Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith

[ViaCrucis]

This is why I don't trust a single thing that you say. "Most scholars", lol.

I might think about this scripture before putting a bunch of junk out on these forums. God doesn't take to it kindly.

Except that the information isn't wrong and this isn't a slight against God or against Scripture. It's simply a fact that the majority of New Testament scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, regard the Pastorals (sans Philemon) as later works, not written by St. Paul himself. That's not an attack, because regardless of whether they are authentically Pauline or not doesn't change the fact that they are Scripture and belong in the Canon--a place they have had for as long as the Church has been talking about a Canon.

A critical examination of Scripture shouldn't be a threat to faith. The history of the Biblical Canon is a very fascinating one and deserves more attention then it gets, too often the history of the Canon gets replaced by empty claims made by believing and skeptic alike. The actual history of the Bible is far more interesting than the fictional narratives often brandied about in the modern age.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ToBeLoved]

Rather than threatening with Godly wrath (sort of overkill), how about you simply bring in a scholarly articles to back up your position?

I am not threatening with Godly wrath. I am quoting the Bible that talks about leading others astray.

Talking about someone in the 2nd Century that starts with a 'P' name writing scripture. He is leading astray if God determines that, but if he is going to get far-fetched, than I am going to share the scripture with him that talks about leading others astray.

Yup. That's what God says.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Except that the information isn't wrong and this isn't a slight against God or against Scripture. It's simply a fact that the majority of New Testament scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, regard the Pastorals (sans Philemon) as later works, not written by St. Paul himself. That's not an attack, because regardless of whether they are authentically Pauline or not doesn't change the fact that they are Scripture and belong in the Canon--a place they have had for as long as the Church has been talking about a Canon.

A critical examination of Scripture shouldn't be a threat to faith. The history of the Biblical Canon is a very fascinating one and deserves more attention then it gets, too often the history of the Canon gets replaced by empty claims made by believing and skeptic alike. The actual history of the Bible is far more interesting than the fictional narratives often brandied about in the modern age.

-CryptoLutheran

What percentage of scholars do you consider to be 'most scholars'? I would imagine that to be over 65%. His words, 'most scholars' not mine.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Rather than threatening with Godly wrath (sort of overkill), how about you simply bring in a scholarly articles to back up your position?

I don't think Mormon's share many Bible verses because you seem very against the idea.

I said that we need to be careful in leading people astray and then quoted the Bible verse. That's better than all the opinions floating around. At least I say where I get it from.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am not threatening with Godly wrath. I am quoting the Bible that talks about leading others astray.

Talking about someone in the 2nd Century that starts with a 'P' name writing scripture. He is leading astray if God determines that, but if he is going to get far-fetched, than I am going to share the scripture with him that talks about leading others astray.

Yup. That's what God says.

St. Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna who faced his martyrdom in 155 AD, he was a close friend to both St. Ignatius of Antioch and Papia, and all three are described as having been students of St. John the Apostle in some capacity. Polycarp was likely the bishop of Smyrna when the Revelation was written, and would have been one of the original recipients of the letter.

So Polycarp is far more than just a 2nd century person whose name starts with a 'P'.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

What percentage of scholars do you consider to be 'most scholars'? I would imagine that to be over 65%. His words, 'most scholars' not mine.

And I think that would be an accurate statement, that the majority of scholars whose field of study involves the New Testament would agree that the Pastorals probably weren't written by St. Paul, but are of a later date and piously attributed to St. Paul by their unknown author. A significant reason for this has to do with the style which textual critics argue is characteristically different than the undisputed letters of Paul, as well as seem to address a form of Gnosticism that simply did not exist in the mid-1st century, but did exist later in the late 1st/early 2nd century.

There are, of course, scholars who make arguments in favor of Pauline authorship, but the mainstream consensus among New Testament scholars is that they're probably not Pauline.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ToBeLoved]

St. Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna who faced his martyrdom in 155 AD, he was a close friend to both St. Ignatius of Antioch and Papia, and all three are described as having been students of St. John the Apostle in some capacity. Polycarp was likely the bishop of Smyrna when the Revelation was written, and would have been one of the original recipients of the letter.

So Polycarp is far more than just a 2nd century person whose name starts with a 'P'.

-CryptoLutheran

Ok. He was a 2nd century person, who was not an author of the 66 book bible, who's name starts with a 'P'.

 

[ToBeLoved]

And I think that would be an accurate statement, that the majority of scholars whose field of study involves the New Testament would agree that the Pastorals probably weren't written by St. Paul, but are of a later date and piously attributed to St. Paul by their unknown author. A significant reason for this has to do with the style which textual critics argue is characteristically different than the undisputed letters of Paul, as well as seem to address a form of Gnosticism that simply did not exist in the mid-1st century, but did exist later in the late 1st/early 2nd century.

There are, of course, scholars who make arguments in favor of Pauline authorship, but the mainstream consensus among New Testament scholars is that they're probably not Pauline.

