[Split] Bible discussion split from Iranian woman to be stoned for adultery

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by photon

Definitely keep posting your thoughts, I for one enjoy reading them.

Also interested in how some of the inerrantists might respond.. I know there was a time when I would have made an appeal to consequences but I don't hold an inerrantists position anymore. I guess many would view such a radical departure from their view of their scripture as a threat to their very faith, or at least require some pretty radical changes to it.

Are there any inerrantists actually in this thread? I think it's more the case of a few people giving it a go with apologetics trying to maintain the integrity of the scriptures as they see it in their eyes because it seems a contradiction to believe or hold a written word to such lofty heights when confronted with the possibility that it is a very manmade and often disingenuous (ie: does Ephesians carry any weight or authority with you anymore if you consider that it wasn't written by Paul?) work by commitee whose intepretation and authoritative power seems to bend so easily in the wind to the whims of whatever culture or period it exists within. Some people can reconcile that and some can't, but I don't see anyone taking the literal or inerrant view here.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

...Also interested in how some of the inerrantists might respond.. I know there was a time when I would have made an appeal to consequences but I don't hold an inerrantists position anymore. I guess many would view such a radical departure from their view of their scripture as a threat to their very faith, or at least require some pretty radical changes to it.

This is precisely why I would expect that you will not get much of a response. There are certainly at least a handful of inerrantists on the board, but as you suggested, intellectually honest responses to the findings of biblical criticism requires almost a wholesale shift in one's religious worldview. This really becomes an intolerable proposition, as the inerrantist's entire system depends upon a philosophical structure that they have invented in order to make the most practical sense of the text. Once you challenge its validity, then there is no defense.

[photon]

I'm out of town at the moment but when I get back I'll try and find an article I read recently that I thought was interesting and is relevant to the notion of changing beliefs and why it's so difficult to do and link it.. not surprisingly it's rarely about reason, because we can have all the reason we want but we're still emotional and social creatures.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Are there any inerrantists actually in this thread? I think it's more the case of a few people giving it a go with apologetics trying to maintain the integrity of the scriptures...

There are a few I think, but I was thinking about what you said ab out apologetics...

Is apologetics a big case of begging the question?

In the case of inerrancy the question is one to be answered by the source material and the definition of inerrant. To arrive at a conclusion you have to start from the source and work forwards.

If you have to go through all kinds of exegetical gymnastics, semantic trickery and historical handwaving though to maintain the illusion of inerrency, then really you're just begging the question.. assuming the conclusion and doing whatever it takes to fit the words into the conclusion.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

There was no canon at that point, so to say Marion only accepted 11 of the 27 books is misleading. Marcion chose those 11 not out of 27, but out of many gospels, letters, and apocalypses.

The whole idea of a "canon" of Christian writings may have even originated with Marcion, certainly the earliest list of writings that the list's author thought were authoritative was from Marcion.

After that various lists circulated for hundreds of years before settling on the set used by many churches today (not all though, there's still disagreements about which NT books are canonical). Of course each person's list is going to reflect their outlook on various doctrinal questions, that's why there were generations of many different lists.

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. History doesn't work like that. When it comes to history more will always be unknown then known. The Synod of Laodicea(363 A.D.) forbade the reading of non-canonical books. They obviously believed that the canon was already extablished. The Council of Nicea(325 A.D.) refers to the canon. The Synod of Antioch(266 A.D.) denounced the doctrine of Paul of Samosata as foreign to the ecclesiastical canon. Again niether council felt the need to declare a canon. It already existed and although not formally declared in a council of churches was spoken of as already extablished. The trail becomes more difficult in the second century because of extreme persecution and the lack of any organizational structure beyond the local church. The New Testament books were being copied and collected in the different regions of Christian influence. I don't know the date whenever one church finally collected all 27 books but, it more than likely belonged to the second century.

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.

The fact is the 27 epistles were recognized and elevated to scriptures shortly after they were written. IPet 3:15-16 supports this as well as the ealiest letters of the church Fathers who use them as their authority. 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.

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.

[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.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

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.

