Christians shouldn't base their theology on discredited books

[radhead]

Many of the books in the New Testament have been proved to be forgeries. Only 7 of the 13 letters of Paul have been credited to the original writer known as "Paul". 2nd Peter is clearly a forgery and makes no sense.

I'm not saying that some of the later written books are completely without any good content. In fact, maybe a later letter is actually better than Galatians in some ways. But I don't think ANY book should be seen as an authoritative statement from God. None of them are inspired by God in the way that traditional Christians have promoted them.

Christians can believe in the things they want, and they can live by the values that are important to them. But understand that when you say that "God" is behind them, you are really just a politician. Religious faith is nothing more than politics.

I guess I should say that theology shouldn't be based on ANY book. Theology should be based on only what comes from each person's heart. It should be private and individual to each person.

Do you ever try to read the Bible critically?

 

[Tolworth John]

Many of the books in the New Testament have been proved to be forgeries

Evidence please.
Also have you reviewed Coldcasechristianity where there are a number of articles about the reliability and accuracy of the NT.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Many of the books in the New Testament have been proved to be forgeries. Only 7 of the 13 letters of Paul have been credited to the original writer known as "Paul". 2nd Peter is clearly a forgery and makes no sense.

I'm not saying that some of the later written books are completely without any good content. In fact, maybe a later letter is actually better than Galatians in some ways. But I don't think ANY book should be seen as an authoritative statement from God. None of them are inspired by God in the way that traditional Christians have promoted them.

Christians can believe in the things they want, and they can live by the values that are important to them. But understand that when you say that "God" is behind them, you are really just a politician. Religious faith is nothing more than politics.

I guess I should say that theology shouldn't be based on ANY book. Theology should be based on only what comes from each person's heart. It should be private and individual to each person.

Do you ever try to read the Bible critically?

Yes, I read the Bible critically. In fact, I read all books critically.

 

[radhead]

Evidence please.
Also have you reviewed Coldcasechristianity where there are a number of articles about the reliability and accuracy of the NT.

Not on your life. I've never seen a respected source that would give credit to that kind of claim.

There is plenty of evidence which you are fully aware. You just turn a blind eye to it.

 

[woobadooba]

You just turn a blind eye to it.

What is your point in being here? Are you here to discourage people, to tear down our faith? You lost that battle long ago when Jesus said, "It is finished."

CF needs to have a thumbs down option.

 

[com7fy8]

Do you ever try to read the Bible critically?

God knows what each scripture means . . . how it can help us to know God in His love and grow in discovering how to relate in His love with any and all people.

And I keep experiencing how He changes me so I have His strength against cruel and dominating and driving lusts and nasty ways of reacting about not getting my own way. More and more, I experience, His love keeps me quiet and enjoying Him while being creative in how I love each and every person.

 

[Tolworth John]

Not on your life. I've never seen a respected source that would give credit to that kind of claim.

There is plenty of evidence which you are fully aware. You just turn a blind eye to it.

You have made a claim so put up or shut up.

Prove your claim by supplying evidence.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Many of the books in the New Testament have been proved to be forgeries. Only 7 of the 13 letters of Paul have been credited to the original writer known as "Paul". 2nd Peter is clearly a forgery and makes no sense.

When asked for evidence, you said,

Not on your life. I've never seen a respected source that would give credit to that kind of claim.

In other words, you are making a baseless claim. That's not cool. Most journalists, and ALL papers will reference back to the original books where their claims arise. Therefore, this is not serious, and you are just trying to stir the pot.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Many of the books in the New Testament have been proved to be forgeries. Only 7 of the 13 letters of Paul have been credited to the original writer known as "Paul". 2nd Peter is clearly a forgery and makes no sense.

I'm not saying that some of the later written books are completely without any good content. In fact, maybe a later letter is actually better than Galatians in some ways. But I don't think ANY book should be seen as an authoritative statement from God. None of them are inspired by God in the way that traditional Christians have promoted them.

Christians can believe in the things they want, and they can live by the values that are important to them. But understand that when you say that "God" is behind them, you are really just a politician. Religious faith is nothing more than politics.

I guess I should say that theology shouldn't be based on ANY book. Theology should be based on only what comes from each person's heart. It should be private and individual to each person.

Do you ever try to read the Bible critically?

You destroy one of your own cases here by saying, "I'm not saying that some of the later written books are completely without any good content. In fact, maybe a later letter is actually better than Galatians in some ways." Which makes the first statement "Many of the books in the New Testament have been proved to be forgeries." a non-issue. Meaning that the authenticity of the text doesn't matter--and bringing it up has not point.

And, fundamentally, contributes nothing to what you seem to want to be saying.

"But I don't think ANY book should be seen as an authoritative statement from God. None of them are inspired by God in the way that traditional Christians have promoted them." Is opinion, you are free to your opinion; but it's not much of an argument. I don't believe that the Qur'an is inspired or from God, so I'm not a Muslim--but that isn't an argument against Islam or even against the Qur'an. It's merely my position in relation to Islam--that it's not my religion.

"I guess I should say that theology shouldn't be based on ANY book. Theology should be based on only what comes from each person's heart. It should be private and individual to each person." Is more opinion, and one that simply does not make sense in the context of the Christian religion. Theology, in the Christian religion, is not the personal religious or spiritual feelings of an individual; but the shared language of faith--how we, as the Christian Church over the last two thousand years, speak about God, about Jesus, about ourselves, about the world. Without having a shared language of faith, there exists no community of faith, and not much at all to speak of. So what we have, again, is simply an opinion and a view which you personally subscribe to, but which isn't an argument.

