[Seeker of the Source]

Earlier this week I came across this interesting quote:

"Not all the books that the apostles wrote became Scripture. For example, Paul wrote four letters to the Corinthians, two of which are lost and thus not in the canon (1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Cor. 7:8)."

There is also the well-known idea that a letter to the Laodiceans is missing.

"And when this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read before the church at Laodicea, and that you yourselves read the letter which will be forwarded from there." — Colossians 4:16

Any ideas, theories, explanations about how a supposedly complete and closed canon is somehow missing God-breathed Scripture?

And lastly, who decided the canon of the New Testament is forever complete? What if archaeologists discover 1st century dated manuscripts that are indeed accepted by scholars to be copies of Paul's missing letters to the Corinthians and to the Laodiceans? Will the Christian powers that be add them to the New Testament and release the augmented bible or will these newly discovered epistles be "set aside" as non-canonical?

 

[Deacon]

What isn’t in the Canon wasn’t meant to be in the canon, so although there may be lost letters written by an apostle, they are not Scripture.

Also the apostles may have written a number of copies of their epistles, sending them to various churches.
I believe the Epistle to the Ephesians was such a letter. If I remember correctly, the earliest texts have a blank spot where the name of the congregation would have been.
Some believe the letter to the Laodiceans is what we now call the Epistle to the Ephesians.

Rob

 

[canadyjd]

Earlier this week I came across this interesting quote:

"Not all the books that the apostles wrote became Scripture. For example, Paul wrote four letters to the Corinthians, two of which are lost and thus not in the canon (1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Cor. 7:8)."

There is also the well-known idea that a letter to the Laodiceans is missing.

"And when this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read before the church at Laodicea, and that you yourselves read the letter which will be forwarded from there." — Colossians 4:16

Any ideas, theories, explanations about how a supposedly complete and closed canon is somehow missing God-breathed Scripture?

And lastly, who decided the canon of the New Testament is forever complete? What if archaeologists discover 1st century dated manuscripts that are indeed accepted by scholars to be copies of Paul's missing letters to the Corinthians and to the Laodiceans? Will the Christian powers that be add them to the New Testament and release the augmented bible or will these newly discovered epistles be "set aside" as non-canonical?

This isn’t new. Christians have discussed this issue for nearly 2000 years. Some scholars believe the four letters of Paul to the Corinthians are actually contained within the two we have citing shifts in tone and other reasons.

Some believe Ephesians is the letter to the Laodiceans, or contains it since they are in the same general location.

peace to you

 

[utilyan]

Earlier this week I came across this interesting quote:

"Not all the books that the apostles wrote became Scripture. For example, Paul wrote four letters to the Corinthians, two of which are lost and thus not in the canon (1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Cor. 7:8)."

There is also the well-known idea that a letter to the Laodiceans is missing.

"And when this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read before the church at Laodicea, and that you yourselves read the letter which will be forwarded from there." — Colossians 4:16

Any ideas, theories, explanations about how a supposedly complete and closed canon is somehow missing God-breathed Scripture?

And lastly, who decided the canon of the New Testament is forever complete? What if archaeologists discover 1st century dated manuscripts that are indeed accepted by scholars to be copies of Paul's missing letters to the Corinthians and to the Laodiceans? Will the Christian powers that be add them to the New Testament and release the augmented bible or will these newly discovered epistles be "set aside" as non-canonical?

You should be asking WHO SAID the books and letters YOU DO HAVE are LEGIT? Hint: its not Bob and Chuck in their "home" church.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Earlier this week I came across this interesting quote:

"Not all the books that the apostles wrote became Scripture. For example, Paul wrote four letters to the Corinthians, two of which are lost and thus not in the canon (1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Cor. 7:8)."

There is also the well-known idea that a letter to the Laodiceans is missing.

"And when this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read before the church at Laodicea, and that you yourselves read the letter which will be forwarded from there." — Colossians 4:16

Any ideas, theories, explanations about how a supposedly complete and closed canon is somehow missing God-breathed Scripture?

And lastly, who decided the canon of the New Testament is forever complete? What if archaeologists discover 1st century dated manuscripts that are indeed accepted by scholars to be copies of Paul's missing letters to the Corinthians and to the Laodiceans? Will the Christian powers that be add them to the New Testament and release the augmented bible or will these newly discovered epistles be "set aside" as non-canonical?

Here's what I believe for what it is worth.

• I trust God on this. I trust him to have guided flawed human beings to put together what it divine and for our benefit.
• There are no new revelations. Everything God deemed for us to know is in the Bible.
• Even if we were to find a "lost" letter of Paul - I would not be for adding it to the Bible as it would open up a never-ending flood of people pushing their own pet documents of old to be put in the Bible.

 

[Seeker of the Source]

Thanks for most of the feedback thus far. I appreciate it. I appreciate your comments.

"utilyan" please try it again, with more feeling, insight and less semi-personal digs.

 

[tyndale1946]

Thanks for most of the feedback thus far. I appreciate it. I appreciate your comments.

"utilyan" please try it again, with more feeling, insight and less semi-personal digs.

And where have we not heard this before?... Those of us who have been here for awhile, this is nothing new... I agree with Deacon, Scarlett and canadyjd... utilyan?... I have enough with the 66 books, that are contained in my Bible without adding any more... Personally to me, now that you brought it up, I would say that the letters applied only to who is was directed to and none else and the subject had already been covered and was well known... Those are my thoughts... Brother Glen

 

[utilyan]

Thanks for most of the feedback thus far. I appreciate it. I appreciate your comments.

"utilyan" please try it again, with more feeling, insight and less semi-personal digs.

Why should one care about scripture at all? Not to say its not important, but who says its important anyways?

How do you even start to piece together Christianity at all? If your first source can't be trust how could you trust their choice of written works?

You have hundreds of thousands of combinations. You got Gospel of Thomas , apocalypse of peter, Apocrypha, letters of clement, letters of Corinthians TO Paul. And then multiple versions of the SAME works.

You have to accept the scholarship of particular folk and then damn them for not sharing one's belief all in one breathe.


=====
The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? ----GK CHESTERTON.
=====