No Marcion didn't start the idea of a canon. The word "canon" is just a transliteration of the greek word "kanon" which means "rule'. It conveys the idea of measure, a test, a straight edge, a critical standard. When the Apostles and church Fathers started refering to certain writings as scriptures and useing them authoritively they had in fact set them in a canon. Just because Marcion was the earliest person to use the word "Kanon"(that we know of) doesn't mean that before him there was no concept of a canon.

Originally Posted by photon

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.

Your the one who is trying to say that since the first known occurance of the word "canon" is Marcion that he is the origin of the idea. What I'm saying is that although history doesn't afford us an earlier record we should know by the way the books were treated and reverenced that they were recognized as inspired by God and therefore authoritive. People died upholding the doctrines of those letters. They cast people out of their churches who taught against the doctrines of those books. These books were the basis of their faith and practice. Yet you maintain that no person or congregation had formed an opinion on what particular writings would guide their lives.

Originally Posted by photon

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.

The canon was complete in about 90 A.D. when John wrote the Revelation of Jesus Christ. What we don't know is when enough copies of that book and the others were around in order for a church to have collected a copy of all 27 of them.

Originally Posted by photon

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

It was the first wrong thing you said in your last post so I'm addressing it first.

Originally Posted by photon

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.

No. Because churches knew that counterfeits existed they wouldn't readily accept books from unknown sources. If the writing didn't conflict with doctrines extablished by trusted scriptures they might be read. But churches required convincing. The earlier books in the canon had the testimony of the Apostles to authorize them. After they were all gone the testimony of the church Fathers and the histories of the churches who first recieved these epistles had to do.

Originally Posted by photon

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.

I would like to see that evidence as well. The problem is that those churches who recieved the epistles don't exist today and almost all the writings from the first century are lost to time and Roman book burnings. We have one letter from Polycarp. The man lived 86 years and was a pupil of the Apostle John. Do you think that in those 86 years he might have written more than one letter? Do you think in those 86 years which brought him into the middle of the second century that someone didn't ask him: " Hey Poly which of these letters did John consider scripture and which did he reject?".

Certainly Polycarp wasn't the only one to have dealings with the Apostles who survived into the second century. Also we know most of the Jewish converts could read and write. There certainly would have been an abundance of letters testifying to what was occuring. Some of the Apostle's other writings no doubt were also lost.

Originally Posted by photon

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.

The evidence would consist of the testimony of the churches that first received the letter and any written material from the first century that commented or quoted the letter. If it was known to be accepted by an Apostle that would have helped. Books that lied about their authorship would obviously been rejected.

Originally Posted by photon

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

The how I've explained above. The who would include anyone or church who received a book and didn't know its source. These kinds of letters of inquiry would have no doubt begin in the first century when the scriptures began to be distributed.

Originally Posted by photon

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."

Sorry wrong quote. I meant IIPet 3:15,16

Originally Posted by photon

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

Look at Polycarp's letter as an example: http://www.supakoo.com/rick/Polycarp...2010-01-05.pdf

The 2 heretics we've been discussing were excommunicated because they left sound doctrine. The doctrine they left is found in scriptures. Also the authority to do such a thing is found in scriptures.

Originally Posted by photon

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.

What could have happened and what did happen are two different things. There is also a thing called providence which tends to keep the ball rolling in the right direction.

Originally Posted by photon

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.

You brought up the canon and Marcion and Origen. I'm just responding to what you've said in order.

Originally Posted by photon

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.

Again you and the link you provided brought up those two heretics as evidence. I was just responding.

Also, the fact that these epistles were received early as scriptures and with no significant opposition until the 1900s weighs in faviour of their authenticity. I don't discount the scholarship of the men who asked these same questions over the last 1800 years.

I will address your modern "evidence" in time. I simply was responding in order to your last post. I don't have time to address everything at once.

Originally Posted by photon

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.

And I think you've been sold a load of goods. This discussion began with you stating that Paul didn't write the pastorial epistles. You don't know that. You've also never looked at your "evidence" with a critical eye or you would have found it wanting.

