ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- Bible scholars often say that 1&2 Timothy, and Titus are forgeries in Paul's name. Here I use undesigned coincidences to show why I think they're wrong.
00:00 What are undesigned coincidences?
01:09 Timothy's upbringing
02:14 Timothy's friend Erastus
03:38 Timothy and the Corinthians
04:27 How did Timothy know about Paul's trials?
05:37 Alexander the coppersmith
06:37 Paul wrote the pastoral letters
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubts.com
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isjesusalive for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Recommended books on defending the Gospels: isjesusalive.com/recommended-...
For a thorough treatment on Pauline authorship go here
jonathanmclatchie.com/who-wrote-the-pastoral-epistles-the-case-for-traditional-authorship/
See also this blog post which considers what it would be like if they were forged, which is a follow up to this video
isjesusalive.com/dr-kipps-trip-on-the-pastoral-letters/
everytime you make videos like these the more I realize people are avoiding Jesus Christ on purpose
true. The evidence of gospels and new testament are so huge to deny it.
@@lucyferos205
Hmmm,
ever heard about what a slogan is?
Because you seem a master in it... 😂
Come with actual names, otherways your words are pretty redundant...
And a phrase like ''most agree'' is actually impossible to state...
Have you traveled the entire globe to speak to at least thousants of scholars???
Then i'm sorry but stop saying these foolish things...
But don't sweat it, i have also made such foolish remarks, i'm also just like you a human...😅
The only question is: do you really want to know if Jesus was who he claimed to be???
Or are you like me before i found out. A dickface who was so miserable that he could only try to end others there joy... 😂😂
It's funny how the skeptics will assume that someone far removed from the events could account for all these little details and make up an account that would fool everyone. Marcion couldn't do it, but somehow all these other people do.
Most atheists have never heard about Marcion and don't understand the historical context of the canon. Then again, most Christians haven't either which is the problem.
@@stevej71393 that's very true
Denying miracles, but proposing ideas that would not work without divine intervention
Marcion wasnt trying to fool people he was just a guy with a bunch of hot takes and people rejected him because they were too crazy
This whole thing about "he tried to fool people by sneaking an anonymous gospel into the church but they found out about it because they were just that good" is just a re telling of history that serves your current apologetic needs
@@shroomitechromee Lol
For me it's 2 Timothy 4:13:
"When you come, bring the cloak I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments."
Why on earth would a forger write a line like that? I'm not buying the forgery theory.
Good point.
I bring that up in my response to McClellan. Lots of weird details that seem unlikely on the forgery hypothesis.
@@TestifyApologetics Yeah... Specially if it is a "pious forger"- a person who wants to convey the message of Paul for a new audience, after the death of the Apostle.
@@svenknutsen8937 2 Timothy has almost no doctrine in it. You wouldn't use 2 Timothy for this. This is one of the reasons that I think 2 Timothy is likely real - it actually does read like a personal letter, whereas 1 Timothy reads like an org chart.
But this does come up with Ephesians. One of the (terrible, IMO) arguments that it's not authentic is that it's basically a summary of Paul's other teachings, and that it was probably originally an epistle for a general audience, not specific to Ephesus. In other words, it's so Pauline that Paul must not have written it.
The forger has a degree in AB Forgery.
skeptics will allow potential "forgeries" to be perhaps the most skilled forgers in history to accomodate their worldview
It would be fun to look through the works of such an atheist scholar, especially one who is old enough to have published articles separated by decades, and then pick one such article which was written more than ten years after some others, and say that due to small stylistic differences and some minor differences in word choice it is obviously a fake.
This is such a great point! We should remember these letters are written by humans and, like any other human, are not static. :)
It would be fun if someone actually did that. Erik's attempt to turn the standards on Philippians was pretty weak, since the proportion of unique words was actually lower than a third, which is the proportion in the Pastorals, and his argument from attestation was also a weaker version. He just applied a worse version of the argument with the same rhetoric and people followed the rhetoric and said "wow its the exact same argument"
So like if someone _actually_ does this with as much effort and detail as a scholar then it would actually be productive for everyone. Go ahead
@@Greyz174
"Erik's attempt to turn the standards on Philippians was pretty weak, since the proportion of unique words was actually lower than a third..."
