Are some of the Pauline Epistles Gnostic forgeries?

[Anto9us]

not sure Ehrman deserves to be classed with those, pshun, but Crossan -- I've seen BASKETBALL GAMES more spiritual than him...

yes -- it is good to see Hedrick in UDD -- or anywhere else

 

[Der Alte]

. . . I don't need external witnesses to dispute Paul's writings ... Paul's writings themselves brings up more than enough questions on their own.

Nonsense! Only those with a preexisting vehement animosity for Paul and his writings find errors in the writings when they selectively quote/misquote out-of-context passages.

 

[timewerx]

The chapter of 1 Corinthians 8 seems like a Gnostic concept but in the wrong application. Paul discussed there that some knowledge from "stronger" or "more advanced" Christians ought not be practiced in view of "weaker" Christians for it may cause the "weaker" Christians to sin.

Jesus also reserved knowledge for the deserving through parables and through the Spirit, in stages (John 16:12-13)

Although Jesus practiced keeping of knowledge from the undeserved, He is not a Gnostic for even Gnosticism has been polluted by the teachings of Paul and of Marcion.

 

[Der Alte]

The chapter of 1 Corinthians 8 seems like a Gnostic concept but in the wrong application. Paul discussed there that some knowledge from "stronger" or "more advanced" Christians ought not be practiced in view of "weaker" Christians for it may cause the "weaker" Christians to sin. [Paul said no such thing! DA]
Jesus also reserved knowledge for the deserving through parables and through the Spirit, in stages (John 16:12-13)

Although Jesus practiced keeping of knowledge from the undeserved, He is not a Gnostic for even Gnosticism has been polluted by the teachings of Paul and of Marcion.

As I said in my previous post only those with a vehement animosity toward Paul and his writings will find errors in his writings when they selectively quote/misquote out-of-context passages.

 

[Anto9us]

The Paul-bashing by some on this board never ceases to amaze me.

And in some way the "don't do this in front of a weaker brother" jazz might refer to stuff like "don't eat pork in front of someone who still is hung up on Torah" --

doesn't have to mean anything like Gnosticism

 

[Petruchio]

The Paul-bashing by some on this board never ceases to amaze me.

And in some way the "don't do this in front of a weaker brother" jazz might refer to stuff like "don't eat pork in front of someone who still is hung up on Torah" --

doesn't have to mean anything like Gnosticism

Removing Paul is something they have to do, since in more than one place he utterly abolishes any need for worrying about dietary laws and other matters. But these same people do not even know the laws of the Jews, and likely do not keep them all, and so they'd fall to nothing even if they managed to rip up the New Testament of all Paul's works.

 

[Meta Tron]

Removing Paul is something they have to do, since in more than one place he utterly abolishes any need for worrying about dietary laws and other matters. But these same people do not even know the laws of the Jews, and likely do not keep them all, and so they'd fall to nothing even if they managed to rip up the New Testament of all Paul's works.

ermmmmmm..... actually Paul didn't "abolish" ANYTHING on his own, nor could he.

It was a decision that was made by James. This is James speaking in Acts 15:19-21

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

It exactly the propensity of many Orthodox Christians to ascribe authority or actions to Paul that he simply didn't have or do that makes some question Paul in the first place.

 

[Petruchio]

ermmmmmm..... actually Paul didn't "abolish" ANYTHING on his own, nor could he.

It was a decision that was made by James. This is James speaking in Acts 15:19-21



It exactly the propensity of many Orthodox Christians to ascribe authority or actions to Paul that he simply didn't have or do that makes some question Paul in the first place.

The church council in Acts 15 targets the law of Moses (meaning the dietary laws, circumcision, etc) by name:

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

The council agrees only that Christians keep themselves from fornication "and from things strangled, and blood", and declare that Christians are not commanded to keep the law of Moses:

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Abstaining even from things strangled and blood (the Jewish dietary laws are much larger than this), by the way, was also done only for the purpose of not offending the Jews with the Christian church, (hence the verse that speaks of the synagogues in every place) but, otherwise, we are entirely free to eat whatever we desire, provided our meat does not offend another.

