As Bible scholars have studied the texts of the New Testament, many have come to the conclusion that a historical man named Paul was not the author (whether writing himself or by dictation) of all the letters bearing his name. The six disputed letters of Paul includes: Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, and Titus. Even the Catholics acknowledge this at https://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Disputed.htm.
What's up with texts claiming the name of Paul in the Bible, but it not actually being him? Was the name Paul pseudonym a group of people wrote under? Did people just lie about who their writing was from to give what they wrote prominence among people who viewed Paul as an authority? Interesting that the Pastoral Epistles in the NT are fraudulent.
By virtue of God assuming human nature in the person of Christ. This is crucial for Christianity. Christ is equally divine and equally human.
It's well attested to historically. The Church itself is a testament. There are many records and circumstantial evidences to the historicity of the Jesus Christ and the early Church. As for the radical skepticism of anything outside your empirical observation - Were you there when you were born? Maybe you weren't actually born of your parents and you were lab grown as a clone by a secret DARPA program? Are your parents and the government the ones controlling the records and feeding you their story? That's rather convenient.
As if that would mean something to you? If the Church held such a record (and it does actually) you'd instantly say it's made up. The veracity of the system is not proven a single way - it's a holistic system that justifies its claims by internal consistency, historicity, explanatory power and justification for metaphysics, ethics, epistemology and logic. It's a package deal.
By historical analysis and writings describing historical figures and events at the time. The epistles were written around 20 years after the Resurrection - people generally tend to know what happened 20 years ago, especially within a very tightly-knit movement and community. Luke's account of the Resurrection in 24 is summarized. Acts 1 is the correct timeframe. How do I know that? That's what the early Church Fathers taught.
That's a common one. Paul was received by Peter, John and James (Jesus' brother). Considering they trusted him there's no reason to doubt Paul, if one believes the Gospels. There's no tension between Paul and other parts of NT unless one misinterprets his letters.
So we're supposed to believe the Clementine Homilies produced by judaizing sect in the 4th c. now? I thought you were skeptical?
They were an early Jewish-Christian sect and not part of Jesus' disciples. They didn't even exist during His time and weren't witness to the events, nor were they in any way connected to the apostles. Their theology is influenced by 2-3c debates. Their Christology is less primitive than Paul's (who wrote around 50AD). They rely on edited gospels and not on early oral tradition and the lexicons (how the Early Church operated). And the stupidest part is their criticism of Paul presupposes his already established authority. Why would you distrust Paul but trust them, when they came after him and didn't even knew the apostles?
Here, I gave you plenty of reasons. I could just do what you did and be unreasonably incredulous: But how do you know what they were? Were you there? Maybe the Church made them up along with making up their own history?
This of course exposes your double standard when looking back at history - you willingly accept the narrative you like and are extremely skeptical of the opposite. This is something all gnostics do because all authority of the past is under suspicion and only they (and their preferred obscure sect) have the hidden knowledge of the true history and nature of things. It's always about rebelliousness and going against authority.
I think that's enough deboonking for today.
In that case, you worship a man that you call God.
Do have anything that Jesus actually wrote? You allegedly have texts of what Jesus supposedly said. Did he say or do any of that stuff though? Relying on what people say about events from 20 years prior is a pretty good way to get hoodwinked and manipulated. Perhaps that's why Christianity spread so much with people that weren't around the area and didn't meet the historical Jesus.
If Luke 24 is a summarized version, that's not historically accurate then. It calls into question the historical accuracy of all of it. There are crucifixion and resurrection details that don't fit together. The differences in perspectives doesn't bode well for painting an accurate picture. The book of Mark ends rather abruptly. Out of the different endings, which do you find to be the correct one?
You believe Peter, John, and James accepted Paul because of what it says in the Biblical texts? Those guys would've been Ebionites, and are you saying that the Jesus movement failed under the people that were around Jesus? The Christian movement did not arise with them. The term Christ was in use before Christianity came about.
Bring out the list if there is one. Lets see it. If not for me, then for anyone that is reading our conversation.
Has your packaged deal ever heard of Biblical criticism? It's like you deny even the chance of corruption coming into the texts. Face it, Paul didn't write all the letters attributed to him and traditional beliefs surrounding the authorship were wrong.
If you keep "correctly" interpreting something, you can construe something any way you want it. Perhaps why people even get the idea there was conflict between them is because there was.
Jesus was an Essene, and the Ebionites were followers of Jesus that came out of the Essenes as a separate group. They continued their manner of living, which included vegetarianism. Go look in the Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. In a footnote he makes mention about how Jesus' family members belonged to the Ebionites.
When it comes to something like Islam and Mormonism with guys like Muhummad and Joseph Smith making all kinds of claims, I'm sure you apply critical thought and don't just blindly believe what they say. You apply critical thought to what I believe. I do the same to what you believe. What convinces us to our beliefs isn't going to work for everyone. You can state you have this big church tradition, but I don't find it impressive at all like you do.
I find it ironic that Christians bash Gnostics about how only they have some special knowledge by which they're saved when Christians are the ones professing to have special knowledge of a dying and resurrecting Jesus-God by which they're saved. Doesn't your Church claim to be the only ones in the world with the hidden knowledge of the true history and nature of things?
Still awaiting for you to dive into your TAG argument. You said you could prove it, then do it.
There's a difference between esoteric and exoteric knowledge. Christianity is the latter - everyone can come and see what it's all about and is welcome in the Church. There are no secret initiations and secret knowledge. Epistemically Christians profess knowledge about their faith through divine revelation that is deposited in the Church and not by personal enlightenment achieved through mystical experience leading to gnosis, which is the be all end all of gnosticism (hence the name). It's glorified folder chasing and special pleading shrouded in secrecy. But it all boils down to self-worship and rejection of outside authority and that's where its appeal lies (screw the Church, tradition, mainline history - I'll make my own system instead).
And your Church is glorified pre-suppositions. If you just pre-suppose all the premises of your beliefs, it makes it super easy to then logically come to the conclusions you want.
It boils down to becoming at-one with God and self-responsibility. Not being someone's trained sheep. Do you ever think for yourself at all anymore? Where is the real you at versus this trained robot of someone else? The rejection of outside authority, it depends upon what authority is and what it's trying to do. You see, you've taken your God-given reason and intellect, and tossed it in the trash, replacing it with a robotic hard-drive of some self-proclaimed people that know it all. You worship a man that you call God. You view your Church in some kind of divine capacity. They say jump, you jump. They say beg, you beg.
Who wrote the books that your Church uses to give itself authority? Oh that's right, they did. God had nothing to do with it. When your Church is like that, and its history is as despicable as it is, and its traditions largely come from outside the religion, then yea no surprise people reject it. Sol Invictus' birthday was on December 25th and his special day was Sunday. Constantine brought his outside religious beliefs into Christianity and that kind of stuff became your traditions.