The Apostle Paul and gay sex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Only a few biblical scholars call themselves atheist or agnostic, but many are. It's hard to study the bible as a scholar and "believe" in it, though they may identify as "Christian." There are biblical "apologists" who defend the Bible, but they are generally not academics.

Great. Can you name some biblical scholars who fit this criteria? Otherwise, it sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.

Biblical scholars tend to be quiet about their beliefs. Can you name some who prublicly proclaim their belief system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Only a few biblical scholars call themselves atheist or agnostic, but many are. It's hard to study the bible as a scholar and "believe" in it, though they may identify as "Christian." There are biblical "apologists" who defend the Bible, but they are generally not academics.

Great. Can you name some biblical scholars who fit this criteria? Otherwise, it sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.

Biblical scholars tend to be quiet about their beliefs. Can you name some who prublicly proclaim their belief system?

Looks like atheist PP is a master in the art of deflecting questions with new questions. So subtle and sophisticated!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Only a few biblical scholars call themselves atheist or agnostic, but many are. It's hard to study the bible as a scholar and "believe" in it, though they may identify as "Christian." There are biblical "apologists" who defend the Bible, but they are generally not academics.

Great. Can you name some biblical scholars who fit this criteria? Otherwise, it sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.

Biblical scholars tend to be quiet about their beliefs. Can you name some who prublicly proclaim their belief system?

Looks like atheist PP is a master in the art of deflecting questions with new questions. So subtle and sophisticated!

In other words, you don't know any?

[Anonymous]

You can't prove a negative. If Biblical Scholars are not announcing their beliefs, you can't know what they are.

We do know a few, mentioned earlier, who have publicly stated their beliefs and they are atheists/agnostics

[Anonymous]

Despite our differences about Paul, I think we can all agree on one thing. This atheist troll is not only unfunny, she lacks basic logic skills

[Anonymous]

beware of people who make broad statements about other people's point of view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Isn't Ehrman the one pushing Timothy as an actual forgery?

I'm the guy who mentioned Ehrman initially.

That's my point. Ehrman is agnostic / atheist and supports the Timothy is a forgery hypothesis. So do many new testament scholars, the overwhelming majority of which ARE believers. So, in my opnion, the idea that attack of Timothy is really motivated by an attack on faith is NOT true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Only a few biblical scholars call themselves atheist or agnostic, but many are. It's hard to study the bible as a scholar and "believe" in it, though they may identify as "Christian." There are biblical "apologists" who defend the Bible, but they are generally not academics.

Great. Can you name some biblical scholars who fit this criteria? Otherwise, it sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.

Biblical scholars tend to be quiet about their beliefs. Can you name some who prublicly proclaim their belief system?

Sure, the two I mentioned (Ehrman and Carrier) are two good examples. Again, why do you think "many" biblical scholars are agnostic or atheist? I see no evidence to support that conclusion and some evidence to directly contradict it. It could be true but what proof do you have? Regardless, the consensus of Timothy seems to be that all or at least some of it was forged. It's not an attack on faith but rather a conclusion based on historical analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Only a few biblical scholars call themselves atheist or agnostic, but many are. It's hard to study the bible as a scholar and "believe" in it, though they may identify as "Christian." There are biblical "apologists" who defend the Bible, but they are generally not academics.

Great. Can you name some biblical scholars who fit this criteria? Otherwise, it sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.

Biblical scholars tend to be quiet about their beliefs. Can you name some who prublicly proclaim their belief system?

Sure, the two I mentioned (Ehrman and Carrier) are two good examples. Again, why do you think "many" biblical scholars are agnostic or atheist? I see no evidence to support that conclusion and some evidence to directly contradict it. It could be true but what proof do you have? Regardless, the consensus of Timothy seems to be that all or at least some of it was forged. It's not an attack on faith but rather a conclusion based on historical analysis.

