bible-truths.com/forums
=> General Discussions => Topic started by: alucard on May 04, 2006, 10:36:19 PM
-
here's a question.have any of you ever wondered if some of pauls epistles were really written by him.I bring this up in curiosity becuase some were probly not written by him.now i do have my on opinion but i'd like to know all of your opinions.here's every thing you need to know about them.
NOTE the ones that have been criticized are marked with (*) the other ones were most definetly written by him.i didn't include hebrews becuase of lots of confusion.
In the order they appear in the New Testament, the Pauline epistles are:
Romans
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians (*)
Philippians
Colossians (*)
First Thessalonians
Second Thessalonians
First Timothy (*)
Second Timothy (*)
Titus (*)
Philemon
and here's the arguments.
All of the epistles except the epistle to the Hebrews present Paul as the author. The epistle to the Hebrews is something of a special case, being anonymous. Authorship of Hebrews was disputed from the earliest, and few, if any, modern scholars would attribute it to Paul. Thus some classifications do not include Hebrews as a Pauline epistle, listing it instead with the general epistles.
Several of the letters are thought by a majority of modern scholars to be pseudepigraphal, that is, not actually written by Paul of Tarsus even if attributed to him within the letters themselves. Details of the arguments regarding this issue are addressed more specifically in the articles about each epistle.
The 7 letters considered genuine by most scholars (at the time of writing), and doubted by almost none:
Romans
Philippians
Galatians
Philemon
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
First Thessalonians
The letters thought to be pseudepigrapha by the majority of modern scholars, according to recent standards of analysis and theoretical trends, are:
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus
The letters on which modern scholars are about evenly divided are:
Ephesians
Colossians
Second Thessalonians
An anonymous letter that nearly all modern scholars agree was probably not written by Paul is:
Hebrews
COLSSIANS
Some scholars consider that Colossians was not written by Paul. One group of arguments against Paul's authorship relate to differences in vocabulary and style. However, the epistle does use many idiosyncrasies that are used in several of the epistles, which lends weight to Paul's authorship, for example, phrases such as en christo (in Christ) and en kurio (in the Lord) are used in the same manner as elsewhere.
Other arguments rely on the polemical content of the letter, certain concepts, and false-teacher arguments, not expressed by other Christian writers until the end of the first century, making an appearance in Colossians.
The extensiveness of the development of the theology in the epistle compared to that of other epistles has led many scholars to the opinion that if it is genuine, then it must be very late. However, due to the apparent consideration of the letter as genuine by the author of the Ephesians, then those scholars who claim that if Colossians is forged, it is very early.
The situation of the letter also supports the idea of Paul as author, matching the personal friendships expressed in the Epistle to Philemon, making many greetings relating to personal acquaintances. Those who contest Paul's authorship claim that such parallels are merely due to a careful forger, deliberately introducing unnecessary additional greetings for the purpose of making the text appear more genuine. Scholars who advocate Paul's authorship point out that since Philemon was a personal letter, it is unlikely that it was as widely copied as Paul's more famous letters. So if a forger wanted Colossians to sound like Paul, argue supporters, why not include personal names from his more famous letters instead of names from a minor letter?
EPHESIANS
Traditional arguments for Pauline Authorship
It seems that there are few doubts in the early church that Paul was the author of the letter to the Ephesians. Early church fathers with authority use quotations from this letter in their writings. Examples can be seen in the writing of Tertullian (Against Marcion 5.22.17) , Clement of Alexandria ( Str 4.65) and St Irenaeus (Her 5.2.3). It is unlikely that such figures in the early church would have quoted the letter without believing that it carried the weight of Pauline authorship.
Recent arguments against Pauline Authorship
The authenticity of this letter was first disputed by the Dutch Renaissance scholar Desiderius Erasmus. More modern scholars point to a different author. Their arguments can be summarised into four main areas:
Considerably different style and vocabulary of the letter when compared to undisputed Pauline writing. What is outstanding is the length of the sentences. There are 50 sentences in the letter, 9 of which contain more than 50 words. The closest comparison scholars can make is the letter to the Romans which consists of 3 sentences of comparable length amongst a total number of 581. Coupled with this stylistic anomaly scholars can also find 116 words that do not appear in what is accepted to be authentic Pauline writing.
The theological viewpoint presented in the letter is markedly different to the other letters. The word ecclesia (church) is used for the first time to refer to the universal church rather than the local churches that Paul had founded. More significantly, the eschatology in the letter is very different to what scholars can normally see in Paul. The absence of the expectation of Christ’s imminent return, the mention of future generations, and the concern for social order seem contrary to Paul's belief stated in Romans and Corinthians that the end is very close.
The image of Paul in the letter is very strong; he is presented as being the prisoner for Christ, an exclusive use of the definitive article which seems to place Paul above any other persecuted Christian. Also there is, unusually for Paul, no mention of any other disciples or helpers, which appears to clash with the self-understanding of Paul that he is a co-founder of the Christian Tradition with the other apostles. This clash is more pronounced if the disputed status of Paul as an apostle and his own acute awareness of his role in the early persecution of the Church as Saul are taken into consideration. This exclusive portrayal of Pauline authority seems to belong much more to the vision of someone wishing to promote him after his death.
Strong evidence of the reliance on the authentic Pauline Epistle to the Colossians seems to indicate that this is a letter written after his death, intending to restate and develop some of his theology. Over forty passages in Ephesians are expansions or variations of passages in Colossians. It is for this reason that some scholars consider Ephesians to be an edited and reworked reproduction of Colossians, though whether this is the result of Paul seeking to emphasise particular meanings, or a forger trying to alter perception of Paul's teachings, is a matter of dispute.
Scholars know that Paul spent years in Ephesus building up the church there. But this letter does not appear to contain any of the usual friendly greetings seen in Paul's other letters, where he greets to people he remembers in this church.
Modern rebuttals to arguments against authenticity
Standard academic rebuttals to the arguments above include the following:
If the Greek of Ephesians is so un-Pauline, why did none of the Greek Church Fathers notice this fact? Several of them noticed that the Greek of the Epistle to the Hebrews did not sound like Paul.
The question of whether Paul expected Jesus' imminent return is widely debated. And even if Paul did expect this when writing his early letters, that does not rule out the possibility that he had adopted a longer-range view by the time he wrote his later letters.
There is some evidence that the Letter to the Ephesians might have been sent to several different churches. Some of the oldest manuscripts of this letter are not addressed to "God's holy people who are at Ephesus," but merely to "God's holy people." Marcion, around 180, quoted from this letter and attributed the quote to Paul's "Letter to the Laodiceans." In the 17th century, Irish prelate and scholar James Ussher (1581-1656) suggested that this might have been a "circular letter" that Paul sent to several churches, including Ephesus and Laodicea. This would explain why Paul's usual personal greetings are absent: these could not be included in a letter sent to several different churches.
The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
Compared word-for-word, 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians have some very similar wording. For example, 1 Thess 2:9 is almost identical to 2 Thess 3:8. This has been explained in three different ways by scholars:
Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians so soon after writing 1 Thessalonians that the same phrases were on his mind.
Paul had a copy of 1 Thessalonians nearby when writing 2 Thessalonians, and deliberately repeated some of the same phrases.
Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians himself, and a later writer wrote 2 Thessalonians in deliberate imitation of Paul's style.
Scholars who find the first two options unlikely generally support the third theory.
Udo Schnelle has shown that 2 Thessalonians is significantly different in style from the undisputed epistles, being whole and narrow rather than a lively and abrupt discussion on a range of issues. Neither does 2 Thessalonians have significant open or deep questions, unlike much of the remainder of Paul's writing. Moreover, Alfred Loisy has argued that it seems to reflect knowledge of the synoptic gospels, which had not been written when Paul wrote his epistles. Bart D. Ehrman has noted that the insistence of genuineness within the letter, and the strong condemnation of forgery at its start, are ploys commonly used in forged documents.
Another issue often raised is that of context; for example, Norman Perrin claims that in the time of Paul, prayer usually treated God (the Father) as ultimate judge, rather than Jesus (a focus on Jesus did not become popular until the end of the first century); since 2 Thessalonians states may the Lord direct your hearts to ... the steadfastness of Christ (3:5) in contrast to 1 Thessalonians' may establish your hearts unblamable ... before God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus.... (3:13), this supposedly implies it was written sometime after Paul's death.
The main theological difference between the two epistles, according to these scholars, is that in 1 Thessalonians, the day of Christ is nigh, whereas the main body of 2 Thessalonians seems entirely dedicated to showing that it is not, and in fact many things must happen first. They think the reason for the writing of 2 Thessalonians was due to there not having been a second coming before Paul died, and that 2 Thessalonians has no other purpose. Others suggest that perhaps Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians, and then later wrote 2 Thessalonians to correct misinterpretations of his earlier letter. Dispensationalist Christians believe that the two letters describe two different appearances of Christ: 1 Thessalonians describes the Rapture, while 2 Thessalonians describes the Second Coming.
