/lit/ - Literature

>>18260632
The abundance of "verisimilitudes" in 2 Timothy is suspect, and commonplace in forgeries. In other words, the author is trying too hard and throwing in unnecessary biographical detail to convince his readership of his identity.

Like 1 Timothy, charisma is delivered by laying of hands.

Paul's historical situation as portrayed in 2 Timothy (in prison near the end of his life, yet writing to Timothy as if he were a young companion of Paul's) is difficult to reconcile with any Pauline chronology.

on Titus:

Suggests a second-century setting, presupposing the Christianization of Crete and the appointing of bishops in its towns.

The view of the law in Titus is at odds with Romans and Galatians.

The vocabulary and style are different from the authentic Pauline Epistles. For example, there are over 300 words used in the Pastorals that are used in none of the the other letters of Paul, including the other pseudo-Paulines. Many of the words are not used anywhere else in the entire New Testament, yet do become more common among other 2nd Century writers. In other words, it's not just that the language is different, but that's it's recognizably later in style (imagine the difference between seeing something written in say, the 1920's and the 1980'). The tone is also very different - a different "voice" and writing style, much cooler and less bombastic than the authentic Paulines.

It's not just the linguistics, though, it's got tells that show a later context, a developed church hierarchy, knowledge of Gnosticism. It also describes Paul making journeys that can't be fit into the rest of his itinerary described in Paul's own letters and in Acts (Paul would have had to have somehow gotten out of prison in Rome).

I'm not aware of any compelling evidence FOR authenticity, other than tradition and settled canon. The arguments tend to be of the "you can't 100 percent prove they're forged" variety.

>>18260632
>and they contradict some of the views shown in the undisputed letters
such as

>>18260648
Straight out contradictions. E.G. compare 1 Cor 7v39-40 with 1 Tim 5v14. In the first he says he would prefer widows not to marry. In the second he says he would prefer widows to marry.

The church seems to me much larger in the pastorals. In most of Paul's letters the Christian community in any particular town is tiny and can meet in one room in someone's house. In the pastoral epistles he refers to three levels of church hierarchy: bishops (episkopoi), elders (presbuteroi), and deacons (diakonoi). This implies a larger, more organised church. There are no "elders" in the other epistles, and the one use of bishop and occasional deacons don't seem to have an official meaning.

Following on from this there are lots of worries about "sound teaching" in the face of false teachers perverting Jesus' message. This would imply that the church had got big enough for heretics to have become a problem, as opposed to the earlier, smaller, simpler state when it was just starting out.

Language and theology. There are a bunch of important words that only appear in the pastorals (godliness, modesty, piety) but not in any of the other letters. Conversely there are a bunch of words Paul uses a lot that never appear in the pastorals (proclaim the gospel 'evagelizo', or spiritual 'pneumatikos').

BUT HEY maybe it's possible that Paul took a completely separate missionary journey as described in the Pastorals, that he changed his writing style and adjusted his beliefs, and that he lived longer than anyone had supposed. Of course then Catholic Tradition is wrong about Paul's life and martyrdom too oh well

>>18260652
Uh how about being a celibate vs starting a family? Just a minor detail like that. The real Paul wants a bunch of eunuchs but the fake Paul wants married clergy with kids.

>>18260632
>1 Timothy's theology on the law and teachers of the law is at odds with Paul's.
I got this impression when reading it

>>18260708
>>18260632
how would you characterize the difference in relation to the law? is this the only time that "Paul" says the law is inherently a good?

Hmm so then if the catholic church was wrong on this, then they aren't the true church because they infallibly declared it true. And they're wrong. Hmm....

>>18260799
it seems that religious movements that maintain that God is one are all more or less right and all have the same calibre saints

Why does LGBTP insist on desecrating Christianity?

>>18260632
Obligatory read The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Doesn't matter if you are religious or atheist you should arm yourself with a good historical understanding.

>>18260759
bump

OP you forgot to mention that the "Letter to the Hebrews" is actually written in Greek and not Hebrew. How did the Church Fathers not see this?

