Summations Only

In the NT, there are books such as 1/2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians ( letters of Paul), 1/2 Peter are recognized by many scholars to be forgeries.
How does that factor in to god's word?

I consider writing in somebody else's name and pretending it's them....forgery.
All those books fall in that category.
If the guys wanted to be anonymous, that is an option.
That wasn't what they choose to do. That, for me is purposeful deceit.
I think we can play games with the term but it seems forgery is what it is.Thanks for the welcome Jar. Your posts are superb and I respect your opinion on all things, in the time I've read EVC. I don't pretend to be at your knowledge level. And I've learned a lot from you. Thanks.

Ringo,
I fail to see the comparison is valid. It's misleading at best. Jim Hawkins is a fictional character in a book of fiction.
Instead, what we have is somebody pretending to be the real Paul, writing as Paul. Somebody pretending to be the biblical Peter writing as Peter.
What we have is logical deceit.
If Treasure Island was non-fiction then Stevenson is committing forgery. Falsely pretending to be someone he isn't.

Jar: "Yes, I do not doubt that you consider it forgery but that simply indicates ignorance of common practice of the period and of Talmudic Discourse. Your claim though was that scholars consider them forgeries which I really doubt."It may very well have been common but that certainly doesn't make it right. Nor was it thought of as right according to Christian scholar Bart Ehrman. Rather Ehrman suggests whenever we see examples of people pretending to be someone else in ancient writing, this is referred to as "falsely inscribed", "lies" or "bastards" by the ancient people themselves. They had no more respect for that falsehood than we do. Ehrman calls this forgery and does not apologize for that and gives compelling justification for why it is exactly that.
So someone pretending to be Paul and writing in Paul's name, somebody pretending to be Peter and writing in Peter's name.. is a forger. I can't see how attempting to rationalize or sanitize the reality of what it is helps. It's forgery.

ringo " You're assuming that there was a real Paul and a real Peter. I'm not".Why would you assume that?
I think the bible is fiction. Is there some truth.. probably. What? no clue. I am not convinced there was a Paul, Peter or Jesus actually.
But I am convinced Christians believe that. So they believe that the characters are not fictional but real. If they are reality in the minds of Christians then the 6 letters of Paul listed and two from Peter are forgeries because Paul and Peter did not write them.

ringo,
Of course I am arguing two sides at once. :-))))
Forget what I think or you think. The Christian mindset is the one to what I mean to refer. By their own belief and not you or I.
By that standard, we have to say there is a real Paul and real Peter. So the real Paul and real Peter did not write some books in the NT. By the Christian perspective and standard, they must be forgery.
By your perspective and possibly mine as well, it's just poppycock whether a first faker Paul wrote it or another faker Paul latter wrote some other letters.
I am saying from the Christian perspective they must have at least 8 forgeries in the NT.

jar,
When I get time I'll check Talmudic. No clue what that is actually.
But saying Ehrman is simply wrong, is no better than me saying he's simply right.
However, if you suggest there is some proof to your statement contained in Talmudic discourse, I'll check it.
Thanks

Ringo,
It's double think to you. It's reality and thus forgery to Christians. It simply logically has to be. I'm not saying I get get a devout Christian to admit it's forgery. I do say it has to be by their standard.
You might be the wrong guy to debate this with. Your logic and rational thought make it meaningless. ))))
You know what I mean here, I know you must.

Jar,
It seems to me you are attempting to justify the pattern of scholars for a long time, which is avoiding calling forgery what it is.
If a writer dies and his prodigies carry on in his name. Despite that fact they may very well think they know what the originator thinks..they can in no way KNOW in fact this is what he would say. So writing in his name is clearly forgery, no matter how altruistic the motives may be to the prodigies.
So for say 18 centuries people believe the original writer called Paul wrote all the letters. Well, he didn't write all the letters. For 1800 years people were deceived and indeed still are today. The fact many scholars seem immune to this type of forgery, siting various justifications for it- says more about the scholars. To any person that is forgery. For some reason religious books get a pass and the same behaviour outside the holy books is forgery.
However, repeat that behaviour where a writer pretends to be somebody he isn't, well in holy books that is okay. Why? Well precedent is the only logical reason. Scholars have accepted it as not forgery, when it clearly is, and trying to call it what it is, is not the problem. The problem is accepting it as okay and not deceitful.
The famous interpolation at the end of Mark you brought up, is really just a fraudulent insert. An unknown writer inserts several passages into an unknown writer Mark. That's fraud. It's fraud because nobody says " hey, we are trying to get this Mark gospel to jive with some other gospels. The ending sucks, so we have to modify the ending to add some continuity to this whole gospel theme". That's fraud. Whether scholars have been habituated to the habit of this type of stuff and indeed conditioned over studying this stuff, to accept fraud as something else..does not make it right. Nor does the "turn the other way " attitude of scholars make it right either.
This stuff is logically forgery and fraud and meant to deceive the readers. Whatever the motives were, it still deceit.

