Dumbed Down Christians

Originally posted by rwingett
You might want to try reading an impartial source on that for a change. One that doesn't have a vested interest in maintaining Paul's authorship. There is a difference between a biblical scholar and a biblical apologist.

Seems to me his source does support your position.

Perhaps you missed this sentence:
"Today, a majority of New Testament scholars consider them to be written by a disciple of Paul, not Paul himself."

As a side note, the phrase "disciple of Paul" is particularly interesting as the vast majority of Christians are disciples of Paul rather than Jesus from what I can tell.

Originally posted by josephw
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/separate/newevan.htm

This link was given to me by a "like minded" Christian on this site. If you care to read it you may gain some insight as to why some Christians today are unable to [b]"contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 1:3[/b]

I read the 1st 8 points Joseph and some of them seem to assume a universal acceptance of some debatable doctrines - "second blessing" for example. And what on earth is wrong with science? If there is enmity between Christianity and science surely it is not due to science itself, it is (nearly) always due to the interpretation of the factual evidence itself.

Even the list of comparisons further down is off the mark in my humble opinion; for example how can Mark 1:22 be quoted as a directive that the Christian believer should be "dogmatic": And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes. This verse is talking about the power and authority demonstrated in Jesus teaching, not in a followers stubborn adherence to taught doctrine and dogma.

The 'great falling away' you may be referring to is prophesied in scripture and should therefore be expected, shouldn't it?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems to me his source does support your position.

Perhaps you missed this sentence:
"Today, a majority of New Testament scholars consider them to be written by a disciple of Paul, not Paul himself."

As a side note, the phrase "disciple of Paul" is particularly interesting as the vast majority of Christians are disciples of Paul rather than Jesus from what I can tell.

I'm not sure what his point is. They were written sometime after Paul by someone who wanted to tone down Paul's egalitarian message and make it fit within the modes of hierarchy and authority familiar to those living in the Roman world. If that's the direction the proto-orthodox church wanted to go, then of course they're going to accept those spurious epistles as being 'Pauline.' They forged them for that very purpose.

Originally posted by rwingett
I'm not sure what his point is. They were written sometime after Paul by someone who wanted to tone down Paul's egalitarian message and make it fit within the modes of hierarchy and authority familiar to those living in the Roman world. If that's the direction the proto-orthodox church wanted to go, then of course they're going to accept those spurious epistles as being 'Pauline.' They forged them for that very purpose.

Here's a recap of your discussion:

RW: It is generally agreed by most biblical scholars that 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul.

U:This statement is false...Name just a few of these biblical scholars who make up this majority...I am disputing your statement that "the majority" of biblical scholars do not give Paul credit for them.

Then you provided details and U countered with his copy and paste which supports your position with this statement:
"Today, a majority of New Testament scholars consider them to be written by a disciple of Paul, not Paul himself."

Seems pretty clear to me that he defeated his own point.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Here's a recap of your discussion:

RW: It is generally agreed by most biblical scholars that 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul.

U:This statement is false...Name just a few of these biblical scholars who make up this majority...I am disputing your statement that "the majority" of biblical scholars do not give Paul credit for the ...[text shortened]...

Seems pretty clear to me that he defeated his own point.


Seems pretty clear to me

Yes, I get that much. But he seems to put special emphasis on the fact that the early church considered them authentic. The part I'm not sure of is why he would consider that to be of any special significance. The proto-orthodox Christian church (the very ones who forged the epistles to give weight to their particular theological interpretations) considered them to be authentic.

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, I get that much. But he seems to put special emphasis on the fact that the early church considered them authentic. The part I'm not sure of is why he would consider that to be of any special significance. The proto-orthodox Christian church (the very ones who forged the epistles to give weight to their particular theological interpretations) considered them to be authentic.

Seems to me that he simply did a "cut and paste" job from the site he cited of the entire section entitled "Authorship" that gives a historical recap. I doubt any "special emphasis" was intended.

Originally posted by josephw
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/separate/newevan.htm

This link was given to me by a "like minded" Christian on this site. If you care to read it you may gain some insight as to why some Christians today are unable to [b]"contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 1:3[/b]

Oh, seriously? A friendly attitude toward science is a bad thing? Are you disregarding genetics? Chemistry? Should I stop teaching my students about electric circuits and life cycles?