Some scholars argue that it would be hypocritical for a pseudepigrapher to warn against forged letters (2:2), and that even by the standards of the ancient world, a false signature (3:17) would constitute an unethical forgery.
[The Pastoral Epistles
The First Epistle to Timothy, the Second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus -- often referred to as the Pastoral Epistles -- are the most disputed of all the epistles bearing Paul's name.]
These epistles were rejected by Marcion, who considered only the other ten epistles by Paul and his version of the Gospel of Luke to be canon. Tertullian expressed his astonishment at Marcion's omission, and all the Church Fathers accepted these letters as being from Paul. Beginning in the early 19th century, many German Biblical scholars began to question the traditional attribution of these letters to Paul.
Modern attempts to settle the issue center on textual criticism and comparison with the other Pauline epistles. Such issues are usually assigned by supporters of the view that Paul is the author to human variability.
The vocabulary used in the Pastorals is distinctly at variance with that of the other epistles, to the extent that it matches texts from general Hellenic philosophy more than any of the other Pauline epistles. Although statistical analysis never provides concrete argument, over 1/3 of the vocabulary is not used anywhere else in the Pauline epistles, and over 1/5 is not used anywhere else in the New Testament. However, the vocabulary is similar to that of 2nd century Christian writers, although Paul was a 1st century writer, for which there is much less similarity to the general vocabulary. However, scholar Luke Timothy Johnson has challenged this analysis, claiming it is based on the arbitrary decision to lump these three epistles together as a unit. He argues out that this obscures the similarities between 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians, between Titus and the other travel letters, and between 2 Timothy and Philippians.
The style in which the vocabulary is used also differs, for example rather than having faith used on its own, faith becomes part of the body of Christian faith. Also, the Pastorals are described as noticeably meditative, and quiet, which is characteristic of literary Hellenistic Greek, rather than the dynamic Greek with dramatic arguments with outbursts and opponents that are used in the remaining epistles attributed to Paul. However, the situation in which Paul is set in the pastorals is one towards the end of his life, so these variations could be due to the change from middle age to an older man.
Norman Perrin has pointed out that Paul's travels to Crete (Titus 1:5-6), again to Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3), Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), and Troas (2 Tim 1:15, 4:13) cannot be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life or works as determined from the other epistles or from Acts. Harnack, Lightfoot and other scholars have suggested hypothetical scenarios that would have these epistles written near the end of Paul's life without contradicting biographical information in the other epistles or Acts. Moreover, the Catholic tradition, going back to ancient times, is that the imprisonment of Paul in the year 62 (described at the end of Acts of the Apostles) was not the imprisonment that led to his death. Paul was released, left Rome, went on an additional journey, and returned to Rome to be martyred in 66 or 67. If this tradition is correct, this final journey could have been the occasion for the visits mentioned in these letters.
In terms of theology, some scholars claim that the Pastorals reflect more the characteristics of 2nd century (non-gnostic) church thought, than those of the 1st century. In particular, whilst in the 1st century the idea of Christ's time being immediate was current (as also described in the non-pastoral epistles), in the 2nd century it was seen as more distant, matching the choice of the pastorals to lay down instructions for a long time after the passing away of the apostles.
The Pastoral Epistles lay out church organisation, and character requirements for men who are chosen to be bishops and deacons. Also, the Pastorals lay out a peculiar ecclesiastical office, that of the widows (prayer connected to chastity). Some scholars claim that these offices could not have appeared during Paul's lifetime. Some 19th century Protestant scholars disputed the authenticity of these epistles out of doctrinal reasons because they viewed bishops (or "overseers"), deacons, and vows of chastity to be too "Catholic."
Another peculiarity is in regard to false teachers, which the pastorals seem particularly devoted to, in particular condemning Hellenic mysticism and gnosticism. Rather than engage in theological debate with the false teachers (as Paul describes doing in the other epistles attributed to him), the pastorals merely suggest quoting scripture. Scholars such as Kummel suggest that if the lack of debate with false teachers were only due to them not being worth contradiction, then there would be no necessity to warn people of them in the first place. Thus scholars of this view claim that the early church faced a serious threat from such teachers, as the prior epistles either supported or accepted their view, and thus the church fabricated the Pastoral Epistles to support their case.
In the 19th century, Europe-based scholars claimed that the Pastoral Epistles must have been written in the late 2nd century. Today, scholars generally agree that these epistles were known by Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch, and may have also been known by Clement of Rome. These would place the date of these epistles no later than the early second century or late first century.
Regardless of the critical views of most scholars, conservatives continue to insist on the traditional view that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul, and have long questioned scholarly methods such as higher and historical criticism, as well as questioning the theology of their opponents.
ALSO i don't believe we can just say well it's there and i'll just say he wrote them becuase that wouldn't be smart considering there were FAKES IN THE PAST such as these:Most, if not all, scholars reject their authenticity. They include
Third Epistle to the Corinthians (canonical for Armenian Orthodox)
Epistle to the Laodiceans (Roman Catholic apocrypha)
Third Epistle to the Thessalonians
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle to the Ionians
so what do all of you think.personally i think if most of these were discarded A LOT OF CONTRIVERSY WOULD CEASE.
-
Perhaps we need to stop reading between the lines and focus on the lines themselves - they're quite powerful!
Someone once pointed out to me that the counterfeit currency experts in our Treasury Department sharpen their skills by studying NOT the counterfeit currency but the real thing.
-
YES! YES! very good-very good indeed and with that i want you to really concintrate on some of these scriptures.i believe some of them were written by paul ,i'm not going to say wich ones it's my personal opinion,but don't some of them seem to try to put pacific meanings to past tense writtings of paul but if without them we may interpet them differently.i understand reading spiritually but false information that makes your thought seem contridictory toward theirs could mess you up.even ray has used some false scripture such as "he who is without sin cast the first stone" story was not in the original from john 7:53-john8:11.interesting to know isint it?also with studing the real thing perhaps we should really use the ones that are known to be written by more than the contriversal ones but that doesn't mean we should abandend the contriversal ones.
-
Some of the later ones may simply differ in the fact that they were not written by Paul, but were dictated by him. Do not forget the fact that he had a sight problem, which may have gotten worse over time. Some of them may have been written by other at Paul's behalf. So even though the wording and the sentence structure may have changed, it does not mean that Paul was not the author.
-
YES! YES! very good-very good indeed and with that i want you to really concintrate on some of these scriptures.i believe some of them were written by paul ,i'm not going to say wich ones it's my personal opinion,but don't some of them seem to try to put pacific meanings to past tense writtings of paul but if without them we may interpet them differently.i understand reading spiritually but false information that makes your thought seem contridictory toward theirs could mess you up.even ray has used some false scripture such as "he who is without sin cast the first stone" story was not in the original from john 7:53-john8:11.interesting to know isint it?also with studing the real thing perhaps we should really use the ones that are known to be written by more than the contriversal ones but that doesn't mean we should abandend the contriversal ones.
John 7:53 and John 8:11 is not Scripture? Never knew that. Do you have any information on it? Where'd it come from?
-
The only book that a really have doubts as to wheather it was written by Paul is the book of Hebrews. The style of writting is differant than the others. However, I'm no expert.....and I have doubts on anyone who claims to be an expert.
We're talking about 2000 year old writtings here....there is no one alive who knows for sure, and many of the Greek manuscripts are copies of other copies that have been translated from Latin (and other languages) then back into Greek.
-
here's a question.have any of you ever wondered if some of pauls epistles were really written by him.I bring this up in curiosity becuase some were probly not written by him.now i do have my on opinion but i'd like to know all of your opinions.here's every thing you need to know about them.
NOTE the ones that have been criticized are marked with (*) the other ones were most definetly written by him.i didn't include hebrews becuase of lots of confusion.
In the order they appear in the New Testament, the Pauline epistles are:
Romans
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians (*)
Philippians
Colossians (*)
First Thessalonians
Second Thessalonians
First Timothy (*)
Second Timothy (*)
Titus (*)
Philemon
and here's the arguments.
All of the epistles except the epistle to the Hebrews present Paul as the author. The epistle to the Hebrews is something of a special case, being anonymous. Authorship of Hebrews was disputed from the earliest, and few, if any, modern scholars would attribute it to Paul. Thus some classifications do not include Hebrews as a Pauline epistle, listing it instead with the general epistles.
Several of the letters are thought by a majority of modern scholars to be pseudepigraphal, that is, not actually written by Paul of Tarsus even if attributed to him within the letters themselves. Details of the arguments regarding this issue are addressed more specifically in the articles about each epistle.
