Why didn't Jesus appear to his mother?

[Spud]

The former, since that is what he seems to be saying.

I see, I'm with you now. Sorry, I'm a bear of very little brain.

[Shaker]

 

[Spud]

The basis given for rejecting the letter as a forgery is dependent on making a presumption of what 'the church at Ephesus' heard or saw

Presumably if they hadn't seen 'Mr T' and received his news about Paul (hence verifying that Paul wrote the letter), they would have said something about it and we would know, because the letter would have been rejected. Unless they were out to deceive as well.

[Gordon]

Presumably if they hadn't seen 'Mr T' and received his news about Paul (hence verifying that Paul wrote the letter), they would have said something about it and we would know, because the letter would have been rejected. Unless they were out to deceive as well.

You're presuming, and you could presume wrongly, as could the people living in antiquity you are referring to and presuming about: and even then there is the problem of being confident that these ancient reports you are presuming about are free of mistakes or lies.

Put simply, and even if you find this kind of stuff interesting, in view of the risks of mistakes or lies this kind of stuff it seems indistinguishable from fiction - so not to be taken seriously. 

[jeremyp]

That could be right, but you stated it as fact instead of a reasonable conjecture.

It's pretty much the consensus amongst scholars who have studied the text and the evidence, which we could talk about, is fairly conclusive.

[jeremyp]

Why would a forger ask readers to pray for him?

To convince people like you that it is not a forgery.

[jeremyp]

The four letters in which Tychicus is mentioned show it is clear that he was well known. Would you not agree with this:

Who was Tychicus? Tychicus was not a stranger to the Ephesians. In fact, he is mentioned five times in the New Testament in Acts 20:4, Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:7, Titus 3:12 and 2 Timothy 4:12.

Now, in order to accept the argument that this letter is a forgery, we would have to accept that the church at Ephesus never heard from Tychicus or saw him ever again! Not only that, but we know from 2 Thessalonians that authenticity of Paul's letters was very important and the church at Ephesus would certainly not accept a random letter from an unknown messenger.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/2372634-christians-its-time-you-knew-truth-6.html#ixzz4ynABY33X

?

What if the forger was Tychicus? How do you know the Ephesians ever read the letter? Just because it says it is to the Ephesians doesn't mean they got it.

Three of the four books that mention Tychicus in your link are probably forgeries. The authorship of the other one (Acts) is unknown (I don't call Acts a forgery because it makes no claim as to who wrote it).

[Spud]

As is 1Timothy, which Shaker quoted and contains some of the worst misogynistic sentiments in the NT. As Jeremy has pointed out, the authorship of a lot of these is to say the least highly suspect. In fact, no scholars except died in the wool fundamentalists think the Pastoral Epistles (inc 1Timothy) were written by Paul  (though you seem to have a stubborn desire to claim them for Paul yourself - gawd knows why). The reasons why they are considered spurious are several, but one very obvious one is that they deal with developments in the Church which we know weren't established until many decades after Paul was preaching.
Both I and Jeremy have mentioned the last chapter of Romans - now ask yourself this: would an out-and-out misogynist send a woman to a distant congregation of the Church, entrusting her to hand on his teaching? (Phoebe) And ask for her to be received 'as befits one of the saints', forsooth?

Not to mention Junia....

"The reasons why they are considered spurious are several, but one very obvious one is that they deal with developments in the Church which we know weren't established until many decades after Paul was preaching."

Which developments in particular, Dicky?

[Walter]

What if the forger was Tychicus? How do you know the Ephesians ever read the letter? Just because it says it is to the Ephesians doesn't mean they got it.

Three of the four books that mention Tychicus in your link are probably forgeries. The authorship of the other one (Acts) is unknown (I don't call Acts a forgery because it makes no claim as to who wrote it).

I read somewhere that they did in fact read the letter but decided it was nonsense . It was then passed to a child who proceeded to fold it into a paper aeroplane and played with it for many hours until it landed in the water that Jesus waked on .

The child was then credited for inventing the first human made flying glider but when the bible was created the scribes decided to leave that bit out as it was considered too revolutionary and who an earth would believe such a claim anyway.

[jeremyp]

Which developments in particular, Dicky?

Gnosticism
The structure of the church (there were no priests or hierarchy when Paul was around)
The timing of the second coming of Christ (e.g. in 1 Thessalonians, it is at hand and will come like a thief in the night, in 2 Thessalonians, it's not at hand, in fact there will be identifiable events that signify its coming).

