[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You are assuming that because their was no collectively published canon until the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. that a canon didn't exist.

I didn't assume anything, and I didn't say that there was no canon at all until late 4th century, I said that when Marcion made his list there was no canon. Marcion started the whole idea of a canon in the first place, and by doing so started the ball rolling on other groups establishing their lists to combat Marcion.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

History doesn't work like that. When it comes to history more will always be unknown then known.

But that's not to say nothing is known. This is just a convenient way of dismissing things that don't line up with a desired conclusion. Scholars work to determine what can and can't be known, what is lost, and what is actually recoverable.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't know the date whenever one church finally collected all 27 books but, it more than likely belonged to the second century.

There probably was no one date, the lists grow and develop over time, and we can see that; lots of lists by various church fathers as to which writings to consider authoritative have been found.

And a date of the 2nd century doesn't conflict with what I said earlier.

This is all an interesting sidebar though, not really relevant to the issue of the authorship of all the Pauline letters.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Of course because of geographical differences in distribution some books were received with reservations. Fortunately being within a hundred years of the source provided amply evidence to support the inclusion or exclusion of these epistles. We don't have the living testimony of the original churches or very many letters from the first century like they did. It should have been very easy in the second century to trace the transmission of and the distribution of all of the epistles.

Some church gets a letter claiming to be from Paul and they add it to their list of things they read to their followers. Other churches commission copies and it spreads.

You are saying that the inclusion and exclusion of writings was supported by evidence and tracing of transmission? I'd like to see some of that evidence.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The fact is the 27 epistles were recognized and elevated to scriptures shortly after they were written.

Evidence? And what does that have to do with the question of authorship? Just because a book was "elevated to scripture" doesn't mean it was authored by whom it was claimed.

What process did they use in the 1st century to "elevate to scripture" anyway? Who did this?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

IPet 3:15-16 supports this

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

This says to be prepared and to give an answer, I don't see anything that supports "the 27 epistles were recognized and elevated to scriptures shortly after they were written."

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

as well as the ealiest letters of the church Fathers who use them as their authority.

Which letters? And again just because they used them as their authority doesn't establish their authorship.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

IIThess 1:1-3 also gives evidence that the Apostles were aware of counterfeits and no doubt took measures to protect themselves from misrepresentation. Perhaps the New Testament habit of sending letters of recomendation with someone who travelled to unfamilar churches were part of this effort.

No doubt they were aware of counterfeits, I already established in my previous post that it was common and it's mentioned by a number of early Christian authors.

Being aware of a problem means it exists, so the possibility of forgeries making it into the canon is very real. Efforts to combat it doesn't mean it was combated perfectly, especially when the evidence indicates they weren't.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The origin of the Pastorial epistles weren't seriously disputed until the 19th century. All you've been able to present is two heretics-one in the second century and one in the third who rejected these epistles and both did so because they conflicted with their own personal teachings. Niether were excommunicated for questioning certain books of the Bible. They were both excommunicated by their own religious institutions for teaching things contrary to extablished doctrine. These doctrine's authority and source was the New Testament scriptures.

I didn't even present those as evidence, I asked one small question as an aside and it's become this huge distraction. With respect to the authorship of Paul's letters, I don't care what Marcion or Origen have to say on the matter.

I went over the kinds of evidence, I don't know why you are so focused on Marcion and Origen when the authorship is doubted for other reasons. I'm not going to present all of it, you can read the scholarship on it as well as I can.

I think your view of the early church with respect to "established doctrine" and what was scripture is overly simplistic, and by necessity. Check out some of the resources that Textcritic has provided.