Paul's view of women

[Ingledsva]

From some strange reason, you skeptics love to refute yourselves. Making my job really easy.



A common counter factual fallacy (aka shoulda, coulda, woulda fallacy) skeptics love to regurgitate.



Just because someone "claims" the author was not Paul does not indicate he was not. Hi, I'm not James2ko

NOR - as stated over and over - does the Bible saying so - make it actually so.

There is no actual proof Paul wrote any of it.



*

 

[outhouse]

A fool with a sheaf of diplomas and degrees is still just a fool..

denial of education and knowledge is fanaticism.

 

[outhouse]

There is no actual proof Paul wrote any of it.



*

yet not argued, and it is accepted as so.

 

[outhouse]

Each individual scholar who expresses a definite opinion divides the Pauline epistles into genuine, pseudepigraphical or uncertain. Those who talk about the range of opinions use the terms undisputed and disputed. That is what I meant. (Hebrews of course never even claims to be written by Paul.)

BTW Felix Just does not avoid the term pseudepigraphical. On the contrary the very first lengthy section of the article Wiki quotes is all about pseudeigrapha and the legitimate desire to understand who really wrote a work. He says that when talking about the range of opinions, ‘undisputed/disputed’ is preferable to ‘true/false’ since scholars disagree about which is which.



Concerning Powell, the Wiki article says: “Mark Powell writes that the first-century church did not seem to have a problem with the now-disputed letters since their thought was compatible with Paul's doctrines. An established convention at the time—especially epistles written in the first two or three decades after Paul's probable martyrdom, may have been viewed as part of the legitimate Pauline tradition and included as such in the New Testament canon. However, that apparent attitude of "acceptable pseudepigraphy" was short lived and did not continue into the second century.” Emphasis added.

None of which addresses it may not be, since it is a 50/50 split.

 

[Alt Thinker]

None of which addresses it may not be, since it is a 50/50 split.

I never intended to address 2 Thessalonians or Colossians. I was only talking about the use of the term 'pseudepigrapha'.

 

[outhouse]

I never intended to address 2 Thessalonians or Colossians. I was only talking about the use of the term 'pseudepigrapha'.

There is our communication error.

I was only dealing with 2T

In that case I agree with everything you posted

 

[Ingledsva]

1. I only asked one (SINGULAR) simple question, which you continue to ignore. Where does it specifically state Paul did not author Timothy and Titus? Not a difficult request for a book full of contradictions, right?

ING - I have answered this over and over. Here- simplified site - Paul authorship problems, - but I suggest you find a good site and read the whole debate. - https://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/deutero.stm

"The Deutero-Pauline and Pastoral Epistles are not attributed directly to Paul; they were written after his death.

◾The Deutero-Pauline epistles are Colossians, Ephesians, and II Thessalonians.
◾The Pastoral Epistles are I & II Timothy and Titus."

Again! You are the one with shoddy circular logic.

2. Not nice, ING. I'm proud of my faith and you should be of yours.


ING - Nice try at what? You are using circular logic. You want me to prove something false, - by using the text in question, - which says it is true. That is ridiculous.

You just keep repeating that the Bible says it, so it is so. I on the other hand - pointed you to sites with real Biblical Scholarship, and their debates on dates, and actual authors.

3. You pointed me to the ministers of your faith who speculate on dates and authenticity of the bible.


ING - Good grief Dude! I pointed you to Biblical Scholarship DEBATE - that means read the DEBATES - which include both sides! They are NOT "ministers of my faith!"

You have repeated this idiocy over and over. So I guess we need to go to children's story level. In this story we SWITCH sides - so I can show how ridiculous what you are saying is.


1. I tell -YOU- that I believe in the Book of Truffle.

2. I tell -YOU- that WanHo wrote the third chapter, - because the book says so.

3. You (now in my shoes) say there is scholarship concerning the Book of Truffle, which refutes this, or brings it into question, so go check it out.

4. I now (playing you) say PROVE it using the Book of Truffle.


If THE BOOK is in contention - obviously I am not going to use what IT says - to disprove what IT says! That is ludicrous. I am going to use the scholarship done concerning it. It is simple to Google this and read both sides of the argument.

4. Let's take a look at it from another perspective:

1. I tell -YOU- that I believe in the writings of my scholars about the bibles inaccuracy.

2. I tell -YOU- that WanHo, a liberal scholar, says in the third chapter the bible is inaccurate, - because his scholarship says so.

3. You (now in my shoes) say; according to the evidence in the bible, there is poor reasoning and much speculation involving the liberal scholarship concerning these writings, which refutes this, or brings it into question, so go check it out.