"Do you ever try to read the Bible critically?" Yes. Yes I do.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Many of the books in the New Testament have been proved to be forgeries.

Since the very first sentence is a false statement ..... well, why continue at all ?

 

[Steve Petersen]

'Forgery' is too strong. The authors of the Gospels are never named. Attribution is from church tradition.

 

[radhead]

'Forgery' is too strong. The authors of the Gospels are never named. Attribution is from church tradition.

Can you please explain a little bit more about this?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Can you please explain a little bit more about this?

The only sources who identify the authors of the Gospels are from the Christian church tradition.

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6976

 

[JackRT]

The names of the four evangelists were not attached to their works until about a century after being written based largely on legend. Some would call it church tradition.

Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. By closely examining vocabulary, grammar and thought themes they are in agreement that the following epistles are genuinely from Paul. They are 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two more letters, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are in dispute. Hebrews does not reflect Paul’s style and content whatsoever. Ephesians does not reflect the style of Paul but is very much Pauline in content and is thought to have been written by a close follower of Paul’s. The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death. Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used; each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith; and each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms. They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time. They are similar in style and in content and in the issues they raise. Scholars generally believe them to have been written by the same person about sixty years after Paul's death. In addition two of Paul’s epistles are thought to be composed of what were originally several smaller letters. In particular Philippians is composed of three and 2 Corinthians is composed of six. Chapter 16 of Romans seems to be a later addition but genuinely by Paul. The epistles of James, John and Peter are also thought to have been far too late for genuine authorship by the attributed writers.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The names of the four evangelists were not attached to their works until about a century after being written based largely on legend. Some would call it church tradition.

Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. By closely examining vocabulary, grammar and thought themes they are in agreement that the following epistles are genuinely from Paul. They are 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two more letters, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are in dispute. Hebrews does not reflect Paul’s style and content whatsoever. Ephesians does not reflect the style of Paul but is very much Pauline in content and is thought to have been written by a close follower of Paul’s. The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death. Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used; each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith; and each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms. They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time. They are similar in style and in content and in the issues they raise. Scholars generally believe them to have been written by the same person about sixty years after Paul's death. In addition two of Paul’s epistles are thought to be composed of what were originally several smaller letters. In particular Philippians is composed of three and 2 Corinthians is composed of six. Chapter 16 of Romans seems to be a later addition but genuinely by Paul. The epistles of James, John and Peter are also thought to have been far too late for genuine authorship by the attributed writers.

I have heard that computers can now detect different authors based on peculiarities of each in their choice of words, style, etc.

 

[JackRT]

I have heard that computers can now detect different authors based on peculiarities of each in their choice of words, style, etc.

I suspect that much of that would be very highly dependent on both language and culture.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The names of the four evangelists were not attached to their works until about a century after being written based largely on legend. Some would call it church tradition.

Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. By closely examining vocabulary, grammar and thought themes they are in agreement that the following epistles are genuinely from Paul. They are 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two more letters, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are in dispute. Hebrews does not reflect Paul’s style and content whatsoever. Ephesians does not reflect the style of Paul but is very much Pauline in content and is thought to have been written by a close follower of Paul’s. The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death. Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used; each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith; and each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms. They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time. They are similar in style and in content and in the issues they raise. Scholars generally believe them to have been written by the same person about sixty years after Paul's death. In addition two of Paul’s epistles are thought to be composed of what were originally several smaller letters. In particular Philippians is composed of three and 2 Corinthians is composed of six. Chapter 16 of Romans seems to be a later addition but genuinely by Paul. The epistles of James, John and Peter are also thought to have been far too late for genuine authorship by the attributed writers.

I think all of this depends on the specific scholars and diversity of relevant research that one chooses to listen to and consider. Moreover, I personally don't think these 'dating' and/or 'authorial' issues are cut-and-dried for any particular viewpoint that handles the Bible.

 

[radhead]

The only sources who identify the authors of the Gospels are from the Christian church tradition.

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6976

I know that. But I'm referring to the letters which supposedly have the author imbedded within the letter itself, in the verses.

I'm just saying that Christians should not accept everything in the Bible as being what it says. Many Christians would accept that the gospels were probably written by someone else. But those Christians would still accept the authority of the epistles. Though I can't begin to understand why.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I think all of this depends on the specific scholars and diversity of relevant research that one chooses to listen to and consider. Moreover, I personally don't think these 'dating' and/or 'authorial' issues are cut-and-dried for any particular viewpoint that handles the Bible.

Every scholar is entitled to their own opinion, but they are NOT entitled to their own facts. It is a fact that the Gospels do not identify their authors.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Every scholar is entitled to their own opinion, but they are NOT entitled to their own facts. It is a fact that the Gospels do not identify their authors.

I agree. My previous comment wasn't directed at you, Steve. I'm just saying that all of this ongoing debate in the public at large, and led by various scholars, doesn't give us much, if any certainty, as to the authenticity of the N.T. books and letters. For me this means that on a practical level, if I turn in my Bible to read 2 Peter, I'll still read it even if I have to do so with "a grain of salt" as it were. However, this doesn't mean I think 2 Peter is just all smoke and mirrors, through and through, either.

The fact is, no one knows for sure either way about this letter, or others like it, despite all of the linguistic analyses that have been done and all of the 1st century cultural factors that may be considered and applied. We can hold the work of Bart Ehrman in one hand, and we can hold the work of one (or some) of the various believing scholars in the other as we encounter the New Testament.