1Co_8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

 

[Meta Tron]

The church council in Acts 15 targets the law of Moses (meaning the dietary laws, circumcision, etc) by name:

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

The council agrees only that Christians keep themselves from fornication "and from things strangled, and blood", and declare that Christians are not commanded to keep the law of Moses:

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Abstaining even from things strangled and blood (the Jewish dietary laws are much larger than this), by the way, was also done only for the purpose of not offending the Jews with the Christian church, (hence the verse that speaks of the synagogues in every place) but, otherwise, we are entirely free to eat whatever we desire, provided our meat does not offend another.

1Co_8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

None of which supports in any way your original assertion that it was Paul that unilaterally "utterly abolished" Mosaic law. Just more jiberish.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm not sure this subject can be debated in a truly scholarly fashion, except with a great deal of koine Greek. Otherwise, it's all second-hand opinion.

 

[Petruchio]

None of which supports in any way your original assertion that it was Paul that unilaterally "utterly abolished" Mosaic law. Just more jiberish.

When I said "utterly abolished," I didn't mean single handedly, or even that any Apostle is making laws of himself (and not as he is moved by the Holy Spirit). I only meant that he crushes the idea entirely in his writings, and so the cultists must be rid of him if they are to command their followers to abstain from bacon and the like. They cannot survive Paul, though, they can't survive Acts, or most of the Bible itself. Therein lies the foolishness of it all, as these people think that if they can get rid of Paul, they can still maintain their doctrines. Nothing is further from the truth.

Also, you seem to be questioning the authority of Paul. Paul, being an Apostle, is equal to all the others, and is thus the same rank as that of a Prophet and a one whose writings are accorded the status of scripture.

 

[Meta Tron]

Also, you seem to be questioning the authority of Paul. Paul, being an Apostle, is equal to all the others, and is thus the same rank as that of a Prophet and a one whose writings are accorded the status of scripture.

My views have nothing to do with the conversation. If I thought they did, I would have expressed them.
For what it's worth, I have no issue with Pauls place in the development of early Christianity nor his stature compared to others. I simply objected to his seemingly being elevated above the rest.

 

[Anto9us]

I really think sometimes that Paul went even FARTHER than James about the food stuff

1. that Paul seemed to say EVEN FOR JEWISH CHRISTIANS - himself, Peter, Barnabus - it was ok to blow off the dietary laws - Paul rebukes Peter to his face for renigging of eating with Gentiles - maybe same food they're eating, but Peter backs away when "certain of James" arrive

2. that Paul in some places even blows off the "sacrificed to idols" bit and just says "eat whatever is sold in the shambles" period; where you really wouldn't know if meat had been sacrificed to idols or not, or strangled or what not

and Paul about idols is kind of ambiguous, in one place saying "oh, idols are really nothing" (like they don't really exist) - yet in another place "the things that they sacrifice to idols, they are sacrificing to demons"

James in Acts 15 never goes beyond "here's rules FOR THE GENTILES - but we'll keep Kosher diet for Jewish believers" -- in other words - James keeps TWO SETS OF RULES THROUGHOUT - whereas it seems Paul eventually says

"everybody eat what you want - don't let ANYONE judge you in food or drink or keeping of holy days, etc"

the real question is -- why was James the Big Shot?

a "non-apostle" as far as I know, why was he even EQUAL to "apostles" -- much less Head Guy -- was it because he was Jesus' relative?

