Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Patricia,
    
    I am not a moderator, so I can't give the official answer but it seems
    to me that we could question who penned the epistle as long as the
    authorship is ascribed to God.
    
    Kent
    

    I see no reason to not answer the question.

    The vast majority of Christendom accepts Paul as the writer of the
    letter to Titus. There may be some that can advance plausible arguments
    against that tradition, but as Kent said, the important thing is to
    recognize that God was the ultimate Author.
    
    	BD�

    Titus 1:1-4 "Paul, a bond-servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ,
    for the faith of thos chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth
    which is according to godliness, in the hope of eternal life, which
    God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago, but at the proper time
    manifested, even His word in the proclamation with which I was
    entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior; to Titus, my
    true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and
    Christ Jesus our Savior."

    >ACtually most Biblical Scholars doubt whether Paul wrote Timothy or
    >Titus.
    
    What's the source to validate this statement?
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing

    
    .73  I don't think so!  Not by a long shot.  
    
    Now the American Baptist and UCC organisations are certain to doubt very 
    much in the Bible.
    
    jeff

    My response is the same as Bing's. Using "most" sets you up for a test
    that can be objectively measured. Since I rather doubt that a list
    exists anywhere that even lists who all of the Biblical scholars are, I
    also doubt that a subset of that (non-existent) list exists that shows
    >50% of the scholars rejecting Pauline authorship. To the contrary,
    *all* Biblical scholars I know *do* accept Pauline authorship :-).
    (Now, let's define "scholar".)
    
    	BD�

    Patricia probably meant to say most *UCC* scholars reject the Pauline
    letters.  
    
    Now we get to define "scholar" anyway as Barry suggested.
    
    Mike

    Why am I not surprised the RSV is one of your sources?  Ask yourself
    why the RSV is so popular with faiths that reject the Deity of Christ.
    Then read the passages in the Bible that address the Deity of Christ.
    
        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 51.85         English language translations of the Bible           85 of 91
FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything"             40 lines  29-SEP-1994 13:52
              -< RSV was written by those who deny Jesus is God >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>What verses in the RSV do you think strip Jesus of his divinity?  
    
    Bob, there are several posted in topic 907.  One that comes to mind off
    the top of my head is in Romans 9:5.
    
Romans 9:5
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is
over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

    There have been several poor translations of this verse by scholars who
    deny the Deity of Jesus Christ.  The RSV is one of them.  The RSV
    handles the translation so blasphemously that it cannot even be
    considered an accurate rendering.  In Greek verse 5 reads, "...as
    concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all, blessed
    forever."  Here Paul plainly declares that Christ is God over all.  The
    RSV turns this verse into a doxology, and so removes the force of
    Paul's declaration of Christ's Deity: "...according to the flesh, is
    the Christ.  God who is over all be blessed forever."  This
    interpretation changes the meaning of the text.  Paul affirms Christ's
    Deity throughout his Epistles, and this verse is one of his strongest
    and clearest affirmations.

    I think Barry and I are still wondering what a scholar is.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

 You forgot a couple (and most significant):


   Saved
   Filled with the Holy Spirit
   




 Jim

Pat

(1) What does this have to do with God's Gender?  (Start a new note, please.)

(2) How does one choose their sources and scholars?

From the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, Spiros Zodhaites, regarding the
book of Titus:

Titus was most likely a Gentile from Macedonia (Gal. 2:3) who was led to Christ
by Paul (Titus 1:4).  Titus was with Paul in Jerusalem (Gal 2:1) when some
dogmatic, Jewish brethren insisted that Titus should be circumcised.  Paul 
would not allow it (Gal. 2:3-5) because this would have suggested that all 
non-Jewish Christians were second-class citizens in the church.

