Dialogue between christian man and muslim man!!!! Talent_M: very interesting Dialogue http://www.wireclub.com/Blogs/Talent_M/147678 part 1 http://www.wireclub.com/Blogs/Talent_M/147683 part 2 http://www.wireclub.com/Blogs/Talent_M/147684 part 3 oh_good_laughs: Talent - I have talked to different Muslims, and many seem to have the same strategy.. All seem very selective when choosing Bible versus, making sure it works in favor of the Koran.. Then, of course, when the versus strongly disagrees with the Koran or denounces Mohammed, one quickly retreats from the Bible, and says - 'the Bible isn't authentic, not trust-able, etc. Then, you even went as far as to say - that Paul's writing was written far after his death (you said this in the 2nd link). Should i even ask.. Why do some believe this?, Do you know the 'grounds' of which Pauls writing was first in question?, It really is a ridiculous accusation, but i wonder if you happen to know why.. You can believe or not.. I'm not getting into a giant head game, untangling words with you. john1576: There were many fake letters supposedly written by Paul. These fakes were slowly weeded out of the Canon of Scripture until you are left with the letters today that are ascribed to Paul in the Bible. Ranging from the banal, (he talks about how cold he is, and asks for a cloak to be returned to him), to the awesome profound work of Romans. Love him or hate him, Paul's letters are indeed Paul's letters.  IamEggman: Wouldn't it be more productive to discuss problems that are relevent to people today, than playing stupid word games with ancient texts? satangel: From Wikipedia: "Seven of the epistles of Paul are generally accepted by most modern scholars as authentic; these undisputed letters include Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon. Raymond E. Brown has this to say about Colossians: "At the present moment about 60 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write the letter" (An Introduction, p. 610; cited by earlychristianwritings.com). Liberal scholars usually question Pauline authorship for any other epistle, although there are conservative Christian scholars who accept the traditional ascriptions. However, almost no current mainstream scholars, Christian or otherwise, hold that Paul wrote Hebrews. In fact, questions about the authorship of Hebrews go back at least to the 3rd century ecclesiastical writer Caius, who attributed only thirteen epistles to Paul (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 6.20.3ff.). A small minority of scholars hypothesize Hebrews may have been written by one of Paul's close associates, such as Barnabas, Silas, or Luke, given that the themes therein seemed to them as largely Pauline. The authorship of all non-Pauline books have been disputed in recent times. Ascriptions are largely polarized between Christian and non-Christian experts, making any sort of scholarly consensus all but impossible. Even majority views are unclear." After many years of studies, I have come up with this list of the most likely authors, plus where and when the end product probably first surfaced: Epistle to the Romans *Paul and Tertius, Corinth, 56 First Epistle to the Corinthians *Paul, Ephesus, 54 Second Epistle to the Corinthians *Paul, (unknown), 56 Epistle to the Galatians *Paul, Ephesus, 55 Epistle to the Ephesians *(unknown), Ephesus, 85 Epistle to the Philippians *Paul, Caesarea, 58 Epistle to the Colossians *(unknown), (unknown), 75 First Epistle to the Thessalonians *Paul, Silvanus & Timothy, (unknown), 51 Second Epistle to the Thessalonians *Silvanus, then Hippolytus, (unknown), 222 First Epistle to Timothy *(unknown), (Aegeian island), 107 Second Epistle to Timothy *(unknown), (Aegeian island), 150 Epistle to Titus *(unknown), (unknown), 115 Epistle to Philemon *Paul, Caesarea, 60 Epistle to the Hebrews *Apollo of Alexandria or Barnabas, Jerusalem, 65 Pauline authorship of the latter epistle is rejected by modern scholarship and even in antiquity its authorship was debated. While some sources claim that Paul died in 64, others keep him alive until 67. After that date, he couldn't have written any epistles. Timothy also died in 64, so any epistles written to him later than that cannot be authentic. john1576: Satanangel. Paul was almost certainly executed by the Emperor Nero. It is possible that Nero had the Christians in Rome in his mind at the time of the Fire because of Paul's trial. This is only suggested as there is no record outside the Gospels that he was in Rome. It is also puzzling how Nero knew about the Christians in Rome at the time as they were at that time only a small sect. The only Epistle in the New Testament that is doubted as being Paul's is Hebrews, which is almost certainly the work of Paul. A curious point with Nero is that he attended the burning of Christians dressed as a Charioteer, for some reason Roman Historians made a point of noting this. flashie: Wouldn't it be more productive to discuss problems that are relevent to people today, than playing stupid word games with ancient texts? again. oh_good_laughs: Satangel - Good link on Wiki, it usually stays pretty neutral on the topics. Although Paul may not have physically wrote some of the books, his overview was there. What i mean is.. Well, like a president, he guides someone on what he wants said, but he doesn't physically do the writing. It