The 7 letters considered genuine by most scholars (at the time of writing), and doubted by almost none:
Romans
Philippians
Galatians
Philemon
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
First Thessalonians
The letters thought to be pseudepigrapha by the majority of modern scholars, according to recent standards of analysis and theoretical trends, are:
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus
The letters on which modern scholars are about evenly divided are:
Ephesians
Colossians
Second Thessalonians
An anonymous letter that nearly all modern scholars agree was probably not written by Paul is:
Hebrews
COLSSIANS
Some scholars consider that Colossians was not written by Paul. One group of arguments against Paul's authorship relate to differences in vocabulary and style. However, the epistle does use many idiosyncrasies that are used in several of the epistles, which lends weight to Paul's authorship, for example, phrases such as en christo (in Christ) and en kurio (in the Lord) are used in the same manner as elsewhere.
Other arguments rely on the polemical content of the letter, certain concepts, and false-teacher arguments, not expressed by other Christian writers until the end of the first century, making an appearance in Colossians.
The extensiveness of the development of the theology in the epistle compared to that of other epistles has led many scholars to the opinion that if it is genuine, then it must be very late. However, due to the apparent consideration of the letter as genuine by the author of the Ephesians, then those scholars who claim that if Colossians is forged, it is very early.
The situation of the letter also supports the idea of Paul as author, matching the personal friendships expressed in the Epistle to Philemon, making many greetings relating to personal acquaintances. Those who contest Paul's authorship claim that such parallels are merely due to a careful forger, deliberately introducing unnecessary additional greetings for the purpose of making the text appear more genuine. Scholars who advocate Paul's authorship point out that since Philemon was a personal letter, it is unlikely that it was as widely copied as Paul's more famous letters. So if a forger wanted Colossians to sound like Paul, argue supporters, why not include personal names from his more famous letters instead of names from a minor letter?
EPHESIANS
Traditional arguments for Pauline Authorship
It seems that there are few doubts in the early church that Paul was the author of the letter to the Ephesians. Early church fathers with authority use quotations from this letter in their writings. Examples can be seen in the writing of Tertullian (Against Marcion 5.22.17) , Clement of Alexandria ( Str 4.65) and St Irenaeus (Her 5.2.3). It is unlikely that such figures in the early church would have quoted the letter without believing that it carried the weight of Pauline authorship.
Recent arguments against Pauline Authorship
The authenticity of this letter was first disputed by the Dutch Renaissance scholar Desiderius Erasmus. More modern scholars point to a different author. Their arguments can be summarised into four main areas:
Considerably different style and vocabulary of the letter when compared to undisputed Pauline writing. What is outstanding is the length of the sentences. There are 50 sentences in the letter, 9 of which contain more than 50 words. The closest comparison scholars can make is the letter to the Romans which consists of 3 sentences of comparable length amongst a total number of 581. Coupled with this stylistic anomaly scholars can also find 116 words that do not appear in what is accepted to be authentic Pauline writing.
The theological viewpoint presented in the letter is markedly different to the other letters. The word ecclesia (church) is used for the first time to refer to the universal church rather than the local churches that Paul had founded. More significantly, the eschatology in the letter is very different to what scholars can normally see in Paul. The absence of the expectation of Christ’s imminent return, the mention of future generations, and the concern for social order seem contrary to Paul's belief stated in Romans and Corinthians that the end is very close.
The image of Paul in the letter is very strong; he is presented as being the prisoner for Christ, an exclusive use of the definitive article which seems to place Paul above any other persecuted Christian. Also there is, unusually for Paul, no mention of any other disciples or helpers, which appears to clash with the self-understanding of Paul that he is a co-founder of the Christian Tradition with the other apostles. This clash is more pronounced if the disputed status of Paul as an apostle and his own acute awareness of his role in the early persecution of the Church as Saul are taken into consideration. This exclusive portrayal of Pauline authority seems to belong much more to the vision of someone wishing to promote him after his death.
Strong evidence of the reliance on the authentic Pauline Epistle to the Colossians seems to indicate that this is a letter written after his death, intending to restate and develop some of his theology. Over forty passages in Ephesians are expansions or variations of passages in Colossians. It is for this reason that some scholars consider Ephesians to be an edited and reworked reproduction of Colossians, though whether this is the result of Paul seeking to emphasise particular meanings, or a forger trying to alter perception of Paul's teachings, is a matter of dispute.
Scholars know that Paul spent years in Ephesus building up the church there. But this letter does not appear to contain any of the usual friendly greetings seen in Paul's other letters, where he greets to people he remembers in this church.
Modern rebuttals to arguments against authenticity
Standard academic rebuttals to the arguments above include the following:
If the Greek of Ephesians is so un-Pauline, why did none of the Greek Church Fathers notice this fact? Several of them noticed that the Greek of the Epistle to the Hebrews did not sound like Paul.
The question of whether Paul expected Jesus' imminent return is widely debated. And even if Paul did expect this when writing his early letters, that does not rule out the possibility that he had adopted a longer-range view by the time he wrote his later letters.
There is some evidence that the Letter to the Ephesians might have been sent to several different churches. Some of the oldest manuscripts of this letter are not addressed to "God's holy people who are at Ephesus," but merely to "God's holy people." Marcion, around 180, quoted from this letter and attributed the quote to Paul's "Letter to the Laodiceans." In the 17th century, Irish prelate and scholar James Ussher (1581-1656) suggested that this might have been a "circular letter" that Paul sent to several churches, including Ephesus and Laodicea. This would explain why Paul's usual personal greetings are absent: these could not be included in a letter sent to several different churches.
The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
Compared word-for-word, 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians have some very similar wording. For example, 1 Thess 2:9 is almost identical to 2 Thess 3:8. This has been explained in three different ways by scholars:
Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians so soon after writing 1 Thessalonians that the same phrases were on his mind.
Paul had a copy of 1 Thessalonians nearby when writing 2 Thessalonians, and deliberately repeated some of the same phrases.
Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians himself, and a later writer wrote 2 Thessalonians in deliberate imitation of Paul's style.
Scholars who find the first two options unlikely generally support the third theory.
Udo Schnelle has shown that 2 Thessalonians is significantly different in style from the undisputed epistles, being whole and narrow rather than a lively and abrupt discussion on a range of issues. Neither does 2 Thessalonians have significant open or deep questions, unlike much of the remainder of Paul's writing. Moreover, Alfred Loisy has argued that it seems to reflect knowledge of the synoptic gospels, which had not been written when Paul wrote his epistles. Bart D. Ehrman has noted that the insistence of genuineness within the letter, and the strong condemnation of forgery at its start, are ploys commonly used in forged documents.
Another issue often raised is that of context; for example, Norman Perrin claims that in the time of Paul, prayer usually treated God (the Father) as ultimate judge, rather than Jesus (a focus on Jesus did not become popular until the end of the first century); since 2 Thessalonians states may the Lord direct your hearts to ... the steadfastness of Christ (3:5) in contrast to 1 Thessalonians' may establish your hearts unblamable ... before God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus.... (3:13), this supposedly implies it was written sometime after Paul's death.
The main theological difference between the two epistles, according to these scholars, is that in 1 Thessalonians, the day of Christ is nigh, whereas the main body of 2 Thessalonians seems entirely dedicated to showing that it is not, and in fact many things must happen first. They think the reason for the writing of 2 Thessalonians was due to there not having been a second coming before Paul died, and that 2 Thessalonians has no other purpose. Others suggest that perhaps Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians, and then later wrote 2 Thessalonians to correct misinterpretations of his earlier letter. Dispensationalist Christians believe that the two letters describe two different appearances of Christ: 1 Thessalonians describes the Rapture, while 2 Thessalonians describes the Second Coming.
Some scholars argue that it would be hypocritical for a pseudepigrapher to warn against forged letters (2:2), and that even by the standards of the ancient world, a false signature (3:17) would constitute an unethical forgery.
[The Pastoral Epistles
The First Epistle to Timothy, the Second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus -- often referred to as the Pastoral Epistles -- are the most disputed of all the epistles bearing Paul's name.]
These epistles were rejected by Marcion, who considered only the other ten epistles by Paul and his version of the Gospel of Luke to be canon. Tertullian expressed his astonishment at Marcion's omission, and all the Church Fathers accepted these letters as being from Paul. Beginning in the early 19th century, many German Biblical scholars began to question the traditional attribution of these letters to Paul.
Modern attempts to settle the issue center on textual criticism and comparison with the other Pauline epistles. Such issues are usually assigned by supporters of the view that Paul is the author to human variability.
The vocabulary used in the Pastorals is distinctly at variance with that of the other epistles, to the extent that it matches texts from general Hellenic philosophy more than any of the other Pauline epistles. Although statistical analysis never provides concrete argument, over 1/3 of the vocabulary is not used anywhere else in the Pauline epistles, and over 1/5 is not used anywhere else in the New Testament. However, the vocabulary is similar to that of 2nd century Christian writers, although Paul was a 1st century writer, for which there is much less similarity to the general vocabulary. However, scholar Luke Timothy Johnson has challenged this analysis, claiming it is based on the arbitrary decision to lump these three epistles together as a unit. He argues out that this obscures the similarities between 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians, between Titus and the other travel letters, and between 2 Timothy and Philippians.
