Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by Ben57

I would like to hear from anyone that thinks that Paul is out of step with the teachings of Jesus. Personally I do not think so. Personaly I have never encounted any thing from the writtings of Paul that suggests he was out of step with Jesus

It seems that nobody has read 'the pauline conspiracy' which is posted as an article on this site. Victor's Thesis presents tons of evidence refuting Paul's doctrine and his claim to be an apostle.

By the way, there were only 12 apostles, which is why they were always referred to as THE TWELVE, and Paul cannot possibly be one of THE TWELVE apostles of the Lamb mentioned in Revelation because he was not one of THE TWELVE!!

Jesus warned that although He was not accepted by his own, another would come in his own name and he would be accepted instead. Considering that Christianity is dominated by Pauline doctrine, it certainly appears that Jesus was warning us about Paul.. And don't forget He also warned us to be wary of the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees, and Paul was a notable Herodian Pharisee.

Please think about this. Do not follow the herd to the wide gate that leads not to the Kingdom. Enter instead by the Narrow Gate.

Hallelu YAH !!

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

[JJM]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

It seems that nobody has read 'the pauline conspiracy' which is posted as an article on this site. Victor's Thesis presents tons of evidence refuting Paul's doctrine and his claim to be an apostle.

By the way, there were only 12 apostles, which is why they were always referred to as THE TWELVE, and Paul cannot possibly be one of THE TWELVE apostles of the Lamb mentioned in Revelation because he was not one of THE TWELVE!!

Jesus warned that although He was not accepted by his own, another would come in his own name and he would be accepted instead. Considering that Christianity is dominated by Pauline doctrine, it certainly appears that Jesus was warning us about Paul.. And don't forget He also warned us to be wary of the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees, and Paul was a notable Herodian Pharisee.

Please think about this. Do not follow the herd to the wide gate that leads not to the Kingdom. Enter instead by the Narrow Gate.

Hallelu YAH !!

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

Ok First I understand that you like 'the Pauline conspiracy' but could you please just give us an example from it that shows contradictory. Also an apostle is someone who was sent directly by Christ to spread the good news. Christ called paul to in a vision thus he's an apostle. When this happened he went and studied Christianity became a Bishop and then began to spread the good news. So no he isn't one of the twelve but he is an apostle.



would you mind showing me this warning from Jesus so I can read it and see if what you say about it is actually what it means

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by JJM

Ok First I understand that you like 'the Pauline conspiracy' but could you please just give us an example from it that shows contradictory. Also an apostle is someone who was sent directly by Christ to spread the good news. Christ called paul to in a vision thus he's an apostle. When this happened he went and studied Christianity became a Bishop and then began to spread the good news. So no he isn't one of the twelve but he is an apostle.

would you mind showing me this warning from Jesus so I can read it and see if what you say about it is actually what it means

"The Pauline Conspiracy" has dozens if not hundreds of examples that refute Paul's legitimacy, so may I gently ask that you read it in its entirety.

But for now let's take one of the more prominent contradictions:

The chronology of Paul's life.

Acts
(1)Paul converted on the way to Damascus (9:1-8).
(2)He goes to Ananias in Damascus and stays there 'several days' (9:20).
(3)After 'some time'*, Paul goes to Jerusalem (9:23,26) and meets the apostles there (9:27).
(4)Paul preaches in Jerusalem, but due to threats to kill him, he is sent to Tarsus (9:30).
(5)Relief to Jerusalem and Judea taken by Paul & Barnabas (2nd visit) (11:30)
(6)Paul goes to Jerusalem (3rd time) (12:25)
(7)Paul goes to Jerusalem (3rd or 4th time) (15:1ff).

