scholars claim not all letters are written by paul.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephentlig
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stephentlig

Guest
As far as I am aware of it scholars are now ‘‘claiming’’ that not all letters have been written by St.Paul.

is this the infallible teaching of the church? or is it just a subjective analysis?

if it is the infallible teaching that all letters are written through St.Paul then I shall be sticking with our infallible teaching of course. (Edited)

St.Peter said 2 Peter: ‘‘As there were false teachers in the past history of our people, so you too will have your false teachers, who will insinuate their own disruptive veiws and disown the Master who purchased their freedom.’’
 
As far as I am aware of it scholars are now ‘‘claiming’’ that not all letters have been written by St.Paul.

is this the infallible teaching of the church? or is it just a subjective analysis?
(Edited)

St.Peter said 2 Peter: ‘‘As there were false teachers in the past history of our people, so you too will have your false teachers, who will insinuate their own disruptive veiws and disown the Master who purchased their freedom.’’
“Scholars” (read: Satan’s little handmaidens) have been struggling to discredit Biblical truths for centuries. Unpleasant as it is, it’s nothing new.
 
As far as I am aware of it scholars are now ‘‘claiming’’ that not all letters have been written by St.Paul.

is this the infallible teaching of the church? or is it just a subjective anaylsis?

if it is the infallible teaching that all letters are written through St.Paul then I shall be sticking with our infallible teaching of course.(Edited)

St.Peter said 2 Peter: ‘‘As there were false teachers in the past history of our people, so you too will have your false teachers, who will insinuate their own disruptive veiws and disown the Master who purchased their freedom.’’
It is evident that Paul had someone write for him for some of the letters while he also states that he was writing with his own hand in some of them. But those that Paul did not write himself he basically told them what to write.

But as for those pseudo-scholars who claim that Paul had nothing to do with some of those writings and that someone forged his name on it, that is despicable to me and I would not even waste my time reading their ideas.
 
As far as I am aware of it scholars are now ‘‘claiming’’ that not all letters have been written by St.Paul.

is this the infallible teaching of the church? or is it just a subjective anaylsis?

if it is the infallible teaching that all letters are written through St.Paul then I shall be sticking with our infallible teaching. (Edited)

St.Peter said 2 Peter: ‘‘As there were false teachers in the past history of our people, so you too will have your false teachers, who will insinuate their own disruptive veiws and disown the Master who purchased their freedom.’’
Scholars have been proposing theories like this since the 19th century at least. This is not a new claim.

Not infallibly taught. Maybe subjective. Neither of which affects the truth of the claims.

Scholars are not “Satan’s handmaidens” any more than people who carelessly throw around such inflammatory and derogatory labels.
 
All of St. Paul’s letters, except to the Hebrews, say they are from “Paul” - and that is the infallible Word of God. In the case of Hebrews, it has been proposed that Paul did not sign it because many of the Jews hated him, and so if they saw it came from Paul they might not read it, or have an undue bias against it. This makes sense. It also makes sense that Paul wrote it since he wrote to 7 different churches - signifying the whole universal Church - and Hebrews would make a total of 14 letters, also signifying completeness.

St. Victorinus: “In the whole world Paul taught that all the churches are arranged by sevens, that they are called seven, and that the Catholic Church is one. And first of all, indeed, that he himself also might maintain the type of seven churches, he did not exceed that number. But he wrote to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians; afterwards he wrote to individual persons, so as not to exceed the number of seven churches. And abridging in a short space his announcement, he thus says to Timothy: “That you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the Church of the living God.” [1 Timothy 3:15] We read also that this typical number is announced by the Holy Spirit by the mouth of Isaiah: “Of seven women which took hold of one man.” [Isaiah 4:1] The one man is Christ, not born of seed; but the seven women are seven churches, receiving His bread, and clothed with his apparel, who ask that their reproach should be taken away, only that His name should be called upon them. The bread is the Holy Spirit, which nourishes to eternal life, promised to them, that is, by faith. And His garments wherewith they desire to be clothed are the glory of immortality, of which Paul the apostle says: “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” [1 Corinthians 15:53] Moreover, they ask that their reproach may be taken away— that is, that they may be cleansed from their sins: for the reproach is the original sin which is taken away in baptism, and they begin to be called Christian men, which is, “Let your name be called upon us.” Therefore in these seven churches, of one Catholic Church are believers, because it is one in seven by the quality of faith and election.” (Commentary on the Apocalypse, 1:16)
 
I would say that the Pauline authorship of the epistles ascribed to him is dogmatic, given that the Scriptures are inerrant.