The style in which the vocabulary is used also differs, for example rather than having faith used on its own, faith becomes part of the body of Christian faith. Also, the Pastorals are described as noticeably meditative, and quiet, which is characteristic of literary Hellenistic Greek, rather than the dynamic Greek with dramatic arguments with outbursts and opponents that are used in the remaining epistles attributed to Paul. However, the situation in which Paul is set in the pastorals is one towards the end of his life, so these variations could be due to the change from middle age to an older man.
Norman Perrin has pointed out that Paul's travels to Crete (Titus 1:5-6), again to Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3), Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), and Troas (2 Tim 1:15, 4:13) cannot be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life or works as determined from the other epistles or from Acts. Harnack, Lightfoot and other scholars have suggested hypothetical scenarios that would have these epistles written near the end of Paul's life without contradicting biographical information in the other epistles or Acts. Moreover, the Catholic tradition, going back to ancient times, is that the imprisonment of Paul in the year 62 (described at the end of Acts of the Apostles) was not the imprisonment that led to his death. Paul was released, left Rome, went on an additional journey, and returned to Rome to be martyred in 66 or 67. If this tradition is correct, this final journey could have been the occasion for the visits mentioned in these letters.
In terms of theology, some scholars claim that the Pastorals reflect more the characteristics of 2nd century (non-gnostic) church thought, than those of the 1st century. In particular, whilst in the 1st century the idea of Christ's time being immediate was current (as also described in the non-pastoral epistles), in the 2nd century it was seen as more distant, matching the choice of the pastorals to lay down instructions for a long time after the passing away of the apostles.
The Pastoral Epistles lay out church organisation, and character requirements for men who are chosen to be bishops and deacons. Also, the Pastorals lay out a peculiar ecclesiastical office, that of the widows (prayer connected to chastity). Some scholars claim that these offices could not have appeared during Paul's lifetime. Some 19th century Protestant scholars disputed the authenticity of these epistles out of doctrinal reasons because they viewed bishops (or "overseers"), deacons, and vows of chastity to be too "Catholic."
Another peculiarity is in regard to false teachers, which the pastorals seem particularly devoted to, in particular condemning Hellenic mysticism and gnosticism. Rather than engage in theological debate with the false teachers (as Paul describes doing in the other epistles attributed to him), the pastorals merely suggest quoting scripture. Scholars such as Kummel suggest that if the lack of debate with false teachers were only due to them not being worth contradiction, then there would be no necessity to warn people of them in the first place. Thus scholars of this view claim that the early church faced a serious threat from such teachers, as the prior epistles either supported or accepted their view, and thus the church fabricated the Pastoral Epistles to support their case.
In the 19th century, Europe-based scholars claimed that the Pastoral Epistles must have been written in the late 2nd century. Today, scholars generally agree that these epistles were known by Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch, and may have also been known by Clement of Rome. These would place the date of these epistles no later than the early second century or late first century.
Regardless of the critical views of most scholars, conservatives continue to insist on the traditional view that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul, and have long questioned scholarly methods such as higher and historical criticism, as well as questioning the theology of their opponents.
ALSO i don't believe we can just say well it's there and i'll just say he wrote them becuase that wouldn't be smart considering there were FAKES IN THE PAST such as these:Most, if not all, scholars reject their authenticity. They include
Third Epistle to the Corinthians (canonical for Armenian Orthodox)
Epistle to the Laodiceans (Roman Catholic apocrypha)
Third Epistle to the Thessalonians
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle to the Ionians
so what do all of you think.personally i think if most of these were discarded A LOT OF CONTRIVERSY WOULD CEASE.
please referense from where you copy and paste this information
thanks
-
John 7:53 and John 8:11 is not Scripture? Never knew that. Do you have any information on it? Where'd it come from?
you should be able to look any were on the internet and find information about it,you see aparently scribes in the later churches added it to give some more meaningfull stories to the gospel but it's unscriptual.
please referense from where you copy and paste this information
thanks
if you don't trust me then here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
plus there are many more websites that give the same information
-
John 7:53 and John 8:11 is not Scripture? Never knew that. Do you have any information on it? Where'd it come from?
you should be able to look any were on the internet and find information about it,you see aparently scribes in the later churches added it to give some more meaningfull stories to the gospel but it's unscriptual.
please referense from where you copy and paste this information
thanks
if you don't trust me then here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
plus there are many more websites that give the same information
greetings ;-]
it has nothing to do with trust :wink: its only fair that we include links to the info we give out.
thanks!
euty/chuckt
-
I went to the link and read some of the article and then clicked on some of the names to get a background of who these theologines were and I see that most were in different religious denominations! There lies the problem for me when I see who those are that researched the New Testament! One based his on theory another was a catholic yet another was agnostic!
I can't and won't take much of what is said by those theologines to seriously! I only view them as opinion! Every body has one!
bobby
that maybe true but it doesn't throw their arguments out along with the fact that it's not their argument alone but the arguments of many scholars,plus i never said that all of what their saying proves most of them false but you have to edmit some of it is really compelling.also you shouldn't throw there theories away becuase of their religious background.would you really feel better if a christian came up with it?it's as ray said once "it would probly be better if an athiest translated the bible"i'm paraphrasing but i think you can trust from a regular scholar than a christian scholar becuase the non-christian one would look for the truth,but the christian one would try to fit it in his truths.
-
What everyone here seems to be overlooking is that "Spiritually" these books fit very well with the rest of the Gospel. The other so-called "Lost Books" do not. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, they were written by the mind of God.... doesn’t really matter about the human hand holding the quill.
-
What everyone here seems to be overlooking is that "Spiritually" these books fit very well with the rest of the Gospel. The other so-called "Lost Books" do not. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, they were written by the mind of God.... doesn’t really matter about the human hand holding the quill.
don't be so quick on your decision.have you ever read any gnostics?i have i don't think there right but they say some compelling things becuase THEY COPY REAL INSPIRED WORDS OF GOD to sound real and most of the episltes just as easily could been made by people that reviewed the real paul epistles
-
he said, she said,she said, he said.
-
I went to the link and read some of the article and then clicked on some of the names to get a background of who these theologines were and I see that most were in different religious denominations! There lies the problem for me when I see who those are that researched the New Testament! One based his on theory another was a catholic yet another was agnostic!
I can't and won't take much of what is said by those theologines to seriously! I only view them as opinion! Every body has one!
bobby
Amen brother, those who believe such nonsence specialy from agnostic, or other religious denominations or athiestic people are fooling themselves.
God is in complete controle, those writtings are there for a reason, for our admonation (SP?).
Has anyone ever thought the style of writting might differ because Pauls spiritual growth was so much greater in his later years, then when he first started out on his mission in Christ?
God bless,
Alex.
-
don't be so quick on your decision.have you ever read any gnostics?i have i don't think there right but they say some compelling things becuase THEY COPY REAL INSPIRED WORDS OF GOD to sound real and most of the episltes just as easily could been made by people that reviewed the real paul epistles
Yes, I've read several Gnostic works.....I personally don't think our God is evil.
I do however, agree with you on some points. There have been several groups of people to copy Biblical passages into their works and try and pass them off as inspired.
There are also some who believe the books of Matthew and Luke come from the same source document....although this "Q" document has never materialized. I keep waiting on somebody to say that it was among the Dead Sea Scrolls or better yet, locked up in the Vatican archives.
Remember....there are MANY,MANY people out there that will do ANYTHING to discredit the New Testament, and strangely enough, the ones that work at it the hardest are the ones that main stream Christianity support the most. They're just to blind to see it.
-
What everyone here seems to be overlooking is that "Spiritually" these books fit very well with the rest of the Gospel. The other so-called "Lost Books" do not. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, they were written by the mind of God.... doesn’t really matter about the human hand holding the quill.
Another amen, Hallelujah! :D
-
don't be so quick on your decision.have you ever read any gnostics?i have i don't think there right but they say some compelling things becuase THEY COPY REAL INSPIRED WORDS OF GOD to sound real and most of the episltes just as easily could been made by people that reviewed the real paul epistles
Yes, I've read several Gnostic works.....I personally don't think our God is evil.
I do however, agree with you on some points. There have been several groups of people to copy Biblical passages into their works and try and pass them off as inspired.
There are also some who believe the books of Matthew and Luke come from the same source document....although this "Q" document has never materialized. I keep waiting on somebody to say that it was among the Dead Sea Scrolls or better yet, locked up in the Vatican archives.