Galatians.
(1)Paul is converted (1:16).
(2)He does not go to Jerusalem, but to Arabia and then Damascus (1:17)
(3)After 3 years, Paul goes to Jerusalem, meeting only Cephas and James there (1:18-19) staying only 15 days.
(4)He then goes to the regions of Syria and Cilicia (1:21).
(5)14 years later, Paul goes to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus (2:1).
(6)Paul confronts Cephas at Antioch (2:11).
(7)No further information.
The 'some time' in Acts 9:19 is not clear as to how long this was; different translations render this 'some time passed' (Jerusalem), 'after a number of days' (Moffatt); the literal Greek is "'many' with the view of being sufficient"; however it is rendered, it is difficult to reconcile this with the three years of Gal 1:18.
*It is not clear whether 12:25 is a return to Jerusalem, or a return to Antioch from Jerusalem; if the former, and the Acts 15 visit is the Gal 2:1-10 one, then in Acts it would be the fourth visit, whilst Paul states it was only the second.
Paul's method of counting in Gal. is not absolutely clear, ie. whether his 14 years in Gal 2:1 is 14 years after his starting point in Gal (ie. his conversion) or 14 years after the first Jerusalem visit 3 years after his conversion which he had mentioned immediately beforehand (ie. a total of 17 years after his conversion).
Numerous others problems arise when trying to reconcile the two accounts, e.g. Acts has Paul in Jerusalem and Judea in his early life (21:17 then 22:3) and as a persecutor of the church there (7:58, 9:1-2,13,21, 26:10) which makes Paul's comment that (Gal 1:22) he was not known by sight by the churches in Judea even after his time in Jerusalem, Syria and Cilicia (1:17- 21) appear impossible. Furthermore when Paul has a dispute with Peter at Antioch about Gentile fellowship in Gal 2, why does he not remind him of what was agreed at the Acts 15 conference on this very subject ?

Here's that quote you wanted about Jesus' warning that another would come in his own name whom we would instead accept instead of Jesus:


John 5:43 "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."

Jesus warned that false apostles would arrive after His sacrifice to undo His work.


"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
churches"


Speaking to the saints who are in Ephesus, Jesus said:

"I know your works, your labor, and your patience, and that you
cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say
they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars." Rev. 2:2
NKJV


Please recall that Paul preached and wrote to the Ephesians in Asia Minor and was subsequently rejected by them.

Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Jhn 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.




If Yahshua is not referring to Paul, then to whom is He referring? What other person claiming (in his own name) to be an apostle has the (apostate) church accepted?

John said:

1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Paul said:

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
(I wonder what spirit is Paul referring to.)

But Yahshua said:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mar 8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and [of] the leaven of Herod.

(Paul was a Pharisee.)

Jhn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.



Jhn 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Finally, it is clear that only 12 apostles were personally and publicly appointed by Jesus, and besides, only 12 apostles were recognized by John in Revelation.



Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.






















You have also claimed that "Christ called paul to in a vision thus he's an apostle", but anybody can make such a claim. However Paul had no identifiable witnesses to this event. And remember that Saul-Paul was an admitted murderer of Christians. Would any court in the world accept the claim of a murderer without corroborating evidence? AND there are major contradictions in his story, which seems to suggest that he cannot keep his story straight as it is a lie.

Paul's vision.
Acts 9:7 states the men with Paul STOOD speechless, HEARING the voice but NOT SEEING anyone.
Acts 22:9 states they did NOT HEAR the voice.
Acts 26:14 states they all FELL to the ground and DID HEAR the voice.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Here's that quote you wanted about Jesus' warning that another would come in his own name whom we would instead accept instead of Jesus:[/font]

John 5:43 "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."

[font=Courier New]Jesus warned that false apostles would arrive after His sacrifice to undo His work.
[/indent]

Paul preached in Jesus' name; not his own.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by Marsh

Paul preached in Jesus' name; not his own.

Dear Marsha,
I see that you only have one lone objection to my essay!!

Does this mean you agree with my other points?!

With respect to the issue of Paul preaching in Jesus' name, he may have claimed to speak in Jesus' name, but he was nonetheless a self-proclaimed apostle and therefore spoke only in his own name and in his own authority.

And Paul called his doctrine 'my gospel' rather than the gospel of Jesus.

Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,


2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Not only did Paul call his doctrine 'my gospel' rather than the gospel of Jesus, but he even questioned the legitimacy of any other gospel but his own. No wonder he was rebuked by James and Peter in Jerusalem!!

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

I see that you only have one lone objection to my essay!!

Does this mean you agree with my other points?!

No. Actually it means I didn't think it necessary to reply to anything else because the entire argument rests on the premise that Paul was preaching in his own name. Your evidence for this is shaky to say the least. Your Bible apparently renders Paul's words as "my gospel;" my Bible renders them as "the gospel I have declared." Translations aside, I would like to hear some hard evidence; not this nit-picky stuff where a phrase is taken out of context, which is the stuff propaganda is made out of.

And this matter of Paul being rebuked by Peter? Listen to what Peter says about Paul (and others...) at the closing of his second letter:

"So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position."