[Textcritic]

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. History doesn't work like that. When it comes to history more will always be unknown then known. The Synod of Laodicea(363 A.D.) forbade the reading of non-canonical books. They obviously believed that the canon was already extablished. The Council of Nicea(325 A.D.) refers to the canon. The Synod of Antioch(266 A.D.) denounced the doctrine of Paul of Samosata as foreign to the ecclesiastical canon. Again niether council felt the need to declare a canon. It already existed and although not formally declared in a council of churches was spoken of as already extablished.

The problem with references to the "canon" prior to the fourth century is that for the most part, the clear definition of the function of the word κανων in any given context is fairly flexible, and almost certainly is NOT applied to delimiting a collection of writings. The more basic definition of this word is "rule" or "straight edge", which was then applied in early Christian circles to individual points of doctrine that were more fully outlined in the creeds. It was not until much later that "canon" was applied to the New Testament, and when this did occur, it caused a shift in the meaning of this word as it was re-applied in later generations. When evaluating the early discussions of "canon" as it is applied to Scripture, one must determine what is meant by the use of the word in its original context, and this is by no means a simple and straightforward task. On the one hand, does "canon" mean to imply a set of books by which the "rule of faith" was authoritatively communicated? Or does it on the other, refer to a fixed list of books which would later become "Scripture"?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The trail becomes more difficult in the second century because of extreme persecution and the lack of any organizational structure beyond the local church. The New Testament books were being copied and collected in the different regions of Christian influence. I don't know the date whenever one church finally collected all 27 books but, it more than likely belonged to the second century.

Based on what?
I have no doubt that all the books of the New Testament were completed by the end of the second cent., and I expect that it is plausible that they all existed together in a collection somewhere fairly shortly after this time, but honestly, so what? We have virtually no idea, nor any evidence to suggest that these 27-books specifically were accorded with a different sense of authority, or a higher level of "inspiration" than the dozens upon dozens of other pieces of Christian literature that were in circulation at the same time. The problem is not so much the existence or circulation of the New Testament books by the early third cent.; rather, the problem is that there seems to be little that distinguishes many of the NT books from other Christian writings from the same period.

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.

I find this to be a rather incredible suggestion. You are committing one of the fallacie I outlined in my post about the Bible and ancient cultures, in which you seem to be assuming that because it is a simple process in this day and age, it must have not been a problem in the second cent. Roman empire. If we assume that all the epistles attributed to Paul were actually composed by him, in his lifetime, then they all must have been completed before 65 C.E. People living even within forty years of this date would necessarily be considered a part of the next generation, especially given that the life expectancy in Roman civilization was MUCH shorter than now; some estimates suggest that most people did not live more than 35 years. This is then further complicated by the fact that this was a largely oral culture—the Church itself was founded upon and persisted through the PROCLAMATION of the TESTIMONY of Jesus—in which most people possessed only a very cursory ability to read and write. Also, there are the much more recent sociological studies which show that people who do not read and write process information according to different categories than we do in the modern world. The survival of information in the absence of large-scale printing is very much dependent upon the memory of a given social group, and this memory tends to be shaped by immediate circumstances and perceived needs.

In all of that, it really strikes me as very probable that a great deal of uncertainty or misinformation regarding the earliest Christian writings was quite likely.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...We have one letter from Polycarp. The man lived 86 years and was a pupil of the Apostle John. Do you think that in those 86 years he might have written more than one letter? Do you think in those 86 years which brought him into the middle of the second century that someone didn't ask him: " Hey Poly which of these letters did John consider scripture and which did he reject?"...

I very seriously doubt that ANYONE in the second cent. posed such a question. The fact of the matter is that "Scripture" was still a very loosely defined concept, and that the questions of what was "in" and what was "out" was not something that anyone took very seriously. These were later issues that didn't receive any attention in Polycarp's day.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No Marcion didn't start the idea of a canon. The word "canon" is just a transliteration of the greek word "kanon" which means "rule'. It conveys the idea of measure, a test, a straight edge, a critical standard. When the Apostles and church Fathers started refering to certain writings as scriptures and useing them authoritively they had in fact set them in a canon. Just because Marcion was the earliest person to use the word "Kanon"(that we know of) doesn't mean that before him there was no concept of a canon.