In the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary, I do not see why one should doubt the authenticity of the disputed epistles (the pastoral epistles, Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians). As for Hebrews, I think that there is good reason to think that it was not written by Paul; it is anonymous, for a start, and where it develops the themes treated in the Pauline epistles, it does so in a starkly different manner.
 
The infallible doctrine is that St.Paul wrote the letters.

anyone who questions the infallible truth is a rebellious heretic in my veiw.

Catholic apologists are only allowed to question the popes ideas in a God fearing manner but not his infallibility.

when Jesus gave Peter the keys for binding and loosing, he was protecting him from making error.

These scholars are teaching a Gospel other than the one we have heard, so it is just as St.Paul said in his first letter to Timothy .

( 1 Tim:6:3-4 ) ‘‘Anyone who teaches anything different, and does not keep to the sound teaching which is that of our Lord Jesus Christ, the doctrine which is in accordance with true religion, Is simply ignorant and must be full of self-conceit—with a craze for questioning everything and arguing about words.’’

that sound doctrine is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

what part of this ( to those of you who agree with the scholars ) scriptural qoute dont you understand?

Stephen <3
 
The infallible doctrine is that St.Paul wrote the letters.
No it’s not.

Pick up any reputable Bible Commentary and you’ll read all kinds of Catholic scholars disagreeing about this issue, and yet they are in complete fidelity to the Magisterium.

Pope Benedict even refers to this reality (of scholars differing regarding which letters were actually written by Paul himself): vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090128_en.html
 
No it’s not.

Pick up any reputable Bible Commentary and you’ll read all kinds of Catholic scholars disagreeing about this issue, and yet they are in complete fidelity to the Magisterium.

Pope Benedict even refers to this reality (of scholars differing regarding which letters were actually written by Paul himself): vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090128_en.html
So did the Holy Ghost err in allowing ascription of Pauline authorship to the epistles?
 
So did the Holy Ghost err in allowing ascription of Pauline authorship to the epistles?
👍 Praise be Jesus Christ.

we must pray in these last days for these scholars, they are NOT allowed ever to question the infallibility of the Church, thats what the Protestents did and now their is over or under 30,000 of them.

anyone who questions the infallibility of the church, is a Protest-ent

they may think they are being loyal, but a loyal person never questions the infallible teaching.

Have a happy Palm sunday

Stephen <3
 
Certainly, if an Epistle of Sacred infallible Scripture says that Paul was the author, or one of the authors, then this is inerrant and a required belief. If anyone says that Paul is not the author of a letter which states plainly that he is the author, then that person implies that Scripture is not entirely inerrant.

The authorship of the letter to the Hebrews is not stated in the text, and so it is an open question. Some Fathers thought it was written by Paul; others thought it was written by a disciple of Paul. The text itself has some similarities and some differences compared to the other letters of Paul.

My opinion is that Hebrews was written by a disciple of Paul.
 
I’ve always been partial to the tradition and theory that Saint Paul originally penned Hebrews in the Hebrew language. That he wrote it to Jewish Christians who were judaizing and that he didn’t sign it so that they would read it. Then Saint Luke supposedly translated it into Greek. I’ve heard that the Greek in Hebrews is much better than that of Paul’s Epistles and that it bears a striking resemblance to Luke’s writings.
 
👍 Praise be Jesus Christ.

we must pray in these last days for these scholars, they are NOT allowed ever to question the infallibility of the Church, thats what the Protestents did and now their is over or under 30,000 of them.

anyone who questions the infallibility of the church, is a Protest-ent

they may think they are being loyal, but a loyal person never questions the infallible teaching.

Have a happy Palm sunday

Stephen <3
Nothing I’ve read in this thread questioned the infallibility of the Church. I thought we were talking about theories regarding the authorship and writing of the Pauline letters?
 
Nothing I’ve read in this thread questioned the infallibility of the Church. I thought we were talking about theories regarding the authorship and writing of the Pauline letters?