Is it Paul's error, or is it the reader who does not understand?

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by Marsh

No. Actually it means I didn't think it necessary to reply to anything else because the entire argument rests on the premise that Paul was preaching in his own name. Your evidence for this is shaky to say the least. Your Bible apparently renders Paul's words as "my gospel;" my Bible renders them as "the gospel I have declared." Translations aside, I would like to hear some hard evidence; not this nit-picky stuff where a phrase is taken out of context, which is the stuff propaganda is made out of.

And this matter of Paul being rebuked by Peter? Listen to what Peter says about Paul (and others...) at the closing of his second letter:

"So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position."

Is it Paul's error, or is it the reader who does not understand?

Marsha,

First we find not one but 3 instances of Paul using the term 'my gospel'.

Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.



Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,


2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Second, Paul could not produce the names of any witnesses to his alleged vision on the road to Damascus. Even Paul agrees that such witnesses would be necessary.

Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.



2Cr 13:1 This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.


1Ti 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.


Hbr 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Third, there are major contradictions both within Luke's account of these events as recorded in the Acts and even more glaring contradictions between Luke's account in the Acts and Paul's account in the Letter to the Galatians. I documented these contradictions in an earlier letter on this forum. If the Bible is inerrant, then it must expel books that do not rise to that level.




Thus in the absence of corroborative evidence to support Paul's claim to have witnessed a vision from Christ, his solitary testimony is insufficient and he was therefore preaching in his own name. Don't forget that Saul/Paul was a self-admitted murderer and a Pharisee, a person of ill repute and hardly a person to be trusted to tell the truth. Even after his so-called conversion, Paul even admits that he engages in lying.

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

And finally the recent translation of the Habakkuk Commentary of the Dead Sea scrolls strongly suggests that Paul may be The Liar therein referenced


Many prominent scholars think that 2 Peter was a pseudonymity,that is, it was written by somebody other than Peter. (And some think it may have been written by a Pauline sympathizer. One of the reasons for this view is that 2 Peter is written in the style of Paul, and his writing often includes condescending and threatening language to intimidate people.)

"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

As Pauline doctrine became the major dogma of the Catholic church, such heavy-handedness helped pave the way for centuries of oppression and Inquisitions. It must be noted that Pauline doctrine enforces its will by stressing faith instead of reason and fear of punishment on this earth and in Hell for those who dare to think on their own.

Here are some notes on the authorship of 2 Peter:

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/2_Peter.htm

The informed skeptic is aware that out of all the epistles accepted into the cannon, none has received as much difficulty as Second Peter. Rejection of Peter as the author of Second Peter is the most common opinion today, and is supported by one of Christianity’s most authoritative conservative biblical scholars, Bruce Metzger, (a scholar that I personally have high regard for). Metzger writes:

"Although the author of this letter calls himself ‘Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ’ (1:1), and makes reference to his being present at the transfiguration of Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have led nearly all modern scholars to regard it as the work of an unknown author of the early second century who wrote in Peter’s name....In light of such internal and external evidence one must conclude that 2 Peter was drawn up sometime after A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the great apostle in order to give his letter greater authority" (The New Testament, its background, growth, and content, pg. 258).

In scholarly circles, Second Peter is classified as a pseudonymity, a term referring to, as Metzger mentions, an author assuming the name of another and writing supposedly on his behalf. Gary Ferngren, author of Internal Criticism as a Criterion for Authorship in the New Testament, states the situation as to Second Peter accurately:

"...a majority of informed scholars regard 2 Peter as pseudonymous, and this view is taken by many as a proven fact...A strong case can be made for Peter’s authorship of the second epistle attributed to him. Yet such arguments are for the most part ignored in modern discussions and one may be permitted to wonder how many minds are influenced less by the evidence against Petrine authorship than by the fact that the opinio communis of modern scholarship regards the evidence against it as decisive" (Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 134 #536: 341).

[Marsh]

I agree.* So let's get rid of Paul.

But after we get rid of Paul, we need to get rid of Peter because Peter endorsed Paul in his second letter. So now we don't have Peter or Paul.

Next, we need to get rid of the gospels because in them Jesus says that he will build his church upon Peter, who endorses Paul, who is false.

So now we have no gospels, no letters written by Paul, and no letters written by Peter. Oh, and of course no Acts because they endorse Paul as well.

