The Rogue Tomato said:
Which is different than what you said in the link to your own words.
You doubted whether he was an official apostle.
Nevertheless, Tomato's constant reply, when stuck in a corner is to say he was misrepresented.
The First Paul
- Thread starter The Rogue Tomato
- Start date
Which is different than what you said in the link to your own words.
You doubted whether he was an official apostle.
Nevertheless, Tomato's constant reply, when stuck in a corner is to say he was misrepresented.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 4,347
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
The pastorial letters are the most disputed books in the canon. These types of books usually come from those seeking to discredit those writings.
Add the fact people want to make money from book sales and you have the reasons for the book.
Paul was a radical person but he was still a conservative Jew at heart. This is what you see in his writings. Not too difficult to figure out.
Add the fact people want to make money from book sales and you have the reasons for the book.
Paul was a radical person but he was still a conservative Jew at heart. This is what you see in his writings. Not too difficult to figure out.
Witherington (Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, vol. 1) and Payne (Man and Woman -- One in Christ) each defend the rather traditional conservative view that the PEs were written by Luke as amanuensis, in close collaboration with Paul, but trusted with considerable freedom.
Burge, et. al. (The New Testament in Antiquity) defends the PEs as "genuine" via some amanuensis, possibly Luke.
This is not the same as actual pseudepigraphy, the results of which, I think, were accepted or rejected on a case-by-case basis.
Burge, et. al. (The New Testament in Antiquity) defends the PEs as "genuine" via some amanuensis, possibly Luke.
This is not the same as actual pseudepigraphy, the results of which, I think, were accepted or rejected on a case-by-case basis.
NorrinRadd said:
No one, including Borg and Crossan, is arguing that the PL's are fake or shouldn't be in the canon. Just that the author was probably not Paul. If someone "helped" him, the style and content are notably different than Paul's other letters. That matters to those of us who have a special affection for Paul.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2013
- Messages
- 5,279
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
Izdaari said:
It wouldn't surprise me if it was Luke and Paul, or someone else entirely.
My beef with the PLs is not that they're bad letters, but that they're not "God breathed" in the same way other works are. They're advice from some guy(s) which have to be measured by the background/culture of the writer, the popular culture, and problems of the day. Some of it's good advice. Maybe it's good enough to be in the canon, but that's debatable. That applies to a degree to other letters, too, like the letters to the Corinthians, where Paul gives advice. But I see more weight in what Paul said to the Corinthians than what "potentially fake Paul" said in the PLs. Maybe it's because I, too, prefer radical Paul.
Every day, Tomato lets us know there is one book less that is Scripture.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2013
- Messages
- 5,279
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
Izdaari said:
I just thought of an example of why you need to measure the PLs based on the culture/background of the writers, whoever they were. Just look at Acts, where apostles are telling the gentiles that the Holy Spirit inspired them to give them some rules to follow: "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.? The context is, "Obeying all the Jewish laws would be too great a burden, so you should probably just obey these."
Sorry, but there is no way those instructions were "God breathed" by the Holy Spirit as they claimed. I'm not buying it. So if they're capable of giving flawed advice there, then how can anyone say Paul (or even fake Paul) was incapable of giving flawed advice in the PLs?
I certainly cannot say "fake Paul" couldn't have given flawed advice. I think even "radical Paul" was capable of it, though I generally trust "radical Paul". Bearing in mind that unlike most here I don't believe in inerrancy, at least not in a form that fundies would recognize as such.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 4,347
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Izdaari said:
I have no problem with inerrancy in respect to the accurate account of the canon. I certainly don't accept the 72 book canon or the 66 book canon. Neither do I believe that... just because God saw fit to preserve the account given that Mater mentioned.... doesn't mean the decision was God inspired. Just the recording of the decision. God has always allowed more to happen than we've ever wanted Him to.......
The words of the prophets are subject to the prophets. We weigh everything against everything.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,047
- Reaction score
- 2,138
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Wasn't John Dominic Crossan the guy who claimed Jesus was killed and then his body was eaten by dogs?
Given that he and Marcus Borg were major members of the Jesus Seminar, which tried to prove Jesus never said or taught most of the things the Bible said he did, it goes without saying that I have every confidence in their ability to apply the assured results of modern biblical scholarship to determine objectively and accurately the authenticity of the works of Paul and any other part of the Bible.
Given that he and Marcus Borg were major members of the Jesus Seminar, which tried to prove Jesus never said or taught most of the things the Bible said he did, it goes without saying that I have every confidence in their ability to apply the assured results of modern biblical scholarship to determine objectively and accurately the authenticity of the works of Paul and any other part of the Bible.
I guess I'm a simple man who went to A Baptist University & Seminary and have over 35 years I. The ministry and study & teaching of Scripture...ultimately none of that makes me an expert...but I will stick with the Bible and being lead by the Holy Spirit. Never been too empressed with books filled with the opinions of progressives with agendas. Their books hold no authority to me...call me narrow minded, call me simple...it's okay, I can live there.
Ransom said:
Yes, Borg and Crossan are both Jesus Seminar guys, and dubious about the Resurrection and other miracles. Still, they're both first rate scholars and IMO did very good work in The First Paul. I became interested in Borg by reading his debate book about Jesus co-authored with N.T. Wright. I thought Wright won the debate, but Borg was very likable, and made enough good points to be worth reading further.
T-Bone said:
I don't think Borg and Crossan have authority either. As you say, they're progressives with agendas. But the validity of an argument doesn't depend on who makes it, but on the merits of the argument. And I think The First Paul makes a very strong case. Before I'd ever heard of their contention, I had already noticed the styke and content of the pastorals didn't match Paul's other letters.
Izdaari said:
I personally don't have a problem with disputed authorship like in Hebrews, I do have problems with letters that say they are written by Paul in the content somehow being attributed to someone else. I will trust the content of the Scripture over people's opinions. But that's just me.