Question on Pauline authorship

[bobperk]

Yes, but you are coming back to a post where you and others have debated a topic that is unrelated to the original post.

A new viewer may click on the topic and see just a few responses to the original question, and from there it diverges to a topic they may not be interested in.

 

[BartholomewB]

Yes, but you are coming back to a post where you and others have debated a topic that is unrelated to the original post.

Yes, it’s like a good conversation.

A new viewer may click on the topic and see just a few responses to the original question, and from there it diverges to a topic they may not be interested in.

The new viewer is free to join in the conversation or not, as he chooses. As we all are.

 

[bobperk]

I suppose I cannot stop anybody. But there are dozens of Sola Scriptura threads already in existence, and at least one very large one that is active, and that is what this one seems to be morphing into.

 

[rose321]

" In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.”[3] When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules."

Respectfully opinion only in pondering on having questions and examining also on Pauline authorship, where also expert scholars do not all agree all Epistles or letters of Paul were written by him were they? .

Did Jesus>> accept and believe >>>that all Scripture written by the hands of man >>throughout the thousands of generations, were all >>>>written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Jesus heavily quotes his >>Prophets> Hosa, Amos,Isaiah, Jeremiah, seem to state other wise just one example >

Jeremiah 8:8 How can you say “We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us” when, in fact the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?

Jesus in NT Matthew Chapter 23>>gives all his Woe’s to the scribes=teachers Pharisees and Saduccees?
Was Jesus from and belonged to the sect called >> The Nazorenes?
Matthew 2:23 He will be called a Nazorean ?

Pondering on Matthew 22:21-33 Peace

 

[rose321]

And the reason that probably sounds like a Protestant belief, is because the Protestants took that belief from the Catholic Church. Just like the canon of Scripture, the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and just about everything else.

Having questions, examining as commanded by Jesus to his listening audience, search the Scriptures, test all Spirits, bring 2 or more witness.

Protestants at one time were first Catholics, belonging to the Catholic Church did they not, right?

The Title Protestant came about because theses Catholic’s protested, what was taking place within their Church, with those who served, not being pleased or in accepting such changes, teaching taking place, is this correct?

In Jesus time how many different religious sects were there also, whom separated also in not accepting changes, those who were serving within then, what was being taught etc also?
Not all belong to the sect called Pharisees or Sadducees in Jesus time?

My question then where did our Catholic Church took>>>her core belief from, in The One True God?
Was it not from the written Jewish OT Scriptures?
From >Jesus Hebrew Israelite Aramaic speaking > his own>Holy Scriptures OT?

All Hebrew Israelite, Jews believed and practice some core aspects of their religion would this be true?
Pharisees?
Sadduccees?
Herodians?
The above Mark 8:11-20, 3:6 portrays them as being opponents of Jesus and his followers? Matthew Chapter 23, Jesus himself harshly, strongly boldly calls them blood vipers and gives them all his woes? Why?
Other religious sects in Jesus time were they not?
Disciples of John Baptist?>>
The Nazoreans. followers of Jesus> Matthew 2:23? "He will be called a Nazorean?
Essences x 2?
Zealots?
High Priest, Chief Priest, Priest, Levi Tribe?

Did later sects formed after Jesus died, when Temple destroyed Why?

Hellinistic Greek Jews. not of the circumcision>>fled and settled in Alexander?
Judaizers known as >The Party of the Circumcision, known motto as the poor, settled in Pella?

Later Nazoreans became known also as Ebonites along with other smaller groups joining with belief and recorded even among our earliest church fathers is it not?

examining even before and in Jesus time many different religious sects were there not? Even thou Jews all believing in the core belief in The One True God, did not all accept or all agreed on> divisions etc?

Question Did Jesus accept all that was written as being inspired by the Holy Spirit, what was written by man?

Seems since the beginning of time all major 3 Religions have adopted from and in seeking out Truths >then there is Zoroastarian older they say then all 3 is this true? What were their beliefs practices etc motto etc?