James may have said "Let's not trouble the Gentiles" but he went right on with the Law for Jewish Christians as if there had been no real "new covenant" ever established

and James was very "worksy" and not really WITH THE PROGRAM that it was Grace rather than works that mattered

Martin Luther called James' Letter "an epistle of straw" - well, that's a bit much, but still - James is works-oriented to a high degree

 

[Petruchio]

I really think sometimes that Paul went even FARTHER than James about the food stuff

This is incorrect, as Paul does not say "eat what you want, period," but "eat what you want- provided it does not offend any," and in another place urges that those who eat "only herbs" and those who eat whatever they like should not judge one another, as each do it "for the LORD." In other places he says that he would not eat any meat at all if it would cause any of his brothers to stumble. This, however, is not a reflection of these foods causing us any harm, but how eating these foods are perceived and how they may cause harm to others.

This is why the Church Council mentions that the Jews are in every city. The command was given for that purpose, and, thus, we can only interpret them as having the same motivation as Paul. It is done merely as a method to avoid giving offense to the Jews so that they may be won. Also note, of course, that if James was a Legalist, the decision of the Church still only forbids them from things "strangled" or from blood, and not from the dietary or circumcision laws as a whole.

Also, it is also strange to interpret James as "running the show" in Acts 15. He does say "my sentence is," but there is no reason to think that he was in a position of authority over all the other Apostles. His sentence could just as easily be his own sentence, which the Apostles agreed with.

 

[Meta Tron]

the real question is -- why was James the Big Shot?

a "non-apostle" as far as I know, why was he even EQUAL to "apostles" -- much less Head Guy -- was it because he was Jesus' relative?

We can only rely on early historians like Jerome

After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees. ~De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)​

Or the supporting evidence from the non-canonicals like the Gospel of Thomas

GOT 12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

But sadly, the early orthodox historians didn't see fit to illuminate us on that particular subject much beyond that.

 

[timewerx]

I'm not sure this subject can be debated in a truly scholarly fashion, except with a great deal of koine Greek. Otherwise, it's all second-hand opinion.

Take it from a Bible scholar then:

Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

excerpt from the link:

Paul's remaining books are forgeries, Ehrman says. His proof: inconsistencies in the language, choice of words and blatant contradiction in doctrine.

 

[rick357]

I really think sometimes that Paul went even FARTHER than James about the food stuff

1. that Paul seemed to say EVEN FOR JEWISH CHRISTIANS - himself, Peter, Barnabus - it was ok to blow off the dietary laws - Paul rebukes Peter to his face for renigging of eating with Gentiles - maybe same food they're eating, but Peter backs away when "certain of James" arrive

2. that Paul in some places even blows off the "sacrificed to idols" bit and just says "eat whatever is sold in the shambles" period; where you really wouldn't know if meat had been sacrificed to idols or not, or strangled or what not

and Paul about idols is kind of ambiguous, in one place saying "oh, idols are really nothing" (like they don't really exist) - yet in another place "the things that they sacrifice to idols, they are sacrificing to demons"

James in Acts 15 never goes beyond "here's rules FOR THE GENTILES - but we'll keep Kosher diet for Jewish believers" -- in other words - James keeps TWO SETS OF RULES THROUGHOUT - whereas it seems Paul eventually says

"everybody eat what you want - don't let ANYONE judge you in food or drink or keeping of holy days, etc"

the real question is -- why was James the Big Shot?

a "non-apostle" as far as I know, why was he even EQUAL to "apostles" -- much less Head Guy -- was it because he was Jesus' relative?

James may have said "Let's not trouble the Gentiles" but he went right on with the Law for Jewish Christians as if there had been no real "new covenant" ever established

and James was very "worksy" and not really WITH THE PROGRAM that it was Grace rather than works that mattered

Martin Luther called James' Letter "an epistle of straw" - well, that's a bit much, but still - James is works-oriented to a high degree

1) eating with the gentiles does not mean to eat unclean things...but tradition said the food could come in contact with something unclean and become unclean itself...akin to the disapproval of Jesus eating with sinners.

2) Pauls teaching on meat is that being offered to an idol does not imbue the meat with the wickedness of idolotry....so when one buys meat in a market dont worry about where it came from its just meat....yet he adds if you are told it was offered to an idol then dont eat for conscious sake...your own if you believe it makes you partaker of the idol...or others who might believe this and therby think uou approve of such.