4. I now (playing you) say PROVE it using the writings of my liberal scholars.

If THE liberal writings are in contention - obviously I am not going to use what IT says - to disprove what IT says! That is ludicrous. I am going to use the facts presented in the scriptures which are my authority and source of truth.​

See how "faith" works? In spite of what you think, it's circular.


ING - MY! MY! You don't know how to do this do you? You changed it.

And again - You having faith in your scriptures - is not what we are debating. WE ARE DEBATING THE SCRIPTURES. Thus the scholarship of both sides is used. Not what you "believe."

Fact of the mater - it would be almost impossible for you to read all the material even if reading day and night in a cave. So - again - NO you didn't read all the related exegeses!

5. Here's another link-in to your stinkin' thinkin' (Hey, that rhymes )--- reduction to absurdity: a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial". I even warned you it was a trick question and you still stepped on the thing you call "crap"... peewww...All hail the [fallacy] queen!....LOL!


ING - I suggest you read your own link. YOU actually stated that you HAD READ ALL THE MATERIAL! That is false!



6. Ditto.

ING - I don't have to prove this - YOU KNOW THIS - as they said it to you.

7. They did? I sincerely do not remember not one instance. So the burden of proof is on you.. I'll ask again, link me to more than one post proving to me and our audience the reason people (plural) give up on me and put me on their ignore list is due to my circular logic. I'll be waiting...


ING - I am not going searching for them. You know what they said. Not remembering is just bull.

It is far more logical to put "faith" in scholarship, - rather then, - because the Bible says so.

8. I think it makes more sense to put faith in the bible rather than, because my scholars say so.


ING - Such is ridiculous. Older scholarship came up with the old translations, - and newer scholarship is challenging such, and bringing some authorship, etc., into question. You make it sound like only Atheists are doing this work, when the majority is by Biblical Scholars.

You need to reread that. Faith is just belief.

9. That's correct. And your belief is that your liberal scholar's speculation about the text is correct.

ING - LOL! They are not the same. Your "faith" is = it is in the Bible, so I believe it. Mine is reading both sides of the scholarship, and making an informed decision.

Trying to use the BOOK of your faith - when it is being questioned, - by asking me repeatedly to disprove it, - from it - very definitely is!

10. Not really. You say the bible is full of contradictions. It indicates Paul authored Timothy and Titus. So it should not be difficult for you to find where it states Paul did not author Timothy and Titus. C'mon ING, I have "faith" in you.........in your failure to do so. LOL!


ING - Let us be specific here. YOU keep telling me, to prove against it - using it! That is ridiculous! Also - see "1" above.

What I want to say at this point would probably get me banned - so - SEE SIMPLE STORY ABOVE!

11. What's the matter ING? Pot boiling over? Perhaps the boiling egg in it is ready to crack? I tried to warn you. But you foolishly continue to respond. You kindled this fire way back in pg 8 post 80 and you are the one who has to put it out. :yes:

Not hardly. It is frustrating to answer the same illogical questions and answers, with logic, only to have you repeat your circular illogical crap - over and over.


*

 

[Shuttlecraft]

There is no actual proof Paul wrote any of it.

Prove it or we'll think you're making things up as you go along..

 

[Ingledsva]

There is no actual proof Paul wrote any of it.

Prove it or we'll think you're making things up as you go along..

You realize that type of sentence is ridiculous, right?


Many portions have been attributed to others - by Biblical Scholars.


They say some could be by Paul, if the dates are old enough.


But the facts of the matter are, that there is no proof that any of the Bible is actually written by the people named.


And even if the people named did write some of it, - the myth would still be just myth, - for instance, dead people didn't get out of their graves and walk around the city.



*

 

[outhouse]

You realize that type of sentence is ridiculous, right?


Many portions have been attributed to others - by Biblical Scholars.


They say some could be by Paul, if the dates are old enough.


But the facts of the matter are, that there is no proof that any of the Bible is actually written by the people named.


And even if the people named did write some of it, - the myth would still be just myth, - for instance, dead people didn't get out of their graves and walk around the city.



*

It is safe to say Paul wrote part of the 7 undisputed epistles, many are co authored and not just Pauls work.

After that, ya sure unknown authors/communities

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..there is no proof that any of the Bible is actually written by the people named.

Haha, why on earth would anybody want to make it up?
That's where the atheist argument always breaks down, because you can't come up with a MOTIVE..