>>18260632
>did not
>deemed to be
by whom, """scholars"""???
>Marcion
You're also leaving out the best bits of that, you Satanic faggot:
"Early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian denounced Marcion as a heretic, and he was excommunicated by the church of Rome around 144.[7] He published the first known canon of Christian sacred scriptures,[2][8][9] which contained ten Pauline epistles (the Pastoral epistles weren't included) and a shorter version of the Gospel of Luke (the Gospel of Marcion).[2][10] This made him a catalyst in the process of the development of the New Testament canon by forcing the proto-orthodox Church to respond to his canon."

Repent

>>18260680
>The real Paul wants a bunch of eunuchs but the fake Paul wants married clergy with kids
in corinthians, hes pretty explicit about the chaste life being the best, for the elect and strong of spirit, but a graceful marriage is honorable enough for most.

>>18260856
materialists whos highest goal is an iv and endorphine drip for all humanity.

>>18261504
Origen isn't a church father? He thought that Paul didn't write it, but someone had recorded his thoughts in a Socrates-Plato style of transmission.
>In the epistle entitled To The Hebrews the diction does not exhibit the characteristic roughness of speech or phraseology admitted by the Apostle [Paul] himself, the construction of the sentences is closer to the Greek usage, as anyone capable of recognising differences of style would agree. On the other hand the matter of the epistle is wonderful, and quite equal to the Apostle's acknowledged writings: the truth of this would be admitted by anyone who has read the Apostle carefully... If I were asked my personal opinion, I would say that the matter is the Apostle's but the phraseology and construction are those of someone who remembered the Apostle's teaching and wrote his own interpretation of what his master had said. So if any church regards this epistle as Paul's, it should be commended for so doing, for the primitive Church had every justification for handing it down as his. Who wrote the epistle is known to God alone: the accounts that have reached us suggest that it was either Clement, who became Bishop of Rome, or Luke, who wrote the gospel and the Acts.[18]

>>18261533
would you agree that the narrative on the law is different in Timothy though?

>>18261573
How so

>>18261533
How does that matter? Marcion was anxious to include authentic NT writings explicitly because of his heresy of excluding the OT. And he was more closely connected to Pauline communities than any other church father.

His ideology had absolutely zero bearing on whether he thought certain Pauline letters were real or not. Your brain disease aside, the fact is that this is the earliest canon, and one done by someone most familiar with Paul's church plants. And he didn't even know these fake letters existed. That is damning evidence regardless of your brainwashing and biases.

>>18260868
>tranny-slation of the Bible
Haha no.

>>18261733
>all this shit yet he had his own gospel edit and that was his "canon's" only gospel
he was an edgelord you can't apply standard sense to anything he did

>>18261712
it's possible I've got a lot of this wrong, but I'm under the impression that the emphasis in most of the letters is that the law as such is useless, and not a good form of religion. That doesn't mean that there aren't better and worse things to do. But in Timothy 1 it is said that the Mosaic Law is really a good thing when properly applied.

>>18261770
OK I hate to do this, but you appear to be far too retarded and biased to participate further. Stop posting. You aren't clever or interested, and you're DEFINITELY not well read.

You appear to be a transgender MTF and I need you to dilate immediately.

>>18262074
It seems to me he just says that the law is good for showing just how corrupt and evil the lawless are. I take it to be something along the lines of "we can use the law to clearly see the contrast", essentially.

>>18262096
>projecting
he was the son of a bishop and was acting out of a sense of rebellion
what i said is correct

>>18262101
>We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
>We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels
it sounds to me like he's saying the law is for establishing a baseline for people who otherwise have none, but that it will not save you without Christ

>>18262128
in other words it is made for a purpose *which is still in effect*

>>18262128
Well yeah, that's more or less exactly what I am saying there, it's a contrast that lets us know that we are not as saintly as many of us imagine ourselves to be.

>>18262228
but there is a "sound doctrine" which the Mosaic Law is then supposed to lead to

>>18262224
No, I think it's purpose has shifted. Originally it was part of the deal with the Israelites to be God's sanctified nation of priestly representatives to the planet. They couldn't stick to the rules, but now they are no longer outright "rules" but rather contrasts to show us the difference between ourselves and that which is truly holy.

