Rapture Rupture

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't think that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. I've been studying the letters of Paul lately and the definative Paul is Galatains, 1 Corinthians, and Romans. By this standard we can include 2 Corinthians (on a provisional basis only - it appears to be a compilation of Pauline and non-Pauline epistles), Ephesians (= Colossians), Philippians, Philemon, and 1 Thessalonians. The pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) are pseudo-Pauline with 2 Thessalonians.

I reject 2 Thessalonians as Pauline because:

1) The letter displays a strong sense of group identity that is characteristic of a highly developed group. In other words, it seems that the letter represents a later version of Christianity than plausible for the time of Paul (with, of course, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus).

2) The letter is apocalyptic and not an occasional epistle. It is basically an apocalypse with a salutation - it's dressed up as a letter. The occasions that are in the letter are taken from 1 Thess and unoriginal. There are apocalyptic images in the epistle that are not highlighted elsewhere in Paul.

 

[Damien Sid Malery]

Ah, if only we could get rid of all the pieces of the bible we didn't like... Or... Maybe we did...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ah, if only we could get rid of all the pieces of the bible we didn't like... Or... Maybe we did...

Even if we keep what we want we can read it how we like.

 

[Arben]

I don't think that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. I've been studying the letters of Paul lately and the definative Paul is Galatains, 1 Corinthians, and Romans. By this standard we can include 2 Corinthians (on a provisional basis only - it appears to be a compilation of Pauline and non-Pauline epistles), Ephesians (= Colossians), Philippians, Philemon, and 1 Thessalonians. The pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) are pseudo-Pauline with 2 Thessalonians.

I reject 2 Thessalonians as Pauline because:

1) The letter displays a strong sense of group identity that is characteristic of a highly developed group. In other words, it seems that the letter represents a later version of Christianity than plausible for the time of Paul (with, of course, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus).

2) The letter is apocalyptic and not an occasional epistle. It is basically an apocalypse with a salutation - it's dressed up as a letter. The occasions that are in the letter are taken from 1 Thess and unoriginal. There are apocalyptic images in the epistle that are not highlighted elsewhere in Paul.

I believe Paul wrote all the books you mentioned. In your studies have you noticed that Paul had a different message than the other apostles? He taught salvation by grace, but the other apostles taught "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." This is because the other apostles were still preaching to the Jews in the manner John the Baptist and Jesus did. God was still offering the physical kingdom they had been promised for centuries, but they rejected it. But, after the great tribulation that kingdom will be set up on earth as promised. Isn't the Bible exciting?

 

[Sasa]

I've come to realize that the Bible is written like a large jigsaw puzzle and every piece of it is just as important as the next. While it's made up of many smaller messages; to take out a piece would leave a large hole in it's overall message.

 

[sojourner]

I've come to realize that the Bible is written like a large jigsaw puzzle and every piece of it is just as important as the next. While it's made up of many smaller messages; to take out a piece would leave a large hole in it's overall message.

If that's true, shouldn't we include all the writings -- even the non-canonical, such as the Sayings Gospels, like Thomas, James, Mary? And what about the Infancy Gospels? What about Peter? What about the Gospels of the Hebrews, Ebionites and Nazoreans? What about the standard Apocrypha? What about the Didichae? That's a pretty large hole...

 

[michel]

Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. seems to agree with you in what is quite an in depth reasoning on:http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1336

The following is just an extract........
I. Introduction

Second Thessalonians does not have nearly as widespread acceptance as does 1 Thessalonians. After the pastoral epistles and Ephesians, in fact, 2 Thessalonians is the most doubted book in the corpus Paulinum.1 The reasons for this doubt, as well as the reasons why many NT scholars accept the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians need to be examined.

• 1. External Evidence
  

Not only is 2 Thessalonians found in Marcion’s canon and the Muratorian canon, but it is also quoted by name by Irenaeus, and was apparently known to Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Polycarp. Further, it is found in the most ancient MSS (including the old Latin, old Syriac, and �46), suggesting its full acceptance from a very early period. Although not as strong as the evidence for the Hauptbriefe (in terms of frequency of citation), 2 Thessalonians has nevertheless enjoyed universal acceptance. In fact, the external testimony for 2 Thessalonians is equally as strong as, if not stronger than, that of 1 Thessalonians.

• 2. Internal Evidence
  
  • a. Arguments Against Pauline Authorship
    

There are essentially five arguments that are often used against authenticity—arguments which, proponents say, overturn the external testimony.
1) Eschatology. In a nutshell, the Lord’s return seems less imminent in the second letter as opposed to the first. This is seen in two ways: (1) certain signs seem to precede the Lord’s return here, while none did in 1 Thessalonians; (2) Paul does not include himself in the group of living saints who anticipate the Lord’s return, while he did in the first letter.
2) Linguistic Features. Some would argue that the linguistic features of this letter show too much deviation from Paul’s normal style. In particular, a few years back Daryl D. Schmidt of Texas Christian University read a paper on the linguistic features of 2 Thessalonians at a Society of Biblical Literature meeting, arguing this very point. His conclusion was that this letter was not genuine.
3) Change of Tone. This letter seems more formal than 1 Thessalonians and the author seems more distant (cf. 1 Thess 1:2 with 2 Thess 1:3; 2:13; cf. also 2 Thess 3:6, 12).
4) Readers. The readers of this letter are assumed to have a greater knowledge of the OT than what would be expected of Gentiles, and clearly more than what is expected of the audience in the first letter.
5) Similarities. There are so many similarities with the first letter (e.g., eschatological theme, linguistic features, and probable date) that the question presents itself: Why would Paul write twice to the same audience within a short span of time about the same topic?
In sum, these arguments may impress some minds more than others. In our view, they are not very convincing. In our case for authenticity we will attempt to show their weaknesses.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. seems to agree with you