happens all the time with CEOs, the writings may not have been written by Paul, but they are of Paul. All the Pauline literature was considered legit before the early 1800s. Then, a theologian came by (around 1806 or 1807) and questioned the Pauline literature.. Why you ask?, On the grounds of 'variety of writing'! .. A 'Variety of writing'!.. Paul wrote/dealt with the problems at hand, he dealt with the individual problems considering each church, of course this will deal with a variety of topics. This theologian's accusation is pretty nuts.. But, of course, this was the domino effect for others to step in and start a fire, trying to reject everything, everywhere, concerning the Bible. john1576: The people who questioned Pauls authorship of his Epistles were known as 'Higher Critics'. Higher criticism can be helpful in understanding writing styles and who actually wrote this or that, it falls down completely when used in the study of Biblical writing. How anyone can fail to recognise Paul in his writings is a mystery. There are few men in history as fanatical, obsessive and knowledgeable of his subject as Paul. Paul actually wrote most of his letters in his own hand writing, something he refers to in one Epistle. The comparison of Paul with the 'C.E.O.' of a major company is a curious claim to make, Paul was a wandering Preacher and supported himself usually by unskilled labour. satangel: I see that a little more background is necessary to grasp the whole picture here: Almost all Bible scientists now agree that it was Paul himself who wrote Romans, First and Second Corinthians; and Galatians. Today, however, few outside the Orthodox Church believe that the apostle wrote Hebrews and hardly anyone believes that he is the author of Second Thessalonians. Fewer and fewer are also of the opinion that Ephesians may be included in his authorship. In addition, Computer analyses show that it was a completely different person who wrote the epistles to Timothy and Titus than the one who wrote Romans, Corinthians and Galatians. But it cannot be denied that the secretary's role was important at that time. Both Carsten Thiede and Matthew d'Ancona think that it was Tertius that edited Romans for Paul; and that the apostle must have been thrilled to see the final product, because he allowed the secretary to sign it (Romans 16:22 ). It was also normal that the secretaries authored such epistles on the basis of key words and notes from their master, but it should never be any doubt about his identity and authority. Since Paul still wanted to verify the authenticity, he sometimes wrote a personal message with his own handwriting in his letters (First Corinthians 16:21, Galatians 6:11 and Philemon 19). The text in Corinthians is edited and we know that Paul wrote at least one more epistle to the Corinthians that has not been incorporated in the New Testament. First Corinthians is a genuine Pauline document, while we find the remains of the original second epistle in Second Corinthians 2:14-6:13 and 7:2-4. The third epistle is incorporated as chapters 10-13. It is even believed that a fourth epistle is divided into two; and placed as 1:1-2:13 and 7:5-16. Scholars are not sure about this, however, because some claim that we are talking about two separate epistles here. Klaus E Berger suggests that First Corinthians may have been exposed to vandalism, since 10:25 clearly encourages readers to eat all the meat on offer at the market, contrary to Paul's urge in Romans 14:21. In Corinth, Gentiles ate pork and this is something that the vegetarian Paul would have never allowed. Thus, we have evidence that even in the epistles that Paul probably really wrote, the early Church tampered with the text in order to manipulate the churches as it saw best, because very few of the parishioners dared to challenge what they thought was "Paul's authority". satangel: It can therefore not have been Paul that wrote Ephesians and Colossians, either. His personal style is missing in both; and both vocabulary and rhetoric is different from his own epistles. Paul's authentic works are so honed in the text that Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III believe that he must have studied rhetoric in Jerusalem. Both of the above mentioned epistles also seem "boring and not very inspired", in stark contrast to the enthusiastic Paul that we otherwise know. The reason that these two books were included in the New Testament is that when it was compiled in the 4th Century, they had already mistakenly been placed in the bag which contained "Paul's Epistles". In reality, they were written in Paul's name after his death by loyal religious leaders who succeeded him. Ephesians is probably a collection of excerpts from Paul's earlier correspondence that was mixed together and presented as a fictitious epistle to a congregation in Ephesus. Burton Mack even suggests that there may have been a pre-edition in the 80s. The affiliation to Ephesus, he believes, however, is that it was here the letter originated. It was therefore not addressed to any particular congregation at all, but spread wide and far. This practice was very common at the time and the phenomenon is called "pseudography". Geza Vermes believes that Colossians was written in the 70s by "a Paul impersonator" as an admonition to let the congregation in Colossae not deviate from what he