3) Pauls teaching about judging has to do with men having a clear concious before God....for his conclusion is do all things unto the Lord and be fully convinced by him it is right.....as should be obvious by posting on this forum many men offer many opinions...but if you seek guidance from God instead of men you can be assured of the Spirit leading into all truth...

3) as to James it is probable that he was Jesus oldest brother and was seen as a regent serving untill Christ returned to take the throne of David....but nevertheless all including the apostles recognized him as lead of the assembly in Jerusalem...but this is not a hierarchy as the church has today....remember they considered themselves to have all things in common so a brothers place was equal even if his duty was preeminent.

4) grace is God thruogh you not a idea in you...Paul in several places talkes about the works of the flesh and those doing these things will not inherit the kingdom of heaven...also he speaks of the fruit of the Spirit in us and Gods work done through us....this alignes perfectly with James who says if you believe God is living in you then Gods work should be evident through you...all else is just a mental exersize...which Paul echoes to timothy when he describes those who are ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of God

5)as to the differance between Jew and gentile think in this way.....two boys of same age live in a town one is raised going to church the other is not.
The boy raised in church has never realy given his heart to Jesus yet he has learned about baptism..communion..offerings..faithfulness..bible study..ect...when he is saved he will continue in these things but learn why these things are done.
If we take our other young man when he comes to the lord and tell him these are what you must do we place him in his flesh as he tries to pwrform to please God.....Pauls teaching is that we encourage him to seek the lord and help establish him in trusting God....that without a law he will do by the nature living in him the things in the law.

6) Luthers understanding verses scripture no contest...Luther also said some horrible things about how Jews should be treated...should we follow that....to Luther who can not hear me and to those who agree with him....James does not say works save you....he says living faith has works that can be seen...so if your faith has no works it is not anything but mental ascent and is Adam in you not Christ through you.

 

[RDKirk]

Take it from a Bible scholar then:

Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

excerpt from the link:

Paul's remaining books are forgeries, Ehrman says. His proof: inconsistencies in the language, choice of words and blatant contradiction in doctrine.

I said debated.

They were debated in the 1st and 2nd century by people who spoke the language naturally, some of whom knew the apostles personally...and those people determined to leave them in the canon.

 

[Der Alte]

Take it from a Bible scholar then:

Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

excerpt from the link:

Paul's remaining books are forgeries, Ehrman says. His proof: inconsistencies in the language, choice of words and blatant contradiction in doctrine.

Before you go throwing the entire NT out, with the bath water, I suggest you read the many books by Greek scholars instead of hanging your hat on the scribblings of one atheist. Ehrman has a working knowlegea of Greek but he is not noted for being a Greek scholar, which is a specialized discipline. There is nothing in Ehrman's writings which has not been known by the real Greek scholars for a few hundred years. At the below link is a 29 page review of one of Ehrman's earlier books, "Misquoting Jesus," by Dr. Dan Wallace, who is a highly renowned Greek scholar who has written several books including 2 Greek grammars and has taught graduate level Greek for 30+ years.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000

Excerpt:Second, Ehrman overplays the quality of the variants while underscoring their quantity. He says, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”13 Elsewhere he states that the number of variants is as high as 400,000.14 That is true enough, but by itself is misleading. Anyone who teaches NT textual criticism knows that this fact is only part of the picture and that, if left dangling in front of the reader without explanation, is a distorted view. Once it is revealed that the great majority of these variants are inconsequential—involving spelling differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes, and the like—and that only a very small minority of the variants alter the meaning of the text, the whole picture begins to come into focus.​

 

[timewerx]

Before you go throwing the entire NT out, with the bath water, I suggest you read the many books by Greek scholars instead of hanging your hat on the scribblings of one atheist.

If I had the luxury of studying Greek, I would. But I can't even find a decent place to live.

But I will read that link you gave, thanks!