>>18262251
but I'm under the impression that Paul says (I think in Romans or one of the Corinthians) that the law was death. I'm not convinced you can just have a little bit of a Mosaic yoke on you, if you have it you have it, I think

>>18262127
I'm sorry I really don't give a shit about the opinion of someone who gets their information from catholic apologetics websites and expects to be taken seriously. Read a book tranny.

>>18262272
I don't know, there's overlap in places between "Mosaic" law and NT morals. But the real meat to me is that I don't think one can ultimately successfully use the Bible to craft and absolute legal system in such a way as to determine the ultimate, actual reality of such things as "if you have this little then you have the whole thing" or any manner of other such notions. That's where I think Calvin and the ilk fail, they tried to do exactly that, assemble a hard coded absolute legal structure out of Scripture. It's really not designed to be such a thing. It's designed for you to read, contemplate, and allow it to convict and guide *you* towards interacting with God with your consciousness and heart.

>>18262325
why I'm so interested is I'm curious how any of this becomes a law that is practiced as law in the secular sense, what has counted for a christian "constitution" if you will. I am reading through the epistles for the first time. The only concrete legal measure I've encountered is that Paul recommended exluding a fornicator from the church. That's somewhat of a political level of action in my book

>>18262354
I think the closest you can really get to a "Christian Constitution" is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.

>>18262390
Not according to the one true Roman Catholic Church you deluded heathen nutjob. Protestants get the rope.

>>18262390
the reason I'm doing all of this is I'm trying to figure out what exactly I would be committing myself to if I committed myself to christianity. I am sure Jesus is the best that ever walked the earth, and I'm willing to accept that his Goodness is Gods Goodness. But I get the impression from Paul that the church is supposed to be sort of a separate thing from the heathens who dominate my country. Not on the level of the jews but still that there is supposed to be a community that keeps to a certain morality, keeps themselves pure. So I'm curious what that comes to in the end.
>>18262409
like this for instance.

>>18262409
Well, it's taken directly from a direct quote from Jesus so I think that says all that needs to be said about the Catholic "Church".

>>18262417
Well, see here and then recall the essentials of everything I said above:

Matthew 22
"34But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. 35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

>>18262417
This >>18262436 being said, yes, we should indeed wish to represent God as best we can before others, and hope that others will see God in us in various ways and then themselves wish to learn what we know, and get closer to God as well. Paul says that we should conduct ourselves as living epistles to be read by all humans, and I agree 100%. That's not some sort of legal command, it's just a fact of authentic faith.

>>18262436
>>18262461
yea because those two commandments leave a lot of room for living, where of course Jesus also does list more things that one should avoid, and then Paul adding to that. I reckon it becomes a little bit of a list, and I have to imagine that at least starting with Constantine this begins to be woven in with secular power

>>18262417
One more thing, per what I said >>18262325 you should consider this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhmlJBUIoLk

>>18262477
>starting with Constantine this begins to be woven in with secular power
Well, that was a mistake and only happened after the church institution had become corrupted by Satanic forces within.

>>18262478
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhmlJBUIoLk
very interesting

>>18262417
The legalism and antinomian debate is still raging in the church today so you aren't going to magically resolve this question here.

You guys are posting in a dumb wahhabi thread.

>>18262295
>tranny
projecting again
and i have never even seen a catholic apologetics website
so congratulations on just being wrong a lot

>>18262674
>butthurt mtf can't stop replying to me
Many such cases

>>18262709
projecting again
are you aware that
never mind
you are only aware of sucking your own dick
until the operation

>>18262638
well that's good to know at least

>>18262794
My honest opinion is that the Bible contains contradictory info at times because it was written by different people at different times in different communities. So much time is spent harmonizing and explaining differences when really its OK to just let the text stand as it is. There are different opinions in the law. It won't cohere into one simple statement. Example, how people still fight over it today

