2 timothy 3:16

[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.