That leaves us with Hebrews, the three letters written by John, Jude's letter, James' letter, and Revelation. Except for one thing: John is false because he wrote one of the gospels, which we've proven to be false. Therefore, the only things that we can rely on are Jude's letter and James' letters, and the letter to the Hebrews.

But hold on: James' letter is clearly influenced by the gospels. He refers to Jesus' teaching to let your yes be yes, and your no be no. He alludes to the parable of the sower. His notes on what it means to follow Mosaic law in chapter 2 are reminiscent of Jesus' sermon on the mount. So I don't think we can trust James, because he was clearly influenced by the gospels we've shown to be false. And since Jude identifies himself as a brother of James, we should exclude him too because they probably collaborated in this conspiracy.

So we're left with the letter to the Hebrews. But the writer of Hebrews identifies Timothy as a brother (friend), and Timothy was hanging out with Paul's crowd, and Paul is a false apostle.

Therefore, the entire New Testament is false.

Ironically, anyone who uses NT scripture to prove that Paul is a false apostle is using tainted evidence.



*I don't actually agree.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Ben57

The books attributed to Paul

Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews

Romans
I Corinthians
II Corinthians
Galatians

Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.

Ephesians

Generally accepted as a non-Pauline work; i.e. not written by Paul. Reasons for this include:

• Absence of normal Pauline greetings at the end of the epistle
• No discussion of eschatology in the letter
• Style is sluggish and ponderous, unlike Paul’s volatile style
• Anachronistic references to the existence of heretical sects
• Use of key technical phrases differs from the genuine Pauline epistles.

Philippians

Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.

Collosians

Authenticity disputed. The majority of scholars say that it is very probably not Pauline due to the difference in vocabulary, style and general slant. Some scholars still believe in the possibility that Collosians could be an authentic Pauline document.

I Thessalonians

Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.

II Thessalonians

Generally believed to be non-Pauline due to:

• Tone of the letter. I Thessalonians shows a feeling of close fellowship between Paul and the readers, yet the second epistle has a formal tone.
• A contradiction between the two Thessalonian epistles about the manner of Christ’s second coming (I Thessalonians 4:11-53 and II Thessalonian 2:1-12)
• A large bulk of the second epistle seems to be a direct copy of the first.

I Timothy
II Timothy
Titus

The “pastoral” epistles are generally accepted as non-authentic. All internal evidence points to a date of composition of early second century AD:

• The existence of a highly organized church which simply did not exist in Paul’s time (I Timothy 3:15)
• The presupposition of the existence of definite creeds (I timothy 4:6; II Timothy 1:13) and the gospels (I Timothy 6:3,13) which appeared some decades after the death of Paul.
• Paul insistence that he is not lying when he claims apostleship (I Timothy 2:7) is itself highly suspicious as Timothy would have been most familiar with Paul’s authority.
• The theology of the pastorals are significantly different from the genuine Pauline epistles. The former call for acceptance of dogma is the way to salvation while the latter have always emphasized salvation by grace through faith.

Philemon

Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.

Hebrews

Not regarded as Pauline.

So the list might only include these seven "Authentic Epistles":

Romans, 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thes., and Philemon.

While the authenticity of the "Deutero-Pauline Epistles" (Eph., Coll., 2 Thess.), which may have been authored by someone close to Paul or authored by later writers of a "Pauline School" and the "Pastoral Epistles" (I Tim., II Tim., Titus) is disputed with the consensus of scholarly opinion coming down against their authenticity. In most accounts, Hebrews doesn't even make the list of "disputed" Pauline letters.

For a brief discussion see:
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~andrew/bible/paulparts.htm
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/deutero.stm

and for a start on a list of scholarly sources:
http://home.inu.net/skeptic/epistles.html
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/doughty.html

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by Marsh

I agree.* So let's get rid of Paul.

But after we get rid of Paul, we need to get rid of Peter because Peter endorsed Paul in his second letter. So now we don't have Peter or Paul.

Next, we need to get rid of the gospels because in them Jesus says that he will build his church upon Peter, who endorses Paul, who is false.

So now we have no gospels, no letters written by Paul, and no letters written by Peter. Oh, and of course no Acts because they endorse Paul as well.

That leaves us with Hebrews, the three letters written by John, Jude's letter, James' letter, and Revelation. Except for one thing: John is false because he wrote one of the gospels, which we've proven to be false. Therefore, the only things that we can rely on are Jude's letter and James' letters, and the letter to the Hebrews.