>>18263175
I studied Islam before and in Islam the understanding is that the most important quality of God is rahma, which is sometimes translated as mercy, sometimes as benevolence, things like this. But more than this God is known by 100 names in total, one of which is just Allah and two are derived from rahma. Others can for instance be al Adl = the Just or al Qadr = the One Who Decides. Imo, and I could be wrong, there are contradictions in the Quran. Most people agree that there are at least some, but what's interesting is that the Quran explicitly says of itself several times that it is a book without contradiction. I think the explanation for this is that the Quran will sometimes speak of the same thing *from the point of view of a particular name*. So that when it is by Gods mercy that a matter is adressed, this results in one ruling. But then if the same topic is adressed in another part of the book, perhaps it is God as the Just, and now from this principle the result is different. So it creates a span of possible right ways that can seem contradictory but which are just manifestations of different attributes of God, but always under the main header of rahma (rahmah is actually the aramaic word Jesus used that was translated into agape). This is not the orthodox way to handle contradictions in the Quran (the orthodox way is abrogation) and I have sort of thought of it on my own, so it can be misguided. But it's a take on what it can mean that a holy text has what seem to be contradictions.

>>18263223
My primary issue with Christian theology is that the theology itself becomes functionally based on novel meaning resulting from harmonizing contradictions and not taking statements at face value. That means that the text itself is never allowed to speak.

>>18263413
I understand. I think sometimes similar things happen in Islam too. Something is interpreted one way because it has to be that way for the sake of the harmony of the whole. But even if you take that as your goal, who is to say which whole is right? Maybe it's the other parts that need to be reinterpreted to fit this one? I'm sure they have principles for all of this, if there's one thing they have it's herusitic principles, but, well.. I think I get where you're coming from.

>>18263223
>the Pope will call a new crusade in your lifetime to crush the prod and mudslime heretics
Can't wait...

>>18263674
Oh fuck off and kys

Modern biblical "scholars" bend over backwards to confirm what they want to be true. They look at tiny differences in style and word choice and conclude different authorship as if people are robots with one set style and vocabulary. The more I learn about their methods the less impressed I am with it. It's pure sophistry wrapped in a scientific sounding language.

There's an unquestioned assumption that ancient people were stupid and that forgeries were easy to pull off.

>>18263702
This, not to mention people's thoughts can develop and mature, not to mention the dynamics of Paul having to react to what he faced over time in the developing churches. Then there's the simple matter of using different scribes. The "scholars" know very little but do not allow that to stop them from drawing whatever conclusions they are looking for.

>>18263702
>>18263718
These are both apologetic polemical assertions that aren't grounded in reality. You've never read a single academic treatment of the NT in your life. You've read christian apologists tell you about them. These sorts of claims are laughable because even Christian academics don't make claims about Paul writing these epistles. They don't because they'd be humiliated.

>>18263726
>Then there's the simple matter of using different scribes.
There is no evidence of any scribe dramatically changing the style of the author in this or any related time period. That's a total apologetic creation. Even people like Pliny reference different scribes and in all their writings maintain the same voice.

Its simply not true that scribes took liberties with writing. They dictated and that's it. People have done research on this exact topic for this very reason. And no, there is no example of a different scribe producing such a shift in tone or vocabulary anywhere ever. Ever.

>>18263735
I can hire two different people right now to record my voice and there would be two different styles. You dismiss everything as an "apologetically assertion" because you're lazy, and a bad thinker. To you that sounds persuasive but any thinking person will see through it.

>>18263750
Show me a peer reviewed study of any example in a 309 year time-frame of a writer having a different style as a result of different scribes. Find just one.

I've read the research on this. What you're claiming doesn't exist.

>>18263762
Yeah I'll get right on that, captain science.

>>18263762
>I've read the research on this
>the research

>>18263762
>muh research

>>18263769
>>18263773
I accept your concession

>>18263777
Are you the anti-Paul guy that spams the bible threads? I recognize your faggotry.

>>18263780
Be careful, you're probably the same one that accused me of being him the other day and here I am above defending Paul yet again.

>>18263795
Wait, what am I supposed to be careful of? Are you going to demand studies and then declare victory again when I don't give you the time of day?