On this point, wouldn't it be presumptous to think because someone expanded their vocab (or brought on another scribe), then they must not have wrote a work that is attested to be from them?
I ask since I myself have developed my writing over the years and have taken on new vocab as I do. So, maybe you can explain how the context of the 1st century is prohibitive against either of my suggestions! :)
@@FuddlyDud the point was actually more about how an attempt to use this standard on Philippians failed
Lets say for the sake of argument that it really is the case that all of the people who did work on this question are so out of touch that they havent thought and accounted for a common sense objection like this, and its not like they have a good set of background info about peoples patterns of word use in general. Even granting that, the point of what i was saying is that when Erik tried to do a unique word argument on Philippians to say "look you can do this with anything" it was actually worse because he only found a small amount of unique words, a smaller proportion than the Pastorals, so it was really just a case of a worse version of the argument but just using the same rhetoric
@@Greyz174
"the point was actually more about how an attempt to use this standard on Philippians failed"
I know, I'm just curious about your position on said question. :)
"...and its not like they have a good set of background info about peoples patterns of word use in general."
On the idea of them not accounting for a common sense objection, many biblical scholars date the gospels later due to Jesus' prediction of the temple falling and that making later dating more likely...which presupposes Jesus not being able to even guess in a secular sense that the Temple would fall which is a bit silly. :P
Granted, I agree, I bet the scholars have a solid defense such as maybe the limited way vocab developed during the times, although a new scribe with different vocab would be just as much a plausible explanation that I actually tend to prefer. :)
Perfect Timing, going over 1 and 2 Timothy tonight at my church
God wills it!
Me too at bible study haha!!!
@@IamsavedbyGodsgrace Make sure your wife stays silent! 1 Tim. 2:11-12
@@truncated7644 Hahahaa, bold of you to assume I am or will be married.
Mostly saying this to provide encouragement: you may want to address the methodology behind the forgery arguments alongside with giving a positive argument for original authorships.
I have in other videos see the video response to Dan McClellan at the end screen
Mostly saying this as I am somewhat confused but I thought you did a literature review rather than read just one or two papers?
@@edwinlu7733huh? Seems like you're making some weird assumptions
@@TestifyApologetics Mostly saying this based off of your statement about the majority of scholars statement. Never mind then. Since research involves at least 10-50 strong sources to create a comprehensive analysis on a subtopic, I thought your claim on the forgery majority view was due to a literature review rather than hearsay.
@@edwinlu7733
Literature reviews are stronger forms of evidence, however, that final claim is confusing.
Hearsay is out of court statements brought up in court, like me claiming Billy screamed “it’s Debbie!!” before he died.
Erik is not in court, so labeling this as “hearsay” is not useful since technical your literature review would also be “hearsay.” You may want more examples…so go watch his many many videos just as you’d need to read many many pages to create a literature review. Let’s be grateful Erik has provided digestible pieces, akin to chapters or sections in a book/paper. :)
I had never seen this argument before, but its part of my arsenal now!
Thanks for your work brother 🙏
You deserve to have 10x the number of subs you have bro.
Love these, helps put the epistles in a whole new light.
You know what would be a great video? Research the history of Biblical scholarship and bring up previous views that were held by the majority of scholars that turned out to be wrong. Get together as long of a list of those as you can and just present them. Then anytime someone says "But the majority of scholars say..." you can link to that video and say "Well the majority of scholars also used to say X, Y, Z, etc and they were wrong then too."
I might be missing something, but do you think that video would paint scholarship in a particularly pro-Christian light...?