 

[james2ko]

ING - I have answered this over and over. Here- simplified site - Paul authorship problems, - but I suggest you find a good site and read the whole debate. - https://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/deutero.stm

1. Speculative assumptions about what someone believes the text indicates or does not indicate is not an answer to my question. The fact indicated in the text remains-- Paul ultimate authored Timothy and Titus.. So you have to find the contradiction in the text that specifically states Paul did not author Timothy and Titus in order for my question to be answered. (Jeopardy music playing)

ING - Nice try at what? You are using circular logic. You want me to prove something false, - by using the text in question, - which says it is true. That is ridiculous.

2. No more ridiculous than you wanting to prove the text false by using your scholar's interpretations/opinion about the text, which your faith says its true.

ING - Good grief Dude! I pointed you to Biblical Scholarship DEBATE - that means read the DEBATES - which include both sides! They are NOT "ministers of my faith!"

3. Good grief. Dudette. You pointed me to your "teachers" opinions about their interpretation of the text. ..Not very credible coming from "fallacy" royalty.

ING - MY! MY! You don't know how to do this do you? You changed it. And again - You having faith in your scriptures - is not what we are debating. WE ARE DEBATING THE SCRIPTURES. Thus the scholarship of both sides is used. Not what you "believe."

4. All I did was exchange my source of faith with yours to expose the fallaciousness of your little Dr. Seuss story---Keep em comin...LOL!.

You having faith in your scriptures

5. Yep. Just as much faith as you have in your liberal scholars opinion of the scriptures.

ING - I suggest you read your own link. YOU actually stated that you HAD READ ALL THE MATERIAL! That is false!

6. Did you qualify the term "all"? Nope. You assumed I meant every single exegete that is available, thus falling into my fallacy trap (reduction to absurdity) even after a warning..It proves your ignorance of good logic and exposes the severity of your "stinky thinky"...LOL!!

ING - I am not going searching for them. You know what they said. Not remembering is just bull.

7. Let me get this straight. You accuse me of something. I ask you to prove it and this is the best answer you can muster??? That's like a prosecutor, during a perjury trial, telling a defense witness who does not recall the event, "I really don't have any proof, but you know what they said. Not remembering is just bull." Just when we thought your twisted logic couldn't get any worse. LOL!! So are you going to provide proof or are we going to have to accuse you of defamation/slander AKA lying?

ING - Such is ridiculous. Older scholarship came up with the old translations, - and newer scholarship is challenging such, and bringing some authorship, etc., into question. You make it sound like only Atheists are doing this work, when the majority is by Biblical Scholars.

8. You really cannot help yourself. I'm beginning to actually feel sorry for you----The appeal to novelty, also known as argumentum ad novitatem, iis a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is new." Yes, just because modern, liberal, Biblical Scholars are alive and well doesn't make them or their interpretations right. You are running through the list of fallacies way too fast.. Slow down before you hurt yourself...LOL !

ING - LOL! They are not the same. Your "faith" is = it is in the Bible, so I believe it. Mine is reading both sides of the scholarship, and making an informed decision.

9. And your "faith" = it is in my liberal scholar's writings/opinion, so I believe it.

ING - Let us be specific here. YOU keep telling me, to prove against it - using it! That is ridiculous! Also - see "1" above.

10. All I'm asking is for you or your ministers to find a contradiction in reference to Paul not being the ultimate author of Titus and Timothy in the book you both claim has many. Not a ridiculous request at all....Well? I'm still waitING(Jeopardy music is just about up)

Not hardly. It is frustrating to answer the same illogical questions and answers, with logic, only to have you repeat your circular illogical crap - over and over.

11. How exactly does someone who has been proven illogical answer illogical answers with logic????..Never mind. I'm sure you'll figure out a way. LOL! Answer the question you've been ignoring for several pages and I will stop frustrating you by pointing out your "skunk" reasoning. Where does it specifically state Paul did not ultimately author Timoty and Titus?

 

[Ingledsva]

..there is no proof that any of the Bible is actually written by the people named.

Haha, why on earth would anybody want to make it up?
That's where the atheist argument always breaks down, because you can't come up with a MOTIVE..

Why would they make it up? You have got to be kidding!

Have you bothered to read WORLD RELIGIOUS MYTH?

You claim yours is the real one, - they claim theirs is, - and they all eventually fade to what they are, myth.

You call all other religions myth. We just add yours to the myth list.

The reality is all of your religions are myth.

None of you has any proof that mythic, supernatural, events actually happened.

And that means they are made-up!