You missed the point, I don't know if Marcion even used the word canon, but he was the first to publish a list saying "these are authoritative". After he did so, others including church fathers followed suit. Before he did, no one else had. When you say "When the Apostles and church Fathers started refering to certain writings as scriptures and useing them authoritively they had in fact set them in a canon" you are making a claim that doesn't have any support. Using certain writings as authoritative does not equate to set them in a canon.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Your the one who is trying to say that since the first known occurance of the word "canon" is Marcion that he is the origin of the idea.

That's not what I said, I said he was the first to make a list, the first to which the idea of making and circulating a list occurred to. I don't even know if he used the word canon.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What I'm saying is that although history doesn't afford us an earlier record we should know by the way the books were treated and reverenced that they were recognized as inspired by God and therefore authoritive.

So because something is reverenced and recognized as inspired by god it's inspired by god? Circular logic is circular.

The Qur'an is treated and reverenced and recognized as inspired by god, therefore it is authoritative. By this reasoning anyway.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

People died upholding the doctrines of those letters. They cast people out of their churches who taught against the doctrines of those books. These books were the basis of their faith and practice.

So? That doesn't speak to the authorship of those books at all.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yet you maintain that no person or congregation had formed an opinion on what particular writings would guide their lives.

Most people were not in a position though to be able to form an opinion.. They didn't have many copies of the books, those were expensive and most of the laity were illiterate anyway. And those in a position to form an opinion did so the same way we do, if it was wildly different than other of Paul's writings they'd question it. They don't have the resources or methodologies or thought processes we do though, so it was easier to fool them.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The canon was complete in about 90 A.D. when John wrote the Revelation of Jesus Christ. What we don't know is when enough copies of that book and the others were around in order for a church to have collected a copy of all 27 of them.

Nonsense. The church what, had a list of 27 books to fill like a treasure hunt? "Hmm.. now we need a Revelations by John.. everyone go look for that one when someone finds it come back and our collection will be complete."

Please, provide the evidence that of 90 the entire church had decided exactly which writings circulating were the New Testament.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No. Because churches knew that counterfeits existed they wouldn't readily accept books from unknown sources. If the writing didn't conflict with doctrines extablished by trusted scriptures they might be read. But churches required convincing. The earlier books in the canon had the testimony of the Apostles to authorize them. After they were all gone the testimony of the church Fathers and the histories of the churches who first recieved these epistles had to do.

Pure speculation on your part, do you have any evidence? The evidence goes the other way, since Paul specifically addresses so much of his writing to specifically combat incorrect beliefs.. beliefs the churches got from other writings that were known to be circulating at the time.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I would like to see that evidence as well.

Lol what?? You are the one making the claim, you would be the one that (presumably) formed the position based on evidence. So you have no evidence?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Do you think that in those 86 years he might have written more than one letter? Do you think in those 86 years which brought him into the middle of the second century that someone didn't ask him: " Hey Poly which of these letters did John consider scripture and which did he reject?".

Doesn't matter what I think, it matters what can be supported. Speculation isn't evidence.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Certainly Polycarp wasn't the only one to have dealings with the Apostles who survived into the second century. Also we know most of the Jewish converts could read and write. There certainly would have been an abundance of letters testifying to what was occuring. Some of the Apostle's other writings no doubt were also lost.

Speculation isn't evidence. What evidence do you have that most Jewish converts could read and write? What evidence do you have that everyone was writing letters about what was occurring? The Apostles didn't have any writings, they were fishermen and such, such people didn't have either the money or the leisure time to learn to read and write in their own language let alone learn to speak Greek, learn to read and write in Greek, and become educated enough to be able to write a coherent narrative in Greek. You can't just claim they were literate.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The evidence would consist of the testimony of the churches that first received the letter and any written material from the first century that commented or quoted the letter. If it was known to be accepted by an Apostle that would have helped. Books that lied about their authorship would obviously been rejected.

So your evidence basically boils down to "the letters were authentic because if they weren't they wouldn't have been quoted and would have been rejected"?

