Yes, I'm aware there are arguments to defend Pauline authorship of all the letters attributed to him. Some of those arguments are more convincing than others, but they do not settle the matter.
@@storynt yes I know good video btw Bart Ehrman admitted that all of his problems with the supposedly forged letters can be solved if the Apostles had simply relied heavily on scribes. For example, I read that because Peter was an illiterate Galilean fisherman (along those words) that he couldn’t have written his letters, but it makes perfect sense that he used a secretary.
@@storynt the early church Rejected Pseudonymous Letters(2 Thess. 2:2) The early church flatly rejected pseudonymous letters. Ironically, 2 Thessalonians (a letter believed by some to be pseudonymous) admonishes believers to “not…be easily upset or troubled, either by a prophecy or by a message or by a letter supposedly from us, alleging that the day of the Lord has come” (2 Thessalonians 2:2). Early church leaders emphasized the authenticity of Christian documents. Tertullian while teaching on his acceptance of complementarianism discredited a letter involving Paul and a woman named Thecla because it was falsely attributed to Paul. Eusebius tells the story of Serapion. Serapion was the bishop of Antioch. Serapion chided the church at Rhosse in Cilicia for their use of the the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. Serapion wrote, “We brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.”[6]
@@storynt13 Now when the men of the Sanhedrin (Jewish High Court) saw the confidence and boldness of Peter and John, and grasped the fact that they were [f]uneducated and untrained [ordinary] men, they were astounded, and began to recognize that they had been with Jesus. And when it says uneducated it means They had no formal religious training in the rabbinical schools.
Only 6 of the pauls letters are disputed the others arent and you can make an argument for the 6 disputed ones
Yes, I'm aware there are arguments to defend Pauline authorship of all the letters attributed to him. Some of those arguments are more convincing than others, but they do not settle the matter.
@@storynt yes I know good video btw Bart Ehrman admitted that all of his problems with the supposedly forged letters can be solved if the Apostles had simply relied heavily on scribes. For example, I read that because Peter was an illiterate Galilean fisherman (along those words) that he couldn’t have written his letters, but it makes perfect sense that he used a secretary.
@@storynt the early church Rejected Pseudonymous Letters(2 Thess. 2:2)
The early church flatly rejected pseudonymous letters. Ironically, 2 Thessalonians (a letter believed by some to be pseudonymous) admonishes believers to “not…be easily upset or troubled, either by a prophecy or by a message or by a letter supposedly from us, alleging that the day of the Lord has come” (2 Thessalonians 2:2).
Early church leaders emphasized the authenticity of Christian documents. Tertullian while teaching on his acceptance of complementarianism discredited a letter involving Paul and a woman named Thecla because it was falsely attributed to Paul.
Eusebius tells the story of Serapion. Serapion was the bishop of Antioch. Serapion chided the church at Rhosse in Cilicia for their use of the the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. Serapion wrote, “We brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.”[6]
@@storyntalso do you think the gospels are early or late
@@storynt13 Now when the men of the Sanhedrin (Jewish High Court) saw the confidence and boldness of Peter and John, and grasped the fact that they were [f]uneducated and untrained [ordinary] men, they were astounded, and began to recognize that they had been with Jesus.
And when it says uneducated it means They had no formal religious training in the rabbinical schools.