Authorship of Scripture whether>inspired by the Holy Spirit >whether it be > Pauline or Apostles or OT and listening and accepting Jesus Word > through his own Prophets> one example only,

Jeremiah 8:8 >> Jesus and other Prophets, seem to rebuke such or some writings as>> not being the Spoken Word of God maybe, would this be true? .

Respectfully toward >> Peace

 

[po18guy]

Not at all!

1. We can disregard nothing in the scriptures that were collected, written, preserved, canonized and disseminated by the Catholic Church. Yet, what is its meaning and intent?
2. What is the first thing that they submitted to, and why?
3. So, you were there and you know this? Where do the scriptures explicitly say what you allege? Peter’s words SILENCED the assembly. Debate was stopped. Then James, the local Bishop (in function if not yet in title) made his proclamation. Not a jot or tittle of what Peter said was changed - it was then condensed into a letter.
4. You are not arguing the scriptures here. You are arguing your personal opinion of the scriptures. Once you come to recognize that, the true meaning of those writings will begin to unfold before you.

 

[BartholomewB]

The Council of Jerusalem was an important historical event and Acts 15 is the main source for whatever can be known about it. It is possible to sift through Luke’s words, searching for anything that will shed light on the relative status of Peter and James.This is an important aspect of Luke’s report for some people, but not for others. For many people, including myself, it is a secondary issue at best. If one day some historian should conclusively prove that James at all times deferred to Peter, in recognition of his higher status, I will have no quarrel with that. If one day some historian should conclusively prove the opposite, I will have no quarrel with that either. The point I am making here is that there is nothing in Acts 15 that can conclusively settle the matter either way.

I apologize for rattling on and on at such tedious length, but I had the impression that you were reading more into my posts than I intended. It has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. I still don’t understand why you even mentioned that.

 

[po18guy]

Probably my suspected Asperger’s acting up. That letter is the only thing that James the Bishop of Jerusalem is known to have written and it is long lost - existing only by reference within Luke’s writing.

That James was the Bishop of Jerusalem is undisputed. That Peter is the Prince of the Apostles is also undisputed - or should be. Have a listen to Dr. William Marshner, a Lutheran theologian, scholar and convert to Catholicism:

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you, @po18guy, but I’ll have to leave that for a few days. The sound isn’t working on my antique computer and I need to get that fixed.

I’m glad we got our difference of opinion sorted out. It’s been a pleasure doing business with you!

 

[po18guy]

YW! Start the video at about 15:30 and you will be amazed at what the earliest Christians thought regarding Saint Peter. Remarkable.

 

[Francis]

Sorry you read me wrong,it means James concludes,what Peter has already gave his approval to,and James’s quotes Peter and has agreed what Peter had said and gives his judgement.

 

[Francis]

Respectfully can one give that post where I said Catholic Worship Mary?

Is the Glories of Mary heretical?

Gen 3:15 >states to honor her as given by God.
One honors, Loves our Blessed Mother Mary, but one does not worship her, that would be breaking the 1st Commandment and would be idolatry, would it not?

[/QUOTE]

Respectfully opinion only, No where with what one has posted, will one find the word >>>>>worship>>>>>>>>>>> but the word>>honor>>One honors Loves our Blessed Mother Mary, but one does>>>>>>>>>>not>>>>>>>>>>>>worship her. One is not speaking about anyone else, but ones personal relationship>>I honor>>> our Blessed Mother. …

It was you who quoted in the previous post not me, you manipulated it, as if i have posted it, sorry you came to such an extent.

Catholic don’t worship Mary but honor her, you claim to be catholic, but yet you don’t understand, you keep repeating even till now, this too post,but for your sake am emphasizing here again, Catholic worship God (HOLY TRINITY) and not Mary but we only honor her as the Mother of God ,as He does too.

Sorry if you think that way, no one can force anyone to believe, God has given us free will to choose, it was my concern for your soul and others as a brother in Christ, was straight forward and direct. didn’t mean to force anyone, even God doesn’t force anyone,how can i 2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not peddlers of God’s word like so many; but in Christ we speak as persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God and standing in his presence. Acts 24:16 Therefore I do my best always to have a clear conscience toward God and all people.