Two examples of previous consensus' I can think of off the top of my head are Mosaic authorship and a historical millions-out-of-Egypt exodus. Both considered tradition by most churches and both previously scholarly consensus, now definitely not scholarly consensus.
You could even say the position Testify is arguing for in this video (that 1&2 Timothy are correctly attributed to Paul) used to be the scholarly consensus, but now isn't.
To me it seems more like where scholarship has changed its consensuses tends to be in places most Christians would find the newer held position uncomfortable.
@@benstillman5080 Scholarship on any topic is going to be a long history of silly things that had no business being believed and yet were simply due to faults in human nature. It concerns science, but it applies equally here: I'd highly recommend reading the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
The issue is that average people have a view of scholarship as some kind of pure process that's always truth seeking. As scholarship's conducted by human beings, it's quite frequently not. Showing examples of scholarship having been wrong can help combat this popular misconception. It can hopefully motivate people to consider the reasoning behind what scholarship suggests instead of believing it blindly.
@@benstillman5080 I don't think there's any trend in scholarship towards a less Christian direction. The so-called consensus about Mosaic authorship and the Exodus was only held ~200 years ago when Christianity was more dominant in society, and it was difficlt for anyone to come out as an atheist. Mosaic authorship was certainly never affirmed by non-Chistian scholars.
Thank you so much, Erik, for this great series. I hadn’t really considered undesigned coincidences much until relatively recently, but they’re really a great tool in any apologetics arsenal. This series is a huge help for me in not only my discussions with non-believers, but in my efforts to help other believers. Great name, too, by the way, even if you do spell it wrong ;)
I use to be a minimal facts guy but my friend Dr. Mclatchie won me over with this amazing and effective approach. While it's still something that is going to getting use to (skeptics and Christians alike) great people like you helping make it mainstream is definitely helping
would you mind explaining what you mean by minimal facts? I keep hearing this term, but no one seems to explain what it is or why they subscribe to it. Thanks.
@@AnHebrewChild it’s the approach offered by Gary Habermas
@@AnHebrewChildminimal facts is an approach to Christian apologetics where as little of the Bible as possible is used to show that Christ is risen from the dead and is God
I always love your commentary! I've never understood how anyone could label a letter as deeply heartfelt and personal as II Timothy a forgery, but then, I guess there's no controversy (and thus no book sales) in saying "Yup, all these books were written by or to the men whose names they bear!"
Hey testify, maybe you can do a video with Daily Dose of Wisdom. He is a great guy and i think itd be a really nice video. Love the work keep it up!
He's welcome to reach out to me
Thanks for this fascinating overview of UC in Timothy, it was really great.
I’d really appreciate a video on your sources for spotting all of these UC.
I know you’ve dropped a few names along the way, McGrew and Paley, but it would be great to know which specific books or others sources you find most useful in this topic.
Thanks for all your great work.
Those are the two books. Lydia has a new book called Testimonies to the Truth which also has a very good chapter of the topic, and it's a great book on NT reliability overall
It's quite simple, if you can make yourself believe that the books of Timothy were forgeries, you get to conveniently ignore the hard things they teach
Awesome sleuthing there dude.
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
God Bless you all
You have a real gift for finding these
I'm getting them from William Paley, that handsome fellow at the end of the screen. Check out his book Horae Paulinae. It was written in the 18th century so it's public domain.
@@TestifyApologetics What do you think explains the lack of scholarly acknowledgement of Paley's contributions?
Thanks for your video. I have no doubts Paul wrote the other 10 letters, but the Pastorals always felt a bit strange to me
The interesting thing is that the Gospel of Luke is quoted in one of the two letters to Timothy, so if they are genuine from Paul this means the Gospel of Luke must date before 62-64 AD, and Matthew and Luke would date from even earlier!
The ONLY real argument they use to date the Gospels to have been written so late is because Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple and the persecution of his followers. But that would have many explanations, even without any divinity. A lucky guess. Or that it happened before, and tensions were rising, so it will likely happen again. Or that it was mostly metaphorical, because it was not about the physical temple but about a spiritual rebirth of faith, etc.
