2 timothy 3:16

[Drich]

So let me ask a question to the christians. Are the letters that were not included in this current bible written by the breath of god?

The letters we included can be verified by having several copies that all read the same, and by age. They all must be of a certain age..

If not why?

Because the copies did not jive with each other or they were not old enough for the 3rd/4th century cut off.

Who is qualified to know what is and is not from god?

I was certainly alot easier to decide i the 3rd century than it is now, as those in that position to decide were only one or two generations removed from these events.

According to you, god is omnipotent so all of the letters must have been inspired by god.

What makes you think every letter written iin the 1st century was written by God?

Why not include all of them?

When would judas have time to write a letter? why wasn't it found till the 16th century?

Am I the only one who is bothered that a group of men took a group of letters and molded a religion as best they could to fit their needs?

You haven't actually read the bible have you? or maybe your confusing it with the koran.. And somehow that doesn't bother you, enough to make an uninformed observation like the one you just made.

The bible and the principles it teaches, While common place today, was very counter culture then. Everything the bible teaches was backwards from what the jew and those who served other gods did in worship/life. Many of you will point at the huge gap between how the new and Old testaments differ, Imagine how much more difference there was then.. Someone teach a new message like that, well they might even nail Him to a cross, and even some of his followers to a cross to try and stop this message.

And the job they did was quite flawed if we are being honest.

so is your reasoning, based on popular atheist arguements rather than the actual source material.

[polar bear]

The letters we included can be verified by having several copies that all read the same, and by age. They all must be of a certain age..
Age is your criteria? Not content?

If not why?

Because the copies did not jive with each other or they were not old enough for the 3rd/4th century cut off.
Does not jive sounds to me like a group of men fixing a story to meet their invented religion

Why not include all of them?

When would judas have time to write a letter? why wasn't it found till the 16th century?
Judas' letter is not the only one. That is however, the one you point to when asked.

[/quote]You haven't actually read the bible have you? or maybe your confusing it with the koran.. And somehow that doesn't bother you, enough to make an uninformed observation like the one you just made.
Don't tell me I have not read the bible. I have read it several time and studied it as a christian for almost 50 years. I have never even picked up a koran (sp?) and make no claims I even know one bit about the muslim faith. So, NO I am not confusing the two


The bible and the principles it teaches, While common place today, was very counter culture then. Everything the bible teaches was backwards from what the jew and those who served other gods did in worship/life. Many of you will point at the huge gap between how the new and Old testaments differ, Imagine how much more difference there was then.. Someone teach a new message like that, well they might even nail Him to a cross, and even some of his followers to a cross to try and stop this message.

Not talking about jesus and his followers, I am talking about the men who compiled the story book

And the job they did was quite flawed if we are being honest.

so is your reasoning, based on popular atheist arguements rather than the actual source material.

How is my reasoning flawed? Humans compiled letters that can not be verified or even attributed to authors to fit a religion that they claimed happened over 300 years ago. I am only stating facts, are they not true?

[Minimalist]

The real nuts think this shit is handed down by fucking god himself

Again, Drippy, you are the poster-boy for bad examples.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Except 2 things. First off the Christian OT didnt exist at the time, and 2 Paul didn't write this letter

http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF...GIFS-1.gif
Soo.. In 1Tim 1:1 where it says:

1 Greetings from Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus. I am an apostle by the command of God our Savior and Christ Jesus our hope.

2 To Timothy, a true son to me in the faith we share.

It does not mean Paul an Apstole of Jesus Christ????

Oh, and the best part.. Your are saying the Jews did not have access to the "Tanakh?" in the time of Paul?


http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

What even Better Minnie kudo'ed you which means he thinks as you do.

You missed the point, which was that the letter was forged by someone claiming to be Paul.

[vorlon13]

For those of us in the atheist orbit, we KNOW all the bible is horseshit, and in all it's forms like the catholic version, and the KJV, and the NIV, etc.

But, the christers are stuck with every particle of that horseshit and need to comport themselves accordingly to the very last drop of strychnine and cobra venom.

If they don't they are are heretics and apostates, liberal backsliders and pawns of Satan, hypocrites and nogoodniks, if they do, LOL, they're dead.


It's a win-win for our side.