-CryptoLutheran

That's not an answer to the question I asked. If you do not want to answer than just do not reply to that post.

 

[smaneck]

So what would have happened from the 70's AD to the 90's AD?

You're the only one insisting that the rest of the NT was completed by 70 A.D. On the basis of what evidence I know not.

I might think about this scripture before putting a bunch of junk out on these forums. God doesn't take to it kindly.

Matthew 8:5-6
5 "And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

If your faith rests upon whether your own preconceptions of the nature of the Bible are upheld then it is built on sand to begin with.

 

[smaneck]

Ok. He was a 2nd century person, who was not an author of the 66 book bible, who's name starts with a 'P'.

As I said, he may have been the author of the pastoral epistles (Timothy and Titus.) They are written in his style.

 

[smaneck]

What percentage of scholars do you consider to be 'most scholars'? I would imagine that to be over 65%. His words, 'most scholars' not mine.

By his, do you mean me? I'm female. I take "most" to be more than half. And I'm talking about academically trained scholars not some pastor who got their doctorate from a evangelical paper mill.

 

[ToBeLoved]

If your faith rests upon whether your own preconceptions of the nature of the Bible are upheld then it is built on sand to begin with.

Forgive me if I don't take your word on that. After all you are a sinner like me.

 

[ToBeLoved]

By his, do you mean me? I'm female. I take "most" to be more than half. And I'm talking about academically trained scholars not some pastor who got their doctorate from a evangelical paper mill.

ViaCruis.

 

[ToBeLoved]

You're the only one insisting that the rest of the NT was completed by 70 A.D. On the basis of what evidence I know not.



If your faith rests upon whether your own preconceptions of the nature of the Bible are upheld then it is built on sand to begin with.

I'm very sad now.

 

[smaneck]

ViaCruis.

Oh, okay. He and I were pretty much saying the same thing.

 

[smaneck]

I'm very sad now.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings but when you start accusing others of leading people astray you got to expect to get some push back. Via Crucis and myself are just giving you the evidence. As I've said before, faith is what you have in Someone, not something. That's especially true in Christianity where ultimately the Word is a Person, not a text.

 

[Ironhold]

I don't think Mormon's share many Bible verses because you seem very against the idea.

We share whatever sources are relevant to provide support for a given argument.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I don't think Mormon's share many Bible verses because you seem very against the idea.

We were specifically talking about when the Bible books were written / official canon was declared. You seem quite passionate about your 70/90 AD cause, so I suggested you quote a scholarly source as backup to your argument (as opposed to just being "ToBeLoved" says XYZ). Such is proper when trying to prove your point.

The reason I did not suggest quoting the Bible, is because the Bible does not say "And 1st Coronations was written in 56 AD", so we have to turn to other sources (such as well researched scholarly articles).

I'm trying to be helpful and kind to you. And you respond with attacking words, thoroughly implying that I don't value the Bible (both in this post and in previous)???

I said that we need to be careful in leading people astray and then quoted the Bible verse.

Your quoted verse was:
A) Off-topic
B) Threatening
C) Damning of yourself, because you're the one trying to teach falsehood-- in this case that the canon was closed in 70 AD, when the books weren't even all written then. As you've been shown repeatedly, with documentable proof, but still you refuse to listen.

If you really want me to pull up a Bible verse right now, I can. I'm very tempted to grab one about woe to the blind or foolish. But instead, I'm going to go with 1 Corinthians 13:4- "Charity suffereth long", because that's what I'm trying really hard to practice right now.

 

[smaneck]

both Christian and non-Christian, regard the Pastorals (sans Philemon)

Is Philemon considered a pastoral letter?

 

[ToBeLoved]

We were specifically talking about when the Bible books were written / official canon was declared. You seem quite passionate about your 70/90 AD cause, so I suggested you quote a scholarly source as backup to your argument (as opposed to just being "ToBeLoved" says XYZ). Such is proper when trying to prove your point.

The reason I did not suggest quoting the Bible, is because the Bible does not say "And 1st Coronations was written in 56 AD", so we have to turn to other sources (such as well researched scholarly articles).

I'm trying to be helpful and kind to you. And you respond with attacking words, thoroughly implying that I don't value the Bible (both in this post and in previous)???




Your quoted verse was:
A) Off-topic
B) Threatening
C) Damning of yourself, because you're the one trying to teach falsehood-- in this case that the canon was closed in 70 AD, when the books weren't even all written then. As you've been shown repeatedly, with documentable proof, but still you refuse to listen.

If you really want me to pull up a Bible verse right now, I can. I'm very tempted to grab one about woe to the blind or foolish. But instead, I'm going to go with 1 Corinthians 13:4- "Charity suffereth long", because that's what I'm trying really hard to practice right now.

If anyone finds God's Word to be damning, than that person needs to think about their life. Myself included.

If I made you feel that I was condemning you, I am sorry, that was not my intention.