According to that logic, Jules Verne did not write his book "From the Earth to the Moon" in 1865, it must be a forgery written after 1969 after the actual Moon landings. Otherwise why would anyone write that some time in the future men will travel to the Moon, unless it was written after the fact??
This is some of the best evidence that 1 Timothy is not authentic. It's not possible to construct a timeline that makes sense for it. And I accept the early dating of Luke!
@@fluffysheap???
This series has been a banger.
Great biblical investigative work. Props!
yey wohoo !! That's amazing! Thank you Erik so much for your content - what a time to be alive :))
This argument is simply amazing and can stand its ground against the critics
If we analyzed all historical texts with as much scrutiny as these "biblical scholars" are using on the Bible, there would be no history classes, or perhaps only a short one that is mostly relatively recent events.
Well obviously neither Napoleon nor Hitler existed, they are just copies of the same archetype. Both rose from a small rank to become supreme dictator, both conquered most of Europe in a few years, both had an alliance with Russia they then broke, they attacked Russia and had great success at the beginning, until they were finally defeated because of not being able to conquer Russia quickly enough and running out of supplies there. This is unlikely to be a coincidence, so obviously it's about the same story being copied. (just kidding, but you get the idea)
Also, Jules Verne did not write his book "From the Earth to the Moon" in 1865, it must be a forgery written after 1969 after the actual Moon landings. Otherwise why would anyone write that some time in the future men will travel to the Moon, unless it was written after the fact.
Historians do not interpret ancient texts as though they were written by a god.
@@haggismcbaggis9485 They don't interpret the Bible like that either. On the opposite, if some text appears to predict something (even if it could have been easily predicted even without divine inspiration) they take it as an absolute irrefutable proof that the text must have been written after the event it predicted. And on the other hand, if a non-religious source makes a prediction that happened to become true (like a major war decades after the text) then they don't use the same scrutiny.
@@praevasc4299 Herodotus talks about prophecies that the Oracle of Delphi makes. I do not think historians should readily accept that it had actual powers.
It’d be interesting to see an analysis of universally agreed upon forgeries (like the Gospel of Thomas) to see if there are undersigned coincidences there. That’d really put the methodology to the test.
Your videos are elite, I never had problems with insecurity regarding my faith but your material makes me feel better equipped to address potential objections people may have against the truth.
Really solid video looking at cross references.
I must agree though with another comment below. Analyze and address arguments that argue that the letters were forged. I found Craig Blomberg’s works on these quite excellent.
Hmmmm. You don't have anything here from Titus at all, and only one citation from 1 Timothy.
I've always accepted that 2 Timothy is authentic, or at least that most of it is authentic. And there's some evidence to support that in this video - which I appreciate. But if 2 Timothy is authentic and 1 Timothy isn't, then 2 Timothy is earlier than 1 Timothy, and it's likely that the author of 1 Timothy had read 2 Timothy.
It's not a big stretch to go from "Alexander did me great harm" to "I handed Alexander over to Satan." That's one of those obvious, easily-designed coincidences a pseudoepigraphical author would latch onto. It does make it more likely that 2 Timothy is earlier than 1 Timothy.
thank you, my brotha
The general consensus seems to be that the 1st and 2nd Timothy are so-called gray letters that belong to the area of uncertainty; i.e we cannot say whether the letters are genuine or not until proven otherwise. And such an uncertain situation where the exact details are not known leads to researchers and reporters presenting their own personal opinion and view on the matter. This is why chapters dealing with the authenticity of Timothy's epistles often start with, for example, "We don't know, but I personally think..." or "We are not sure, but in my opinion...". But despite this, readers may not understand that here we are jumping from scientific objectivity to one person's view, which is an opinion and not a hard fact. But if you are media literate, you will notice this change in tone right away.