[Lemonvariable72]

http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF...GIFS-1.gif
Soo.. In 1Tim 1:1 where it says:

1 Greetings from Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus. I am an apostle by the command of God our Savior and Christ Jesus our hope.

2 To Timothy, a true son to me in the faith we share.

It does not mean Paul an Apstole of Jesus Christ????

Oh, and the best part.. Your are saying the Jews did not have access to the "Tanakh?" in the time of Paul?


http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

What even Better Minnie kudo'ed you which means he thinks as you do.

You missed the point, which was that the letter was forged by someone claiming to be Paul.

Here is a blog post that actually covers the evidence quite well
http://cognitivediscopants.wordpress.com...-epistles/

[Minimalist]

http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF...GIFS-1.gif
Soo.. In 1Tim 1:1 where it says:

1 Greetings from Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus. I am an apostle by the command of God our Savior and Christ Jesus our hope.

2 To Timothy, a true son to me in the faith we share.

It does not mean Paul an Apstole of Jesus Christ????

Oh, and the best part.. Your are saying the Jews did not have access to the "Tanakh?" in the time of Paul?


http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

What even Better Minnie kudo'ed you which means he thinks as you do.

You missed the point, which was that the letter was forged by someone claiming to be Paul.

Don't try to confuse drippy with facts. He's impervious to reality.

[Drich]

You missed the point, which was that the letter was forged by someone claiming to be Paul.

Here is a blog post that actually covers the evidence quite well
http://cognitivediscopants.wordpress.com...-epistles/

Oh' what fun it is to see where the 'thinkers' are shown what to think... Then to tear it down and poop on it.

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus each explicitly identify the Apostle Paul as their author. The reason that these authorship claims cannot simply be taken at face value is that pseudepigraphy was a real problem in the first several centuries. Pseudepigraphy was the practice of putting one’s own words into the mouth of a reputable figure, usually from the past. And we have reliable evidence that some early Christians were using Paul’s name to add legitimacy to their writings.

Two things wrong with this statment. While pseudepigraphy describes a legit issue, it does not apply to the NT. Infact it does not apply to any canocial book in the bible for one reason. If the book is in the bible, and is apart of recognized cannon (Not what is considered "Secret writtings") then by defination pseudepigraphy does not apply.
(*I know most of you want to stop reading and unload the burden I just put on your minds but keep going because I will answer this burden.)

Why? Because Ps/pig/ralphy describes a work either by provenaunce or content not suitable for cannon. (Something in a work's provenaunce or writting style shows it to be not written by the person it was ascribed to.) IF this was the case it was not put in the cannon of scripture.

Now does this mean that one like your blog buddie can't object to the authorship of a given book? No not at all. Infact with Paul these objections from 'pseduotheologeians' (Those who take just enough intrest in theology only to try and disproove it.) are simply refered to as the 'contested books of Paul.'

Why can't they be identified as PS/Pig/ralphy? For the same reason so many of you claim you can not believe in God... Viable, Uncontestable Proof.

In short for a work to be labled as a PS/Pig/Ralphie there must be something to PROOVE the ascribed Author did not write the book. For Paul.. No such evidence exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha

The second century Muratorion fragment (ca. 170 A.D.) condemns two circulating Pauline letters (one addressed to the Laodiceans and the other to the Alexandrians) as Marcionite forgeries. 3 Corinthians is another example of a letter penned in Paul’s name that is known to be inauthentic. Even our own canon contains a warning in 2 Thessalonians (2:2) of false letters claiming apostolic authorship (an ironic warning, given that the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians is itself much in doubt).

The take-away point is that pseudonymous writing was a problem during the nascent years of Christianity. Thus, the fact that the Pastorals bear the label “Paul, an apostle” is no more determinative of authenticity than is the label “Rolex” on a watch from China.

We have to inspect the letters more closely.

Ahhh, no.
Again what your blog buddy does not seem to get is that the act of blatent forgery does not = PS/Pig/Ralphie. This specific designation refers to book rejected from the cannon based on False Authorship.

The first known attempt to canonize certain writings as authoritative scripture was undertaken by Marcion circa 140 A.D. His canon contained 10 Pauline epistles. He included all of the putative Pauline epistles in our canon (plus a couple extra). Notably absent, however, are 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus.

seriously?
I guess your buddy did not bother to check (or quote) any source material on this statement for a good reason.
Maricon was also known as Maricon the Heritic. This man did not believe in the God of the OT, what's more said the OT God was the devil.