Remember....there are MANY,MANY people out there that will do ANYTHING to discredit the New Testament, and strangely enough, the ones that work at it the hardest are the ones that main stream Christianity support the most. They're just to blind to see it.
you make good points.yes i know of all the people who try and discredit the NT but what i'm trying to get through are the fakes.earlier you stated that the only one you have a problem with is hebrew.well,it really isn't likely that he wrote that in fact i don't even know why people decided he wrote it doesn't even cliam an author but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it becuase it belongs with the other episltes in the bible not written by paul,and as i also stated there are fakes episltes that are proven to be fake and they seemed simular to the real epistles in some ways.why i posted this was because i wanted to see if anyone could make good arguments for me to consider and i have gotten some to consider such as:
Some of the later ones may simply differ in the fact that they were not written by Paul, but were dictated by him. Do not forget the fact that he had a sight problem, which may have gotten worse over time. Some of them may have been written by other at Paul's behalf. So even though the wording and the sentence structure may have changed, it does not mean that Paul was not the author.
that"s possible and one of yours was a good argument:
We're talking about 2000 year old writtings here....there is no one alive who knows for sure, and many of the Greek manuscripts are copies of other copies that have been translated from Latin (and other languages) then back into Greek.
not 100% becuase there might be a way to find out but a good argument.you also have to consider THERE WERE FAKE EPISTLES FORGED IN HIS NAME here's just a few of them:
Third Epistle to the Corinthians (canonical for Armenian Orthodox)
Epistle to the Laodiceans (Roman Catholic apocrypha)
Third Epistle to the Thessalonians
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle to the Ionians
and if we can find the fakes we'll find more truth
EDIT: about that q document i've heard of that i've even got info about it in my files.what really makes it a compelling theory is the gnostic gospel of thomas becuase it contains many sayings as the others, but until such a document is found it remains only a theory.i do have this to say about it though,if such a document is found many more outstanding words of god would be revealed
-
John 7:53 and John 8:11 is not Scripture? Never knew that. Do you have any information on it? Where'd it come from?
you should be able to look any were on the internet and find information about it,you see aparently scribes in the later churches added it to give some more meaningfull stories to the gospel but it's unscriptual.
please referense from where you copy and paste this information
thanks
if you don't trust me then here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
plus there are many more websites that give the same information
Why does Ray quote those Scriptures if they aren't inspired?
-
John 7:53 and John 8:11 is not Scripture? Never knew that. Do you have any information on it? Where'd it come from?
you should be able to look any were on the internet and find information about it,you see aparently scribes in the later churches added it to give some more meaningfull stories to the gospel but it's unscriptual.
please referense from where you copy and paste this information
thanks
if you don't trust me then here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
plus there are many more websites that give the same information
Why does Ray quote those Scriptures if they aren't inspired?
well...he probly didn't know,i think he knows now,but i brought this one up specificly becuase he wrote a long passage on it and showing himself reading it spiritualy and the point i was trying to make is that anyone can be fooled by false scripture becuase some can really be sound inspirational and inspiried by real scripture.
NOTE:you can go here to get arguments for and against it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6
but other sites just say it's fake plus the what little argument is for it is not very good.
ANOTHER NOTE: apparently corinthians 14:34-35 may not be original either i'm not sure yet but i'm checking and i'll tell you if i find anything,if it's not original it will probaly start a good bit of debating.
EDIT:this ones a little difficult but here's a good site people can view to know what i'm talking about with corinthians. http://www.helpmewithbiblestudy.org/3e/1o/O_women_quiet1.htm
EDITED: for some spelling & correction
-
John 7:53 and John 8:11 is not Scripture? Never knew that. Do you have any information on it? Where'd it come from?
you should be able to look any were on the internet and find information about it,you see aparently scribes in the later churches added it to give some more meaningfull stories to the gospel but it's unscriptual.
please referense from where you copy and paste this information
thanks
if you don't trust me then here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
plus there are many more websites that give the same information
Why does Ray quote those Scriptures if they aren't inspired?
well...he probly didn't know,i think he knows know,but i brought this one up specificly becuase he wrote a long passage on it and showing himself reading it spiritualy and the point i was trying to make is that anyone can be fooled by false scripture becuase some can really be inspirational.
NOTE:you can go here to get arguments for and against it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6
but other sites just say it's fake plus the what little argument is for it is not very good.
ANOTHER NOTE: apparently corinthians 14:34-35 may not be original either i'm not sure yet but i'm checking and i'll tell you if i find anything,if it's not original it will probaly start a good bit of debating.
EDIT:this ones a little difficult but here's a good site people can view to know what i'm talking about with corinthians. http://www.helpmewithbiblestudy.org/3e/1o/O_women_quiet1.htm
Tell me if you do, I'm interested.
Do you have AIM? If so, add me: nightmare sasuke.
-
alucard....you make some very good points.
What I meant about the book of Hebrews is that even I don't think it was written by Paul....the style is more in line with the book of John in my opinion. Of coarse there is no proof that John wrote the book of John, and that's the point all together. There really is no possible way of knowing.
Lets just say for the moment that the book of Romans "Is" authentic and written by Paul. Now....compairing 1st & 2nd Corinthians and 1st & 2nd Timothy to the book of Romans...they do vary in tone even from one letter to the other but the mood of the writter could have an impact on the style, as could any number of factors. But, I would have to say...again, in my opinion, that these books are defenately written by Paul. I've probably spent more time in these 5 books than any others in the New Testament and I feel very comfortable with that statement.
It all boils down to this.....all we have to go on is what's in front of us. Has the Bible been tampered with? Of coarse it has...I don't think you would get much of an arguement on that. There are many unanswered questions and we'll probably only get an answer when we die. There is just as much controvercy over the Hebrew scriptures as well. You just never hear as much about it. Heck.....there's no historical proof that the Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt, but again....you won't hear much about that. But, when it comes to the New Testament, everybody has an opinion.
Like I said, all we have to go on is what's in front of us. We can sit here and question it all day long or we can study the word for ourselves and let the Holy Spirit lead us.
-
alucard....you make some very good points.
What I meant about the book of Hebrews is that even I don't think it was written by Paul....the style is more in line with the book of John in my opinion. Of coarse there is no proof that John wrote the book of John, and that's the point all together. There really is no possible way of knowing.
Lets just say for the moment that the book of Romans "Is" authentic and written by Paul. Now....compairing 1st & 2nd Corinthians and 1st & 2nd Timothy to the book of Romans...they do vary in tone even from one letter to the other but the mood of the writter could have an impact on the style, as could any number of factors. But, I would have to say...again, in my opinion, that these books are defenately written by Paul. I've probably spent more time in these 5 books than any others in the New Testament and I feel very comfortable with that statement.
It all boils down to this.....all we have to go on is what's in front of us. Has the Bible been tampered with? Of coarse it has...I don't think you would get much of an arguement on that. There are many unanswered questions and we'll probably only get an answer when we die. There is just as much controvercy over the Hebrew scriptures as well. You just never hear as much about it. Heck.....there's no historical proof that the Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt, but again....you won't hear much about that. But, when it comes to the New Testament, everybody has an opinion.
Like I said, all we have to go on is what's in front of us. We can sit here and question it all day long or we can study the word for ourselves and let the Holy Spirit lead us.
yes i'm aware of all these things and you have your opinions and i have mine and that's all that they are opinions,but on a side note it's not just the way their written but where they were written.this mianly applies to both timothy's&titus but if you read the article you'll see it's possible but didn't seem likely to the route he probly traveled plus as you see if they were written by him their very late but if forged their very early.
Also nightmare sasuke i don't have an AIM and if your asking about corinthians 14:34-35 all that i've seen on it it's about evenly divided between people that think it was in the orginal or wasn't we probly won't know,but i will say this about it if it's original it sure went threw many strange stages.in some bibles it's after verse 9,then were it is in are bible after verse 33,and in older ones it comes after verse 40.it seems there really isn't any bible that seemed to omits it but it sure moved around a lot.
-
John 7:53 and John 8:11 is not Scripture? Never knew that. Do you have any information on it? Where'd it come from?
you should be able to look any were on the internet and find information about it,you see aparently scribes in the later churches added it to give some more meaningfull stories to the gospel but it's unscriptual.
[
What makes a passage scriptural? Does it qualify if it is part of the dead sea scrolls? If it is part of the bible is it automatically scriptural [translation errors notwithstanding]? Who decided that Paul's writings should be included in a bible anyway? If you remove all of Paul's writings, does is significantly change the message of the new testament?
The bible is a compilation work. It has many inconsistencies in it. Yet we are told that if we can find two or more like passages then it must likely be true and inspired.
Most all of the new testament "writers" have their knowledge basis the the old testament. The apostles were jews first familiar with the old testament scriptures and originally followed the precepts of judaism. Why wouldn't a lot of the new testament read similar to the old testament?
