Muslims and even some atheists claim that St. Paul’s writings are forgeries, but what is the evidence that the writings of St. Paul are authentic?

For somebody like Paul, it can perhaps be justified by the fact that the synoptics weren’t written yet, but that doesn’t explain why James and Peter *barely* reference any of the events or teachings in the synoptics. Isn’t that unusual, especially since Jesus did so many miraculous healings and crazy signs? I know that some of the epistles mention synoptic events or teachings, but it is very rare and not exhaustive, which one would not expect for rabbinic students that learnt Jesus’ message, irrespective of whether the gospels weren’t written yet or not. That then leads to the follow up question: If Jesus teachings are rarely quoted in the epistles, then why didn't He teach things of more practical sustenance, given that the whole point of many of the epistles was advice? I know this is a few questions mushed in one and perhaps too broad, but I can't seem to find an answer anywhere else that can logically + theologically explain it. So can someone please try to explain the logical reasoning for **why all the epistles, not even just Paul’s, seem to show little connection to the gospels, especially given the radical events & teachings of Jesus found in these four books?**

We see Jesus telling in Mtt 12:40: > For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. The Creed of the Apostles says that Jesus descended into hell after his death before he would rise again on the third day. We also read in I Pet 3:18-20: > For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits - to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. The mention of **after being made alive** by St. Peter in his epistle, prompts one to wonder whether Jesus'visit to the dead as mentioned in the Creed is the same as mentioned by Peter, and if it is, whether Jesus visited the ‘dead' in his living body, before his resurrection in front of the ‘living'? My question therefore is: **According to Catholic scholars, did Jesus descend into hell in his living body?**

Throughout the epistles written by Paul to Timothy and Titus, he mentions 5 different "sayings" which he describes as "faithful" or "true". These 5 sayings are in: - [1 Timothy 1:15-17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+1%3A15-17&version=KJV) - [1 Timothy 3:1](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3%3A1&version=KJV) - [1 Timothy 4:9-10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+4%3A9-10&version=KJV) - [1 Timothy 2:11-13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+2%3A11-13&version=KJV) - [Titus 3:8](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A8&version=KJV) What is the significance of these sayings? Why did Paul emphasize them in particular?

Without citing any books of the New Testament besides the Gospels as evidence (since that would be self-referential), is there a scriptural basis (either in the Gospels or in the Old Testament) for treating any book of the New Testament besides the Gospels as scripture rather than as supplemental history/commentary/scholarship in the tradition of the Jewish Talmud?

"Does Paul ever actually quote Jesus anywhere as a primary source" However, I came to that post because of my puzzlement regarding Hebrews 10:5-9. I believe Paul is generally considered the author of Hebrews. Verses 8-9 are very recognizably in the style of the Talmud. Verses 5-7 seem to be attributed to incarnated Jesus before his resurrection. Doesn't, then, Hebrews 10:5-7 count as "Paul quoting Jesus", and, in fact, is this perhaps the only place outside the Gospels where incarnate Jesus is quoted saying something not also found in the Gospels? Possible he met Jesus prior to his Passion and Death?

I recognise the modern challenges of traditional/specific dating of the NT books; and that this may suggest various answers. Are there any letters which are reliably recognised as having been written while under arrest in Rome?

This is a quote recorded by Paul in Ephesians 5, regarding a saying about Christ. Was it something He heard when Christ came to Him or does the early Church record this quote originating elsewhere? I've Googled the quote and came up with a commentary from St. John of Chrysostom . He compares them to John 3:20 (and naturally 21) and Matthew 22:32. I'm curious if anyone knows if this is from an epistle or gospel that is not in the 66 Protestant books of the Bible? > (Ephesians 5:14 NKJV) Therefore He says: "Awake, you who sleep, Arise > from the dead, And Christ will give you light."

Why are 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus referred to as the “Pastoral Epistles”?

How many letters might Paul have written over his 30+ years as an Apostle? For example, if one expects that he wrote one letter a month, that would suggest 300-400 letters. I'm curious if there is any informed opinion on this.

2 Peter 3:16 > He writes the same way in all **his letters**, speaking in > them of these matters. **His letters** contain some things that are hard > to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do > the other **Scriptures**, to their own destruction. I mean, when Peter said "*his letters*" ---> Did Peter mean [his Scriptures] ? ---------- As I'm from a non-English speaking country, this is quite confusing for me. Because in our language words, a Scripture is a Bible - while a letter is not a Bible. And of course, in this modern time - no one will say "I'm writing a Bible" :). Illustration :
Suppose Peter is writing for his fellow Christians.
Someone phone him *"Hi Peter, what are you doing ?"*.
Peter answer "I'm writing a scripture".
What will be in the caller's mind ?
A. Peter is writing a Bible
B. Peter is writing a letter (not a Bible)
Thank you.

