um sir, werent those two of the letters that were proven to be forgeries?
No.
Because the church wrote documents to show that it had indeed existed in the early days, and they were proven forgeries. and also you wont change my mind, i researched the Catholics alot before i decided to speak out.
Well, your research needs to continue. If there’s no way anyone will change your mind, what’s the point of talking to you? On what do you base the view that Polycarp’s martyrdom account and the short versions of the seven Ignatian letters are forgeries? There are a few scholars who still maintain the latter, but it’s decidedly a minority view.
And, of course, many scholars don’t think 2 Peter, the Pastoral Epistles, the Gospels, Acts, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, were written by the people whose names they bear either. So before you start relying on skeptical modern scholarship, stop and think!
There were indeed a number of medieval documents that were forgeries–you are probably thinking of the Donation of Constantine and the Isidorian Decretals, which were used to establish the ancient origins of papal power, including papal rule over central Italy.
But scholars have spent centuries poring over the documents and deciding which are forgeries and which aren’t. You have no right simply to dismiss any ancient testimony as a forgery. And if you want to take a relatively skeptical approach, then you have to explain why you don’t also take that approach to Scripture. As Catholics will be quick to point out to you, the canon of Scripture itself comes from the early Church!
On the subject of church tradition. Noone should use this as an arguement, it should have scripture based proof not the words of a pope.
So how do you know that the books of the New Testament are Scripture in the first place? How, for instance, do you know that Peter really wrote 2 Peter? Most scholars think he didn’t. Why are you sure they are wrong?
Probably this should have its own thread.
Edwin