But hold on: James' letter is clearly influenced by the gospels. He refers to Jesus' teaching to let your yes be yes, and your no be no. He alludes to the parable of the sower. His notes on what it means to follow Mosaic law in chapter 2 are reminiscent of Jesus' sermon on the mount. So I don't think we can trust James, because he was clearly influenced by the gospels we've shown to be false. And since Jude identifies himself as a brother of James, we should exclude him too because they probably collaborated in this conspiracy.

So we're left with the letter to the Hebrews. But the writer of Hebrews identifies Timothy as a brother (friend), and Timothy was hanging out with Paul's crowd, and Paul is a false apostle.

Therefore, the entire New Testament is false.

Ironically, anyone who uses NT scripture to prove that Paul is a false apostle is using tainted evidence.



*I don't actually agree.

That's a cute argument, Marsha.

The only problem is that Peter did not write 2 Peter, and on this point your argument collapses. Didn't you read my last post on this?
If you don't beleive me, just enter "authorship of 2 Peter' in your search engine and explore the results.

But on another note, try to remember that Jesus was able to accomplish His mission without once quoting Peter or Paul. He did not carry a copy of the NT but quoted extensively out of the OT. And when Joseph of Arimethea sailed to Glastonbury, England to establish Christ's church away from the influence of apostate Rome, he did not have copy of the NT either.

Hallelu YAH!!

Wolfy
PS please note the article on Joseph of Arimethea on this very site.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Romans
I Corinthians
II Corinthians
Galatians

Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.

Ephesians

Generally accepted as a non-Pauline work; i.e. not written by Paul. Reasons for this include:

• Absence of normal Pauline greetings at the end of the epistle
• No discussion of eschatology in the letter
• Style is sluggish and ponderous, unlike Paul’s volatile style
• Anachronistic references to the existence of heretical sects
• Use of key technical phrases differs from the genuine Pauline epistles.

Philippians

Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.

Collosians

Authenticity disputed. The majority of scholars say that it is very probably not Pauline due to the difference in vocabulary, style and general slant. Some scholars still believe in the possibility that Collosians could be an authentic Pauline document.

I Thessalonians

Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.

II Thessalonians

Generally believed to be non-Pauline due to:

• Tone of the letter. I Thessalonians shows a feeling of close fellowship between Paul and the readers, yet the second epistle has a formal tone.
• A contradiction between the two Thessalonian epistles about the manner of Christ’s second coming (I Thessalonians 4:11-53 and II Thessalonian 2:1-12)
• A large bulk of the second epistle seems to be a direct copy of the first.

I Timothy
II Timothy
Titus

The “pastoral” epistles are generally accepted as non-authentic. All internal evidence points to a date of composition of early second century AD:

• The existence of a highly organized church which simply did not exist in Paul’s time (I Timothy 3:15)
• The presupposition of the existence of definite creeds (I timothy 4:6; II Timothy 1:13) and the gospels (I Timothy 6:3,13) which appeared some decades after the death of Paul.
• Paul insistence that he is not lying when he claims apostleship (I Timothy 2:7) is itself highly suspicious as Timothy would have been most familiar with Paul’s authority.
• The theology of the pastorals are significantly different from the genuine Pauline epistles. The former call for acceptance of dogma is the way to salvation while the latter have always emphasized salvation by grace through faith.

Philemon

Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.

Hebrews

Not regarded as Pauline.

So the list might only include these seven "Authentic Epistles":

Romans, 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thes., and Philemon.

While the authenticity of the "Deutero-Pauline Epistles" (Eph., Coll., 2 Thess.), which may have been authored by someone close to Paul or authored by later writers of a "Pauline School" and the "Pastoral Epistles" (I Tim., II Tim., Titus) is disputed with the consensus of scholarly opinion coming down against their authenticity. In most accounts, Hebrews doesn't even make the list of "disputed" Pauline letters.

For a brief discussion see:
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~andrew/bible/paulparts.htm
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/deutero.stm

and for a start on a list of scholarly sources:
http://home.inu.net/skeptic/epistles.html
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/doughty.html

Thank you, Abogado del Diablo

With your help perhaps we will yet advance to discussing the Gospel of Q, the Documentary Hypothesis, and the implications of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the alleged inerrancy of the mortally canonized bible. May the Light of Yah shine through man's confusion and Satan's lies in this End of Days.

Hallelu YAH !!