presented as "Paul's true doctrine". According to Matthew d'Ancona and Carsten Thiede, the two epistles to the Thessalonians were probably drawn up by Silvanus on assignment from Paul. Robert Eisenman believes that Silvanus must have been the same person as Jesus' brother Simon/Silas. Busy hands have also edited First Thessalonians and incorporated three verses (2:14-16) in the original text. The editor wanted to attack Christianity's opponents and accuse the Jews of killing Jesus, which they therefore have incurred the wrath of God for. Burton Mack does not believe that Paul would have been glad to see this change in his original wording. Other researchers think, however, that Second Thessalonians was not co-authored by Paul at all and Daryl D Schmidt writes that "it lacks the personal warmth that is characteristic of the apostle". Almost one-third is copied from the first epistle and the conclusion is questionable. The author was therefore in Karen Armstrong's opinion "a disciple that wrote the work in Paul's name around 102". There is, however, evidence that the epistle was copied after his time; and that Paul's students and followers signed their own products with his name. Thus, pseudography has eventually proved to be much more common than scholars previously thought. Alan Bernstein dates the original text of Second Thessalonians to an earlier time than First Thessalonians. Other sources state that "the epistle was edited by Hippolytus". satangel: Andrew Wilson does not believe that Paul may have written the epistles to Timothy and Titus. Most other Bible scholars also hold the view that it's highly probable that these epistles were not written by the apostle himself either, but instead by his disciples. Computer analyses have determined that it is not the same person that wrote them and Galatians, Romans and Corinthians, all of which are considered as "the real thing from Paul". In Romans 14:21, Paul writes that "it is right to abstain from eating meat and drinking wine". In First Timothy 5:23, the author urges, however, his readers to drink wine. Needless to say that it is somebody quite different from Paul who is responsible for the content here. Some researchers even claim that "this epistle is forged in Paul's name". It is also in First Timothy that the Church's oppressing of women begins, because this view is introduced in 2:11-12. Here, in Klaus E Berger's opinion, the ghost author is replacing Jesus' original teaching with his own view. Berger further argues that none of the epistles to Timothy and Titus have anything to do with Paul's formidable preaching. The epistles to the two aforementioned gentlemen were not included in the first collection of Paul's epistles, either, and we do not hear about them until Irenaeus mentions them around 190. They have mostly been regarded as "spoofing" and Eusebius never included them in his edition of the Bible. Geza Vermes also believes that these epistles were written after Paul's death, even though they contain his ideas. First Timothy must have been written before 68, since fragments of it were found in Cave 7 at Qumran. Ian Wilson says that "Second Timothy was written by a Christian writer who lived centuries after the apostle". Towards the end of the 1st Century, somebody went through Paul's original epistles and several new additions were included to bring the theology in line with literalist Christianity and dissociate it from Gnosticism. One even went so far that it was fabricated a correspondence between the apostle and the Roman statesman Seneca. The manuscripts that contain eight epistles from Paul and eleven from Seneca still exist, but they are all false. They were, however, considered to be "authentic" until the early 20th Century. In his epistles, Seneca allegedly appoints Paul to a position as "preacher at the imperial court". On the basis that it was believed that these fraudulent letters were genuine, Jerome even suggested three hundred years later that Seneca deserved to be canonised! Also, other apostles had epistles forged in their name. Both James, Jude, Peter and John have an epistle written in their name included in the New Testament, even if they already from Eusebius' time have been regarded as "highly dubious". satangel: The origin of the anonymous Hebrews is a mystery. The style, language, vocabulary and content is so "unpauline" that no serious scholar any longer believes that it was written by Paul. Robert Eisenman, however, opens the possibility that it may have been written by Barnabas. It was, according to Henry Chadwick, written by "a member of the circle around the apostle". Hugh Schofield more than suggests that the writer of Hebrews was Apollo of Alexandria (mentioned in Acts 18:24-26). This view is also shared by several writers on religious Internet forums that I have come across. The work is not an epistle that was sent to a recipient, because it takes the form of "a sermon" or "a speech". It was in John Shelby Spong's opinion first used as "a sermon s*****" by its author. Maurice Casey believes that it must have been written by a person of Jewish background; and that the text seems to have been intended for the Diaspora Jews who used Greek as their first language and had ceased to comply with most provisions of the Jewish law. Spong believes that Hebrews was written in Jerusalem around 65. The work was among alleged "apostolic writings" that Athansius recommended for inclusion in the early Christian Catholic Bible, but since the Western church leaders knew that Paul could not possibly have written Hebrews, they excluded this work from the New Testament. The author of Hebrews writes that "Jesus was a man completely without divinity". It was therefore referred to as "so doubtful that many did not want it welcomed between the covers of the Bible. Hebrews was thus excluded, but it was incorporated again two hundred years later, after strong pressure from the Eastern dioceses.Andrew Wilson does not believe that Paul may have written the epistles to Timothy and Titus. Most other Bible scholars also hold the view that it's highly probable that these epistles were not written by the apostle himself either, but instead by his disciples. Computer analyses have determined that it is not the same person that wrote them and Galatians, Romans and Corinthians, all of which are considered as "the real thing from Paul". In Romans 14:21, Paul writes that "it is right to abstain from eating meat and drinking wine". In First Timothy 5:23, the author urges, however, his readers to drink wine. Needless to say that it is somebody quite different from Paul who is responsible for the content here. Some researchers even claim that "this epistle is forged in Paul's name". It is also in First Timothy that the Church's oppressing of women begins, because this view is introduced in 2:11-12. Here, in Klaus E Berger's opinion, the ghost author is replacing Jesus' original teaching with his own view. Berger further argues that none of the epistles to Timothy and Titus have anything to do with Paul's formidable preaching. The epistles to the two aforementioned gentlemen were not included in the first collection of Paul's epistles, either, and we do not hear about them until Irenaeus mentions them around 190. They have mostly been regarded as "spoofing" and Eusebius never included them in his edition of the Bible. Geza Vermes also believes that these epistles were written after Paul's death, even though they contain his ideas. First Timothy must have been written before 68, since fragments of it were found in Cave 7 at Qumran. Ian Wilson says that "Second Timothy was written by a Christian writer who lived centuries after the apostle". flashie: According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Paul's influence on Christian thinking arguably has been more significant than any other New Testament author.[5] no shit satangel: That is correct, Flashie! It could only have happened because his version of Christianity became the victor and the one embraced by Rome. All the others, like Arianism, Nestorianism, Ebionism and Nazareanism, to mention a few, were suppressed and declared "heretic" by Rome. flashie: i heard a tape once of a guy who had been to catholic priest school and later apostated and became muslim. he said on the tape in a library for priests and scholars there are more than 100 gospels, not just the 4 we all know. but trying to find proof of this is difficult satangel: I was once a priest, too, and I know about 34 gospels apart from the biblical ones. The rest must be reserved for the higher ranks, like bishops and cardinals... satangel: Give me some minutes. I'll be back with a brief summary of the most important extra-biblical gospels. Please stand by... satangel: For a long time, the Church has tried to mislead people to believe that there only exist four gospels, but the truth is quite different. We know of many others. Most of these regard Jesus as an ordinary man who "only" was inspired by the Spirit of God. Having declared the biblical gospels as "the only authentic", the literalist Christians rejected the other gospels as "heretical" and tried to destroy them. If the religious authorities, for example, found a copy of such a work, this resulted in death penalty for the owner. Here is the list of the most important "forbidden" Gospels: 1. The Gospel of the Twelve. Described as "deceitful" by Origen and "heretical" by Pope Gelatius 1 in 494. 2. The Gospel of the Twelve Saints. The text overlaps with the Gospel of the Twelve and the work was recovered in 1881. It is now available in Danish, Swedish and German in addition to English, but some of the editions are full of changes, additions and omissions, which are only consistent with how Christianity all the time has treated its writings. 3. The Apocryphal Gospel of John. The work is as thick as Matthew, Mark and Luke put together; and it was rediscovered in 1939 in a collection of handwritten Arabic manuscripts by Giovanni Galbiati, who was director of the large Ambrosiana library in Milan. The gospel is translated from Syriac into Arabic and according to Galbiati, it must have been composed in the early Christian era. A Latin translation was published in 1957, but the work has been available in Arabic for more than 1600 years. Klaus E Berger argues that it is only intended for professionals, since it has never been translated into a language that most people use today. Nor has it been mentioned in the media or journals outside the academic community. The work is not easy to obtain, since it has only been released in a few copies. It weighs almost 5 kg, it is bound in leather with gold-plated paper covers and it costs many hundreds of pounds. This, according to Berger, is knowingly done, both to keep the book within the Church's own narrow circle and also to avoid that the "heretical" content will generate debate about the Christian doctrines. This is not the same work as the original Gospel of John. The text dates from around 250; and it is the result of an editing process based on older written sources and oral histories. The Jesus quotes are, in Berger's opinion, truer than in the biblical gospels. 