Bobby makes a good point of finding truth by following the spirit of God. What makes you think that the scholars of babylon don't feel the same way? Maybe it is a case of not seeing the forest through the trees.
Is the bible the only way to find that truth?
To me the bible is only one source of inspiration. It is only a tool and not the be all and end all. It was written by men. Even inpired men have a carnal mind at best.
The old testament was put together as a book of stories and rules to bind the people of Israel just as the bible was commissioned by the pagan Constantine. It was essentially assembled by one man and agreed upon by a political group of bishops with minor changes. The reason for assembling the bible was essentially political.
There will never ever be an end to what humans say should or should not be included in the bible. If you believe in Christ, then what is quoted as His words [if you believe the quotes are accurate] are far more important than what anyone else wrote that is included in the bible.
If you think about it, the bible as it was translated is the primary basis for the false doctrines of babylon.
In order for you to be saved does it matter what you believe concerning:
-tithing
-virginity of mary
-trinity
-free will
-eternal punishment
If you answer yes to any of these then I challege you to rethink your belief in the doctrine of Christ. Ray has made it very clear that what doctrines most of us has been taught is not truth. He has helped many to challenge the status quo and think for themselves.
Don't get too caught up in the jumble of words lest you miss the message.
feat
-
Bobby and Harryfeat, I totally agree. Whe the Holy Spirit shall come, He shall teach you of all things.
Jn 4:23
But coming is the hour, and now is, when the true worshipers will be worshiping the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father also is seeking such to be worshiping Him.
Jn 4:24
God is spirit, and those who are worshiping Him must be worshiping in spirit and truth."
Jn 14:17
the spirit of truth, which the world can not get, for it is not beholding it, neither is knowing it. Yet you know it, for it is remaining with you and will be in you.
Jn 14:26
Now the consoler, the holy spirit, which the Father will be sending in My name, that will be teaching you all, and reminding you of all that I said to you.
Jn 15:26
"Now, whenever the consoler which I shall be sending you from the Father may be coming, the spirit of truth which is going out from the Father, that will be testifying concerning Me.
Jn 16:13
Yet whenever that may be coming--the spirit of truth--it will be guiding you into all the truth, for it will not be speaking from itself, but whatsoever it should be hearing will it be speaking, and of what is coming will it be informing you.
I think a good balance between the word, Spirit and lifes experiences can lead to deeper truths. It's when we put too much in one or the other that can cause confusion.
God bless,
Gary
-
We are all going to be eventually saved, that is not the issue. We are striving for the higher calling;
Phi 3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
Heb 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
Remember the Word contained in scripture was not intended for all to understand;
Mat 13:13 Therefore, speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
There is so much to learn, appreciate and understand in the books contained within our bibles, one of the things I have learned is to read it as God speaking to me directly, one on one, His Spirit growing in me, not looking for "signs and wonders" of outside worldly events.
Is our knowledge of this book so complete that we need to look elsewhere for meat? I agree that we can see the Lord's handwriting in things other than the bible, that nature itself is a parable, our interactions with others, believers and non-believers are edifying us if we view things spiritually. But to confuse our minds (spiritually) with the likes of Judas books is something we are admonished against. Do you think that the following verses apply only to the translators of the bible, or preachers in the pulpit?
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Mat 16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Mat 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
We all should be very careful of what we post, keeping in mind that there are only about 30 frequent posters (at any given time), hundreds that read and rarely post and thousands who visit here directly after just discovering Ray's articles, let us not confuse them with supposition and links to unscriptural writings.
Joe
-
orion77,bobbys43,and Harryfeat i think your all missing the point of what i'm trying to do.do you believe every scripture in the bible came from true scripture of god?harryfeat you asked:
In order for you to be saved does it matter what you believe concerning:
-tithing
-virginity of mary
-trinity
-free will
-eternal punishment
YES!! it does matter atleast for some such as if you believe the trinity your not really worshiping the true god are you?only a god the way you think of him.eternal punishment to think it's justice or are god would be so unforgiving is denying what scripture tries to tell you.and for the others well it depends on how far you take it.
EDIT:hillsbororivers put we all we'll be saved in the end and i was typing to much in a hurry to say that it matters to be saved in this world,to be in the first reserection,thanks for showing me my mistake.
What makes a passage scriptural? Does it qualify if it is part of the dead sea scrolls? If it is part of the bible is it automatically scriptural [translation errors notwithstanding]? Who decided that Paul's writings should be included in a bible anyway? If you remove all of Paul's writings, does is significantly change the message of the new testament?
about paul that all depends on are faith and understanding that he was truely chosen by christ,and what makes a passage scriptural?well the orginal text is a big help.matthew 28:19 sounds purty inspiring to some people and becuase they believed it is IT HAS REALLY LEFT A BIG MARK ON CHRISTIANITY WITH MANY FALSE DOCTRINES.Ray even removes scripture from his mind after he finds out it's not original like everything after mark 16:8.also i left a post on immaculate conception you should read about another false doctrine.
-
We are all going to be eventually saved, that is not the issue. We are striving for the higher calling;
Phi 3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
Heb 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
Remember the Word contained in scripture was not intended for all to understand;
Mat 13:13 Therefore, speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
There is so much to learn, appreciate and understand in the books contained within our bibles, one of the things I have learned is to read it as God speaking to me directly, one on one, His Spirit growing in me, not looking for "signs and wonders" of outside worldly events.
Is our knowledge of this book so complete that we need to look elsewhere for meat? I agree that we can see the Lord's handwriting in things other than the bible, that nature itself is a parable, our interactions with others, believers and non-believers are edifying us if we view things spiritually. But to confuse our minds (spiritually) with the likes of Judas books is something we are admonished against. Do you think that the following verses apply only to the translators of the bible, or preachers in the pulpit?
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Mat 16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Mat 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
We all should be very careful of what we post, keeping in mind that there are only about 30 frequent posters (at any given time), hundreds that read and rarely post and thousands who visit here directly after just discovering Ray's articles, let us not confuse them with supposition and links to unscriptural writings.
Joe
alright i'll try to keep that in mind and be a little bit more carefull
-
orion77,bobbys43,and Harryfeat i think your all missing the point of what i'm trying to do.do you believe every scripture in the bible came from true scripture of god?harryfeat you asked:
In order for you to be saved does it matter what you believe concerning:
-tithing
-virginity of mary
-trinity
-free will
-eternal punishment
YES!! it does matter atleast for some such as if you believe the trinity your not really worshiping the true god are you?only a god the way you think of him.eternal punishment to think it's justice or are god would be so unforgiving is denying what scripture tries to tell you.and for the others well it depends on how far you take it.
EDIT:hillsbororivers put we all we'll be saved in the end and i was typing to much in a hurry to say that it matters to be saved in this world,to be in the first reserection,thanks for showing me my mistake.
What makes a passage scriptural? Does it qualify if it is part of the dead sea scrolls? If it is part of the bible is it automatically scriptural [translation errors notwithstanding]? Who decided that Paul's writings should be included in a bible anyway? If you remove all of Paul's writings, does is significantly change the message of the new testament?
about paul that all depends on are faith and understanding that he was truely chosen by christ,and what makes a passage scriptural?well the orginal text is a big help.matthew 28:19 sounds purty inspiring to some people and becuase they believed it is IT HAS REALLY LEFT A BIG MARK ON CHRISTIANITY WITH MANY FALSE DOCTRINES.Ray even removes scripture from his mind after he finds out it's not original like everything after mark 16:8.also i left a post on immaculate conception you should read about another false doctrine.
I think I got it right and understand your point about not everything in the bible being original to the first published text. Also, there are things attributed to authors that may not be written by them. I think if you carefully reread my original post here you will see that I "get it"
I simply took a narrow topic and broadened it to show the importance of looking at a bigger picture when looking at the bible as a source for inspiration. The questions are more to generate thought but if you have answers please help me out.
You say that a couple of references to John are not scriptural. You cite the internet as a source to support your claim. So what? How reliable are those sources quoted on the internet?
In answer to the question "what makes a passage scriptural you responded....well the orginal text is a big help. What indeed is the true scripture of God? Are you saying it has to be part of the dead sea scrolls to be scriptural. Is that the only criterion. How do you tell it is inspired?
Does it have to be in the bible to be scriptural?
Is there anything scripturally inspired by God that is not in the bible?
*******************************
As far as being saved goes. I believe that the docrtine of Christ transcends all other doctrines. We do not know the true nature of God. Though the scriptures do not support God as a trinity, God could be. God could be a duality, trinity, family, etc. The only thing that matters to me is our complete love of Him and mankind as ourselves.
It also really doesn't matter to me whether there is a hell or not once I get to the point of following Christ's doctrine of love and asking that the Father's will be done. Whatever the Father wills is my goal. That's why I say these doctrines and belief in a hell doesn't really matter. It's His will only that matters.