Thank you
Literary the 'only' reason people label 1/2 Timothy as a forgery is because Paul quotes Luke's Gospel. Can't have Paul quoting Luke cause that would mean that Jesus made a Prophecy come true.
Even as a sceptic, I don't buy that. Many people in the past have predicted accurate things and they've come true. What makes the Gospels any different? Obviously there's a bias going on here.
Jules Verne predicted the manned missions to the Moon more than 100 years earlier, in 1865. He was even correct about there being 3 men in the spacecraft, and he was also accurate about many other things, like being launched from Florida and landing in the Pacific Ocean. Should we consider his 1865 book as a post-1969 forgery?
Can you make a video on Hebrews ?
3:43 3:45 age of Timothy
The Apostles getting tortured to death debunks the naysayer scholars.
I'd say that it doesn't necessarily refute that they were wrong, only that it refutes the idea that they had intentions to deceive. I reject that notion.
@darkwolf7740 it doesn't necessarily refute that they (the scholars) were wrong? It only refutes the idea that they (scholars or Apostles) had intentions to deceive?
You reject which notion?
The Apostles died for what they SAW.
You probably saw tons of people discuss that talking point, and psychology and history and basic analysis on the human condition lends considerable weight to this.
An article was written shortly after Watergate where the author points out how the evidences of Watergate prove the Apostles were telling the truth through stark contrasts.
I reject anything that attempts to debunk the conclusions drawn from the martyrdom of the Apostles.
@@Skarlet-ju8srI mean that it shows that they weren't lying when they said they saw something. They definitely did. I just don't think that what they saw was a man risen from the dead, though I certainly could be wrong, since I don't rule out the possibility of a man rising from the dead due to a naturalistic bias.
Edit: I was referring to the Apostles, not Scholars.
@darkwolf7740 then what did these men see if it wasn't Jesus?
Mary didn't recognize her own crucified son?
Who did Thomas stick his fingers and hand into in that room?
Naturalistic bias is not a reason to deny the supernatural.
@darkwolf7740 do keep in mind that ALL of your naturalistic explanations possible are on record being weak due to the fact that there are about 4 to 6 of them and the necessity to conjure so many weak explanations is even more ammunition that the Apostles were probably correct. Look that one up.
I can do it for you also but it's common and easy to find, nothing you and I are going to discuss here will break new ground.
I love these jabs with Reddit and r/ academic Bible
My favorite book written in Paul's name is the apocryphal Apocalypse of Paul. Its author believes in an eternal, extremely cruel hell, but in the story, Paul manages to persuade God to suspend the torture of the damned every Sunday! A small victory of compassion.
Interesting
Im curious why no one seems to question why Paul would leave one of his helpers sick. There are historical documents that say people could just touch a piece of a garment Paul wore and instantly be healed, yet he leaves his friend sick? Why? This mskes no sense to me.
Because the gifts of the Spirit are not used like someone uses a pocket knife
@@TestifyApologetics Jesus even healed people who refused to repent. Just look at Capernaum. Your reply is ludicrous. Scripture teaches to treat your neighbor as yourself. But paul didn't bother to heal his own friend? This isnt the first oddity ive found in scripture.
Jesus did not even heal people in his own hometown because of their own unbelief. See Mark 6. Wym?
@@TestifyApologetics And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.
- Matthew 11:23
And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.”
- Matthew 13:23
He absolutely did miracles in capernaum, as I said.
May God bless you all abundantly, my dear family-in-Christ ❤❤❤❤
fire
Hey , Could I share your videos on tiktok?
you can share short clips if you provide commentary and I don't mean just showing your face and nodding your head like some people do.
@@TestifyApologetics Sure , No worries 😂💯
This entire argument does well to defend 2 timothy but not much to defend 1 timothy. What if 2 timothy was legit but 1 timothy is not. After all, the numbering is a later tradition.
So why do some doubt the authenticity?