And it seems to me that "A More Definite Recognition of Social Responsibility" is actually a good thing -- and in keeping with the teachings of Jesus, I might add.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Here's a recap of your discussion:

RW: It is generally agreed by most biblical scholars that 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul.

U:This statement is false...Name just a few of these biblical scholars who make up this majority...I am disputing your statement that "the majority" of biblical scholars do not give Paul credit for the ...[text shortened]... ple of Paul, not Paul himself."

Seems pretty clear to me that he defeated his own point.

Lol. Sure did. I am one hell of a debater.🙄 Ok so I concede that it seems that the majority of scholars today do not think Paul wrote those epistles.
I do though.
I really do not believe the author would claim to be Paul if he was not.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Lol. Sure did. I am one hell of a debater.🙄 Ok so I concede that it seems that the majority of scholars today do not think Paul wrote those epistles.
I do though.
I really do not believe the author would claim to be Paul if he was not.

It was a common practice in antiquity, although it didn't always carry the negative connotations that we have with plagiarism and forgery today.

The Roman physician Galen, for example, found so many forgeries in Rome's book stalls that were written under his name that he wrote a book on how to recognize authentic vs. forged works by Galen.

Originally posted by rwingett
I'm not sure what his point is. They were written sometime after Paul by someone who wanted to tone down Paul's egalitarian message and make it fit within the modes of hierarchy and authority familiar to those living in the Roman world. If that's the direction the proto-orthodox church wanted to go, then of course they're going to accept those spurious epistles as being 'Pauline.' They forged them for that very purpose.

And at what point were you going to support your contention--- now that your minor point has hijacked the post to the point of absurdity? Is your position so insecure and tenuous that you're unable to support a post of your own on the subject?

What a troll.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And at what point were you going to support your contention--- now that your minor point has hijacked the post to the point of absurdity? Is your position so insecure and tenuous that you're unable to support a post of your own on the subject?

What a troll.

😴

There are two main reasons that today’s scholars do not believe that Paul wrote Timothy’s
1. The writing vocabulary and style are different.
2. They contradict early writings of Paul. In Pauls other writings He praises women. He also names women as deacons, missionaries, and even one as a apostle. In Timothy women are to have no say in church and to be quite.

Originally posted by rwingett
You might want to try reading an impartial source on that for a change. One that doesn't have a vested interest in maintaining Paul's authorship. There is a difference between a biblical scholar and a biblical apologist.

As if these skeptics had no "vested interest" in denying Pauline authorship.

One thing is for sure, Paul did not really "write" Romans. Tertius did at Paul's dictation:

"I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord." (Romans 16:22)

And this brings me to my point. Changes in style or nuances do not prove that Paul did not author First and Second Timothy.

The apostles were men of purpose and teamwork in coordination. A major teacher chould have a letter dictated to another or edited. He would then possibly read the end product and sign off on it.

It is possible that the one with whom an apostle coordinated with in sending a letter could be more skillful in writing. If the apostle was hindered perhaps by eyesight other limitation, like having to speak to someone outside of his jail cell, it is possible that nuances of style of that partner could be detected in the letter.

These Christian brothers worked as team members and not always as lone isolationists coveting some doctoral thesis like the modern seminary grad.

And I think some critics of Pauline authorship are telling us more about themselves then about the NT documents.

Originally posted by jaywill
As if these skeptics had no "vested interest" in denying Pauline authorship.

One thing is for sure, Paul did not really "write" Romans. [b]Tertius did at Paul's dictation:

"I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord." (Romans 16:22)

And this brings me to my point. Changes in style or nuances do not prove that Paul did ...[text shortened]... s of Pauline authorship are telling us more about themselves then about the NT documents.[/b]

The two scholars I mentioned, Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, are both Christians. What is their 'vested interest' in denying Paul's authorship of the Pastoral Epistles? They have none. It is merely were the evidence has led them.

Originally posted by rwingett
The two scholars I mentioned, Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, are both Christians. What is their 'vested interest' in denying Paul's authorship of the Pastoral Epistles? They have none. It is merely were the evidence has led them.

Good ol' Crossan and Borg, two of the fellows from the Jesus Seminars. Surely they have no ax to grind, right?