Are forgeries inspired scripture?

[Oncedeceived]

I think the reasons critical scholars cite, trumps theirs. I'm not big on arguments from incredulity. I understand why you might be.

I have a great suspicion that you have not taken any effort to even read anything that goes against your own view. I doubt you know what reasons are cited.

 

[HitchSlap]

I have a great suspicion that you have not taken any effort to even read anything that goes against your own view. I doubt you know what reasons are cited.

Yep, I've read it all (all the Strobel tripe, Josh McDowell, CSL, etc. I've also read Ehrmam, Carrier, Doherty, etc.).

In fact I'll accuse you of the same; Based on your credulity, I have a great suspicion that you have not taken any effort to even read anything that goes against your own view. I doubt you're even aware of real scholarship and why they say what they say.

 

[Oncedeceived]

All critical experts do.

Again, you'll have to engage in special pleading as to why all other ancient literature should be evaluated any differently from the bible. As I've said before, arguments from incredulity don't impress.

You would have to show that non-Christian historians have evaluated the Bible differently than they do other antiquities. Want to do that?

 

[OzSpen]

Scholars consider Ephesians to be a forgery for several reasons, including:
Different writing styles.
Written later than Paul's known epistles.
It was common during this time to write pseudonymously under one who had sway and authority.
There are other reasons, if you're interested.

Surely, this isn't news to you, is it?

Again, no cited evidence. 'Scholars consider Ephesians to be a forgery' does not provide evidence of such.

 

[OzSpen]

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120425162142AADehOV

I know what deuteroPauline means, but that is not what you wrote. You wrote: 'Deiteropauline'. What does that mean?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep, I've read it all (all the Strobel tripe, Josh McDowell, CSL, etc. I've also read Ehrmam, Carrier, Doherty, etc.).

In fact I'll accuse you of the same; Based on your credulity, I have a great suspicion that you have not taken any effort to even read anything that goes against your own view. I doubt you're even aware of real scholarship and why they say what they say.

Oh my gosh. This is hilarious. Strobel and McDowell are not Scholars or historians. Try F.F. Bruce and Glen W. Barker to start with and after that you can say you've actually read something that has valid reasons for their reasoning. WOW.

 

[Wgw]

Again, no cited evidence. 'Scholars consider Ephesians to be a forgery' does not provide evidence of such.

Whereas it is true that some scholars regard it as inauthentic, their views can, rather bluntly, be dismissed as being wrong. The Epistle of Paul to the Laodoceans is the sole known example of a psuedepigraphical forgery uncontroversially accepted as such, aside from certain works of bizarre Gnostic apocrypha.

 

[OzSpen]

Oh my gosh. This is hilarious. Strobel and McDowell are not Scholars or historians. Try F.F. Bruce and Glen W. Barker to start with and after that you can say you've actually read something that has valid reasons for their reasoning. WOW.

Try historian Dr Paul Barnett, also Dr Craig Blomberg, Dr Craig Evans, Dr Gary Habermas, etc.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Try historian Dr Paul Barnett, also Dr Craig Blomberg, Dr Craig Evans, Dr Gary Habermas, etc.

Exactly. Real Scholars...real Historians.

 

[HitchSlap]

Try historian Dr Paul Barnett, also Dr Craig Blomberg, Dr Craig Evans, Dr Gary Habermas, etc.

Yep, I've read Habermas as well. I've read much of devotional "scholars" over the years. Remember, I used to be one of you.

 

[HitchSlap]

Exactly. Real Scholars...real Historians.

Meh, for what it's worth, most devotional scholars, with the exception of Metzger, all tend to ignore all salient data, and tend to focus on the data that supports their confirmation bias.

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh my gosh. This is hilarious. Strobel and McDowell are not Scholars or historians. Try F.F. Bruce and Glen W. Barker to start with and after that you can say you've actually read something that has valid reasons for their reasoning. WOW.

Oh my gosh, this is hilarious, because McDowell and Strobel reference all the devotional scholars in their books.

BTW, how many critical historical scholars have you read? Just curious, because real historical scholars look at all available evidence, then draw the most reasonable conclusions, where as devotional scholars conveniently avoid the difficult facts altogether. This is also evident in your responses, as you seem blithely unaware of what critical scholarship consensus is at this point in time.

 

[HitchSlap]

I know what deuteroPauline means, but that is not what you wrote. You wrote: 'Deiteropauline'. What does that mean?

You discovered a typo, congrats. Yer' mum must be proud.

Carry on.

 

[HitchSlap]

Exactly. Real Scholars...real Historians.

Which, unfortunately, devotional scholars are not considered to be.

 

[HitchSlap]

Again, no cited evidence. 'Scholars consider Ephesians to be a forgery' does not provide evidence of such.

Have you read Carrier, Ehrman or Doherty? Have you read any real critical scholar?

TBH, I can't even believe we're having this conversation. That Ephesians is considered a pseudonymous epistle is accepted fact for decades now? Are you putting me on, by chance? You seem to be a little behind the curve on current scholarship, and I really don't have time or desire to re-mediate you. I suggest you take a little time to educate yourself on the whole of scholarship. It will broaden your perspective and make you a well rounded human.

From Wiki:

The Epistle to the Ephesians, also called the Letter to the Ephesians and often shortened to Ephesians, is the tenth book of the New Testament. Its authorship has traditionally been credited toPaul the Apostle but, starting in 1792, this has been challenged[1][2]as Deutero-Pauline, that is, written in Paul's name by a later author strongly influenced by Paul's thought.[3][4][5][6][7]

 

[Winken]

From your profile:

Amen & Amen .... Lord, be praised!

 

[Oncedeceived]

Meh, for what it's worth, most devotional scholars, with the exception of Metzger, all tend to ignore all salient data, and tend to focus on the data that supports their confirmation bias.

This coming from a person who assumes Strobel and McDowell are expert scholars and historians

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which, unfortunately, devotional scholars are not considered to be.

And of course Atheists are

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh my gosh, this is hilarious, because McDowell and Strobel reference all the devotional scholars in their books.

BTW, how many critical historical scholars have you read? Just curious, because real historical scholars look at all available evidence, then draw the most reasonable conclusions, where as devotional scholars conveniently avoid the difficult facts altogether. This is also evident in your responses, as you seem blithely unaware of what critical scholarship consensus is at this point in time.

And what evidence do you have in my responses that I am blithely unaware of what critical scholarship consensus is at this point in time?

 

[HitchSlap]

This coming from a person who assumes Strobel and McDowell are expert scholars and historians

I never said they were scholars, only that I've read the popular Christian apologists, who often site what the devotional scholars say. I also mentioned I have read Metzger (had an entire course based on his text) Bruce, Habermas, et. al. over the years, so if you'd rather make snarky remarks than discuss the actual content, then suture self. I've always considered you to be a bit of a pedant.