Thanks for discussing the matter in an unheated fashion 🙂

Of the 14 letters - Romans to Hebrews inclusive - traditionally ascribed to Saint Paul
  • the three Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy to Titus) are usually not thought to be by Paul
  • Hebrews is not considered to be by Paul
  • 7 are fairly generally agreed to by Paul
  • A case can be made for all 13
The notion of authorship as understood today allows for a letter to be written in tbe spirit of Paul, as well as by him in person. There is no dogmatic reason for requiring all 13 to be by Paul, & the Church has not taught Pauline authorship as a dogma. It is open to discussion - so Catholic scholars discuss it, just as they are allowed to. The human authorship can be questioned & debated without in the slightest implying anything about Divine Authorship - to doubt that Paul wrote Ephesians does not in the slightest imply that Ephesians is not Divinely inspired: that, is a separate question entirely. An opinion as to who wrote the letters may be unwelcome - that is no reason to reject it out of hand; if Paul wrote only four of the 13, or none, then so be it: for those possibilities have also been canvassed.
 
I’ve always been partial to the tradition and theory that Saint Paul originally penned Hebrews in the Hebrew language. That he wrote it to Jewish Christians who were judaizing and that he didn’t sign it so that they would read it. Then Saint Luke supposedly translated it into Greek. I’ve heard that the Greek in Hebrews is much better than that of Paul’s Epistles and that it bears a striking resemblance to Luke’s writings.
I don’t agree with that theory, but it is sound. The authorship of the letter by Paul explains the similarities to Paul’s letters. The translation of the letter by another author explains why the letter has differences, keeping in mind that translators in ancient times felt free to alter the text (as I believe was the case with John’s Gospel).
 
Nothing I’ve read in this thread questioned the infallibility of the Church. I thought we were talking about theories regarding the authorship and writing of the Pauline letters?
considering the fact that St.Paul wrote all the letters and that is the inerrant teaching of the church, the ‘‘theory’’ on whether or not St.Pauls letters were really written by him is allegorical to the questioning of the infallible teaching of the church, therefore the debate shoulndt even be happening and the debate looks like an absolute blashemphous one, as its seems to me like your calling God a liar.

Matthew 12
32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

God bless
Stephen<3
 
considering the fact that St.Paul wrote all the letters and that is the inerrant teaching of the church, the ‘‘theory’’ on whether or not St.Pauls letters were really written by him is allegorical to the questioning of the infallible teaching of the church, therefore the debate shoulndt even be happening and the debate looks like an absolute blashemphous one, as its seems to me like your calling God a liar.

Matthew 12
32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

God bless
Stephen<3
Welcome back. Don’t worry, I’m not calling God a liar. Thanks for your concern, though.

Did you read any references I suggested? How about Gottle of Geer’s post, who expressed some things much better than I did?

You seem to have made up your mind, maybe even before you posted the question initially? If so, that’s fine, but just let us know as then I think there really wouldn’t be much point in conversation. I thought it was a sincere honest question.
 
Of the 14 letters - Romans to Hebrews inclusive -** traditionally** ascribed to Saint Paul
Infallibly.
the Church has not taught Pauline authorship as a dogma.
“A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the desiderata of which you wished to be informed verbally: of Moses five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Josue, of Judges one book, of Kings four books, also Ruth, of the Prophets sixteen books, of Solomon five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job one book, of Tobias one book, Esther one, Judith one, of the Machabees two, of Esdras two, Paralipomenon two books. Likewise of the New Testament:** of the Gospels four books, of Paul the Apostle fourteen epistles, **of John three, epistles of Peter two, an epistle of Jude, an epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John.” **Pope Innocent (regn. A.D. 401-417), Epistle to Exsuperius Bishop of Toulose, 6:7,13 (A.D. 405). **

“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.’. The canonical books are:—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:—the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, **thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, **two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted.” **Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393). **

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.” **Council of Carthage III, Canon 47 (A.D. 397). **

The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:–Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:–Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul–one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John." **Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 2:8,12 (A.D. 426). **
 
Welcome back. Don’t worry, I’m not calling God a liar. Thanks for your concern, though.

Did you read any references I suggested? How about Gottle of Geer’s post, who expressed some things much better than I did?

You seem to have made up your mind, maybe even before you posted the question initially? If so, that’s fine, but just let us know as then I think there really wouldn’t be much point in conversation. I thought it was a sincere honest question.
I have just read his post thanks, and his claims have been refuted.

I didnt know whether or not it was the infallible teaching, so I started the thread with uncertainty, but now I am 100% certain that St.Paul wrote all the letters.

Thank you for your contribution towards the topic. I was not looking for debate on whether he wrote them or not, just confirmation.

God bless
Stephen.<3
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top