scholars claim not all letters are written by paul.

[Just_Lurking]

Here is what the Vatican website says about this (see here):

From the late second century to the nineteenth, Pauline authorship of the three Pastoral Epistles went unchallenged. Since then, the attribution of these letters to Paul has been questioned. Most scholars are convinced that Paul could not have been responsible for the vocabulary and style, the concept of church organization, or the theological expressions found in these letters. A second group believes, on the basis of statistical evidence, that the vocabulary and style are Pauline, even if at first sight the contrary seems to be the case. They state that the concept of church organization in the letters is not as advanced as the questioners of Pauline authorship hold since the notion of hierarchical order in a religious community existed in Israel before the time of Christ, as evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Finally, this group sees affinities between the theological thought of the Pastorals and that of the unquestionably genuine letters of Paul. Other scholars, while conceding a degree of validity to the positions mentioned above, suggest that the apostle made use of a secretary who was responsible for the composition of the letters. A fourth group of scholars believes that these letters are the work of a compiler, that they are based on traditions about Paul in his later years, and that they include, in varying amounts, actual fragments of genuine Pauline correspondence.

 

[Stephentlig]

what this says is merely just what one scholar says and another scholar says.

yet…all these claims are pointless because the inerrant teaching of the the church ( who decided the canon of scripture as qouted above) says that the letters are ascribed to St.Paul. and God cannot lie.

‘‘God who lieth not’’ ( Titus:1:2)

God bless
Stephen <3

 

[juliamajor]

This is not a new claim at all. Been around for quite awhile. there was doubt about Hebrews early on. If you notice all Pauline letters are listed by order of length except Hebrews.That’s because it’s status as Pauline has been debated for a very long time!

 

[TMC]

what this says is merely just what one scholar says and another scholar says.

yet…all these claims are pointless because the inerrant teaching of the the church ( who decided the canon of scripture as qouted above) says that the letters are ascribed to St.Paul. and God cannot lie.

‘‘God who lieth not’’ ( Titus:1:2)

God bless
Stephen <3

I don’t understand what you have found here that has confirmed that it is the inerrant teaching of the Church that all thirteen Pauline epistles were actually authored by Paul. There is no doubt that they are canonical and valid as Scripture, but neither of those depend on authorship. The Church has not made an infallible pronouncement on this issue. In fact, as recently as this January Pope Benedict suggested that the Pastoral Letters contain some of Paul’s words, but were actually written by others from the “Pauline School.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090128_en.html

 

[PJM]

=Stephentlig;5031128]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.’’

Friend your barking uo the wrong tree!

Authorship is NOT THE ISSUE. TRUTH is the ussue, and TRUTH remains :thumbsup:TRUTH:

Paul may have had one or more scribes including St, Luke. So what:shrug: It’s still the inspired Word of God and its still The truth!

 

[Stephentlig]

I don’t understand what you have found here that has confirmed that it is the inerrant teaching of the Church that all thirteen Pauline epistles were actually authored by Paul. There is no doubt that they are canonical and valid as Scripture, but neither of those depend on authorship. The Church has not made an infallible pronouncement on this issue. In fact, as recently as this January Pope Benedict suggested that the Pastoral Letters contain some of Paul’s words, but were actually written by others from the “Pauline School.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090128_en.html

The Church has not made an infallible pronouncement on this issue.

The Catholic church decided the canon of scripture in the 4th century, you cant get any more infallible than this.

‘‘thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews,’’
Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

‘‘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:’’
***Christian Doctrine, 2:8,12 (A.D. 426). ***

they say fourteen epistles ‘‘of the apostle paul’’ and then continue to tell you which epistles those are. now your behaving like a protestent, it doesnt literally say ‘‘paul wrote all letters’’ its right there in your face that Paul wrote all letters.

CCC 1117 ‘‘The letters of St.Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 corinthians, Galations, Ephesians, phillippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, The Letter to the Hebrews’’

therefore it is dogmatic teaching that Paul wrote all letters as its clearly says THE LETTERS OF ST.PAUL it does not say ‘‘THE LETTERS OF ST.PAUL WITH AN EXCEPTION OF A FEW’’

The Holy father is infallible on faith and morals not ideas, this is why Catholic apologists have the permission to question ( in a God fearing manner ) his ideas.
Therefore the debate should not even be on anyones lips, for to do so is to claim the Holy Spirit to be in error, and the Holy Spirit clearly gave its authorship of the Letters through St.Paul.