In other words, do all Christian sects see Paul's writings as divinely inspired? And when I say "Paul's writings", I mean all of Paul's writings in the New Testament. Not just some of the writings. Are all of Paul's writings accepted by all sects (regardless of how they're interpreted)? Pauline epistles: Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians First Thessalonians Second Thessalonians Hebrews First Timothy Second Timothy Titus Philemon

Paul wrote two letters to the Corinthinians: * The First Epistle to the Corinthians * The Second Epistle to the Corinthians In my experience, people use all kinds of colloquial language to refer to Chapters and verses inside these. For example: > "Two Corinthians Three Seventeen" has the same semantic meaning as > "The Second Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter three verse seventeen." It seems to me that the cultural style of reference has no correlation to knowledge of the Bible. My question is: **Is there any substantive difference between the verbal reference "second Corinthians" and "two Corinthians"?**

I'm wondering if there are (or were) any Christian communities or traditions that pay (or paid) more attention to the teaching of Jesus than to the teaching of apostles.

Demas appears at Colossians 4:14 and Philemon 24 as a fellow worker of Paul's ministry, and maybe as Luke's partner like Mark was Aristharcus partner. But in [2 Timothy 4:10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+timothy+4%3A10&version=ESV) he appears having abandoned Paul. There is any tradition source about this story? Any ancient reliable source about Demas?

I am unaware whether this is a hotly contested issue or not, but if it is, I would be looking for the majority opinion among evangelical scholars, that is, scholars who affirm Pauline authorship, inerrancy, and the various other doctrines that make a scholar an evangelical.

Is there a respectable scholarly position that would ratify/explain an orthodox date for the Pauline Epistles (50-60 CE) and a late date for Luke-Acts (100-125 CE)?

The six New Testament epistles known as James; 1 and 2 Peter; 1 and 2 John; and Jude are not directed to any one person or specific branch of the Church. The first verse in each epistle indicates who the intended audience was: > **The General Epistle of James**
1. James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, *to the > twelve tribes* which are scattered abroad, greeting. >**The First Epistle General of Peter**
>1. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, *to the strangers scattered > throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,* > > **The Second Epistle General of Peter**
1. Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, *to > them that have obtained like precious faith* with us through the > righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: > > **The First Epistle General of John**
? > > **The Second Epistle of John**
1. The elder *unto the elect lady and her children*, whom I love > in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the > truth; > > > **The General Epistle of Jude**
1. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, *to > them that are sanctified by God the Father*, and preserved in Jesus > Christ, and called: Besides the obvious answer that they were direction from God, for what purpose were they written? It would appear they were written as general counsel to everyone who may read them, but to whom were they delivered? Were the epistles copied and delivered to all of the churches? Were they carried by missionaries and delivered as sermons? Are there any records that tell us who these epistles were sent to, or where they were first read?

Sometimes, as I read the bible or listen to a speaker in church, I can't help but feel that while Paul's letters are full of well-grounded Christian wisdom and advice, they can also contain what seems to me like Paul's human opinions, as opposed to God's own word. I do believe Paul is a true apostle, spoken to by Jesus on the road to Damascus, and an important figure, but he's also just a human man, right? For me, as a Christian, I would never question or disagree with the words spoken by Jesus in the Bible, no matter how challenging they are, or unpopular they can be in mainstream society. Really, I 100% accept them as the direct word of God, as part of His New Covenant. But Jesus did not talk about every topic. While answers to the questions that really *matter* can be found in Jesus' words, the answers to every possible question cannot. And so, I often see an individual, or a church, or a whole denomination establish doctrines and views on certain topics solely by studying the words written by Paul (or other New Testament authors). But how can they be certain in these views, if it's Paul's word they are reading and not God's? How is it any different to reading the words of any other human being, past or present, and using *them* to form their doctrines? I've come across the view that Paul's letters are God's word because in 2 Peter 3:14-16, they are referred to as Scripture. But that just begs the same question - who gave Peter the authority to define such a thing? He's human too. I've also come across the view that Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was an act of validation by God of Paul's authority, and so Paul's letters can be seen a validated by God, and so practically God's own words. But surely that's an opinion - a supposition, not an unequivocal fact. Some also say that Paul's letters were validated as God's word by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. But again, those guys were humans. Some just have the faith that God *must* have intervened in the process of compiling The Bible over the centuries, and so we should assume everything in it is validated as God's own word. But again, Jesus never stated this, it's not a Commandment - it's a human supposition. 1. When I read Jesus' words in the Gospels, I believe I am reading the unquestionable Word of God. 2. When I read a Christian book by a modern author, I do so appreciating and learning from the wisdom and advice contained within, but I feel entitled to disagree (or at least not entirely agree) with any of the content. So my question (and struggle) really is: when I read Paul's letters, should I treat them as (1) or (2) above?

The Catholic Encyclopedia says which [books are the Catholic Letters](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03453a.htm) but doesn't say how long ago it was that they were called that. I was wondering, because of another post asking for the oldest instance of the term Catholic. Did St. Jerome or Eusebius ever call them that, was it written in the Codex Vaticanus or the Book of Kells or what?