In honoring the words of Jesus in John 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman,(addressing as the Women of Genesis 3:15 the New Eve our Mother Mary) behold, your son!” its a commandment Exodus 20:12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long(Eternity ) in the land (Heaven)which the Lord your God gives you).And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home(His heart, the Church, for all human race for Eternity).

 

[po18guy]

Sorry you read me wrong,it means James concludes,what Peter has already
gave his approval to,and James’s quotes Peter and has agreed what Peter
had said and gives his judgement.

James was the first of the twelve to be martyred. Our Lord knew this. Does it make any sense at all that our Lord would chose him to be chief of the apostles? A short list of Peter-specific factors:

Jesus changed Simon bar-Jonah’s name.
He does that for a reason.
Peter is named 195 times in the NT. The closest is John “whom Jesus
loved” at just 29 times. All of the rest even less. Peter is always
named first, Judas last. Here is a partial list of unique aspects of Peter:
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven.
Jesus declared Peter to the the rock.
Jesus made Peter shepherd (Feed my sheep).
Jesus told Peter only to strengthen his brothers
Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter.
Jesus preached from Peter’s boat.
Jesus told Peter to “Follow me” at the sea of Tiberias.
Jesus called only Peter to Him across the water.
Jesus predicted Peter’s three-fold denial.
Jesus predicted Peter’s repentance and three-fold affirmation.
Jesus prophesied only Peter’s death.
Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times.
Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane.
Peter is always listed first.
Peter alone received the revelation of Jesus as Messiah.
Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration.
Peter pointed out the withered fig tree.
Peter entered the empty tomb first - John deferring to him.
Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas.
Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost.
Peter was released from prison by the Angel.
Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council.
Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Saphira.
Peter’s shadow healed.
Peter declared the sin of Simony.
Peter explained the salvation of the Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem.
The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter.
The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them.
At the empty tomb, the Angel said, “Go tell His disciples, and Peter.”
Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple.
The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter.
Peter’s words silence the first council in Jerusalem.
Peter alone received the revelation of the end of the world (elements melting).
Peter alone received the revelation of Christ’s descent to hell/sheol.
Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain.
And on and on and on.

 

[Francis]

@po18guy

what is your point,i agree Peter is the head of the Apostolic Collage,and the First Pope As Jesus has selected him in Mathew 16:16-18

Primacy of Peter
• Mt 16:18 – upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
• Mt 16:19 – give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose
• Lk 22:32 – Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
• Jn 21:17 – given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd
• Mk 16:7 – angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
• Lk 24:34 – risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
• Acts 1:13-26 – headed meeting which elected Matthias
• Acts 2:14 – led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
• Acts 2:41 – received first converts
• Acts 3:6-7 – performed first miracle after Pentecost
• Acts 5:1-11 – inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
• Acts 8:21 – excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
• Acts 10:44-46 – received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
• Acts 15:7 – led first council in Jerusalem
• Acts 15:19 – pronounces first dogmatic decision
• Gal 1:18 – after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
• *Gal 2:11-14 – I opposed Cephas to his face for his hypocrisy
• Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
• “Peter and his companions” Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7
• Spoke for Apostles – Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69
• Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together

 

[po18guy]

Only because there are some who seem to think that James was somehow primary. Kindly disregard if you find it offensive or derailing.

 

[Francis]

Not at all, Jesus has elected St Peter as the head of the Catholic Church and the head of the Apostles no one as the authority to refute it.

Acts 5:38 So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!” Matthew 7:26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand.like 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!”

JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF started the Catholic Church,which will never fail or end Acts 5:39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!” and THE POPE who stands in the person of Christ. Matthew 16:16-18 7 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Psalm 12:6 The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.

**Jeremiah 3:15 ‘And I will give you shepherds =(The Pope successor of St Peter ) after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.Matthew 7:24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock( Mt16:18 Peter). 25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock.

