An argument against Colossians being authentic is the unusual use of genitive

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

you still haven't explained why a book should be dismissed just because Paul didn't write it.

Why should we accept as canon a book admitted through the RCC councils?

If we have a pseudonymous writing, why should we accept it as inspired?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Who wrote it, then? Isn't the value of the epistles the fact it was written by an apostle? If we don't know who wrote it, how do we know whether it is authoritative?

to me if GAs include it in the standard works that's good enough. Whether Paul or one of his followers wrote it is irrelevant.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

to me if GAs include it in the standard works that's good enough. Whether Paul or one of his followers wrote it is irrelevant.

What evidence do you have that the general authorities of the Church have even bothered to think about this issue? We don't have theologians guiding this Church, but business leaders, teachers and some health care professionals.

It seems rational they'd rather not distinguish us more than we are already are in order to avoid "rocking the proverbial boat." So rather than eliminate it all, they simply don't quote the offensive passages.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

to me if GAs include it in the standard works that's good enough. Whether Paul or one of his followers wrote it is irrelevant.

That's an interesting argument. Technically, it was pretty much grandfathered into the standard works, since it has been the basis of Christianity for all those years. Aren't the Book of Mormon and other standard works meant to supplement the Bible for the very reason that it isn't inherently reliable? (e.g., "translated correctly")

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Who wrote it, then? Isn't the value of the epistles the fact it was written by an apostle? If we don't know who wrote it, how do we know whether it is authoritative?

One of our chief arguments is that matters of the Church must be done by those in authority. If we rely upon somebody who wasn't in authority, what are we doing?

If you're arguing that the pseudonymous writings make nice arguments and are open for theological debate, then fine, but why continue to recognize it as canon?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What evidence do you have that the general authorities of the Church have even bothered to think about this issue? We don't have theologians guiding this Church, but business leaders, teachers and some health care professionals.

It seems rational they'd rather not distinguish us more than we are already are in order to avoid "rocking the proverbial boat." So rather than eliminate it all, they simply don't quote the offensive passages.

LOL. You prefer theologians guide the Church? Half that stuff is crock. The ancient scholars on this board have already told us the scientific method is inappropriate in fields like that. Those fields are still useful in deciphering the author's message and considering the audience. But it's a waste of time to question a book's authenticity before using it.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

LOL. You prefer theologians guide the Church? Half that stuff is crock. The ancient scholars on this board have already told us the scientific method is inappropriate in fields like that. Those fields are still useful in deciphering the author's message and considering the audience. But it's a waste of time to question a book's authenticity before using it.

Maybe we should open it up then to books that the church fathers rejected.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Maybe we should open it up then to books that the church fathers rejected.

when they're in the canon, I'm all ears.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

LOL. You prefer theologians guide the Church? Half that stuff is crock. The ancient scholars on this board have already told us the scientific method is inappropriate in fields like that. Those fields are still useful in deciphering the author's message and considering the audience. But it's a waste of time to question a book's authenticity before using it.

You may resort to that sort of argumentation with Seattle but not with me.

How can we determine the authority for those scriptures? We're not using revelation, as our revelators don't concern themselves with such matters.

So, if reasonable scholarship through internal and external factors can shed light upon them, then good.

And if there is good amongst the disputed writings, so be it, but use with caution.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And if there is good amongst the disputed writings, so be it, but use with caution.

use whatever "light" scholarship sheds with caution.