**Matthew 12 Found 1

31 Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.**

God bless
Stephen<3

 

[Stephentlig]

This is not a new claim at all. Been around for quite awhile. there was doubt about Hebrews early on. If you notice all Pauline letters are listed by order of length except Hebrews.That’s because it’s status as Pauline has been debated for a very long time!

Been around for quite awhile.

That’s because it’s status as Pauline has been debated for a very long time!

Julia has just made two statements with no chronology what so ever, I’d love to see how ‘‘long’’ they have been debating this. ( a debate that should not even be happening ).

you mean its been around a while since these are the last days and satan is pouring out his vomit upon the church and he is using all these scholars and doctors to do it, and creating confusion within the church. well I am here to cancel all confusion.

St.Paul wrote the letters, do not listen to these scholars and doctors and lay people who agree with them who are like drug addicts always looking for something ‘‘new’’ they are never satisfied with what they have just been given by Mother Church and ( not all but a majority ) are those people who shout at the church and say ‘‘give us something new’’.
there never will be anything new.

St.Paul wrote the letters, the councils in the fourth century who decided the canon of scripture affirm this.

Pax Christi.
Stephen<3

 

[diggerdomer]

Julia has just made two statements with no chronology what so ever, I’d love to see how ‘‘long’’ they have been debating this. ( a debate that should not even be happening ).

you mean its been around a while since these are the last days and satan is pouring out his vomit upon the church and he is using all these scholars and doctors to do it, and creating confusion within the church. well I am here to cancel all confusion.

St.Paul wrote the letters, do not listen to these scholars and doctors and lay people who agree with them who are like drug addicts always looking for something ‘‘new’’ they are never satisfied with what they have just been given by Mother Church and ( not all but a majority ) are those people who shout at the church and say ‘‘give us something new’’.
there never will be anything new.

St.Paul wrote the letters, the councils in the fourth century who decided the canon of scripture affirm this.

Pax Christi.
Stephen<3

Is it possible to continue this conversation without allusions to satan, vomit, and drug addicts? I really don’t see how any of those are relevant to the topic at hand. Maybe you could start a new thread for those. Otherwise, it’s just confusing your bringing those up.

Thanks

 

[adowcday]

Guys, there seems to be some confusion here, which is pretty widespread on the CA forums.

The fact that one can quote a teaching of a pope or even the Catechism does not make it infallible dogma.

Moreover, authorship of the New Testament epistles had not been infallibly defined. The Catholic understanding of the inerrancy of the scriptures permits one to withhold judgment regarding the author of a particular epistle.

The consensus of modern biblical scholars (in good standing with the Church BTW) is that Paul did not write all of the letters attributed to him. I think they’re right. It doesn’t undercut the teaching contained in them. I believe that they are inspired for different reasons than their authorship. If you go to a Roman Catholic seminary these days, candidates for priesthood are being taught the same thing.

OK, flame on!

 

[Stephentlig]

Guys, there seems to be some confusion here, which is pretty widespread on the CA forums.

The fact that one can quote a teaching of a pope or even the Catechism does not make it infallible dogma.

Moreover, authorship of the New Testament epistles had not been infallibly defined. The Catholic understanding of the inerrancy of the scriptures permits one to withhold judgment regarding the author of a particular epistle.

The consensus of modern biblical scholars (in good standing with the Church BTW) is that Paul did not write all of the letters attributed to him. I think they’re right. It doesn’t undercut the teaching contained in them. I believe that they are inspired for different reasons than their authorship. If you go to a Roman Catholic seminary these days, candidates for priesthood are being taught the same thing.

OK, flame on!

The fact that one can quote a teaching of a pope or even the Catechism does not make it infallible dogma.

has anyone read what this guy just wrote? that all thats written in the cathechism is not infallible doctrine?
below is a peice taken from John Salzas website.
Catholic apologist for the Catholic faith. It explains that the Catholics decision on the Canon of scirpture is infallible doctrine, therefore all my qoutes to you on the councils who decided the canon of scripture in the fourth century are infallible.

