Reply to The Apostle Paul and gay sex

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "The Apostle Paul and gay sex"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous] 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. .[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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

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 [i]could[/i] 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics