Are forgeries inspired scripture?

Oncedeceived · Feb 9, 2016

HitchSlap said:
What many of the faithful don't understand, is that they can't hand wave the evidence, without first explaining why the reasons they consider these to not be forgeries, when it's the same criteria used to determine other historical forgeries as well.

Oh good, you have evidence that is being hand waved away? Why then have you not provided it?

HitchSlap · Feb 9, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
Oh good, you have evidence that is being hand waved away? Why then have you not provided it?

Different writing styles.

Oncedeceived · Feb 9, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
That is true, and that is why the question in my OP was a hypothetical. Assume that we found some evidence that persuaded you that one of these NT books was a forgery. Would you continue to treat that NT book as inspired scripture? The Lord works in mysterious ways, so couldn't He breath some important messages into a forgery - even though the forger is attempting to deceive the reader for his own carnal reasons? Books of the NT canon were inspected for possible heresies, so the forged book would not contain heresies. Maybe a forgery can be as useful as a non-forgery.

You seem to forget or are unaware that the writings of the Apostles were being circulated to the church communities long long before the Apostles writings as a group or canon were compiled. They were circulated to those who knew the authors and many who had been eyewitnesses to the events described therein. They were taught by the Apostles themselves and they were privy to information and people that scholars two thousand after the fact want to put into question.

HitchSlap · Feb 9, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
You seem to forget or are unaware that the writings of the Apostles were being circulated to the church communities long long before the Apostles writings as a group or canon were compiled. They were circulated to those who knew the authors and many who had been eyewitnesses to the events described therein. They were taught by the Apostles themselves and they were privy to information and people that scholars two thousand after the fact want to put into question.

Yet you have no qualms accepting this as fact.

Oncedeceived · Feb 9, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Different writing styles.

I have very different writings styles when I write personal letters from those that a wide unfamiliar audience might read.

Oncedeceived · Feb 9, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Yet you have no qualms accepting this as fact.

I don't because I have the Apostle Peter making the claim in his undisputed writings claiming that all of Paul's epistles were scriptural. I have the early churches who would have known if a forger was writing rather than Paul of who they had heard and knew themselves.

HitchSlap · Feb 9, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
I have very different writings styles when I write personal letters from those that a wide unfamiliar audience might read.

Nope, you might say different things, but your style stays the same.

No one would ever mistake Stephen King for John Grisham, even if the jacket said otherwise.

Why do you think it's so hard for you to accept the fact Ephesians is a forgery? It still has good things to say and takes nothing away from the NT.

HitchSlap · Feb 9, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
I don't because I have the Apostle Peter making the claim in his undisputed writings claiming that all of Paul's epistles were scriptural. I have the early churches who would have known if a forger was writing rather than Paul of who they had heard and knew themselves.

Did you say Peter? Also pseudonymous. Sorry.

Oncedeceived · Feb 9, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Nope, you might say different things, but your style stays the same.

No one would ever mistake Stephen King for John Grisham, even if the jacket said otherwise.

Why do you think it's so hard for you to accept the fact Ephesians is a forgery? It still has good things to say and takes nothing away from the NT.

No, my reasoning is due to what I said it was.

Oncedeceived · Feb 9, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Did you say Peter? Also pseudonymous. Sorry.

And where was that proof?

HitchSlap · Feb 9, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
And where was that proof?

Proof is good for whiskey and maths.

Oncedeceived · Feb 9, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Proof is good for whiskey and maths.

Indeed, and has nothing to do with confirmation of forgeries.

HitchSlap · Feb 9, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
Indeed, and has nothing to do with confirmation of forgeries.

You have yet to explain why your opinion trumps that of scholars.
Or is this just you being outlandish?

Oncedeceived · Feb 9, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Ok with you if I accept what the actual experts say about the matter?

Actually, there are many many experts that disagree and have reasons for their opinions.

Oncedeceived · Feb 9, 2016

HitchSlap said:
You have yet to explain why your opinion trumps that of scholars.
Or is this just you being outlandish?

What about many historians and scholars that disagree...why do you think your opinion trumps theirs?

cloudyday2 · Feb 9, 2016

^ Furthermo

Oncedeceived said:
You seem to forget or are unaware that the writings of the Apostles were being circulated to the church communities long long before the Apostles writings as a group or canon were compiled. They were circulated to those who knew the authors and many who had been eyewitnesses to the events described therein. They were taught by the Apostles themselves and they were privy to information and people that scholars two thousand after the fact want to put into question.

There were many gospels and epistles in circulation. One example was the Gospel of Peter. Many people assumed that the Gospel of Peter was written or dictated by Peter, but the early Christians banned it as a forgery. How did they decide it was a forgery? They felt that it contained heresies, and the real Apostle Peter would not have written such a gospel. Orthodoxy of the teaching was their standard for authenticity. A forgery with an orthodox teaching could have easily slithered into the NT canon. Hebrews is another example. Nobody knew who wrote Hebrews, but they attributed it to the Apostle Paul. The people creating the NT canon had no certainty about the authors.

HitchSlap · Feb 9, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
Actually, there are many many experts that disagree and have reasons for their opinions.

Yeah, but they're not good reasons.

OzSpen · Feb 10, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Ephesians is considered a Deuteropauline epistle.

And you provide not one piece of evidence. None! Your personal assertion carries no more weight than any other assertion. I await your evidence and how you discern it is authentic or inauthentic material.

OzSpen · Feb 10, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Do you know why it's considered a Deiteropauline epistle?

Please define 'Deiteropauline'.

OzSpen · Feb 10, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
Slippery Sam was overheard in a bar bragging about writing 2 Peter... IDK - use your imagination

Sounds like gossip to me. :ebil:

Are forgeries inspired scripture?

Senior Veteran

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Senior Veteran

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

PROUDLY PRIMATE

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Senior Veteran

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Generic Theist

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Similar threads