I can't see the good stuff through the obvious stuff. If the Pastorals are fake, they'd obviously be fan fiction based on Acts. So if Acts says Timothy is young, the writer's gonna say Timothy was young. When such obviousness is presented as undesigned, it obscures what's really undesigned
I think that's a bit harsh, why would it immediately be fan fiction? It's not as if there would be no middle ground. It could also have been a Christian that wrote a letter to Timothy and wrote what he thought Paul would say. In fact, many of the scholars who do not believe the the letters to Timothy are from Paul believe that. And there are even scholars who believe that 2 Timothy is genuinely from Paul and parts of 1 Timothy are from Paul, but someone else composed 1 Timothy based on 2nd Timothy and those parts.
It's not a black and white thing.
The first argument about the Greek father & Jewish mother isnt very good. It would work in any other culture, but in Jewish culture you inherit being Jewish from the mother's side.
Two words: Ghost Writers
How they don't even consider Paul using ghost writers before jumping to forgery is at the very least funny
34:45. And their predecessors rejected (The Truth) ; these have Not received a tenth Of what We had granted To those :
3:23. Hast thou not turned thy vision to those who have been given a portion of the Book? They are invited to the Book of God to settle their dispute but a party of them turn back and decline (the arbitration).
3:18. that is the witness of God His angels and those endued with knowledge standing firm on justice. -(Quran)
According to the Verses of Quran,
The children of Israel have 10 out of 10 portions of Book of God with them.
But the followers of Quran have 1 portion out of 10 portions.
This 1 portion will be attested to 9 portions as new covenant of God by banning continual burn offering and establishing regular prayer.
So the Gospel is not new covenant for the children of Israel but attesting the Quran.
12:11. Doth not the ear try words,
Even as the palate tasteth its food?
34:3. For the ear trieth words, As the palate tasteth food. -(Job)
So the Christian new covenant is not Jews new Covenant.
And in Christian new covenant has Four Gospels and Revelation written in spiritual scribes. But all other chapters are the writing of their own understanding of theology.
Might you cover the validity of Mark 16:9-20?
The ending of the Gospel of Mark, from verses 9 to 20, is absent in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, indicating it was likely added later by scribes. Internal evidence within the text itself cast doubt on Mark as the author of this passage. The vocabulary and structure of these verses differ significantly from the rest of Mark's Gospel. Ending the Gospel at verse 8, with the amazement of the women at the tomb, is consistent with the thematic pattern of awe at Jesus' works throughout Mark's narrative.
Paul gets bitten by a snake and lives in Acts. Mark says you can get bitten by snakes. It's an undersigned coincidence.
I guess the early church was just stupid and fell for forgers on their holy writings…not like they expelled several actual forgeries through rigorous scrutiny or anything
6:25 "You're bad for *biz*" What does that mean? Is it what I think it is?
This remained me of David wood's scuby doo and the case of the silly scpitc video because there are people who will denie the evidence 😅
Yeah, if I wanted to trick somebody into thinking I was Paul, I would just write whatever I felt like writing. I wouldn't read what he wrote before and try to include a few references to that. Because why would anyone try to make a forgery look authentic?
What’s the point of pretending to be Paul?
@@MrJonny0
Commenting here because I’d also like to know the gain from such an intricate forgery. :)
@@MrJonny0 Probably wouldn't have gotten into the Bible if it said it was written by Ralph. I mean it reads like your MAGA uncle's letter to the editor.
@@brock2k1so you've got nothing then? Just as well you didn't try to forge it
@@MrJonny0 Because these books are used to try and debunk the "gnostic" groups. The proto-Orthodox movement wanted to seem legitimate by producing letters from Paul that could be used against other Christian movements at the time. The "gnostic" Christians believed that what Jesus passed to us was his divine knowledge and that it would lead us to salvation. However 1 Timothy says:
"Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have departed from the faith. Grace be with you all." 1 Timothy 6:20 - 21
In early Christianity "gnostic" teachings were about as common as the "Orthodox" ones we know today. This was a point of great contention among Christians in the early centuries
Yeah there's quite a bit of data that suggests 2nd Timothy is a bit of an outlier, it has weird connections with both 1st Timothy, titus and with the Pauline epistles which is what makes it so unique.