4. The Gospel of the Hebrews. In modern times, this work was first shown in an English-language book that was published in 1879. Both Origen and Jerome criticized it in sarcastic terms; and the work seems to have arisen from a Christian sect with Jewish background. All known copies have, however, disappeared and after all the criticism against it, we can only assume that it was destroyed by the Roman church fathers. 5. The Gospel of the Ebionites. Discusses several of the themes in The Gospel of the Twelve Saints. 6. The Egyptian Gospel. Described as "deceitful" by Origen. 7. The Gospel of Philip. Re-discovery at Nag Hammadi in 1945. 8. The Gospel of Matthias. 9. The Gospel of Peter. Exists in fragments. Was banned by Bishop Serapion of Tmuis, who described the content as "heretical". 10. The Gospel of Thomas (1). A child gospel that probably is an edited version of the original. satangel: 11. The Gospel of Thomas (2). Re-discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945. Contains many things from the Gospel of the Twelve Saints. Scholars have long known that the early Church fathers knew of this gospel and that most of them condemned it as "heretical". Constantine 1 and his theologians rejected it because it refers to James as Jesus' successor, while they wished that the Roman Church should be led by "Peter's spiritual heirs". Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem believed that it was written by members of the Manichaean sect. Ian Wilson writes that this gospel cannot be the same as the one that was found at Nag Hammadi, where a copy of the same manuscript - the so-called Oxyrhynchus text - can be dated to before 200, while the infamous Mani - the founder of the Manichaeans - was not born until 215. 12. The Dialogue of the Saviour. Recovered in 1945. 13. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene. Re-discovery at Nag Hammadi in 1945. 14. The Gospel of Fayoum. A highly fragmented text. 15. The Gospel of Nicodemus. 16. The Gospel of Batholomew. 17. The Gospel of Oxyrhynchus. A highly fragmented text. 18. The Gospel of Andrew. 19. The Gospel of James. 20. The Secret Gospel of Mark. 21. The Gospel of the Nazareans. 22. The Gospel of the Manichaeans. Also known as the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles. Heavily fragmented text containing teachings about reincarnation and transmigration. 23. The Gospel of Bassilides. Was described as "deceitful" by Origen. Probably extinct today. 24. The Gospel of Marcion. Translated from Greek into German August Hahn in 1823. 25. The Gospel of Mani. The text overlaps with the Gospel of Thomas. satangel: 26. The Gospel of Barnabas. Probably extinct today. 27. The Gospel of Didascalia. Stems from around 275. 28. The Protevangelium of James. The text overlaps with The Gospel of the Twelve Saints. Michael Jordan holds it to be "the most important of the apocryphal gospels". The author identifies himself as the disciple James Boanerges, but Jordan does not believe that he may have written it, because the author seems to be ignorant of Jewish customs and the geography of Palestine. Although James was born and raised in Rome, he had lived so long in Palestine that he would not have committed such blunders. When this gospel was first published in Switzerland in the 1500s, it was mistakenly believed that it was older than the biblical gospels. Now, however, most agree that it must have been written around 175, which still makes it "a very ancient Christian work". Over one hundred handwritten copies of it in Greek have survived into our time together with numerous translations in Syriac, Ethiopian, Georgian and Armenian. 29. Mary's Birth Gospel. The work is cited by Jerome, Eusebius, Austin and others, but it was excluded from the good company because it contains certain views and doctrines that deviate from Paul's teaching. 30. The Gospel of Child Jesus. Existed in several versions. One of these was later used by the Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam. 31. The Gospel of Gamaliel. Found in an Ethiopian version with eleven chapters from around 450 that Bishop Heryaqoa of Al-Bahass discovered and published in 1959. It is written pseudepigraphically in the name of Gamaliel the Elder, in an attempt to give it more credibility. Towards the end of the 5th Century, there arose a list of gospels which, among others, were supposed to have been written by Matthias and Andrew (different from the ones I have already mentioned above). The list also contained a gospel about the birth of Jesus (the so-called Midwives Book). That should make the total number 34, if I have calculated correctly... satangel: I have to admit that I haven't had the opportunity to read even half of them, because most of the ones still existing are so difficult to come by. And I'm not very welcome in the inner circles of the Vatican's library anymore, either... | Religion Chat Room 33 People Chatting Similar Conversations |