Paul..fake liar or apostle?

[angellous_evangellous]

Talk:Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Brown, the "majority" of Scholars do not consider Ephesians authentic (by 80%) which I mentioned in the last post and you ignored, and few scholars today back 2 Thes as authentic, with an assessment of a 60/40 split on Colossians. At the very least, 5/13 are clearly ruled out "by the majority", with data on 2 The that is most likely more against it if an exact count was taken today.

"
As for 2 Thes, I'd say the split would have to be thoroughly counted for modern scholars to see who still backs it.

Well, Brown never said how he got those numbers, and I suspect that he didn't have the time or the will to read everything in the patristics, the Reformers, and every generation of scholars in every language from the dawn of Christianity until today for the sole purpose of determining the consensus opinion of everyone who has written on the topic. That project would have taken at least 15 years -- and he'd have the good sense not to do such a stupid thing.

I see your standards are very, very low for the conclusions that you draw, but that is hardly surprising.

No one is going to attempt an exact count because it doesn't matter. Consensus is important, but you only need enough to establish a camp or a particular viewpoint that influential scholars espouse. In the case of the Pauline literature, we agree (not me and you) that some Pauline epistles are authentic, some are disputed, and some are simply not Pauline. There's no need to have percentages - or at least put any effort into it - because these percentages change so fast and people like you misinterpret them.

 

[Shermana]

"7/13 are genuine, BUT ONLY THREE ARE CONSIDERED INAUTHENTIC BY A MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS and the rest are disputed.

Yet you said:"

You used the words "Majority of scholars", so I showed you what appears to be the state of the "majority of scholars", now you're changing the goalposts. Whether Brown's assessment is correct or wild estimations, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the current state of modern scholarship is more against 2 Thes and Colossians than even then, regardless of what "influential" scholar belongs to what camp. I highly disagree with many of Brown's conclusions on other things like the Apocrypha and Enoch nonetheless so on those grounds I'll give that his views may be a bit biased, but Ephesians at the very least seems to be highly ruled out, and Colossians may be related to Ephesians. Regarding Ephesians, the weight against it is almost as much as the Pastorals, with Erasmus probably not even being the first to point it out.

 

[kepha31]

Apostolic may refer to:

• The Twelve Apostles of Jesus, or something related to them, such as the Church of the Holy Apostles
• Apostolic succession, the doctrine connecting the Christian Church to the original Twelve Apostles
• The Apostolic Fathers, the earliest generation of post-Biblical Christian writers
• The Apostolic Age, the period of Christian history when Jesus' apostles were living
• The Apostolic Constitutions, part of the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection.

Apostolic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The primary requirement for proving inspiration of scripture is apostolicity. The books in question meet the apostolic requirement according to the above definition of apostolic. You have to look at the big picture. The pseudepigraphers had as much intention of writing for a future Bible as did Paul, but they were qualified to write in Paul's name, or the community would never have accepted them.

What we have is a culltural barrier because we associate such "writings" with sleazy literary practices. Obviously the Paulene letters were not written in a time line that is acceptable to our literary standards. Ultimately it boils down to who had the authority to say which writings could be called divine and which ones were not. They didn't make a mistake. How we got the Bible isn't as simple as some people want to believe.


How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John? (What verse claims the name of the author?)

 

[1948_its_happening]

Paul was the biggest evangelist in his time. He is God's point man for the Gentile world. He did a great job too because 2000 years later there are 2 billion of us.

Given his monumental success in the face of such massive persecution with little support he obviously has some supernatural backing.

Now this means he is either backed by God or Satan. Given that all nations that accept his message are the most stable, most prosperous, most civilised and most democratic nations on earth I would suggest his influence was highly benefial to man.

This is just one reason why I believe he was a man of God and a founding father of the Church.

 

[Shermana]

Paul was the biggest evangelist in his time. He is God's point man for the Gentile world. He did a great job too because 2000 years later there are 2 billion of us.

Given his monumental success in the face of such massive persecution with little support he obviously has some supernatural backing.

Now this means he is either backed by God or Satan. Given that all nations that accept his message are the most stable, most prosperous, most civilised and most democratic nations on earth I would suggest his influence was highly benefial to man.

This is just one reason why I believe he was a man of God and a founding father of the Church.

What of Thomas's efforts in India? What of all the Apostles evangelizing in Europe? Are you saying only Paul is responsible for the spread? Was the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church divinely inspired too, since they probably spread even more converts? (Especially by the sword)? Were they highly beneficial to man? Is the Pope obviously not backed by Satan since the Pope has kept the internal order of "Billions" of Christians together? What about Muhammad? There are billions of Muslims too, obviously not of Satan of course. Such logic.

The countries that are the most Christian are actually generally very corrupt and war torn, most of them are in Africa. The USA is stable? Name some of these predominantly Christian countries that you consider "Stable" and "civilized". I'm assuming you are referring to the very very recent modern times, and not the age of burning witches and executing people who question the Trinity. Even then, it's hard to call even the most Christian of countries (such as....?) in glowing terms when you look at their real economic and social problems. Some of the most Christian countries in the world have the highest murder and rape rates, while Atheist countries and even Muslim countries have the lowest. How does that work in your model? Why are so many Christians in jail in the "Civilized countries"? Were they not "true believers?"

Paul was a founding father of his own church, like Iraneus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You used the words "Majority of scholars", so I showed you what appears to be the state of the "majority of scholars", now you're changing the goalposts. Whether Brown's assessment is correct or wild estimations, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the current state of modern scholarship is more against 2 Thes and Colossians than even then, regardless of what "influential" scholar belongs to what camp. I highly disagree with many of Brown's conclusions on other things like the Apocrypha and Enoch nonetheless so on those grounds I'll give that his views may be a bit biased, but Ephesians at the very least seems to be highly ruled out, and Colossians may be related to Ephesians. Regarding Ephesians, the weight against it is almost as much as the Pastorals, with Erasmus probably not even being the first to point it out.

Haha, no. I can't be held responsible for your inability to read.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Yeah, it would help if Paul was able to keep his story straight about whether his friends saw the light and heard the voice.

The only Rift even discussed between Peter and Paul is about inviting Gentiles to eat with them.

It's quite clear that the Jerusalem Church existed before Paul did and I'm sure they didn't just come up with the idea of being Torah observant on their own.

To be fair, Paul did observe the law himself. He did make a convincing arguement that Gentiles should not be held to Jewish law. What is disputed is the arguement that Peter, John and James ever agreed with him.

Paul's inconsistencies could be considered to be outright lies to some.

On the other hand, if one held themselves to the same standard of proof Paul was actually a liar, they would come up short on substance.

It sure would be helpful if we actually knew the authorship of everything in the NT.

The bottom line is, I myself cannot hold the Bible up and declare it is the undisputed perfect inspired word of God in good conscience, can you?

 

[outhouse]

To be fair, Paul did observe the law himself. He did make a convincing arguement that Gentiles should not be held to Jewish law. What is disputed is the arguement that Peter, John and James ever agreed with him.

Paul's inconsistencies could be considered to be outright lies to some.

On the other hand, if one held themselves to the same standard of proof Paul was actually a liar, they would come up short on substance.

It sure would be helpful if we actually knew the authorship of everything in the NT.

The bottom line is, I myself cannot hold the Bible up and declare it is the undisputed perfect inspired word of God in good conscience, can you?

Well put

 

[Adonis65]

Can a man preching the Law is a curse truly be an apostle of Yaheshua who taught the Law followed the law and he himself was the fulfillment of that law. Therefore is Paul states that the Law is itself a curse and Yaheshua is the fullfillment of the law does that mean that Paul sees Christ's coming as a curse, truly a contradiction of this nature an accusation towards the character of Yaheshua would logically in my mind indicate that Paul was not receiving his mission from Christ and therefore is a fake a liar and definitely least of all apostle of the lord and his gospel.

I'd have thought Judas was the least of the apostles.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'd have thought Judas was the least of the apostles.

(Judas was not an apostle)

 

[Katzpur]

(Judas was not an apostle)

Uh... could you clarify what you mean by that. All of us know that he was named along with the other apostles, so you're obviously thinking along some other line.

 

[SageTree]

Disciple=student of Jesus directly face to face during his time on Earth.
Apostle= student of teacher (IE> Apostolic succession)

 

[Desert Snake]

Disciple=student of Jesus directly face to face during his time on Earth.
Apostle= student of teacher (IE> Apostolic succession)

Thanks.

 

[SageTree]

Thanks.

No problem, I'm sure that could be expounded on and explained better, but I won't elaborate on an answer to a question that I wasn't asked myself. But these seem to be the commonly accepted 'facts' of what the word means.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[Desert Snake]

No problem, I'm sure that could be expounded on and explained better, but I won't elaborate on an answer to a question that I wasn't asked myself. But these seem to be the commonly accepted 'facts' of what the word means.

:namaste
SageTree

O.K. There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding who was, wasn't an apostle. I didn't even realize that there was debate over this subject. Do different Christian denominations disagree generally on this subject?

 

[SageTree]

I only know how I've encountered it. I'm not sure if there were only 12 Disciples or if ANYONE who followed Jesus during his life time was considered a (lower case perhaps) disciple.

 

[Desert Snake]

I only know how I've encountered it. I'm not sure if there were only 12 Disciples or if ANYONE who followed Jesus during his life time was considered a (lower case perhaps) disciple.

Ah o.k., so anyone can be an apostle, then.

 

[SageTree]

I've already over stepped a little bit.

If nothing else I'd encourage you to wikipedia

Disciples (Christian)
And
Apostles (Christian)

And read for yourself to get a common idea of how it's used and where the confusion/conflict arise in it's Biblical usage.

 

[Shermana]

Who did Paul get taught from exactly? The Disciples? Jesus? If Jesus directly appeared and taught Paul, wouldn't that make him a Disciple or would that terminology only count before Jesus was crucified (considering he was physically raised though and thus "alive" afterwards).

But on what basis do we even know that Paul was taught by Jesus? A contradictory account of a vision?

 

[SageTree]

Good questions.