I don't want to derail a couple of other threads, so I'm posting my questions here. Some of the discussions in the thread about Paul and the one about the Sabbath raised a couple questions in my mind about the inspiration of several books of the NT that were not necessarily authored by Paul (this is particularly addressed to those who don't believe that Paul was inspired, but others can answer as well). I'm wondering about Acts, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, James and Jude. Which of these do y'all consider inspired? Acts is believed to be written by Luke. He was believed to be inspired when he authored the Gospel of Luke, do you believe he was inspired when he wrote Acts? Peter is traditionally held to be appointed by Christ as the human head of the early church and was definitely a major leader in the church. Do you believe he was inspired? Who do you believe was the author of Hebrews and what is your view of the book? James and Jude were prominent in the early church and biological brothers of Christ. Do y'all believe they were inspired? I'm asking these things so that I can be better informed about your position when we discuss these topics. Thanks. -Philip

[b]Silent_K wrote:[/b] [quote]I don't want to derail a couple of other threads, so I'm posting my questions here. Some of the discussions in the thread about Paul and the one about the Sabbath raised a couple questions in my mind about the inspiration of several books of the NT that were not necessarily authored by Paul (this is particularly addressed to those who don't believe that Paul was inspired, but others can answer as well). I'm wondering about Acts, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, James and Jude. Which of these do y'all consider inspired? Acts is believed to be written by Luke. He was believed to be inspired when he authored the Gospel of Luke, do you believe he was inspired when he wrote Acts? Peter is traditionally held to be appointed by Christ as the human head of the early church and was definitely a major leader in the church. Do you believe he was inspired? Who do you believe was the author of Hebrews and what is your view of the book? James and Jude were prominent in the early church and biological brothers of Christ. Do y'all believe they were inspired? I'm asking these things so that I can be better informed about your position when we discuss these topics. Thanks. -Philip[/quote] Well, first I want to point out that in the Jewish way of looking at religious texts, which some Messianics follow as well, "scripture" is not all or nothing. That's the Christian way of looking at things, at least on the surface. Beneath the surface, plenty of Christian pastors get away with acting like their sermons carry the weight of G-d's Word, and questioning the preacher is the same as questioning G-d. All that aside, to most Christians, you have this concept "sola scriptura" that we have these 66 or 72 books, THEY are the foundation of the true faith, and you need nothing else. It's not that way in Judaism. The Torah is above everything. Paper, rock, scissors, Torah trumps it all. ;) But then you have subtle LEVELS. Solomon and David were most wise, their words are so profound, that we read them and cannot help but think that G-d inspired them. But that's not the same as saying G-d WROTE them or DICTATED them to David or Solomon, which is exactly what He did with Moses and the Torah. And then we go even further off, getting into the writings of the sages, and the learned Rabbis, with Mishnah and Talmud, and tons and tons of other books, according to what sect a person is in, and many such students would say these writings were inspired.... but they're not going to say G-d wrote it. It's the same. I can say that a book was inspired by G-d, and yet NOT say that every word in that book was chosen by G-d, as if He were speaking into a dictaphone or something. We have clear statements from Paul saying "I don't have a command from G-d on this, but here's what I think." Clearly, then Paul's every word is not a direct revelation from G-d. If you want to say other parts were, okay, but when he SAYS "this part isn't" you can't argue it on that verse. Ack, I'm rambling. I'll get back to this.