Gino: Hi John. I heard R.C. Sproul say on Christian radio that the canon of Scripture is only “fallible.” He said this to evidently undermine the Catholic Church’s decision in determining the canon. What do you say about this?

J. Salza: Gino, Sproul has to argue that the canon of Scripture is fallible because he knows that the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture at councils in A.D. 382, 393 and 397. **If he admits that the Catholic Church made an infallible decision concerning the canon (which is true), then he would have to explain why he doesn’t follow the Catholic Church’s other infallible teachings. **To skirt the issue, Sproul has to argue that the canon is only a fallible collection of infallible books.

Sproul’s argument falls apart at the seams. If the canon were only a fallible collection of infallible books, then why should we believe that the books in the canon are themselves infallible? The infallible books do not tell us what the canon should be, and this forces us to look outside the infallible books to understand how the canon was selected. As Sproul so well knows, this outside source was the Holy Catholic Church, who made the infallible decision concerning what Scriptures were inspired and canonical, and what Scriptures were not (a decision that Sproul agrees with).

Moreover, if the canon is only a fallible collection, then this means other books could be added to the canon, and books currently in the canon could be removed. Is this what Sproul is suggesting? I doubt it, but this is the logical consequence of his argument, which proves that his argument is not logical at all. A principle of logic is that an effect can never be greater than its cause. **This means that, if the canon of Scripture is infallible, its determination had to come from an infallible source as well. **Arguing for a fallible canon also means that Sproul has no basis to deny the canonicity of other religious writings such as the book of Mormon, etc. He has no authority to do so.

Sproul’s argument is fallacious, but he must make the argument in order to avoid submitting himself to the teaching authority of the Holy Catholic Church, an authority that he himself recognizes regarding the canon of Scripture, but nothing else. His argument, paradoxically, undermines the reliability of the Scriptures, which is the very thing on which Sproul bases his whole theology and entire Christian life.’’

the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture at councils in A.D. 382, 393 and 397. That makes the decision on canon of scripture an infallible one, to question that infallible decision is to call God a liar and God cannot lie. (Titus:1:2 )

Have a blessed day.

 

[Orogeny]

has anyone read what this guy just wrote? that all thats written in the cathechism is not infallible doctrine?

Yes I did but apparently you did not. Read what he wrote again. He definately didn’t say that all thats written in the catechism is not infallible doctrine. I don’t have permission to speak for him, but I will be willing to bet that he knows that much of the catechism is infallible, just not everything.

Peace

Tim

 

[juliamajor]

Julia has just made two statements with no chronology what so ever, I’d love to see how ‘‘long’’ they have been debating this. ( a debate that should not even be happening ).

you mean its been around a while since these are the last days and satan is pouring out his vomit upon the church and he is using all these scholars and doctors to do it, and creating confusion within the church. well I am here to cancel all confusion.

St.Paul wrote the letters, do not listen to these scholars and doctors and lay people who agree with them who are like drug addicts always looking for something ‘‘new’’ they are never satisfied with what they have just been given by Mother Church and ( not all but a majority ) are those people who shout at the church and say ‘‘give us something new’’.
there never will be anything new.

Pax Christi.
Stephen<3

With the exception of 1John,Heb is the only NT epistle that begins without a greeting mentioning the writer’s name.
The view of the Eastern Church of Alexandria influenced the Western church by end of 4th C. and beginning of the 5th the Western church had accepted it as Pauline.Western Church had been contending with Pauline authorship until then. Earliest view of authorship is from Tertullian who ascribed it to Barnabas.
Origen accepted it as Pauline in a wider sense- a Pauline school .
Eusebius said God knows" who wrote it
It was not a part of the Muratorian Canon 200AD
So those “drug addicts” of the early church who contended with this question were merely looking for the truth, not trying to sow confusion.