So yeah, I wonder why his bible does not look like mine.
Your blog buddy is starting to look more and more like someone who took just enough intrest in this subject to spew out crap for light readers to lap up.

Next dude references papryus 46 and quotes a wiki page...

Just read the wiki page. It says that the papyrus is blatlenly incomplete and the missing pages would incompass (among other works) 1st and second timmy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P46

This guy is a clown. It is his hopes that people like you are willing to actually click on the links he provides and read what is there.

Now if the links He provides contradicts what he says, how much more is being left out or misrepersented when dude makes a statement that he does not support with a link?


When the bible was compiled (sucessfully) a call went out to all the known churches for any letters/books they may had. Then the church leaders sifted through all of it.. This took several decades.

---

http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF...GIFS-1.gif
Soo.. In 1Tim 1:1 where it says:

1 Greetings from Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus. I am an apostle by the command of God our Savior and Christ Jesus our hope.

2 To Timothy, a true son to me in the faith we share.

It does not mean Paul an Apstole of Jesus Christ????

Oh, and the best part.. Your are saying the Jews did not have access to the "Tanakh?" in the time of Paul?


http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

What even Better Minnie kudo'ed you which means he thinks as you do.

You missed the point, which was that the letter was forged by someone claiming to be Paul.

proof?

---

Does not jive sounds to me like a group of men fixing a story to meet their invented religion

-Or it was what these Men had to do to discern the truth from all the crap people were making up.

Don't tell me I have not read the bible. I have read it several time and studied it as a christian for almost 50 years.

Then my old brother your reading comperhension is worse than mine.
Because the content of the 'Secret books' often contradicts the canon of scripture.

The bible and the principles it teaches, While common place today, was very counter culture then. Everything the bible teaches was backwards from what the jew and those who served other gods did in worship/life. Many of you will point at the huge gap between how the new and Old testaments differ, Imagine how much more difference there was then.. Someone teach a new message like that, well they might even nail Him to a cross, and even some of his followers to a cross to try and stop this message.

Not talking about jesus and his followers, I am talking about the men who compiled the story book

Which again did not jive with 4th century life any better than it did the first century.. It may have been even worse as given regions (Rome/Corinth) may not have been privy to the same materials. Therefore different versions of the same religion, creating an impass.

How is my reasoning flawed? Humans compiled letters that can not be verified or even attributed to authors to fit a religion that they claimed happened over 300 years ago. I am only stating facts, are they not true?

That's the problem with your flawed logic. You have not established anything you have said as being historicaly accurate. You have taken popular atheist retoric and simply began to build an arguement off what you place your faith in to be true.

[Lemonvariable72]

Here is a blog post that actually covers the evidence quite well
http://cognitivediscopants.wordpress.com...-epistles/

Oh' what fun it is to see where the 'thinkers' are shown what to think... Then to tear it down and poop on it.

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus each explicitly identify the Apostle Paul as their author. The reason that these authorship claims cannot simply be taken at face value is that pseudepigraphy was a real problem in the first several centuries. Pseudepigraphy was the practice of putting one’s own words into the mouth of a reputable figure, usually from the past. And we have reliable evidence that some early Christians were using Paul’s name to add legitimacy to their writings.

Two things wrong with this statment. While pseudepigraphy describes a legit issue, it does not apply to the NT. Infact it does not apply to any canocial book in the bible for one reason. If the book is in the bible, and is apart of recognized cannon (Not what is considered "Secret writtings") then by defination pseudepigraphy does not apply.
(*I know most of you want to stop reading and unload the burden I just put on your minds but keep going because I will answer this burden.)

Why? Because Ps/pig/ralphy describes a work either by provenaunce or content not suitable for cannon. (Something in a work's provenaunce or writting style shows it to be not written by the person it was ascribed to.) IF this was the case it was not put in the cannon of scripture.

Now does this mean that one like your blog buddie can't object to the authorship of a given book? No not at all. Infact with Paul these objections from 'pseduotheologeians' (Those who take just enough intrest in theology only to try and disproove it.) are simply refered to as the 'contested books of Paul.'