That's not evidence.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The how I've explained above. The who would include anyone or church who received a book and didn't know its source. These kinds of letters of inquiry would have no doubt begin in the first century when the scriptures began to be distributed.

The only explanations I've seen are speculative, based on what you think is common sense, which wasn't back then.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Sorry wrong quote. I meant IIPet 3:15,16

That makes more sense. No doubt that many churches (especially those that Paul planted) would view Paul's writings as authoritative. 2 Peter is difficult to date and is often dated into the late 1st or even 2nd century, at which time even more people would view Paul's writings as authoritative.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Look at Polycarp's letter as an example: http://www.supakoo.com/rick/Polycarp...2010-01-05.pdf

Polycarp's letter quotes passages that are from some books that became the NT, but he doesn't name them, and doesn't call them scripture. Polycarp's letter is long after the epistles were penned.

And again that doesn't do anything to establish the authorship.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The 2 heretics we've been discussing were excommunicated because they left sound doctrine. The doctrine they left is found in scriptures. Also the authority to do such a thing is found in scriptures.

They were excommunicated because they left the doctrine of the group that excommunicated them. Gnostics and probably every other group excommunicated people too, so? Everyone in early Christianity had writings to support their diverse views, it's not at all shocking that the group that "won" and became orthodox preferred writings that supported their views.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What could have happened and what did happen are two different things.

Of course, the difference is the evidence indicates that the authorship of many of the books in the Bible is other than what is claimed (by the book itself, or by tradition).

And we really haven't discussed that part, other than a basic claim by you that the early church would have known and prevented it.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There is also a thing called providence which tends to keep the ball rolling in the right direction.

Why? If someone tries to author a letter under Paul's name will something stop them? No, of course not. Will something stop that letter from being delivered? No. Will something stop the receiver from accepting the letter as authentic? No. What actions can providence take that don't violate someone's free will?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You brought up the canon and Marcion and Origen. I'm just responding to what you've said in order.

Fair enough, lets try to move on to the actual evidence.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Also, the fact that these epistles were received early as scriptures and with no significant opposition until the 1900s weighs in faviour of their authenticity.

Kind of like how there was no significant opposition to the sun going around the earth weighs in favour of the idea's authenticity?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't discount the scholarship of the men who asked these same questions over the last 1800 years.

Which scholarship? Which men asked the same questions?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

And I think you've been sold a load of goods.

I could say the same thing, that you've been sold a load of goods.

You say it to me expecting it to be meaningful in some way, but if I say it to you, is it meaningful to you? Or do you just discount it? That should tell you something about the merit of that kind of statement.

I haven't been sold anything, I've arrived at a conclusion based on examining the evidence as best as I can.. if I get different evidence I may change my conclusion.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

This discussion began with you stating that Paul didn't write the pastorial epistles. You don't know that.

You don't know that they were. You don't know that Christianity and Jesus and Paul weren't fabricated out of whole cloth by Constantine.

So either we can unproductively sit around talking about what no one knows or we can talk about what there's evidence to support.

What evidence would convince you that some of the canonical epistles were not authored by Paul?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You've also never looked at your "evidence" with a critical eye or you would have found it wanting.

Ah now we get down to the bottom line.. it's so inconceivable that someone would examine the evidence and come to a different conclusion than you would, so clearly it must be a case of not examining the evidence, or not having a critical eye, or some other excuse.

But you are wrong, because I used to believe the Bible was inerrant, I used to think all the books were authored by Paul, and it was only the evidence combined with a (presumably) god given trait of intellectual honesty that compelled me to change my mind.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...churches knew that counterfeits existed they wouldn't readily accept books from unknown sources. If the writing didn't conflict with doctrines extablished by trusted scriptures they might be read. But churches required convincing. The earlier books in the canon had the testimony of the Apostles to authorize them. After they were all gone the testimony of the church Fathers and the histories of the churches who first recieved these epistles had to do.