Wolfgang

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Thank you, Abogado del Diablo

With your help perhaps we will yet advance to discussing the Gospel of Q, the Documentary Hypothesis, and the implications of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the alleged inerrancy of the mortally canonized bible. May the Light of Yah shine through man's confusion and Satan's lies in this End of Days.

Hallelu YAH !!

Wolfgang

Whenever you're ready. I'm interested in all of these topics. One thing I take issue with in "Pauline Conspiracy", BTW, is the rejection of the Pauline teachings on the basis of Canonical "Gospels." Paul's positions make complete sense if you understand the "inner mysteries" but to people like the author of James, who are measuring Paul by his adherence to dogma, it makes no sense. Early Christianity was an amalgamation of two "traditions." Paul emphasized one part of the amalgamation gradually to the exclusion of the other, while his early opponents did the opposite. The result is a jumbled collection of both sides of that early debate in the Canonical New Testament - full of contradictions and inconsistencies as a result.

The two ideas never belonged together in the first place. That was the problem - and still is. The Greek/Egyptian "mysteries" that were the basis of Greek philosophy could not be mixed with a True Religion. Paul seemed to understand that. Paul's followers since, unfortunately, do not. Interestingly, Paul's early opponents also understood it.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Whenever you're ready. I'm interested in all of these topics. One thing I take issue with in "Pauline Conspiracy", BTW, is the rejection of the Pauline teachings on the basis of Canonical "Gospels." Paul's positions make complete sense if you understand the "inner mysteries" but to people like the author of James, who are measuring Paul by his adherence to dogma, it makes no sense. Early Christianity was an amalgamation of two "traditions." Paul emphasized one part of the amalgamation gradually to the exclusion of the other, while his early opponents did the opposite. The result is a jumbled collection of both sides of that early debate in the Canonical New Testament - full of contradictions and inconsistencies as a result.

The two ideas never belonged together in the first place. That was the problem - and still is. The Greek/Egyptian "mysteries" that were the basis of Greek philosophy could not be mixed with a True Religion. Paul seemed to understand that. Paul's followers since, unfortunately, do not. Interestingly, Paul's early opponents also understood it.

OK, you have said that "Pauline doctrine makes sense if you understand the "inner mysteries" but to people like the author of James, who are measuring Paul by his adherence to dogma, it makes no sense."

But you have not elaborated or supported this contention with any evidence. Please elaborate.

And who is the 'author of James'?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Whenever you're ready. I'm interested in all of these topics. One thing I take issue with in "Pauline Conspiracy", BTW, is the rejection of the Pauline teachings on the basis of Canonical "Gospels." Paul's positions make complete sense if you understand the "inner mysteries" but to people like the author of James, who are measuring Paul by his adherence to dogma, it makes no sense. Early Christianity was an amalgamation of two "traditions." Paul emphasized one part of the amalgamation gradually to the exclusion of the other, while his early opponents did the opposite. The result is a jumbled collection of both sides of that early debate in the Canonical New Testament - full of contradictions and inconsistencies as a result.

The two ideas never belonged together in the first place. That was the problem - and still is. The Greek/Egyptian "mysteries" that were the basis of Greek philosophy could not be mixed with a True Religion. Paul seemed to understand that. Paul's followers since, unfortunately, do not. Interestingly, Paul's early opponents also understood it.

Hello, Hope you both will pardon my interjection into this scholarly thread with my own naive questions, but I am interested in what you said above here, AdD, and was wondering if you could clarify for me. You seem to set up a case in which "inner mysteries" (=faith?) is in opposition to True Religion (dogma? following the letter of the law?). Do you mean this is like mixing the spiritual with the practical, and that the two should never meet? I'm sure I'm missing your meaning here but would like to understand.

In all of these Paul-related threads it seems to me like the argument is which trumps which, Love or the Law. Ideally, shouldn't the two be complimentary? When the two appear to be in conflict surely we've muddled something. And which is more likely to be muddled?

I will concede ahead of time that I do not have the biblical or apocryphal knowledge to defend my case.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

OK, you have said that "Pauline doctrine makes sense if you understand the "inner mysteries" but to people like the author of James, who are measuring Paul by his adherence to dogma, it makes no sense."

But you have not elaborated or supported this contention with any evidence. Please elaborate.

And who is the 'author of James'?

Read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy, "Beyond Belief" by Elaine Pagels and start examining the Gnostic Gospels.

As far as the author of James, I don't know who he is but he is clearly on the other side of the Law/Faith debate from Paul.