 

[Stephentlig]

Yes I did but apparently you did not. Read what he wrote again. He definately didn’t say that all thats written in the catechism is not infallible doctrine. I don’t have permission to speak for him, but I will be willing to bet that he knows that much of the catechism is infallible, just not everything.

Peace

Tim

If the cathechism does not contain all truth on faith and morals then how does one know if they are receiving the truth?

Stephen says to a friend of his ‘‘oh here you go, theres a cathechism for you, it contains the truth although not all of it is true’’

its hardly gonna help in the conversion of my friend is it?

’'3. the Doctrinal value of the text
‘‘The Cathechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which today I order by virtue of my apostolic authority, is a statement of the church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for the teaching of the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.’’

The burden is now on all of you to show me a magesterial pronouncment which states that not everything in the cathechism is true, because if not everything in the cathechism is true then I am sure there should be a small print on it somewhere that I missed which there isnt.

God bless you Stephen!

your all trying to weave your way around the infallible doctrine of the church which you cannot.Matthew 7
25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

 

[Stephentlig]

With the exception of 1John,Heb is the only NT epistle that begins without a greeting mentioning the writer’s name.
The view of the Eastern Church of Alexandria influenced the Western church by end of 4th C. and beginning of the 5th the Western church had accepted it as Pauline.Western Church had been contending with Pauline authorship until then. Earliest view of authorship is from Tertullian who ascribed it to Barnabas.
Origen accepted it as Pauline in a wider sense- a Pauline school .
Eusebius said God knows" who wrote it
It was not a part of the Muratorian Canon 200AD
So those “drug addicts” of the early church who contended with this question were merely looking for the truth, not trying to sow confusion.

that was before the infallible decision that the Catholic church made in the councils of in A.D. 382, 393 and 397.

therefore after the infallible descision of those councils noone could argue whether that epistle to the hebrews was by him or not, for to do so would be merely claiming the Holy Spirit to be in error. so they were not drug addicts at all nope. they were merely looking for the truth yes, and that truth was finally and infallibly decided in the councils of A.D 382, 393 and 397. I am talking about the people who debate it after its authorship was given to St.Paul not before it.

Have a blessed day Julia

 

[diggerdomer]

has anyone read what this guy just wrote? that all thats written in the cathechism is not infallible doctrine?.

Yes, I did read it.

Forgot to thank him/her for how clearly and succinctly he/she stated accurately what the Church teaches.

Thanks adowcday!

 

[diggerdomer]

If the cathechism does not contain all truth on faith and morals then how does one know if they are receiving the truth?

Stephen says to a friend of his ‘‘oh here you go, theres a cathechism for you, it contains the truth although not all of it is true’’

its hardly gonna help in the conversion of my friend is it?

You’re the only one here saying that not everything in the Catechism is true.

 

[Stephentlig]

You’re the only one here saying that not everything in the Catechism is true.

The fact that one can quote a teaching of a pope or even the Catechism does not make it infallible dogma.

I have not said everything in the cathechism is not true.
I claim it to be the truth and everything in it is the truth, the church teaches us this.

God bless you
Stephen<3

 

[diggerdomer]

I have not said everything in the cathechism is not true.

No one here said you did.

PLEASE–read carefully what others post, and if you are unsure of what someone means ask for clarification.

You keep accusing others of saying things that simply were not posted by them.

 

[Stephentlig]

No one here said you did.

PLEASE–read carefully what others post, and if you are unsure of what someone means ask for clarification.

You keep accusing others of saying things that simply were not posted by them.

You’re the only one here saying that not everything in the Catechism is true.

scratchin his head diggerdomer did you, or did you not say this to me in a previous post?

 

[Luke65]

Great work, Stephen! I never put together the fact that not only has the Church infallibly declared the Canon of Scripture, but also some of the sacred authors. And I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone else point this out. But I do need to point something out here: it is only ecumenical councils that are binding on the whole Church, and whose decrees, therefore, are guaranteed infallibility. But none of the councils you quoted were ecumenical - see this article. And the popes never invoked infallibility with “We define and declare…” Nevertheless, history has proven that they were correct. But all of this is moot for the issue at hand, since the Council of Trent was an infallible ecumenical council, and it says the same thing:

The Council of Trent
The Fourth Session

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.