OP here. I'm a Bible-believing, born-again Christian. I don't believe 1 Timothy was forged, despite what any consensus might exist in modern scholarship. But even if I concede that, what does that do to refute my initial assertions in my OP? All of the arguments against Paul claiming to speak for God (and including admonitions against homosexuality) have picked away piecemeal at a few things here or there, but none has gotten substantively toward a refutation of what I cited from the Biblical text. IF you throw out 1 Timothy, you still have Romans and 1 Corinthians saying pretty much the exact same things as what we threw out. Those are uncontroversial as Pauline letters. Galatians is also not disputed. There is voluminous evidence to back up my assertions that Paul claimed to speak for Christ. So far, all of the assertions to the contrary have been diversions. If we take the arguments at face value that 1 Timothy is forged and that the greetings were just greetings, you're still left with a very substantial weight of evidence against your position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Only a few biblical scholars call themselves atheist or agnostic, but many are. It's hard to study the bible as a scholar and "believe" in it, though they may identify as "Christian." There are biblical "apologists" who defend the Bible, but they are generally not academics.

Great. Can you name some biblical scholars who fit this criteria? Otherwise, it sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.

Biblical scholars tend to be quiet about their beliefs. Can you name some who prublicly proclaim their belief system?

Sure, the two I mentioned (Ehrman and Carrier) are two good examples. Again, why do you think "many" biblical scholars are agnostic or atheist? I see no evidence to support that conclusion and some evidence to directly contradict it. It could be true but what proof do you have? Regardless, the consensus of Timothy seems to be that all or at least some of it was forged. It's not an attack on faith but rather a conclusion based on historical analysis.

OP here. I'm a Bible-believing, born-again Christian. I don't believe 1 Timothy was forged, despite what any consensus might exist in modern scholarship. But even if I concede that, what does that do to refute my initial assertions in my OP? All of the arguments against Paul claiming to speak for God (and including admonitions against homosexuality) have picked away piecemeal at a few things here or there, but none has gotten substantively toward a refutation of what I cited from the Biblical text. IF you throw out 1 Timothy, you still have Romans and 1 Corinthians saying pretty much the exact same things as what we threw out. Those are uncontroversial as Pauline letters. Galatians is also not disputed. There is voluminous evidence to back up my assertions that Paul claimed to speak for Christ. So far, all of the assertions to the contrary have been diversions. If we take the arguments at face value that 1 Timothy is forged and that the greetings were just greetings, you're still left with a very substantial weight of evidence against your position.

I'm not the guy you've been going back and forth with but I am the guy you just quoted. Frankly, I don't really care about you assertions in the OP. I am an atheist but I find the history of the Bible interesting. I was reading the thread and saw someone else mention how the Timothy forgery was really just "an attack on faith". This clearly isn't true as outlined in several posts above and so I decided to weigh in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Only a few biblical scholars call themselves atheist or agnostic, but many are. It's hard to study the bible as a scholar and "believe" in it, though they may identify as "Christian." There are biblical "apologists" who defend the Bible, but they are generally not academics.

Great. Can you name some biblical scholars who fit this criteria? Otherwise, it sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.

Biblical scholars tend to be quiet about their beliefs. Can you name some who prublicly proclaim their belief system?

Sure, the two I mentioned (Ehrman and Carrier) are two good examples. Again, why do you think "many" biblical scholars are agnostic or atheist? I see no evidence to support that conclusion and some evidence to directly contradict it. It could be true but what proof do you have? Regardless, the consensus of Timothy seems to be that all or at least some of it was forged. It's not an attack on faith but rather a conclusion based on historical analysis.

That many biblical acholars would be agnostic or atheist is likely because, as said earlier, it's hard to "believe" in the Bible once you've studied it academically. What has also been menitoned is that many biblical scholars don't make their beliefs public so it's not possible to know exactly what their beliefs are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That many biblical acholars would be agnostic or atheist is likely because, as said earlier, it's hard to "believe" in the Bible once you've studied it academically. What has also been menitoned is that many biblical scholars don't make their beliefs public so it's not possible to know exactly what their beliefs are.