Titus remained as Paul's trabeling companion and may have been with Paul
when he wrote the letter to the Galatians.  After Paul's release from his first
imprisonment in Rome, Titus traveled withPaul to do mission work in the East.
They landed at Crete and evangelized several towns (Titus 1:5).  However,
since Paul was unable to stay, he left Titus on Crete to complete the
organization of congregations in that region.  Titus met with considerable
opposition and insubordination in the church, especially from the Jews 
(Titus 1:10).  It is quite possible that Titus had written to Paul to 
report this problem and ask for spiritual advice.  Paul responded with this
short letter encouraging him to complete the process of organization, to
ordain elders, to exercise his own authority firmly, and to teach sound 
doctrine while avoiding unnecessary strife.

Paul asked Titus to join him at Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), where he planned to 
spend the winter.  It is probable that Titus was dispatched from there on a
new mission to Dalmatia (2 Tim. 4:10).

The letter was probably delivered by Zenas and Apollos (Titus 3:13).  It is 
believed, however, that Paul penned this sometime between his first and second
imprisonments in Rome (ca. A.S. 64) when he was in the city of Nicopolis 
(Titus 3:12).  This was about the same time the Book of 1 Timothy was 
written.  The instructive tone of the epistle to Titus is similar to that
of Paul's first letter to Timothy.  Both Titus and Timothy endured much
criticism from false teachers during their ministries.  Paul exhorts Titus to
continue to preach sound doctrine (Titus 2:1) and to use wise judgment 
concerning the appointing of leaders in the church (Titus 1:5-9). 

(3) What is open-minded?  Are you open-minded?  How does one select between
scholars who both claim objective study?  The scholars themselves must be 
scrutinized by objective standards.  This file is rife with understandings
of Scripture based on biases, but at least a common denominator is perfect
Scripture even in the face of imperfect interpretation.

(4) What is to be gained or lost in the answering of the definitive authorship
of Titus?

Mark

    |>Saved
    |>Filled with the Holy Spirit
        
    >How do spiritual qualities impact scholarship?
    
    Are we talking biblical scholarship or scholarship in general?    
    
    >Do you not trust that the Bible can stand on it's own merit without a
    >particular ideological orientation of the scholar?
    
    Ideological orientation has nothing to do with it.  The question is,
    "does the person have the Spirit of Christ living within them?".  There
    are several verses which point out that the gospel is "veiled" to those
    who don't have Christ within them to interpret for them (2 Cor 4:2-3, 
    2 Cor 3:14-17, 1 Cor 1:18).  In Matthew 16:17 Jesus says, "flesh and
    blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."
    
    In my mind, a biblical scholar would not only be impacted in their
    mind, but in their total being (the very author of the words lives in
    them to interpret the "words of life".  Jesus said that we can do 
    nothing without Him (John 15:5).  How can one correctly interpret the 
    meaning of these things without believing them?  
    
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing

    Please remember the premise for which this conference is based.  Notes
    that challenge the inerrancy of the Bible will be carefully monitored
    as we already have a topic inclusive of every argument in either
    direction.  If you are one who wishes to understand why we in CHRISTIAN
    believe the Bible to be inerrant, check out topic #53, it has 347
    replies.
    
    Thank you,
    Nancy Morales
    co-mod CHRISTIAN

RE:         <<< Note 601.18 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

   > >Saved
   > >Filled with the Holy Spirit
    
   > How do spiritual qualities impact scholarship?
    
     1 Corinthians 2:13-14 is a good place to start.




 Jim    
                                     
                        
    
                                          

>    How do spiritual qualities impact scholarship?
>    
>    Do you not trust that the Bible can stand on it's own merit without a
>    particular ideological orientation of the scholar?
    
    The Bible is a spiritually-discerned book.  The understand a book
    inspired by God's Holy Spirit, a person must be sealed by God's Holy
    Spirit.  
    
    Otherwise, those who read the Bible without discernment are prone to
    incorrect doctrines and beliefs.
    
    Mike

>    If I asked how you might know if a person is sealed by God's Holy
>    Spirit, I bet you would base that knowledge on the Bible itself,
    
    I could also base it on the personal experience and the millions of
    obvious changed lives.  I read the Bible before I was saved and it was
    all Greek to me. ;-)  After turning my life over to Christ, the words
    literally leap off the pages.  His Word is truly *ALIVE*!  Even reading 
    the same passages now yield a totally different understanding and 
    comprehension as opposed to when I was unsaved.
    