 

[rose321]

James was the first of the twelve to be martyred. Our Lord knew this. Does it make any sense at all that our Lord would chose him to be chief of the apostles? A short list of Peter-specific factors:

Respectfully opinion only yes? Not to offend either. This James was not one of the 12 Apostles was he?
Is this why James is clearly identified as being known by all as >>James the brother of the Lord?

After James hears all present their concerns, each one prepares to prove their case>>James states>.now listen to me and James gives also the 4 Covenant Noahic Laws for gentles to obey, observe, live by to enter the fold of believers?

James stands up and says >>now listen to me>>>>>James gives his finally decision and this James >>>>also gives us the 4 Noahic Covenant Laws to the gentles, to be obeyed, live by and to be observed right?

James brother of the Lord, a Hebrew Israelite, belonging to the Nazorene sect, name was >>Ya’akov (Jacob) Tazdik ( means righteous one, or just one) was his father not Joseph >>>husband to Blessed Mary?

Sons of Joseph and who was the step father to>> Jesus, who was a step brother to> James, Jose, Jude, Simeon, would this be true?

James the brother of the Lord, being the son of Joseph from the bloodline of priest,was his father Joseph a Temple Priest also?

Does it make any sense at all that our Lord would chose him to be chief of the apostles?

Yes?
James Hebrew name >Ya’akov means Jacob, lived till 62 Ad or maybe 69 Ad according to historically writings, early church fathers?
Is being questioned or debated on, for some believe James died in 62 Ad others could be 69 AD?
Known as a Holy Righteous man of the Lord, lived on his knees in the Temple and allowed to enter the Holy of Holy did he not?

St Peter dies in 64 Ad shortly after >
James the brother of the Lord who dies in 62 Ad?
Who was James successor after he died?
Is it not historically recorded knowing their names?

Scholars, early church fathers, accept this > James as being the author of James Epistle, do they not?
James Epistle sounds like a homily, written to those who fled to Pella, does it not?

James Epistle could be the earliest writings 44 AD being determined by those who wrote about this James?

known as the brother of the Lord, through their own written letters to early church Fathers, according to Historical scholars who also wrote on this James> Josephus Flavius and other outside sources
besides the NT, correct?

James the brother of the Lord >ruled as the Head of the Mother Jerusalem Assembly Church in Jerusalem for 30 years immed after Jesus death for the Temple was not destroyed till 70 Ad was it not?

Why did St Peter > St Paul along with others go back to Jerusalem to meet with this James the brother of the Lord?

Who were the 24 Elders?
There was 12 Apostles, also 70 Apostles, were there not?

St Peter, his reply was what?> In trembling, do not bow before me, I am just a man, an Elder among the Elders?

Pleases >do not> miss understand >St Peter has the keys > !!!

Peace

 

[rose321]

Only because there are some who seem to think that James was somehow primary. Kindly disregard if you find it offensive or derailing.

Respectfully not out to offend either just seeking to seek out Truths, Knowledge and Understanding of his Spoken Word. To do so one has to go back 2,000 years ago seeking out Historically, and how the Hebrew Israelites lived, observed, practiced, their rituals, Feast Days how they were celebrated, what their Hebrew or Aramaic Words mean etc

And know there were many different sects, but core beliefs and Jesus did not belong to the sect of Pharisees or Sadduccees did he? But Matthew 2:23?

Not just anyone could become a High Priest or Priest to serve upon the altar or within the Temple, in Jesus time, had to meet the requirements and come from the bloodline family of Priest, established since Aaron time, brother of Moses, is this not true?

St Peter and Apostles some were fisherman, tax collectors, etc etc did not come from the bloodline of Hebrew Israelite Priest did they, when all walked the earth?
Jesus>who does come from the Priestly Bloodline did he not?
Jesus is our High Priest for ever?

No one is greater or less then another are they in serving the Lord, except our Lord and Savior Jesus, our High Priest for ever our King of Kings, right?