You are correct on the bolded part: that individual pieces of writing were accepted or rejected almost primarily upon the basis of how well they accorded with official church "doctrine." However, this was NO guarantee at all that all the writings that eventually came to form the NT canon were in fact written by those who were purported to have been their authors. One method to ensure the viability of one's ideas was to locate them within a "school" of one of the known prophets or apostles. We have in our possession hundreds of such know examples of this pseudonymous writing, and a considerable amount of it tends to be in close keeping with what would have been considered "sound doctrine". Their existence is one of the reasons why there is a considerable amount of skepticism towards the authorial claims of a number of the NT epistles.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The evidence would consist of the testimony of the churches that first received the letter and any written material from the first century that commented or quoted the letter. If it was known to be accepted by an Apostle that would have helped. Books that lied about their authorship would obviously been rejected.

How is this obvious?! Pauline authorship was attached to the Epistle to the Hebrews and is now universally rejected. As I mentioned earlier, if the claims of a given piece of writing were doctrinally sound, highly useful and presented no problems for the cardinal position of a given church community, then there was never any reason at all to raise questions regarding its authorship.

The reasons that scholars tend to doubt the authorial claims of the Pastoral Epistles stem from literary and sociological evidence, as well as from history and from technical studies of manuscripts. This is far different than the sort of investigation that would have taken place in the post-first century Church, whose concerns were entirely theological. The disputed epistles would not have raised any questions concerning their authenticity, simply because there was nothing within them that presented much in the way of any serious contraventions of church doctrine.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...Polycarp...

The 2 heretics we've been discussing were excommunicated because they left sound doctrine. The doctrine they left is found in scriptures. Also the authority to do such a thing is found in scriptures.

I think that this is actually very supportive of my point, which is that doctrine proceeded Scripture. The two heretics in Polycarp are not censured for having accepted some anathema piece of writing as "Scripture", nor are they charged with having doubted the authenticity of one of Paul's letters or such. They are charged with denying specific doctrines that have been established by the Church. There is a sharp difference between "Scripture" and "doctrine" that I believe you have overlooked.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...the fact that these epistles were received early as scriptures and with no significant opposition until the 1900s weighs in faviour of their authenticity. I don't discount the scholarship of the men who asked these same questions over the last 1800 years.

The theory of a flat earth and a closed universe received no significant opposition for thousands of years as well. Do you discount the scholarship of the men who supported this position? One wonders why in light of the benefit of doubt that you so willingly have extended to the proponents of disputed authorship.

Furthermore, why does the longevity of a given position "weigh in its favour"? If something is wrong, it is wrong regardless of how long it was believed to be right.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

And I think you've been sold a load of goods. This discussion began with you stating that Paul didn't write the pastorial epistles. You don't know that. You've also never looked at your "evidence" with a critical eye or you would have found it wanting.

With this statement, I very seriously wonder how carefully you have yourself looked at the evidence. The argument for pseudonymity in the Pauline corpus is quite strong on the basis of literary as well as sociological grounds. Of course, all of this is not provable one way or the other, but for you to merely dismiss the position is a "bill of goods" is both preposterous and disingenuous.

[Textcritic]

I will be submitting another post in my ongoing series in this thread, but before I do so, I thought I would share something I stumbled upon today.

Rev. Michael Dowd has written a book entitled Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion will Transform Your Life and Our World (Viking / Plume, 2009). He and his wife travel the US under the guise of "evolutionary evangelists", delivering a message how how our religions must be transformed to reflect the maturation of our scientific worldview, which now provides the most accurate and "spiritually" gratifying experience of the real world.

There are some very good sermons and podcasts in the "Media" section, as well as at their blog: http://evolutionaryevangelists.libsyn.com/

More later. Enjoy this for now.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I will be submitting another post in my ongoing series in this thread, but before I do so, I thought I would share something I stumbled upon today.

Rev. Michael Dowd has written a book entitled Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion will Transform Your Life and Our World (Viking / Plume, 2009). He and his wife travel the US under the guise of "evolutionary evangelists", delivering a message how how our religions must be transformed to reflect the maturation of our scientific worldview, which now provides the most accurate and "spiritually" gratifying experience of the real world.

