Pope John Paul II...

[ProfessorDavey]

An unbeliever cannot be an authority on spiritual things, which includes authorship of the sacred scriptures, because such hates Christ and his Church.

I suspect many, if not most of those biblical scholars who do not believe your claims of authorship are Christians, who probably do not think they 'hate' Christ. Or is this a one true Scotsman moment.

Divine logic is all that matters, not human logic.

Logic is logic - it matters not from whence is originates, it must be logically consistent - that's the point. And an unsubstantiated assertion that relies on another unsubstantiated assertion for justification, which linked back to the first unsubstantiated assertion and goes round, and round and round until you are dizzy from error in logical thinking sure doesn't fit that bill.

I have no problem with you telling us you 'believe' something to be true - I do have a problem with you claiming it is true without proof, which you don't have.

[Gordon]

An unbeliever cannot be an authority on spiritual things, which includes authorship of the sacred scriptures, because such hates Christ and his Church. Divine logic is all that matters, not human logic.

The problem there is that 'divine logic' is an oxymoron since it can't be demonstrated using formal logic that is fallacy-free.

In addition these scriptures are the work of people, and people are fallible and make mistakes, exaggerate and even tell lies. Any claim that early Christians were exempt from this is, therefore, special pleading at the very least, that morphs into an argument from authority/tradition.

[floo]

Oh no more God as tyrant bollocks?

You obviously have never read the not so good book!

[jeremyp]

The East believes rightly. It does not listen to the opinions of atheists or those on the edge of apostasy.

Your mind is closed. You are intellectually dead.

The fact is that a number of your beliefs regarding the New Testament and the early church are demonstrably wrong. If this is what religion does to you, it's not a great advert.

[Shaker]

If this is what religion does to you, it's not a great advert.

In fairness I thought long ago that the general attitude toward other posters and the language used therein isn't exactly a shining recommendation of his preferred form of faith this month.

[jeremyp]

and we know that from the earliest of times that the epistle to the Hebrews was known to have been written by St. Paul, as Clement of Alexandria tell us.

Clement of Alexandria lived more than a hundred years after Paul. If this is the earliest of times, it is a joke.

[ProfessorDavey]

Clement of Alexandria lived more than a hundred years after Paul. If this is the earliest of times, it is a joke.

AO's problem is he is unable to see the distinction between belief based on dogma (and orthodoxy) and actual evidence.

So even if everyone believed something to be true that still wouldn't provide any evidence that it is true. But in the case of his claims to authorship most scholars seem to disagree with him completely.

[jeremyp]

So even if everyone believed something to be true that still wouldn't provide any evidence that it is true.

In the case of Hebrews, they didn't. Several authors who are more or less contemporary with Clement of Alexandria (i.e. second half of the second century/first half of the third century) dispute the idea that Paul wrote Hebrews. AdO is cherry picking the evidence based on what he wants to be true.

[ad_orientem]

In the case of Hebrews, they didn't. Several authors who are more or less contemporary with Clement of Alexandria (i.e. second half of the second century/first half of the third century) dispute the idea that Paul wrote Hebrews. AdO is cherry picking the evidence based on what he wants to be true.

Yey the ancient liturgy, that is the prayer of the Church, still served today confesses that it was written by the Apostle. Lex orandi lex credendi. In otherwords, if the Church did not believe it the Church wouldn't confess it.

[floo]

Yey the ancient liturgy, that is the prayer of the Church, still served today confesses that it was written by the Apostle. Lex orandi lex credendi. In otherwords, if the Church did not believe it the Church wouldn't confess it.

But it doesn't make it 'true'!

[ProfessorDavey]

Yey the ancient liturgy, that is the prayer of the Church, still served today confesses that it was written by the Apostle. Lex orandi lex credendi. In otherwords, if the Church did not believe it the Church wouldn't confess it.

There you go again - talking about 'belief' - when are you going to realise that 'belief' isn't evidence - well isn't evidence of anything except ... well ... belief.

You have no evidence to back up your assertion - you may believe it to be true, but so what, belief without evidence is nothing more than opinion.

[Gordon]

Yey the ancient liturgy, that is the prayer of the Church, still served today confesses that it was written by the Apostle. Lex orandi lex credendi. In otherwords, if the Church did not believe it the Church wouldn't confess it.

Have you considered that the Church might be wrong?

[ad_orientem]

Then the same goes for Jeremy when he says as fact that St. Paul didn't write the epistle to the Hebrews. He does not know that as fact, it is just an opinion.

[ad_orientem]

Have you considered that the Church might be wrong?

No, because our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would protect hus Church from error.

[Leonard James]

No, because our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would protect hus Church from error.

Well, given that the church is composed of humans who over the centuries have made appalling mistakes in their treatment of other people, your HS doesn't seem to have much success does it?

[BeRational]

No, because our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would protect hus Church from error.

How do you know your lord said that?

Someone once claimed he might have said that, but so what. It could be that it was never said.

[Gordon]

No, because our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would protect hus Church from error.

What if there is uncertainty over the provenance over who wrote what or said what?

Surely then you'd recognise this as indicating there is at least scope for doubt and error, so that it is at least possible that your church might be wrong even if you don't currently think so personally.

[ad_orientem]

How do you know your lord said that?

Someone once claimed he might have said that, but so what. It could be that it was never said.

Through the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, that is, by looking at the lives of its saints we see the truth of the Church's testimony.

[Brownie]

Through the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, that is, by looking at the lives of its saints we see the truth of the Church's testimony.

I don't follow that ad_o.  Let's look at it starting with a couple of familiar Saints:  St Augustine of Hippo, St Teresa of Avila.
(I know I am going off the subject of JPll but never mind)

[BeRational]

Through the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, that is, by looking at the lives of its saints we see the truth of the Church's testimony.

This is just confirmation bias and self delusion.

It is not objective evidence.

You just interpret it how you like.

[Khatru]

No, because our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would protect hus Church from error.

So Galileo was sent by the Holy Spirit to correct the errors of his church?

[floo]

Through the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, that is, by looking at the lives of its saints we see the truth of the Church's testimony.

Yeh right!

[jeremyp]

Yey the ancient liturgy, that is the prayer of the Church, still served today confesses that it was written by the Apostle. Lex orandi lex credendi.

When was this "ancient" liturgy written? Who was it written by? How do you know it is right?

In otherwords, if the Church did not believe it the Church wouldn't confess it.

I'm not disputing that your church believes it at all. I'm just telling you that the belief is wrong.

[jeremyp]

Then the same goes for Jeremy when he says as fact that St. Paul didn't write the epistle to the Hebrews. He does not know that as fact, it is just an opinion.

I have plenty of evidence that Paul didn't write Hebrews. Off the top of my head, some of the evidence is that:

There is no internal evidence to suggest Paul wrote it.

The style is not the same as the style of the real Pauline letters.

Even early sources dispute the authorship.

All you have, by contrast, is "my church says so!"

[jeremyp]

No, because our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would protect hus Church from error.

How do you explain the Great Schism then?