*

 

[Ingledsva]

1. Speculative assumptions about what someone believes the text indicates or does not indicate is not an answer to my question. The fact indicated in the text remains-- Paul ultimate authored Timothy and Titus.. So you have to find the contradiction in the text that specifically states Paul did not author Timothy and Titus in order for my question to be answered. (Jeopardy music playing)

2. No more ridiculous than you wanting to prove the text false by using your scholar's interpretations/opinion about the text, which your faith says its true.

3. Good grief. Dudette. You pointed me to your "teachers" opinions about their interpretation of the text. ..Not very credible coming from "fallacy" royalty.

4. All I did was exchange my source of faith with yours to expose the fallaciousness of your little Dr. Seuss story---Keep em comin...LOL!.

5. Yep. Just as much faith as you have in your liberal scholars opinion of the scriptures.

6. Did you qualify the term "all"? Nope. You assumed I meant every single exegete that is available, thus falling into my fallacy trap (reduction to absurdity) even after a warning..It proves your ignorance of good logic and exposes the severity of your "stinky thinky"...LOL!!

7. Let me get this straight. You accuse me of something. I ask you to prove it and this is the best answer you can muster??? That's like a prosecutor, during a perjury trial, telling a defense witness who does not recall the event, "I really don't have any proof, but you know what they said. Not remembering is just bull." Just when we thought your twisted logic couldn't get any worse. LOL!! So are you going to provide proof or are we going to have to accuse you of defamation/slander AKA lying?

8. You really cannot help yourself. I'm beginning to actually feel sorry for you----The appeal to novelty, also known as argumentum ad novitatem, iis a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is new." Yes, just because modern, liberal, Biblical Scholars are alive and well doesn't make them or their interpretations right. You are running through the list of fallacies way too fast.. Slow down before you hurt yourself...LOL !

9. And your "faith" = it is in my liberal scholar's writings/opinion, so I believe it.

10. All I'm asking is for you or your ministers to find a contradiction in reference to Paul not being the ultimate author of Titus and Timothy in the book you both claim has many. Not a ridiculous request at all....Well? I'm still waitING(Jeopardy music is just about up)

11. How exactly does someone who has been proven illogical answer illogical answers with logic????..Never mind. I'm sure you'll figure out a way. LOL! Answer the question you've been ignoring for several pages and I will stop frustrating you by pointing out your "skunk" reasoning. Where does it specifically state Paul did not ultimately author Timoty and Titus?

Same old CRAP above. You can't seem to break free of your circular logic to hold a real debate.

I have already answered your question several times.

I have also pointed you to the SCHOLARSHIP showing Paul didn't write Timothy or Titus, - from a CHRISTIAN site - I might add - which DOES tell YOU why he didn't write them.

And you STILL go back to your circular illogical - show me from the Biblical text in question.

You obviously do not know the first thing about debate.

Stating the same illogical CRAP over-and-over is not going to make it suddenly true.



*

 

[james2ko]

Same old CRAP above. You can't seem to break free of your circular logic to hold a real debate.

1. You also cant seem to break free of your "faith" to answer a simple question asked many times and repeated in point 2.

I have already answered your question several times.

2. Several times? Then you shouldn't have a problem linking me to a scriptural reference that "explicitly", not implicitly, states Paul was not the ultimate author of Timothy and Titus? I'll be waiting.

I have also pointed you to the SCHOLARSHIP showing Paul didn't write Timothy or Titus, - from a CHRISTIAN site - I might add - which DOES tell YOU why he didn't write them.

3. I see. So just because a so called Christian site claims Paul didn't write them, we are suppose to conclude it is true? LOL! Just a repeated fallacy from an earlier reply called affirming the consequent. This confirms you are clueless about your own garbage logic. Can someone please help ING see the stinkin in her thinkin? :help:

And you STILL go back to your circular illogical - show me from the Biblical text in question.

4. No different than your "faith" (circular logic) in your liberal scholars compelling you to accept their speculative interpretations.

You obviously do not know the first thing about debate.

5. You might be right. I only exposed and linked you to at least four major logical fallacies [so far] in your argument (plus exposed a false claim, you made out of desperation, of people placing me on their ignore list due to my circular logic). I should have exposed many more. Keep the replies comin'. I need more practice.

Stating the same illogical CRAP over-and-over is not going to make it suddenly true.

Quadruple ditto!

 

[outhouse]

I see. So just because a so called Christian site claims Paul didn't write them, we are suppose to conclude it is true?

Refusing education and knowledge is fanaticism and fundamentalism.


This is considered common knowledge, and not disputed by any credible historians.


It is attacking education from ignorance on the topic.