>>18263762
>Show me a peer reviewed study
Oh god oh fug

>>18263809
Uh, no? I'm just saying, the other day you thought I was also the anti-Paul during some other back and forth, so it seems you might have a thing for assuming people you're debating with are the anti-Paul.

>>18263780
Oh boy and you're a schizo too. Fucking catlicks lmao

>>18263825
I'm not the guy you talked to the other day because I hardly come on here anymore and I never accused anyone else of being that guy. I only thought it was you because he also does that gay "I accept your concession" shit. If multiple people see this in you then it must not be too off base. Either way, you act like a faggot. I'm going to need a peer reviewed study to prove you don't suck cock.

>>18263870
That poster isn't even the poster you accused of being anti paul hahahahaha that's me you psychotic

>>18263870
OK, well, just a couple of days or so ago someone I was discussing things with asked if I was the anti Paul person they see around here. You also seem to be getting confused that I am the one above that you asked that of, which isn't the case. I am pretty sure you are indeed the one who asked me that the other day, because they started the same thing with the "faggot" business. Apparently you are a very confused person in general. At any rate, I am in this thread defending Paul having written the Timothy epistles so sort that how however you need to.

>>18263882
What am I supposed to make of this? I don't care if you're the guy I was talking to or not. None of this is important to me.

>>18263702
agreed

>>18263906
Well now that you mention he called you a faggot that must have been me. With such powerful evidence how could I deny it? I really don't know why you're getting so hung up on this Paul/anti-Paul thing. If you're not that guy then who gives a shit? I really don't care either way. You're a faggot and that's that.

>>18263937
It wasn't just that they "called me a faggot", it was the specific style and manner of doing so. It matched yours. We need some scholars to study the writings and see if they think them to be the same authors or not. I am pretty sure they were, just like I am pretty sure Paul wrote Timothy.

>>18263956
>It wasn't just that they "called me a faggot", it was the specific style and manner of doing so
Look at this faggot conneseur. Typical catholic

>>18264032
>catholic
Maybe at some point you'll get something right.

>>18264062
Anything to distract from your utter failure in this thread. Up your butthole, you immature n word.

>>18264103
Based

i was just listening to a book on the protestants called the protestants and it said luther rejected a bunch of new testy shit as inauthentic, anyone have an official list? it's kinda funny cuz he was arguing that the bible is the only thing that matters in christianity, yet he's just "no not like that! if someone brings up a part he doesn't like. also they said he was fat.

>>18264456
Luther was an idiot but that has no bearing on the fact that God used him to carry out a crucial part of His will.

>>18264456
The letters Luther questioned are universally agreed by scholars to be forgeries, so he was right to do so. How does this make Luther look bad? Because you're a brainwashed nutter catholic?
>I read a book
Kys

>>18260632
>Catholics have "infallibly" stated that he did.
Where? I think you might be wrong from the get-go

>>18260632
>Catholics have "infallibly" stated that he did.
No? Introduction to the letters in new translations of the Bible talks about controversy regarding authorship and openly states that some of them were written by someone else, usually one of Paul's followers.
>BUT HEY maybe it's possible that Paul took a completely separate missionary journey as described in the Pastorals, that he changed his writing style and adjusted his beliefs, and that he lived longer than anyone had supposed. Of course then Catholic Tradition is wrong about Paul's life and martyrdom too oh well
Lol. Passive aggressiveness is gay.

Paul wrote all of his epistles.

Matthew is the first Gospel written.

Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

Saint Peter wrote 1 Peter and 2 Peter.

Saint John wrote 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John, as well as the Gospel of John, as well as Revelation.

There is no reason to distrust thousands of years of recorded and oral tradition. All of modern Biblical scholarship is founded on the premise that ancient people were stupid, and thus it is faulty. It should be rejected.

>>18264502
>The letters Luther questioned are universally agreed by scholars to be forgeries
source?

>>18265655
>There is no reason to distrust thousands of years of recorded and oral tradition
if it matters for legalism vs antinomianism then I certainly think these questions matter

>>18263223
That's an extremely fascinating take anon I'll definitely keep this in mind from now on. Thanks.