Two words: ghost writers
The writting style being different is no evidence they Paul wasn't behind them
Some of the scribes even add notes and greetings into the letters lol
The biblical scholars will all resign after watching this
In this video, @Testify demonstrates that he is just as clever as second-century Christian writers were in crafting their highly convincing forgeries.
If you can connect a few of the same dots, Erik, then so could anyone familiar enough with early Christian writings, no?
Well, nobody in the second century could load the text of Acts in Microsoft Word, type in Ctrl+F and search for "Erastus".
Seems like you're starting with your conclusion.
Kipp, I wrote a blog post in response to your comment, which I get is overkill. But you are Dr. Kill so I figured that wouldn't bother you lol. Let me know your thoughts. isjesusalive.com/dr-kipps-trip-on-the-pastoral-letters/
@@Daniel-mw7pu Ill never understand why people feel the cynical need to always go with some great conspiracy, hasn't it ever occurred to you that maybe they just fit together because they are consistent in their accounts? Sounds simpler than some needle in a haystack conspiracy where the early church somehow coincided on which writings definitely fit together better than others.
@@Daniel-mw7pu but there is no evidence that any of the early catholic church thought about any of these things. It would also be incredibly unlikely that people would write these fakes that just so happen to line up perfectly. There would be almost no reason to fake most the things in these letters anyway, there's just a standard being applied to Christian books that isn't applied to any other historical book.
Another possible UC regarding Erastus:
Erastus means “beloved” in Greek. Erastus is the “beloved disciple” who wrote the 4th Gospel.
In other words: Erastus is Lazarus (whom Jesus raised from the dead in 4th Gospel Chapter 11). Lazarus would have had to change his identity and leave the Jerusalem area after Jesus’ resurrection, because life would have been too crazy for Lazarus (people would have wanted to worship him or kill him).
Lazarus changed his name to Erastus and became one of Paul’s traveling companions (Acts 19:22). The “beloved disciple” had access to the temple treasury (4th Gospel 8:20) and might very well have been employed in the temple (Lazarus lived in Bethany, a short distance from the temple). Lazarus/Erastus became the treasurer of the city of Corinth (Romans 16:23). Therefore, he could keep his occupation, but living far enough away from Jerusalem where he would not be recognized.
This is super complicated
The beloved disciple was Thomas.
Occam's razor doesn't work in your favour here.
Your theory is wrong and your Greek is wrong. "Beloved" as used in John, is something along the lines of αγαπητός. Which as you can see has nothing in common with Ἔραστον.
this doesnt work because it depends on lazarus specifically being the beloved disciples and the beloved disciple was actually the friends we made along the way
Virtually all scholars believe they are forgeries. Burton L. Mack:
The three letters were written at different times, undoubtedly during the first half of the second century. They were not included in Marcion’s list of Paul’s letters (ca. 140 C.E.), nor do they appear in the earliest manuscript collection of Paul’s letters (P46, ca. 200 C.E). Their attribution to Paul is clearly fictional, for their language, style, and thought are thoroughly un-Pauline, and the “personal” references to particular occasions in the lives of Timothy, Titus, and Paul do not fit with reconstructions of that history taken from the authentic letters of Paul. The mention of Crete in Titus (Titus 1:5, 12-13), of Ephesus in 1 Timothy (1 Tim. 1:3), and clues from the later legends about Paul, make an Aegean provenance likely (MacDonald 1983).
The only authentic attributions in the New Testament are only 7 letters, making most of the New Testament forgeries.
You probably believe “virtually all” scientists think humans drive climate change and it’s dangerous. You probably believe “virtually all” doctors think the covid “vaccines” are safe and effective 😂