 

[Ingledsva]

1. You also cant seem to break free of your "faith" to answer a simple question asked many times and repeated in point 2.

ING - Same crap - already answered!


2. Several times? Then you shouldn't have a problem linking me to a scriptural reference that "explicitly", not implicitly, states Paul was not the ultimate author of Timothy and Titus? I'll be waiting.


ING - I pointed you to the actual debate = both sides. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink! You choose to be ignorant of the actual academic scholarship - from both sides! You show this over-and-over in your posts, where the minute you are challenged, you drop any counter debate, and start this crap instead.


3. I see. So just because a so called Christian site claims Paul didn't write them, we are suppose to conclude it is true? LOL! Just a repeated fallacy from an earlier reply called affirming the consequent. This confirms you are clueless about your own garbage logic. Can someone please help ING see the stinkin in her thinkin? :help:

4. No different than your "faith" (circular logic) in your liberal scholars compelling you to accept their speculative interpretations.


ING - See above. Circular illogic. No debate. Just this crap.


5. You might be right. I only exposed and linked you to at least four major logical fallacies [so far] in your argument (plus exposed a false claim, you made out of desperation, of people placing me on their ignore list due to my circular logic). I should have exposed many more. Keep the replies comin'. I need more practice.

ING - Actually you attempted to apply them to me - however - you need to go back and read what they actually mean - as you are in error.


Quadruple ditto!

Same old crap - no rebuttal, circular illogic, red-herrings, trying to throw-off the debate.

You are not debating! You are not providing rebuttal to what you have been challenged on.


*

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Atheists say "Evolution must be true because Dawkins says it's true in his books"
Isn't that circular logic?

 

[james2ko]

Refusing education and knowledge is fanaticism and fundamentalism.

1. A loaded statement (a form of the loaded question) with the inherent presupposition "your" knowledge and education of the topic is correct/true and everyone who opposes is a fanatic fundamentalist who's knowledge and education on the topic could not be correct/true. You of all people should know your fallacious rhetoric is of no consequence to me and will be exposed to your credibility's detriment. Proceed at your own risk.

This is considered common knowledge and not disputed by any credible historians.

2. Surely that has to make it true and correct, right? Not according to your "scriptures" (Wikipedia):

Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.

It is attacking education from ignorance on the topic.

3. If ING's exposed fallacious rhetoric [or crap as she calls it] and the first two points are any indication, it is more like attacking the biblical text with ignorance on the topic of logic. We are all entitled to our opinions about the text and its contents, as liberal or conservative, and as logical and illogical as they may be.

 

[james2ko]

[ING - Same crap - already answered

1. Then link me to the post where you explicitly (do you even know what explicit means?) provided the scriptural reference I asked for. A link to site is no answer as I can link you to some with the opinion Paul was the ultimate author of the Pastorals. See how faith or circular logic (as you call it) works?

ING - I pointed you to the actual debate = both sides. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink! You choose to be ignorant of the actual academic scholarship - from both sides! You show this over-and-over in your posts, where the minute you are challenged, you drop any counter debate, and start this crap instead.

2. I asked you a simple question which you repeatedly ignore by pawning me off to some website and you have the gall of accusing me of not wanting to debate? Why am I not surprised.

where the minute you are challenged, you drop any counter debate, and start this crap instead.

3. And I've been challenging you to find an explicit passage(s) stating Paul was ultimately not the author of the Pastorals and all you come back with is a link to some website along with a textbook fallacious statement which exposes your false reasoning which ultimately weakens any opinion/interpretation you have on the topic.

Same old crap - no rebuttal, circular illogic, red-herrings, trying to throw-off the debate. You are not debating! You are not providing rebuttal to what you have been challenged on.

4. You have undoubtedly exposed your habit of making a claim without proof ---AKA lying to defame your opponents credibility. I'm still waiting for links to your claim of the conversations of all the people who place me on their ignore list due to my circular logic, which you know is clearly a lie and a confirmed red-herring tactic employed out of desperation. I've also been patiently waiting for an answer to my question so we can start the debate, which makes you the responsible party for the delay and clearly displays your unwillingness to debate.

ING - Actually you attempted to apply them to me - however - you need to go back and read what they actually mean - as you are in error.

5. Then you should have no problem explaining how each one of the fallacies you refer to as "crap" do not apply to your argument or is this going to be another one of your false claims?

ING - See above. Circular illogic. No debate. Just this crap.

6. Answer my question (a link to a website is not an answer to the question) and we can begin. We know where it states he ultimately authored them now you have to show me where in the text it explicitly states he did not ultimately author Titus and Timothy?