>>18263223
>the orthodox way is abrogation
I'm having a hard time getting their reasoning, basically,
>Situation is A, the Prophet reveals that the correct action is X
>Situation changes to B, the Prophet reveals that the correct action is now Y
Then they say event B abrogates A and that you don't do X anymore. It would make more sense to do X if the situation A happens again.
As a trivial example, alcohol was permitted (well, tolerated), until it became a societal issue - the interdiction abrogated the previous tolerance. If the society doesn't have those issues anymore, why would alcohol stay prohibited?

>>18260632
Imagine taking the Catholic tradLARPers here at face value when they run their mouth about religion. These guys are all pseuds and idiots. None of them have read the Bible or seriously studied the New Testament or theology. Just pretentious LARPing. Look at their king Nick Fuentes.

Exhibit A of this retardation >>18265655

> HAHAHA I POSTED LE OLD PEDOPHILE AND JUST STATED MY OPINION WITHOUT REPLYING TO THE POINTS MADE IN OP THAT'S BASED AND GOING TOWARDS SAVING THE WEST

>>18265617
your larping is fucking gay dickwad. The Catholic Church if you read the church fathers and old popes all believed in the traditional authorship and inerrancy of the bible.

Kill yourself you obscurantist faggot larper.

>>18266738
Thank you for speaking some sense. They are clearly the most unread people on this board. I love when they constantly spam "Where do I start with Aquinas, bros?" threads.

No, retard, you LARPers won't be reading Aquinas, or the Bible, or going to church, or praying. You'll do exactly none of that. You'll post more bullshit on /lit/ and jerk off again today like everyday.

>>18266738
If theres anything worse than tradcath larpers its autistic memes such as yourself.

>>18266692
all fair questions as far as I can see

>>18266748
You don't understand how happy I am to see this comment. To good to know there are other people on this board who see this bullshit for what it is. Catholics and Christcucks have really shit up this board. The low IQ evangelicals are also bad with their conspiracy shit but I'll give it to some of the Protestant posters like the Presbyterians, Anglicans and Lutherans who actually know their stuff and add value to the conversations here.

>>18266763
>>18266692
and God knows best.

>>18266759
This isn't me. I don't use Discord at all.

>>18266759
no, tradcat larpers are worse. luckily you're dying off. the tradcath "explosive growth" was seen to be a bust. no more momentum, no more young people. no more pull in the vatican even for pity. you are increasingly seen as cultist freaks by catholics as a whole and the outside world. everyone hates you, and your kind is dying off.

and the catholic church as a whole is dying off too. good stuff.

can't we at least agree that a sign of an anon meaning to add productively to a discussion on christianity is that he will not insult his fellow anons?

>>18264456
>>18264466
No Luther was actually quite smart and rejected the allegorical hermenuetic of the Bible that Catholics had used which allowed for an interpretation of the Bible. Read up on the historical grammatical method.

Luther rejected the epistle of James because it flatly contradicts Paul's epistle to the Galatians. And Revelations he rejected because it was disputed even in the early Church. He was at least consistent in his approach and admitted there were irreconcilable contradictions.

>>18266785
This, James was also a suspected fake by Eusebius, Jerome, Tertullian, and others. I mean besides the fact that James is Jesus' brother but forgets to identify himself as such and... oh, I dunno, spoke fucking Aramaic and couldn't read or write.

>>18263769
>>18263773
>>18263776
>>18263814
Woah so this is the power of theology...we got too cocky skepticbros

why does Paul imply in Hebrews that if you sin after you're baptised you will not get forgiveness since there is now no atonement for you to call upon? This seems psychotic.

wowie, the anti-paul dude still making rounds after so many years? unbelievable.

>>18266738
Holy seethe. Lol.

>>18267960
>>18268334
Schizo cope

>>18267681
I would like to appologize for this post. While I would still like help with the question, I phrased it very poorly

>>18260632
imagine being swayed by Ehrman

>>18265655
based just follow what the Church says

>>18268856
Imagine thinking its just ehrman and not all scholars including the pbc