I hope that clarifies what I was trying to point out.
feat
-
I think I got it right and understand your point about not everything in the bible being original to the first published text. Also, there are things attributed to authors that may not be written by them. I think if you carefully reread my original post here you will see that I "get it"
I simply took a narrow topic and broadened it to show the importance of looking at a bigger picture when looking at the bible as a source for inspiration. The questions are more to generate thought but if you have answers please help me out.
You say that a couple of references to John are not scriptural. You cite the internet as a source to support your claim. So what? How reliable are those sources quoted on the internet?
In answer to the question "what makes a passage scriptural you responded....well the orginal text is a big help. What indeed is the true scripture of God? Are you saying it has to be part of the dead sea scrolls to be scriptural. Is that the only criterion. How do you tell it is inspired?
Does it have to be in the bible to be scriptural?
Is there anything scripturally inspired by God that is not in the bible?
*******************************
As far as being saved goes. I believe that the docrtine of Christ transcends all other doctrines. We do not know the true nature of God. Though the scriptures do not support God as a trinity, God could be. God could be a duality, trinity, family, etc. The only thing that matters to me is our complete love of Him and mankind as ourselves.
It also really doesn't matter to me whether there is a hell or not once I get to the point of following Christ's doctrine of love and asking that the Father's will be done. Whatever the Father wills is my goal. That's why I say these doctrines and belief in a hell doesn't really matter. It's His will only that matters.
I hope that clarifies what I was trying to point out.
you have a very interesting way of looking at things and i admire your devotion trying to see what's really important.what makes a passage scriptural i said it's a big help but does not prove it in the end we may just have to rely on spirit but we should at least know what passages we are to really challenge are selfs to decide if they are written by god.about information i get i check it out a lot and make sure it's reliable before i even mention it.remember we are to search for the truth and we just can't abandon things we don't like to hear.
Rev 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book
-
Alucard, I can understand your point. The so called doctrine of eternal torment in fire has not kept man from sinning. Also, the scriptures in Rev. that you quoted has not kept men from adding or taking away from the word of God.
I think it is important to realize that in each generation the majority of believers are the ones who have a carnal reasoning towards the word of God. A quick look at history attests to this. How many people have been killed in the name of religion and especially in the name of christianity? Millions, maybe billions and how many have kept quite their faith out of fear of retribution from the religious leaders and the many that simply follow along without searching for the truth.
This is something that has gone on for thousands of years and will continue as long as God wills. There is plenty to learn from this. It is something that runs much deeper than just mere words. But, then again, words are humans main way of communicating and is very important to study. I think Gods main way of communicating to us, is through the rebellious and stiffneckedness of the Israelites of old. These are shadows and types, and in which when we are honest to ourselves we see ourselves in them too. This is what makes it go way past words alone and into the realm of spiritual truths.
Just like in Gods plan the darkness proceeds the light. We all go through the night first and fall away. This is a process God has caused us all to go through in creating us in His image. It would be in vain for God to create us all perfect, how could we learn. What God has created in the physical, the universe, planets other galaxies and all that is comprised is amazing and hard for the human mind to comprehend. But, His greatest creation is what is being created now in the spiritual, which far exceeds the physical. And that physical or carnal, if you will cannot understand these spiritual truths.
I think that is why, its not so much about the knowledge we have, albeit important, but how we inwardly treat those outwardly.
God bless,
Gary
-
As far as being saved goes. I believe that the docrtine of Christ transcends all other doctrines. We do not know the true nature of God. Though the scriptures do not support God as a trinity, God could be. God could be a duality, trinity, family, etc. The only thing that matters to me is our complete love of Him and mankind as ourselves.
It also really doesn't matter to me whether there is a hell or not once I get to the point of following Christ's doctrine of love and asking that the Father's will be done. Whatever the Father wills is my goal. That's why I say these doctrines and belief in a hell doesn't really matter. It's His will only that matters.
I hope that clarifies what I was trying to point out.
feat
Hello feat, actually I found this to be a confusing train of thought;
What is your definition of the doctrine of Christ? Are you saying that love comes before knowledge and understanding? I think I might see where you are coming from if you said that it does not matter what "doctrine of man" you believe when the zeal of faith first comes into your heart. But to truly love Him or our brethren we need to grow into it, it does not just happen.
Many who believe that our Lord would do such a despicable thing as torment much of His creation in an eternal hellhole "worship" not out of love but fear, if what we believe is of no importance in regard to our spiritual growth then why is this written?
Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Tit 2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
We are instructed to grow in grace and knowledge, to resist error;
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, asthey do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked,fall from your own steadfastness.
2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.
It is only when we grow in the spirit that we can love in the spirit, speaking of love with a carnal mind is confusion, sure we can love family or friends with a carnal heart but love our enemies? An unseen God? Impossible. We have to be spiritually mature to bear the fruit of love, charity.
2Pe 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue;and to virtue knowledge;
2Pe 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
2Pe 1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.26
2Pe 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge1922 of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Pe 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
G26
ἀγάπη
agapē
ag-ah'-pay
From G25; love, that is, affection or benevolence; specifically (plural) a love feast: - (feast of) charity ([-ably]), dear, love.
G1108
γνῶσις
gnōsis
gno'-sis
From G1097; knowing (the act), that is, (by implication) knowledge: - knowledge, science.
The apostles walked with Jesus for 3 1/2 years and were as carnal as anyone until after the Resurrection of our Lord, as you read the Acts and other books you see their knowledge increase, understanding increase and the fruits of the spirit became evident, but this was a progression not instantanious.
Ray writes a great paper on "love" below is the link;
http://bible-truths.com/kiss.htm
-
hillsbororiver i can see why your a moderator you really have an eye for things.but just wondering what is your take on this topic?i'm sure you have your on opinion and with someone that seems to be very wise in scripture i'd like to see your take on this.
-
As far as being saved goes. I believe that the docrtine of Christ transcends all other doctrines. We do not know the true nature of God. Though the scriptures do not support God as a trinity, God could be. God could be a duality, trinity, family, etc. The only thing that matters to me is our complete love of Him and mankind as ourselves.
It also really doesn't matter to me whether there is a hell or not once I get to the point of following Christ's doctrine of love and asking that the Father's will be done. Whatever the Father wills is my goal. That's why I say these doctrines and belief in a hell doesn't really matter. It's His will only that matters.
I hope that clarifies what I was trying to point out.
feat
Hello feat, actually I found this to be a confusing train of thought;
What is your definition of the doctrine of Christ? Are you saying that love comes before knowledge and understanding? I think I might see where you are coming from if you said that it does not matter what "doctrine of man" you believe when the zeal of faith first comes into your heart. But to truly love Him or our brethren we need to grow into it, it does not just happen.
Many who believe that our Lord would do such a despicable thing as torment much of His creation in an eternal hellhole "worship" not out of love but fear, if what we believe is of no importance in regard to our spiritual growth then why is this written?
Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Tit 2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
We are instructed to grow in grace and knowledge, to resist error;
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, asthey do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked,fall from your own steadfastness.
2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.
It is only when we grow in the spirit that we can love in the spirit, speaking of love with a carnal mind is confusion, sure we can love family or friends with a carnal heart but love our enemies? An unseen God? Impossible. We have to be spiritually mature to bear the fruit of love, charity.
2Pe 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue;and to virtue knowledge;
2Pe 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
2Pe 1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.26
2Pe 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge1922 of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Pe 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
G26
ἀγάπη
agapē
ag-ah'-pay
From G25; love, that is, affection or benevolence; specifically (plural) a love feast: - (feast of) charity ([-ably]), dear, love.
G1108
γνῶσις
gnōsis
gno'-sis
From G1097; knowing (the act), that is, (by implication) knowledge: - knowledge, science.
The apostles walked with Jesus for 3 1/2 years and were as carnal as anyone until after the Resurrection of our Lord, as you read the Acts and other books you see their knowledge increase, understanding increase and the fruits of the spirit became evident, but this was a progression not instantanious.
Ray writes a great paper on "love" below is the link;
http://bible-truths.com/kiss.htm
Hello Joe,
Do you agree that the doctrine of Christ supersedes all others?
If yes, then I think we are saying the same thing. I said " once I get to the point of following the doctrine of Christ " and you say we need to grow into it. Granted I didn't say how hard the journey would be but I was making a point about what is ultimately most important to me.
Your point about the arduous process of coming to terms with love, agape is certainly one I agree with. It is an ultimate goal which I believe is doubtful that I or anyone is able to achieve during their lifetime..
Still confused? Pm me.
-
Hello again feat,
I did not say I was "confused" I said your post had "a confusing train of thought" not a subtle difference. Your post claimed "we do not know the true nature of God" but yet you state your complete love of Him.
God's nature has been revealed, by His Son;
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
1Jo 4:10 Herein, is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God and God in him.