Dr. Wallace is pretty cool.

http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/

He's actually in my area, at Dallas Theological Seminary.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I believe Paul wrote all the books you mentioned. In your studies have you noticed that Paul had a different message than the other apostles? He taught salvation by grace, but the other apostles taught "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." This is because the other apostles were still preaching to the Jews in the manner John the Baptist and Jesus did. God was still offering the physical kingdom they had been promised for centuries, but they rejected it. But, after the great tribulation that kingdom will be set up on earth as promised. Isn't the Bible exciting?

Actually, my studies focus on the unity of message between Paul and the other apostles.

 

[Sasa]

If that's true, shouldn't we include all the writings -- even the non-canonical, such as the Sayings Gospels, like Thomas, James, Mary? And what about the Infancy Gospels? What about Peter? What about the Gospels of the Hebrews, Ebionites and Nazoreans? What about the standard Apocrypha? What about the Didichae? That's a pretty large hole...

No, because everything that is supposed to be in there, is in there.

 

[michel]

No, because everything that is supposed to be in there, is in there.

|Probably an absurdly idiotic question; who did decide what should be included ands what should not ? And why?

 

[Sasa]

|Probably an absurdly idiotic question; who did decide what should be included ands what should not ? And why?

Someone else could probably delve into all the details better than I can. I exercise my Faith in God that His message is in tact.

 

[sojourner]

You're evading the question. I think it's extremely important, number one, to see the Bible for what it is: a human document, written by human beings, for human beings, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Number two, I think it's extremely important to listen to the voices of the keepers of the keys to the kingdom (the Church) when the Church deals with the Bible. Number three, I think it's extremely important to know the human reasons why certain books were included and certain others weren't, since the Bible is dealt with on a very human level. Number four, I think it's extremely important to note that both the Roman and Eastern Church include more than the Protestant 66 books.

It's too easy (and a cop out) to just say, "Everything that's supposed to be included is included." Or maybe it's not all that important to have "all the pieces of the puzzle" in order to understand the bigger picture, after all...

 

[michel]

You're evading the question. I think it's extremely important, number one, to see the Bible for what it is: a human document, written by human beings, for human beings, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Number two, I think it's extremely important to listen to the voices of the keepers of the keys to the kingdom (the Church) when the Church deals with the Bible. Number three, I think it's extremely important to know the human reasons why certain books were included and certain others weren't, since the Bible is dealt with on a very human level. Number four, I think it's extremely important to note that both the Roman and Eastern Church include more than the Protestant 66 books.

It's too easy (and a cop out) to just say, "Everything that's supposed to be included is included." Or maybe it's not all that important to have "all the pieces of the puzzle" in order to understand the bigger picture, after all...

I agree.................

 

[Sasa]

You're evading the question.

Excuse me, but I am not "evading the question." While it's not an imporant subject to me, because the validity of the scriptures have been proven to me via other means, it seems like it is to you, so you do the research and answer the question.

One question for you though, do you really think that the Almighty God would allow it any other way? Because to think He would, would exhibit an extreme lack of faith in Him if you ask me.

 

[sojourner]

Excuse me, but I am not "evading the question." While it's not an imporant subject to me, because the validity of the scriptures have been proven to me via other means, it seems like it is to you, so you do the research and answer the question.

One question for you though, do you really think that the Almighty God would allow it any other way? Because to think He would, would exhibit an extreme lack of faith in Him if you ask me.

It's an important subject, and I brought it up for this reason: If we're going to look at the scriptures as containing some kind of authority for us, we have to determine the validity of that authority. Since it is true that the Bible was written by humans for humans, the validity of the authority must lie within the realm of human authority, i.e., was this person a valid believer? What were the reasons why the humans of the Church included or discarded the writings in question?

That's what the Bible is, and to pretend that it's something else lends absolutely no creedence to it whatsoever.

Of course God allowed us to include or exlude books. God gave us free will. We are not puppets. God gave us both the inspiration for the writings and the inspiration to discern what is authoritative and what is not. God uses what we provide for God's own purposes. God speaks to us through scripture, but also through the Tradition, and through our praxis. The Bible is not God's mouthpiece -- we are God's mouthpiece. The Bible is our tool to fashion and to use in understanding and proclaiming God's revelation of God's self to us.

Sometimes, we humans make mistakes. I rather suspect that God is great enough to be able to make lemonade out of the lemons we provide. The question isn't about faith in God...it's about having faith in the Body of Christ (the Church) to do the work of Christ's kingdom. Have we faithfully reproduced that revelation? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's just not as easy as dismissing something out of hand, because considering the alternative might be distressing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Excuse me, but I am not "evading the question." While it's not an imporant subject to me, because the validity of the scriptures have been proven to me via other means, it seems like it is to you, so you do the research and answer the question.

One question for you though, do you really think that the Almighty God would allow it any other way? Because to think He would, would exhibit an extreme lack of faith in Him if you ask me.

By which other means has it been proven to you that various other early works like the Didache, 1 and 2 Clement, and other writings apostolic writings are perfectly excluded from the Bible, as you have claimed?

By the way, 1 Clement is included in Codex Alexandrinus.

Codex Sinaiticus includes non-canonical books as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*kicks can*