Why can't they be identified as PS/Pig/ralphy? For the same reason so many of you claim you can not believe in God... Viable, Uncontestable Proof.

In short for a work to be labled as a PS/Pig/Ralphie there must be something to PROOVE the ascribed Author did not write the book. For Paul.. No such evidence exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha

The second century Muratorion fragment (ca. 170 A.D.) condemns two circulating Pauline letters (one addressed to the Laodiceans and the other to the Alexandrians) as Marcionite forgeries. 3 Corinthians is another example of a letter penned in Paul’s name that is known to be inauthentic. Even our own canon contains a warning in 2 Thessalonians (2:2) of false letters claiming apostolic authorship (an ironic warning, given that the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians is itself much in doubt).

The take-away point is that pseudonymous writing was a problem during the nascent years of Christianity. Thus, the fact that the Pastorals bear the label “Paul, an apostle” is no more determinative of authenticity than is the label “Rolex” on a watch from China.

We have to inspect the letters more closely.

Ahhh, no.
Again what your blog buddy does not seem to get is that the act of blatent forgery does not = PS/Pig/Ralphie. This specific designation refers to book rejected from the cannon based on False Authorship.

The first known attempt to canonize certain writings as authoritative scripture was undertaken by Marcion circa 140 A.D. His canon contained 10 Pauline epistles. He included all of the putative Pauline epistles in our canon (plus a couple extra). Notably absent, however, are 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus.

seriously?
I guess your buddy did not bother to check (or quote) any source material on this statement for a good reason.
Maricon was also known as Maricon the Heritic. This man did not believe in the God of the OT, what's more said the OT God was the devil.

So yeah, I wonder why his bible does not look like mine.
Your blog buddy is starting to look more and more like someone who took just enough intrest in this subject to spew out crap for light readers to lap up.

Next dude references papryus 46 and quotes a wiki page...

Just read the wiki page. It says that the papyrus is blatlenly incomplete and the missing pages would incompass (among other works) 1st and second timmy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P46

This guy is a clown. It is his hopes that people like you are willing to actually click on the links he provides and read what is there.

Now if the links He provides contradicts what he says, how much more is being left out or misrepersented when dude makes a statement that he does not support with a link?


When the bible was compiled (sucessfully) a call went out to all the known churches for any letters/books they may had. Then the church leaders sifted through all of it.. This took several decades.

---

You missed the point, which was that the letter was forged by someone claiming to be Paul.

proof?

---

Does not jive sounds to me like a group of men fixing a story to meet their invented religion

-Or it was what these Men had to do to discern the truth from all the crap people were making up.

Don't tell me I have not read the bible. I have read it several time and studied it as a christian for almost 50 years.

Then my old brother your reading comperhension is worse than mine.
Because the content of the 'Secret books' often contradicts the canon of scripture.

The bible and the principles it teaches, While common place today, was very counter culture then. Everything the bible teaches was backwards from what the jew and those who served other gods did in worship/life. Many of you will point at the huge gap between how the new and Old testaments differ, Imagine how much more difference there was then.. Someone teach a new message like that, well they might even nail Him to a cross, and even some of his followers to a cross to try and stop this message.

Not talking about jesus and his followers, I am talking about the men who compiled the story book

Which again did not jive with 4th century life any better than it did the first century.. It may have been even worse as given regions (Rome/Corinth) may not have been privy to the same materials. Therefore different versions of the same religion, creating an impass.

How is my reasoning flawed? Humans compiled letters that can not be verified or even attributed to authors to fit a religion that they claimed happened over 300 years ago. I am only stating facts, are they not true?

That's the problem with your flawed logic. You have not established anything you have said as being historicaly accurate. You have taken popular atheist retoric and simply began to build an arguement off what you place your faith in to be true.

Oh drich you caught this on a good day! I just finished watching a full 2 hour interview with Bart Ehrman on this topic, So instead of arguing with you right now since I have other tings to do I will simply post this video for you. Enjoy!

[Minimalist]

Two things wrong with this statment. While pseudepigraphy describes a legit issue, it does not apply to the NT.

You are such a fucking idiot, drippy.

http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God...B006QS02F8

Keep making a fool of yourself. It's entertaining.