[jeremyp]

who an earth would believe such a claim anyway.

They were right to do so. I certainly am sceptical.

[Walter]

They were right to do so. I certainly am sceptical.

No, it's true , it must be true, it's written in someone's diary many hundreds of years ago . The idea was later stolen by the Chinese people who turned the idea into a kite which they controlled by stings .During times of conflict with other tribes they would send small monkeys up the strings with note pads and pencils to record what the enemy was up to .
I mean , you couldn't make it up!

[Dicky Underpants]

Gnosticism
The structure of the church (there were no priests or hierarchy when Paul was around)
The timing of the second coming of Christ (e.g. in 1 Thessalonians, it is at hand and will come like a thief in the night, in 2 Thessalonians, it's not at hand, in fact there will be identifiable events that signify its coming).

Got it in three! Thanks for those Jeremy.

[Spud]

What if the forger was Tychicus? How do you know the Ephesians ever read the letter? Just because it says it is to the Ephesians doesn't mean they got it.

Three of the four books that mention Tychicus in your link are probably forgeries. The authorship of the other one (Acts) is unknown (I don't call Acts a forgery because it makes no claim as to who wrote it).

So if Acts isn't a forgery, and it mentions Tychicus, then it's more likely that he wasn't himself a forger.

[Spud]

Have a read of this, you guys:

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/were-new-testament-books-forged/

PS it's from your favourite website.

[Spud]

And:

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/27/27-1/27-1-pp065-075_JETS.pdf

[Sebastian Toe]

Have a read of this, you guys:

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/were-new-testament-books-forged/

PS it's from your favourite website.

This is my favourite bit from them....

http://tinyurl.com/AIG6000WTF

[Dicky Underpants]

Have a read of this, you guys:

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/were-new-testament-books-forged/

PS it's from your favourite website.

Spud

From your link:

If higher criticism had long passed the age of constructive achievement in 1954, we can be sure that it is far beyond any constructive achievement in our day. Yet liberal critics will continue to attack the Word of God because that has been Satan’s modus operandi since the Garden. It has been an effective technique in our culture, and our only reliable response must start by taking a firm stand on the Word of God from its very first verse.

"If higher criticism"  Well, it hadn't. Liberal critics will still see what can be revealed by critical methods. If fundamentalists choose to consider this ' attack', that is their problem.

The alternative you offer is apparently a belief in talking snakes and taking ancient myths as literal truth. No thank you.

[Spud]

Spud

From your link:

"If higher criticism"  Well, it hadn't. Liberal critics will still see what can be revealed by critical methods. If fundamentalists choose to consider this ' attack', that is their problem.

The alternative you offer is apparently a belief in talking snakes and taking ancient myths as literal truth. No thank you.

Actually I think the two links provide a very good summary of why there are no forgeries in the New Testament.

[jeremyp]

So if Acts isn't a forgery, and it mentions Tychicus, then it's more likely that he wasn't himself a forger.

I say Acts isn't a forgery because it makes no claim to authorship. Not being a forgery is not the same as being reliable.

[jeremyp]

Actually I think the two links provide a very good summary of why there are no forgeries in the New Testament.

Except there are.

[Dicky Underpants]

I say Acts isn't a forgery because it makes no claim to authorship. Not being a forgery is not the same as being reliable.

And Acts is not reliable because it directly contradicts what Paul tells us about his own actions in his letters*. Paul may not have been entirely truthful, but he was writing closer to the events he describes. If Acts says Paul was somewhere, when Paul himself says he wasn't there till months or years later, then in these instances I'm inclined to believe Paul.

e.g. Galatians 1 16-20.

[Sassy]

Take your point, religiously motivated superstition is still terrorising the planet.

I think ignorance Terrorises the planet more than religion. Especially when it is a chosen ignorance due to lack of education and knowledge.

FOR MOD

Can someone set the language on the forum to UK English and not the USA English.  Thank you

[jeremyp]

Can someone set the language on the forum to UK English and not the USA English.  Thank you

What symptoms are leading you to believe we are using US English?

Probably best to PM me with your answer and I'll look into it.

[SteveH]

I may have said this before on this thread - I can't be arsed to check - but who says he didn't? We're not specifically told that he did, but, as the man said, " And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."