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
There are many, many more verses that attest to God's nature, as to doctrine not being important, I think the scripture that was provided previously addresses that opinion clearly.
Yes, I agree that the doctrine of Christ supercedes all because He is all things, but remember;
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him.
feat, I think we agree on more than we disagree, the only reason I am being a stickler here is for the same reason I stated to alucard earlier in the thread, we as moderators and members have to keep in mind the folks who are guests to the forum who are visiting because of what they read on BibleTruths by Ray or Mike. When statements are posted that seem to contradict their articles it can breed confusion, I hope you understand.
Peace Brother,
Joe
-
hillsbororiver i can see why your a moderator you really have an eye for things.but just wondering what is your take on this topic?i'm sure you have your on opinion and with someone that seems to be very wise in scripture i'd like to see your take on this.
Hi alucard, thank you for the kind words, I am a student of His Word like most everyone else.
I wish I had a good answer for you, these scholarly statements by men with a bunch of letters behind their names leaves me cold, I have watched the History Channel's "experts" as well as A&E go on and on about "explaining what REALLY happened" and it used to frustrate me no end. Now that I realize they are thinking carnally and don't really know (spiritually) what they are doing, it no longer bothers me.
Leave it in God's hands, he will reveal to us what He will in His time, seek Him with a humble spirit and He will answer.
Truly, I wish I had a better answer in regard to your specific question but it would be supposition with no weight or meat.
Joe
-
hillsbororiver i can see why your a moderator you really have an eye for things.but just wondering what is your take on this topic?i'm sure you have your on opinion and with someone that seems to be very wise in scripture i'd like to see your take on this.
Hi alucard, thank you for the kind words, I am a student of His Word like most everyone else.
I wish I had a good answer for you, these scholarly statements by men with a bunch of letters behind their names leaves me cold, I have watched the History Channel's "experts" as well as A&E go on and on about "explaining what REALLY happened" and it used to frustrate me no end. Now that I realize they are thinking carnally and don't really know (spiritually) what they are doing, it no longer bothers me.
Leave it in God's hands, he will reveal to us what He will in His time, seek Him with a humble spirit and He will answer.
Truly, I wish I had a better answer in regard to your specific question but it would be supposition with no weight or meat.
Joe
alright right then.thanks for your opinion and to anyone else reading this i have done many hours of research on my own but if any of you have info that you think i don't have i wouldn't mind reading it.
now i will close with a statment with what revelation22:21 really is suppose to say:
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with all of the saints. Amen."
NOTE:Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words "to be." The fact is, Christians are now saints.So that goes to all the true christians
-
Hello again feat,
I did not say I was "confused" I said your post had "a confusing train of thought" not a subtle difference. Your post claimed "we do not know the true nature of God" but yet you state your complete love of Him.
feat, I think we agree on more than we disagree, the only reason I am being a stickler here is for the same reason I stated to alucard earlier in the thread, we as moderators and members have to keep in mind the folks who are guests to the forum who are visiting because of what they read on BibleTruths by Ray or Mike. When statements are posted that seem to contradict their articles it can breed confusion, I hope you understand.
Peace Brother,
Joe
Joe, there is also no subtle difference between saying our complete love is what is important as opposed to I have achieved complete love. You seem to have read more into what I have written than what is there.
Thanks for pointing out the train of thought that seemed confusing to you. I was not aware that any of my opinions expressed here were contradictory to those on BT. I understand your need to clarify when that occurs.
Thanks again
feat
-
We all should be very careful of what we post, keeping in mind that there are only about 30 frequent posters (at any given time), hundreds that read and rarely post and thousands who visit here directly after just discovering Ray's articles, let us not confuse them with supposition and links to unscriptural writings.
Joe
I agree totally Joe.
This was bothering me greatly. Many who come here are struggling with their faith and looking for encouragement and fellowship. We should all focus on that.
-
This has been a very good thread and I will have to agree with Joe that many read here but do not post and they are learning as well as I am learning and I find that I try to keep my mind focused on what the word of God says.
Nothing in this life happens without God and he has a purpose or plan for everything wether written or done or spoken.
I too Joe use to watch these so called theologeans and bible scholars give their take or opinion on the scriptures of God and I too would get upset at some of the things they would say or try to refute! It all seemed so cold and meaningless! I too was guilty of the very same thing and relying on the wisdom of man instead of the wisdom of God before I came to the bible truths through God's Spirit! The thing is even when I would watch those bible shows at that time I was as far away from the truths of God! And yet I did not agree then with some of the things that they tried to proclaim as the real truth! Theroies,speculation and the like even then did not sit right with me personally!
I have come to find out that even trying to watch or read this garbage no longer makes me angry but I see that just how ignorant these scholars are compared to the God given knowledge that the Spirit puts and teaches in many of us here at the forum and for those watching also.
I know longer read or watch any of this for I feel that seeking God and studing His word that in His time he will reveal these things to me!It is the knowledge that God is and will continue to give me and I have to trust and rely on Him to make that known to me! I must trust God to lead and direct me in His teaching me and the flesh,mine, wants all the knowledge right now and I pray God will give me patient and help me to be still and let Him do the guiding!
Mark 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Matthew 6:33-34 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Matthew 7:7-8 Ask and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh recieveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
bobby
you've got your mind in the right place bobby.the reason i question some scriptures is for many reasons.one is becuase so many ungodly scriptures almost made in all the bibles but didn't just becuase they couldn't find a place for as i stated they tried to put the bible as a story from begining to end.i think that that gnostic genesis story would be in it but they didn't want two beginings especially if they weren't beside each other.another one was about mary being born of a virgin without original sin that would be in the bibles new testament but they wanted to get straight to jesus and after that there wasn't a place for it,and something i thought was strange is how one of pauls later episltes would get really specific about his past writtings as in saying this is what that really meant.one thing that gets me is is the place for women.ray and mike are right to a certian degree,also for people reading this is my on personal opinion,but you can't tell me people didn't at least mess with the originals concerning the place for a woman in church.in the past people really didn't like women being leaders of anything in fact later paintings of women leaders would have their eyes carved out, plus a point of enterest :
Corinthians 11:3: "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)" Conservative Christians often quote this passage as proof that a husband should retain full authority over his wife in family matters. This concept of women being in an inferior power position might logically be extended to the church organization as well. Some liberal Christians note that the Greek word translated "head" is "kephale", which can be interpreted in two ways: "having authority over," or alternatively "source" or "origin." Looking at verses 3 to 12, each interpretation looks equally valid. The former would support rejection of women in positions of authority; the latter would not.
also in I Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, which deal with the qualities of elders, the original RSV (1946) read, "married only once." Because this was greatly criticized, they changed it in later versions to read, "the husband of one wife."
not that i'm saying everything mentioned in the episltes about women isn't true just that people tried to make them seem lower than they were when it seems they should have been more equal.paul even acknowlegded women church leaders Paul is accompanied by house-church leaders Priscilla and Aquila. Priscilla, a female, is a dominant figure in Paul's ministry and leads over Aquila.and most of the questionable episltes seem to make men look as their in much higher power .
And the biggest thing that gets to me is the fact that there were many other fake episltes forged in his name.
-
Corinthians 11:3: "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)" Conservative Christians often quote this passage as proof that a husband should retain full authority over his wife in family matters. This concept of women being in an inferior power position might logically be extended to the church organization as well. Some liberal Christians note that the Greek word translated "head" is "kephale", which can be interpreted in two ways: "having authority over," or alternatively "source" or "origin." Looking at verses 3 to 12, each interpretation looks equally valid. The former would support rejection of women in positions of authority; the latter would not.
also in I Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, which deal with the qualities of elders, the original RSV (1946) read, "married only once." Because this was greatly criticized, they changed it in later versions to read, "the husband of one wife."
The problem is that too many of those in leadership positions in the Church can do nothing but think in carnal terms.
Corinthians 11:3: "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)"
You also seem to think that this is refering to marrage between a man and a woman....it is not.
Christ is the head of every man (Meaning mankind) and a husband the head of his wife (Christ is the husband of the Church...the Church being the woman) and the head of Christ is God.
-
no i knew it meant mankind and not marrage i was just point out how people use it to say men have more authority i added the extra stuff becuase it's interesting to know especially for those who still think it refers to marrage and if you read an article about women on *not-allowed*.com you would know why i brought up the timothy and titus passage.
NOTE:i know i make mistakes while writting or move to fast and people don't understand what i'm talking about so if i do make a mistake i would like you to point them out and i'll explain or correct them.
-
hey alucard,
here my thoughts...
I think it is totally possible for others to have written what is known as Paul's epistles...take the example of Luke (who wrote the Acts of the Apostles)...he went with Paul on some of his journeys...and obviously recorded them...so maybe he could've written some? who knows?
-
not a bad idea but i don't know why he would've forged pauls name.