Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Oh good, you have evidence that is being hand waved away? Why then have you not provided it?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh good, you have evidence that is being hand waved away? Why then have you not provided it?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.
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.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.
Yet you have no qualms accepting this as fact.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.
I have very different writings styles when I write personal letters from those that a wide unfamiliar audience might read.Different writing styles.
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.Yet you have no qualms accepting this as fact.
Nope, you might say different things, but your style stays the same.I have very different writings styles when I write personal letters from those that a wide unfamiliar audience might read.
Did you say Peter? Also pseudonymous. Sorry.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.
No, my reasoning is due to what I said it was.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.
And where was that proof?Did you say Peter? Also pseudonymous. Sorry.
Indeed, and has nothing to do with confirmation of forgeries.Proof is good for whiskey and maths.
Actually, there are many many experts that disagree and have reasons for their opinions.Ok with you if I accept what the actual experts say about the matter?
What about many historians and scholars that disagree...why do you think your opinion trumps theirs?You have yet to explain why your opinion trumps that of scholars.
Or is this just you being outlandish?
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.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.
Ephesians is considered a Deuteropauline epistle.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?