>    What I think I am hearing you say is that the Bible is only innerant to
>    those sealed by the Holy Spirit.  Is that true?
    
    The Word of God stands on its own because it is God's inspiration.  God
    is totally inerrant and infallible and anything of Him has the same
    qualities.  It is our problem to obtain the "tools" to understand it.
    
    Mike

>    Would you agree that Biblical Revelation is a interactive process
>    between what is written and the person reading the material?
    
    Yes it is.  As you read this living book (Hebrews 4:12) there is an
    interaction/transaction in the believer between God's Word, the Holy 
    Spirit, and yourself.  This not only contributes to comprehension, but
    to spiritual growth as well.  It's food for the soul.
    
    His Word will not return null and void.
    
    Mike

    Patricia,
    
    Your question seems a tad complicated... yet it so simple.  The answer
    is both... it stands on its own, but can only be spiritually discerned.
    
    Attitude plays a key part to fully understanding God's Word.  Now the
    natural man [unsaved, not Spirit filled] cannot understand the deep
    things of God, but the unnatural man can understand the sinfulness of
    man, the need for a Savior and the how to that is in the Bible,
    otherwise we'd all be lost.
    

    .32
    
    If we both have the Spirit of God without filters [personal experience]
    then we would get the same interpretation albeit applications in one's
    life are many.  One meaning, many applications.
    
    Love in Him,
    Nancy

    .32
    
    P.S.
    
    Which is why God says in the multitude of counselors there is much
    wisdom.
    
    This doesn't mean that you get multiple counselors for the same areas
    of concern in your life, it means you choose people who you deem wiser
    then yourself for counselors.  If the previous were true, then we would
    be circumventing counsel for personal preference [you'd take the
    counsel of the one whom you agreed with most].  Counsel that is good
    will challenge you and most likely oftimes will not be what "feels"
    right... :-) paradox I'm sure.

    Patricia,
    
    I'd like to join the fray, too. Before the topic of Biblical revelation
    (interpretation, etc.) gets more involved, though, I want to thank you
    for posting your sources. Unless I missed it, even the sources you
    posted don't make the claim that "most" Biblical scholars dismiss
    Pauline authorship. Did I miss it, or did you just not bother posting
    the one that uses this word "most"?
    
    As for "rightly dividing" the Word, a pre-requisite is that the person
    be saved. That's still not a guarantee (i.e. not a sufficient condition
    to proper interpretation), but it is a necessary condition. I thought
    there was a topic somewhere in here where we discussed principles of
    interpretation? I like someone's personal name: Believing is seeing.
    
    	BD�

    >If I have Faith in the Bible and in God, then I
    >know that no amount of scholarship no matter how alien to my
    >beliefs could discredit that it
    
    Are you saying if you believe the Bible to be inerrant, then scholarly
    research would not discredit your faith in the Bible and/or God?
    

re 601.11

For every n biblical scholars Patricia provides who reject Pauline authorship,
I can provide n+1 who argue for it.

Therefore Patricia is proved wrong; most scholars accept Pauline authorship.

I've already posted oodles of replies in the same topic in C-P affirming
Pauline authorship; I'll post them here after dinner.

/john

From the Navarre Bible Commentary (which contains the RSV CE, the New Vulgate,
and commentary by the faculty of the University of Navarre, Spain):

From the very beginning Christian tradition has regarded [the Pastoral
Epistles (the two epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus)] as letters
written by St. Paul; this is confirmed by very early testimonies: it is
probably that 2 Peter 3:15 is a quotation from 1 Timothy 1:16; and by
the start of the second century the three letters were known to and quoted
by St Clement of Rome, St Polycarp and St Ignatius of Antioch.  ...