Post edited by: MattBob_SquarePants, at: 2008/03/26 03:10

[b]MattBob_SquarePants wrote:[/b] [quote][b]Silent_K wrote:[/b] [quote]I don't want to derail a couple of other threads, so I'm posting my questions here. Some of the discussions in the thread about Paul and the one about the Sabbath raised a couple questions in my mind about the inspiration of several books of the NT that were not necessarily authored by Paul (this is particularly addressed to those who don't believe that Paul was inspired, but others can answer as well). I'm wondering about Acts, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, James and Jude. Which of these do y'all consider inspired? Acts is believed to be written by Luke. He was believed to be inspired when he authored the Gospel of Luke, do you believe he was inspired when he wrote Acts? Peter is traditionally held to be appointed by Christ as the human head of the early church and was definitely a major leader in the church. Do you believe he was inspired? Who do you believe was the author of Hebrews and what is your view of the book? James and Jude were prominent in the early church and biological brothers of Christ. Do y'all believe they were inspired? I'm asking these things so that I can be better informed about your position when we discuss these topics. Thanks. -Philip[/quote] Well, first I want to point out that in the Jewish way of looking at religious texts, which some Messianics follow as well, "scripture" is not all or nothing. That's the Christian way of looking at things, at least on the surface. Beneath the surface, plenty of Christian pastors get away with acting like their sermons carry the weight of G-d's Word, and questioning the preacher is the same as questioning G-d. All that aside, to most Christians, you have this concept "sola scriptura" that we have these 66 or 72 books, THEY are the foundation of the true faith, and you need nothing else. It's not that way in Judaism. The Torah is above everything. Paper, rock, scissors, Torah trumps it all. ;) But then you have subtle LEVELS. Solomon and David were most wise, their words are so profound, that we read them and cannot help but think that G-d inspired them. But that's not the same as saying G-d WROTE them or DICTATED them to David or Solomon, which is exactly what He did with Moses and the Torah. And then we go even further off, getting into the writings of the sages, and the learned Rabbis, with Mishnah and Talmud, and tons and tons of other books, according to what sect a person is in, and many such students would say these writings were inspired.... but they're not going to say G-d wrote it. It's the same. I can say that a book was inspired by G-d, and yet NOT say that every word in that book was chosen by G-d, as if He were speaking into a dictaphone or something. We have clear statements from Paul saying "I don't have a command from G-d on this, but here's what I think." Clearly, then Paul's every word is not a direct revelation from G-d. If you want to say other parts were, okay, but when he SAYS "this part isn't" you can't argue it on that verse. Ack, I'm rambling. I'll get back to this.<br><br>Post edited by: MattBob_SquarePants, at: 2008/03/26 03:10[/quote] Maybe I should generalize my question a little. :) How much authority (if any) do you believe these books have for the Christian/Messianic Jew/follower of Christ?

[b]Silent_K wrote:[/b] [quote] Maybe I should generalize my question a little. :) How much authority (if any) do you believe these books have for the Christian/Messianic Jew/follower of Christ?[/quote] Peter is unique. He understood Messiah's true identity, something we are still struggling with today. Immediately after correctly identifying Him, "You are the Meshiach, the Son of the Living G-d." Jesus lavished praises on Peter, changed his name from Shim'on to Kefa (Which means "rock), and said "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." So if any other NT author carries the weight of Messiah, it would be Peter. If not, he's the next closest thing. Acts is historical in nature. I put it in the category of Writings, like Chronicles, and Kings. It's invaluable to determine the names, the characteristics, the activities and the relationships of the people involved in the earliest Messianic community. I have actually used Acts to make the argument that Paul did not agree with the rest of the NT, though, just so you say, no, it's not the same category to me, as Paul's epistles. So the abovementioned books - Inspired, yes. Dictated by G-d? No. Jude is also unique, and I think that G-d had a hand in keeping Jude in there when any sense of logic would have made them remove. It's nothing but a really long string of references, and even direct quotes to the Book of Enoch, which I do also consider to be inspired, though it is not in the Bible. Anything I'm missing?

Well, Hebrews, but you answered most of my questions. :) I was basically just wondering if you would accept them if I were to use them to in support of my position in a debate.

Eh, just remember the Judaic order of things. If I quote a fallible leader, and you quote a fallible leader, we've got ourselves a debate. However, if I quote the Torah, and you counter it with a fallible, though inspired leader, chances are I won't look QUITE as deeply for an explanation. When in doubt, I'll go with the Torah. But Messiah is Torah-made-flesh, so the Gospels and Peter would carry about the same weight, with me. Oh, and Revelations is prophecy, and so I consider comparable to the other prophetic books from the OT. Hebrews, I believe, would rightly also be called historical, and not directly dictated by G-d, but still belongs in the Bible for the context it provides.