No Robots

We are thus dealing with Jewish venom, not anti-Semitism. The disciples of Jesus were angry at their fellow Jews for failing to recognize who Jesus was when he was alive and who he was after he had risen from the dead. They hurled proof-texts at their Jewish opponents, not from Plato or Aristotle or the sacred literature of the mystery cults but from the Pentateuch and the Prophets and the Hagiographa.-- What Crucified Jesus?: Messianism, Pharisaism, and the Development of Christianity, Ellis Rivkin, p. 119

Sarai

No Robots,

I could just as easily quote-mine the book as you have. I choose not to do so because it seems a childish game of one-ups-manship and I don't see where it furthers the discussion at all.

Sarai

apologist55

No Robots,

To your statement that we don't know who wrote the books of the New Testament...

We know that a man named John wrote the book of Revelation. Rev 1:4...

We know that a man named Jude wrote the book of Jude..Jude 1

We know that a man named Peter wrote 1&2 Peter

We know that a man named James wrote the book of James

We know that Paul wrote Titus,1&2 Timothy,1&2 Thessalonians,Colossians,Philippians,Ephesians,Gal atians,1&2 Corinthians and Romans.See opening statements...

Toto

Sorry, you don't know that. You know that those books claim to be written by Paul, but most Biblical scholars would not agree with you on one or more.

And then you must confront the fact that you don't know who Paul was in any meaningful sense.

This forum is not for preaching or for statements based on divine inspiration.

apologist55

Toto,

I apologize if I offended you.

May I ask how a simple statement of fact that certain men prefaced these books with salutations in which they named themselves as the author,,is preaching?

I thought the purpose of this forum was to challenge cherished beliefs and to expose both truth and falsehood...for the betterment of all???

spin

Did Paul write the Letter to the Laodiceans? It starts this way:

1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, to the brethren which are at Laodicea.

What about 2 Corinthians, which starts:

Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ, to the brothers in Corinth, greeting!

What about Paul's correspondence with Seneca?

It is not a sufficient argument that a text says something for you to believe it. The logic of literary works in ancient times often prove strange to the logic of modern times.

You may willingly believe that Paul wrote 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Colossians or Ephesians, but most contemporary scholars -- you know, from recognized universities -- don't. This is because the content of the letters don't add up to what is accepted as Pauline letters, such as Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. You should check out scholarly commentaries on these works -- not devotional commentaries (usually not written by scholars) -- to understand the issues. Belief in itself is insufficient to deal with the problem. You need logic and knowledge as well. (Your suicide bomber has belief.)


spin

apologist55

In regard to the pastoral epistles (1&2 Tim,Titus) some "scholars" (perhaps a definition of the term is warranted?) ignore the testimony of the letters themselves and maintain that the epistles were written by a follower of Paul some years after his demise.

These scholars -pedigreed of course- make several claims which, on surface,appear to substantiate their position.

1)the historical references do not harmonize with the time line of Pauline events found in Acts 2

2)Gnosticism wasn't fully developed until the 2nd century, a fact which implies that any reference to this particular "heresy" during the time frame of the life of Paul would be premature.

3)Church organizational structure as referenced in the pastorals is probably too well developed for 50-60 CE


4)the pastorals are theologically shallow.

5)the vocabulary is inconsistent with other assumed Pauline literature

Rebuttals

1)historical incompatibility not valid - Paul secured a release from the Roman imprisonment mentioned in Acts

2)the "heresy" referenced in the pastorals was not Gnosticism but a similar heresy based on Jewish legalism

3)church structure is consistent with Paul's day (Acts 14:23)

4)pastorals do mention central themes of Pauline theology

5)subject matter is the determinant of vocabulary

spin

(Acts 2?)

(Of course this conclusion about the development of gnosticism has no basis in fact.)

When did Acts reach its final form?

What makes you think that Acts 14:23 reflects "Paul's day"? When did Paul abandon the direct control over his own churches to presbyters and admit that the end wasn't coming soon (as implied by giving the church structure)?

If you were a follower of Paul you'd want to deal with certain themes that are "central" to his concerns, while dealing with those concerns that are more to your time.

Only partially true. One's vocabulary is determined by one's personal educational background and historical context. Your vocabulary will be different from mine as your grammar and stylistic concerns will be.

The issues you mentioned cannot be adequately dealt with with one-liners. You should read those modern scholarly commentaries to get the depth of the argumentation. I can easily respond to your quibbling, but each of the issues is long and complex and would be better handled by your interest, not your apologetic zeal.


spin

apologist55

spin

You and I know that those who have a better than average understanding of the profundities of a subject often draw conclusions which are in diametric opposition to the conclusions of their peers. Perhaps you could advise me of those whom you deem worthy of consideration?

Magdlyn

What bothers me about this statement is, there was not a word "Jew" at the time. The Greek word (and the NT is written in Greek) is Judaean, correct? So, one Judaean calling another "You lousy Judaean!" would be kind of silly. But there seemed to be quite a bit of competition or xenophobia between Galileeans and Judaeans.

So, yes, one "Jew" would not condemn another "Jew" as a Jew. He might say, those Essenes are too bitter and maybe they're homosexuals. Those Zealots are a bunch of ganstas. Those Sadducees have blood lust and are all pyromaniacs and Roman suckups as well. Those Pharisees believe in a woo woo pie in the sky when you die.

They'd be more specific.

But a Roman or an Ephesian could condemn Judaeans as a whole, as a nation.

So, evidence that at least the most Jew-hating gospel, the 4th one, was not written by a Jew.