One Body having one Head over the body that has many members that serve the body as whole, right, written?
One member feels pain all members feel pain?
One member rejoices all members of the body rejoice right?

No jealousy that would be sin right?
Rather be happy where ever one has been placed for all are serving the Lord, right?
All will be judged by the same law equally right?

All have a task, a mission given in serving the Lord in different ways>> would this be true?
Some are High Priest?
Some are Priest?
Some are Deacons?
Some are Scribes. teachers?
Some are Elders?
Some serve within the Church Courts> Sanhedrin?
Some become theologians?
Some are placed on Thrones, Kings to serve the needs of his people, his sheep?

1 Clement 69 Ad a Roman meets with Barnabus who brings him back to meet with this James where this James gives to 1 Clement instructions to travel along with St Peter, >>>>>to write down all that>>> St Peter says in his teaching and to send his letters back to James.

St Peter teaches 1 Clement all about the one True God about Abraham Moses, the law along the way in their travels?

1 Clementine Homilies?
The Recongnitions of Clement ( aka Doctrines of the Nazarene Acts) Matthew 2:23?
The Panarion by Epiphanius of Salamis book 1 section 1-46)?
The Diache of the Apostles?
Our own early church Fathers?
Historian Josephus?
Jerome speak on the Ebionite’s who were once known also as Nazarenes?

Not out to offend>>> but with a open mind, out to learn, seek out truths, knowledge and understanding of His Spoken Word and where ever that truth leads me.

Written? Study Study to show thyself approved.

Peace

 

[pnewton]

Aren’t the pastorals dated much letter than Paul’s lifetime though?

They aren’t dated at all. The attempt to use language comparison is dicey. If you think about it, there really would be no close correspondence between a letter I would write, that one that would be written in another English speaking country, or even between a letter I would write and what I might be typing here on this forum.

I would have to say that reliance on the more immediate oral tradition, would be far more reliable.

 

[fredystairs]

Ben Witherington, a Protestant, and Luke Timothy Johnson, a Catholic, both reach the conclusion that Paul is probably the true author of 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus.

The below is from the Pontifical Biblical Commission concerning the Pastoral Letters:

Concerning the Author, the Integrity, and the Date of the Pastoral Epistles of St Paul
June 12, 1913 (AAS 5 [1913] 292f; EB 425ff; Dz 2172ff)

I: In view of the tradition of the Church universally and firmly maintained from the beginning, as is witnessed in many ways by ancient ecclesiastical records, should it be held as certain that the Pastoral Epistles, the two, namely, to Timothy and another to Titus, notwithstanding the effrontery of certain heretics, who without giving any reason expunged them from the number of Pauline Epistles as being opposed to their tenets, were written by the Apostle Paul himself and were always listed among the genuine and canonical Epistles?
Answer: In the affirmative.

II: Can the so-called fragmentary hypothesis introduced and propounded in different ways by certain recent critics, who without any plausible reason and even at variance among themselves, maintain that the Pastoral Epistles were put together by unknown authors at a later date out of fragments of the Epistles or out of lost Pauline Epistles with notable additions, cause even any slight weakening of the clear and unshaken testimony of tradition?
Answer: In the negative.

III: Do the difficulties commonly alleged on many grounds, either on account of the style and language of the author, or of the errors, especially of the Gnostics, described as already then current, or of the presupposition that the ecclesiastical hierarchy was in an already developed state, and other similar arguments to the contrary, in any way weaken the opinion that holds the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles to be established and certain?
Answer: In the negative.

IV: As the opinion that the Apostle Paul was twice imprisoned at Rome should be considered certain on account no less of historical reasons than of ecclesiastical tradition in harmony with the testimonies of the holy Fathers both in East and West, and also on account of the evidence readily available both in the abrupt conclusion of the Acts and in the Pauline Epistles written at Rome and especially in the second to Timothy; can it be safely stated that the Pastoral Epistles were written in the interval between the liberation of the Apostle from the first imprisonment and his death?
Answer: In the affirmative.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/oldtestament/commission.htm

Blessings