Epistles missing from New Testament

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.
=====