In the nineteenth century some liberal Protestants argued against Pauline
authorshop; others were ready to accept that the letters contain many
parts written by St Paul and leter edited together with a lot of touching
up.  Early in the present century the Pontifical Biblical Commission
pronounced that there were insufficient grounds for saying that St Paul was
not the author ("Reply", 12 June 1913; cf Enchiridion Biblicum, 412-415).

Today, although there are some scholars who doubt the letters' Pauline
authenticity, many others meet the objections they raise.

    The following is excerpted from "The New Layman's Bible Commentary" 
    co-authored by G.C.D. Howley, F.F. Bruce and H.L. Ellison.
    
    The authors break up the letters of Paul into 3 categories; the Travel
    Letters, The Captivity Letters and the Pastoral Letters.  Titus and
    1 Timothy were written in 62 AD and 2 Timothy in 64 AD. On page 1165,
    they review, under the subheading 'Problems', those issues dealing with
    the Pastoral Letters:
          
         The Introduction to the commentary includes a survey of some
    aspects of the problem of authorship of these letters.  We do not
    propose to go over the ground, except for a few matters.  Firstly, we
    discount theories that suggest any writer used Paul's name falsely,
    even to spread the teachings of the apostle more widely.  There is a
    reference for a hoped-for visit Paul wanted to make to Timothy in
    Ephesus (I Tim 3:14; 4:13).  And 2 Timothy includes a request for
    Timothy to come to Paul in Rome.  What possible point would such
    references have were the letters written long years after the death of
    Paul?  We concur with the judgement of C.F.D. Moule when he says: 'Some
    may say this is an obvious device to lend verisimilitude, and I know
    that judgements of this sort are difficult to assess objectively.  I
    can say only that to me it seems a piece of gratuitous irony and in bad
    taste.'  
    
    On page 1166, the summary is: "The letters deal firmly with Paul's life
    and affairs and we accept it as genuinely Pauline in character and
    authorship. 
    
    It further states that the differences noted by some detractors in the
    writing styles of the three main branches of Pauline Letters are due to
    the "purpose the letters were written."  The travel letters dealt with
    the churches that were established on the various missionary journeys
    and were mainly supportive of those infant churches and were
    encouraging them to 'stand as a toddler taking it's first steps.'  The
    Captivity letters were full of rejoicing and praise.  Both Travel and
    Captivity were heavily evangelistic in nature.  The Pastorals, on the
    other hand, were Paul's personal encouragement to young ministers, then
    and everywhere generations thereafter, trying to encourage them to stand 
    firm in the faith and carry the banner after he is gone and teaching 
    further generations the gospel and how to teach it to others.  I Timothy 
    was an organizational outline Paul used that any church could follow in 
    its administrative duties and therefore was important to help the develop 
    of the early churches and other churches developed many generations later. 
      
    [Thanks to Ron Warrenfeltz for typing in the above.]

re 601.14 (same reply to Mike's note as in the other conference)

One thing you must know about the RSV is that the notes form an integral
part of the text.  That particular verse has the following note in the RSV:

(n) Or "Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever."

In the RSV Catholic Edition the note and the text are reversed, so that
the main text is as shown in the note above, and the note contains the
other interpretation.

This controversy over _four_ ways of interpreting the Greek of this verse
is 1600 years old, having been started by Erasmus in the 4th century.
The interpretation of the KJV, the RSV note (n), and the RSV CE text
are preferred on the following three considerations:  (i) the normal
sense of this half verse in its context; the phrase "to kata sarka,"
"by physical descent," calls for some contrast.  (ii) The normal wording
of a doxology is not used; "blessed" should precede "theos."  In Paul's
writings such a doxology is never joined asyndetically with what precedes
or with the subject expressed first (see Gal 1:5; 2 Cor 11:31; Rom 1:25;
11:36; cf Eph 3:21; 2 Tim 4:18; 1 Pet 4:11; Heb 13:21).  (iii) The use
of "theos" of Christ is compatible with Paul's teaching, even though the
appelation is not found elsewhere.  Other statements of his make this
attribution not unjustifiable (see 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:6; cf. Titus 2:13
for a possible later extension of his thought).  [New Jerome Commentary]

Some references to this discussion are in O. Cullman, "Christology", 311-14,
Cranfield, "Romans" 464-70, Kuss, "R�merbrief" 679-96, and Michel, "R�mer"
197-99.

