Are forgeries inspired scripture?

[Oncedeceived]

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

Do you mean Deuteropauline epistle?

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you mean Deuteropauline epistle?

What do you think?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What do you think?

I am clarifying.

 

[HitchSlap]

I am clarifying.

I really don't think so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I really don't think so.

I have looked up the word Deiteropauline and there is no such term so I've clarified for myself. Yes, I do know what Deuteropauline epistle means.

 

[HitchSlap]

I have looked up the word Deiteropauline and there is no such term so I've clarified for myself. Yes, I do know what Deuteropauline epistle means.

Then you understand why it's considered a forgery. No serious literary scholar would ever confuse James Joyce with Mark Twain.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[HitchSlap]

Did you know the King James translators used the Masoretic text and Strong’s Concordance is specifically for the King James Version of the Bible?

Did you know that AV claims that Adam, Eve and Jesus all spoke King James English?

True story.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, and my Amish neighbors believe the language was High German.

Ha. Quite the dilemma, then. I wonder why it is your Amish neighbors don't claim KJ English, and AV doesn't claim High German?

 

[Winken]

We're losing the handle, folks......... getting caught up in a hypothetical OP.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you understand why it's considered a forgery. No serious literary scholar would ever confuse James Joyce with Mark Twain.

Yes, I understand the opinion that the writing style was different, however, there are several justifiable reasons that could account for that. I was asking for proof. Do you have proof?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[HitchSlap]

The Amish argument went something like “well, the book is written in German” or “they must have spoken German, they wrote the Bible in it”

That's what AV clams!

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, I understand the opinion that the writing style was different, however, there are several justifiable reasons that could account for that. I was asking for proof. Do you have proof?

Yes. Writing style is incompatible with known Pauline epistles. It was common practice in the first century to write under the name of accepted authority. Content in Ephesians also places this book much later than Paul.

If you're unaware of why historical scholars make these claims, I suggest you look into it. You might find scholarship interesting.

 

[cloudyday2]

In this hypothetical scenario, what proof is there as to the NT books being forged?

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

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes. Writing style is incompatible with known Pauline epistles. It was common practice in the first century to write under the name of accepted authority. Content in Ephesians also places this book much later than Paul.

If you're unaware of why historical scholars make these claims, I suggest you look into it. You might find scholarship interesting.

Did I say I was unaware of these claims? Like I said, what proof do these historical scholars have to show that Ephesians were written much later than Paul?

 

[cloudyday2]

Until that happens, will you admit they aren't forgeries?

Well even if Slippery Sam had an air-tight alibi, there is still Yosemite Sam to investigate.
Not being an expert, I go with what the experts believe - a few of the NT books were forgeries. There are some NT books that most agree are authentic, and there are a few that most agree are forgeries, and there are some in the middle.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

Oh so you didn't hear that Slippery Sam was excluded by the Church leaders of the time and dismissed and not included into canon?