. I think I'll make that a policy.It would be nice if we could split off and have a religion thread. We always come back to this type of discussion every few months. It might also give me some more time to think, instead of working off the top of my head (which doesn't seem to work right sometimes).
Now, about the Pauline epistles. I remember this thread from quite a few years ago. Rethinker argues that internal linguistic analysis isn't good evidence against the letters' authenticity. Of course, the matter of the letters' contents isn't brushed aside so easily.
Rethinker also mentions that pseudopigraphical writings were an accepted literary form and not thought of as a fraud (He's right. I studied semetic literature before, but I forgot about most of it...).
In that case, we were just mistaken, not deceived. I'm not so sure about this, but it would explain the differences in concepts of "hope" between the undisputed writings and Colossians.
I do believe the NT canon was chosen wisely, though, and the time for determining the epistles' authenticity was then, not now. The canon was chosen independently by the elders of several major churches, who had all the relevant information. By 170, they had reached a democratic and basically unanimous decision. Therefore, I'm confident the epistles were worth including in the Bible. While this is worth investigating, the early church's decision shouldn't be taken lightly.