You said this before and someone called it wishful thinking then. I'll call it wishful thinking now.

This is sort of ridiculous, I think you have to admit. You speculating that many biblical scholars are closet atheists "but are afraid to admit it, I know this!" s no different from somebody on that other thread claiming that "Jesus must have condemned homosexuality, I know this!"

How about, instead of making random assertions, you add to the three names mentioned so far, to get to your "many" agnostics and atheists? Somebody else mentioned Ehrman and Carrier. I mentioned Crosssn. Your turn....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That many biblical acholars would be agnostic or atheist is likely because, as said earlier, it's hard to "believe" in the Bible once you've studied it academically. What has also been menitoned is that many biblical scholars don't make their beliefs public so it's not possible to know exactly what their beliefs are.

You said this before and someone called it wishful thinking then. I'll call it wishful thinking now.

This is sort of ridiculous, I think you have to admit. You speculating that many biblical scholars are closet atheists "but are afraid to admit it, I know this!" s no different from somebody on that other thread claiming that "Jesus must have condemned homosexuality, I know this!"

How about, instead of making random assertions, you add to the three names mentioned so far, to get to your "many" agnostics and atheists? Somebody else mentioned Ehrman and Carrier. I mentioned Crosssn. Your turn....

As stated earlier -- it's speculation. No one but immediate pp has said "but are afraid to admit it." Many journalists (with the exception of opinion writers) don't say what their political views are. You might guess what their views are, but they don't discuss it in the course of their work.

[Anonymous]

I don't know why the topic has moved to whether Biblical scholars are atheists or not. Even if they are, if they are presenting some evidence about Paul, we can discuss it, right? And we can look at the opposite view.

[Anonymous]

Here is a quote from C.S. Lewis, who was mentioned earlier in the thread, about Paul. He addresses some of the points that have been brought up:

A most astonishing misconception has long dominated the modern mind on the subject of St Paul. It is to this effect: that Jesus preached a kindly and simple religion (found in the Gospels) and that St Paul afterwards corrupted it into a cruel and complicated religion (found in the Epistles).

This is really quite untenable. All the most terrifying texts come from the mouth of Our Lord: all the texts on which we can base such warrant as we have for hoping that all men will be saved come from St Paul. If it could be proved that St Paul altered the teaching of his Master in any way, he altered it in exactly the opposite way to that which is popularly supposed.

But there is no real evidence for a pre-Pauline doctrine different from St Paul’s. The Epistles are, for the most part, the earliest Christian documents we possess. The Gospels came later. They are not ‘the gospel’, the statement of the Christian belief. They were written for those who had already been converted, who had already accepted ‘the gospel’. They leave out many of the ‘complications’ (that is, the theology) because they are intended for readers who have already been instructed in it. In that sense the Epistles are more primitive and more central than the Gospels-though not, of course, than the great events which the Gospels recount. God’s act (the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection) comes first: the earliest theological analysis of it comes in the Epistles: then, when the generation who had known the Lord was dying out, the Gospels were composed to provide for believers a record of the great Act and of some of the Lord’s sayings. The ordinary popular conception has put everything upside down.

Nor is the cause far to seek. In the earlier history of every rebellion there is a stage of which you do no yet attack the King in person. You say, ‘The King is all right. It is his Ministers who are wrong. They misrepresent him and corrupt all his plans—which, I’m sure, are good plans if only the Ministers would let them take effect.’ And the first victory consists in beheading a few Ministers: only at a later stage do you go on and behead the King himself.

In the same way, the nineteenth-century attack on St. Paul was really on a stage in the revolt against Christ. Men were not ready in large numbers to attack Christ Himself. They made the normal first move—that of attacking one of His principal ministers. Everything they disliked in Christianity was therefore attributed to St Paul. It is unfortunate that their case could not impress anyone who had really read the Gospels and the Epistles with attention: but apparently few people had, and so the first victory was won. St Paul was impeached and banished and the world went on to the next step—the attack on the King Himself.