There are some very good sermons and podcasts in the "Media" section, as well as at their blog: http://evolutionaryevangelists.libsyn.com/

More later. Enjoy this for now.

While in my youth, I favored intelligent design focused reconciliation between evolution and faith but I can't say that I believe that any longer. I totally understand why reconciling the two opposing viewpoints can erase a lot of cognitive dissonance in someone's mind however. This movement is yet another way by which faith adapts and changes rapidly to the forces and momentum of the society around it as it always has for millenia.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

...This movement is yet another way by which faith adapts and changes rapidly to the forces and momentum of the society around it as it always has for millenia.

In many respects, yes it is. However, based on the bits that I have read and listened to, it seems to me to be a much more progressive and productive "movement" than previous ones which have sought a compromise between supernaturalism and naturalism. I am personally very impressed with how Dowd is doing so through what I feel is the most compelling part of his over all message (and something that I have been promoting for some time now): that is the rejection of the category of "supernatural":

Originally Posted by Michael Dowd

Everything shifts when we move from a worldview given by tradition and authority to one based on facts and empirical evidence. For example, evidence suggests that the only place that the so-called supernatural realm has ever existed has been in the minds and hearts (and speech) of human beings—and only quite recently.

As Benson Salem demonstrated in a 1977 issue of the American Anthropological Association journal Ethos, the notion of supernatural—in opposition to natural—is a Western invention. The 'supernatural realm' only came into being as a thought form after we began to understand things in a natural, scientific way. Only when the concept of ‘the natural’ emerged was it deemed necessary by some to speak of ‘the supernatural’: that which was imagined to be above or outside of nature. Previously, people everywhere used a blend of descriptive and metaphorical (dreamlike) language when speaking about matters of importance...

As we have collectively learned ever more about the natural, the supernatural has become ever less. After all, supernatural and unnatural are synonyms. Anything supposedly supernatural is, by definition, unnatural. And most people find unnatural relatively uninspiring when they really stop and think about it. It should not surprise us that young people en masse are turning their backs on religion and that atheists are riding bestseller lists when “the gospel,” God’s great news for humanity, is imagined as this…

"An unnatural king who occasionally engages in unnatural acts sends his unnatural son to Earth in an unnatural way. He’s born an unnatural birth, lives an unnatural life, performs unnatural deeds, and is killed and unnaturally rises from the dead in order to redeem humanity from an unnatural curse brought about by an unnaturally talking snake. After 40 days of unnatural appearances he unnaturally zooms off to heaven to return to his unnatural father, sit on an unnatural throne, and unnaturally judge the living and the dead. If you profess to believe in all this unnatural activity, you and your fellow believers get to spend an unnaturally long time in an unnaturally boring paradise while everyone else suffers an unnatural, torturous hell forever." [Excerpt from my sermon, “Thank God for the New Atheists!”]

[Charcot]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Damn.

Why am I always so late in coming to these parties?

I read about half of the posts in this thread; I simply do not have the time to slog through them all.

I find that when entering discussions about the Bible, what tends to complicate things is the wide ranging and varied opinions and misconceptions that lay people tend to hold with regards to what the Bible is, and what it ought to be. If anyone is all that keenly interested in the Bible, where it came from, how it developed, why it is such an influential book, and how and why religions have come to read and teach it the way that they do, allow me, first to make a book recommendation. James L. Kugel, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now (New York / London / Toronto / Sydney: Free Press, 2007), is my current favourite popular book on the subject. I also recommend that you check out Prof. Kugel's own webpage: www.jameskugel.com, which has some good additional resources. An especially good read there is the downloadable appendix that he wrote to the book, entitled: "Apologetics and 'Biblical Criticism Lite'", in which he launches into a very good critique of the current establishment of biblical scholarship.

Just wanted to thank you for the recommendation. Having just finished it I found it excellent and readable. Are you aware of anything of this calibre and as readable for the New Testament?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Charcot

Just wanted to thank you for the recommendation. Having just finished it I found it excellent and readable. Are you aware of anything of this calibre and as readable for the New Testament?

May I suggest trying our brand new private message system we just had installed at the board's inception ten(plus) years ago?