Thanks no nukes.
You are correct. I present no evidence. I do not mean it to come across, to say Jar, of ignoring forgeries. He is well aware, far, far more than I but chooses a different thought process on them based on much more knowledge than I possess.
I will present some evidence for one of the books so I am not leaving it as " many scholars say" as my weak argument.
Thanks.

Okay, I maintain there are at least 8 books in the NT that are forgeries.
I define a forgery or fraud as somebody writing pretending to be somebody else. Here's one.
2Peter:
This book I maintain was written in the later first century 90-100CE? after Peter's death. The purported writer ( Peter) died around 64 CE by Christian tradition under Nero. The condensed version of this book, is the writer claims he is Peter, an apostle of Jesus. He is writing this for a couple reasons. He warns against false teachers twisting the message of the gospel. He rips into them but there is no indication of who they are exactly. Then he spends time trying to justify why Jesus has not returned because people are mocking Christians now, "scoffers", and he assures the reader " with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years are as one day" (3.8). In other words don't worry boys he's coming but maybe delayed somewhat.- We know from many passages in the Gospel that Jesus says he is going to return within the lifetime of the listeners, within this generation (40 years), before the apostles are dead. (Mark 13:30, 9:1 Luke 9:27, 21:32, Matt 16:28). While the apostles were still alive and a generation had not passed, it was possible to maintain a sense of immediacy. The world is going to end soon. Here the writer is back pedaling, the world hasn't ended and maybe it won't for a long time he says. He's trying to rebut the "scoffers" who see the generation has passed and nothing has happened. If Peter were still alive he would claim look Jesus said before the apostles die, before this generation has passed, we still have time. That is not what he says though, he doesn't use that excuse, he is using a thousands of year excuse now.-Tradition holds Paul and Peter died under Nero around 64 CE. Paul was writing letters. These letters( epistles) of Paul were just that.. letters. It was not until after his death that the letters of Paul became scripture. But in 2Peter he is already referring to these letters as scripture (3:16). So while Peter was alive these letters were letters, not scripture. After Paul/Peter died the letters became scripture. So Paul's letters became scripture after Peter's death but 2Peter shows they are now scripture. This 2Peter book comes after Peter's death.- Peter was illiterate. He was a purported fisherman from a small town. He would have spoke Aramaic. That town has archeological evidence now and it was not a booming place. The rich and highest level of society in bigger towns were the literate ones. A low level fisherman in a small place was illiterate. And in Acts 4:13, Peter is called illiterate... "unlearned and ignorant men".So, Peter was illiterate and dead before this 2Peter was written. He can not be the author. This book is a forgery or fraud or fake or whatever.

Jar,
This writer is definitively claiming to be the apostle Peter.
He starts of as 1:1 " Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ".Then to make sure everybody gets that part, he says he was present at the "transfiguration" ( 2Peter1:17) as mentioned in the gospel. So he is making sure everybody know this is THE Peter.
So this isn't just some " other Peter" the writer is making that clear. But this guy isn't apostle Peter. He's hood winking.

I agree with you jar.
I think if we have a book that is 1) not written by god 2) written by men and 3) Not even written by the men that supposedly wrote it, according to the same book. That is, it was in part, deceptively written and thus not motivated by truth. Then to justify one is left with the.. honesty has improved over time and what is not honest today, was somehow honest 2000 years ago. And those that think the book is honestly written today.. well they are mistaken. The guys that are claimed to have wrote books in the bible, sometimes didn't. That is where I have a problem as the deceit seems boundless.
For you this seems mostly a moot point, and maybe it is.

no nukes,
I'll try and go through those questions when I get time.
Basically, in a nut shell, that is the argument from scholars who dispute 2Peter authorship.
If you want you can refer to jar's comment where he himself suggests 2Peter authorship is not considered legit:
"Few folk today question the actual authorship of 2 Petey but the authorship of Mark and Matthew and John are equally suspicious......"Anyway, I'll give your questions a go later.
Thanks

Okay jar.
If content is only what matters and who wrote it or who the book claims wrote it ( to add credibility) doesn't matter, even if it's purposely wrong...
Then I beat my head against the wall or goose the butterfly :-)))
I'll have a hard time wrapping my head around what you say but I might understand what you say now. :-))))For me then:
The question becomes then why lie about who wrote it?
Why can't it be anonymous if a guy wants to write and not use his real name?
These questions don't seem to bother you or phase you even, and there must be an explanation. Or did you just explain that and I circled around again?