/john

I know Mike likes to flame the RSV -- but one could also purchase an
Oxford Annotated King James Bible and find similar commentary.  Oxford
had nothing to do with the production of the RSV; they simply publish
editions with and without commentaries.

I find it interesting, though, that Patricia writes that the New Oxford
Annotated Bible, NRSV, says:

>But in view of the widespread custom in antiquity of psyeudonymous
>authorship (that is, the use of a respected name to give authority
>to a writing actually written by someone else) it is easier to assume
>that a loyal disciple of Paul composed these letters.

My copy of The New Oxford Annotated Bible, RSV, ISBN 0-19-528348-1, states:

"it is easier to assume that a loyal disciple of Paul used several previously
unpublished messages of the apostle and expanded them."

The Oxford RSV Bible talks of assumptions, not overwhelming evidence.

In the next replies I will provide references to other scholars who hold
to Pauline authorship.

/john

The Navarre Bible is copyright 1989, translated 1992.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible is copyright 1977.

The challenge to Pauline authorship is from the 1800s.

More recent scholarship affirms Pauline authorship.

/john

I think it is interesting in that the staff of Oxford University Press
has apparently changed its makeup between 1977 (RSV) and 198x (NRSV).

/john

It should be pointed out that even those scholars who believe the evidence
weighs towards the authorship being only indirectly attributable to Paul still
believe that the letters are

	1. Pauline in character (i.e. they contain Paul's apostolic teaching)

	2. Inspired by the Holy Spirit (i.e. they are the Word of God in the
	   same way the undisputed Pauline letters are).

That is, they are not frauds; _if_ they are not from the hand of Paul, they are
actual teachings of Paul _edited_ rather than authored by someone else.

/john

� Is this kind of Hierarchy of the NT writings contrary to your views of
� innerancy? 

Yes.  The total canon of scripture was penned by a wide variety of people. 
The unity of the whole is due not to their skill, insight, or understanding,
but to the revelation of the Holy Spirit.  The person behind the pen may be of
great spirituality, but ultimately, he is acting only as a messenger.  

So while authorship may seem very significant to people who are trying to
determine a human foundation to the Bible, it is only of very fringe -
academic - interest to Christians. 

What is significant is whether it is written by the inspiration of the same
God.  This is the criterion for the acceptance of each of the books of
scripture, by those who witness to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as
revealed in the Old and New Testaments.  This is the only basis for
consistency over the centuries of writing which the Bible comprises.  Hence
the problem of distance from the original event is overcome by the eternal God
Who is there at every time. 

						God bless
								Andrew

Patricia, I have a question, but it may not be relevant.  You talk about a
hierarchy of Biblical material, and about what is "most important."  Is your
interest purely academic, or are you seeking to follow Christ yourself?

If your interest is academic only, then you can ignore this note.

But if you are seeking to follow Christ, and you believe that the Words and
Deeds of Christ are the most important, then I don't get something.  This
current string of discussion started because you asked what is the matter
with referring to God as a woman or as mother.  Yet the one you are seeking
to follow, whose words and deeds you consider most important, referred to God
only as "Father."  Could you resolve this for me?

Paul

    Re the hierarchy of Biblical writings... I couldn't have said it any
    better than Andrew did. (Evangelical) Christians accept the entirety of
    the Bible as inspired (i.e. "breathed out") by God. While it can help
    in understanding the message of the writings, it is otherwise of little
    relevance whether God chose to use Paul to write some things, Luke to
    write others, etc. The point is that God ultimately is responsible for
    every word in the Scripture. I don't think we have any right telling
    Him what pieces of His word are more important than others.
    
    Moreover, it really does come down to inerrancy. I believe it was Mike
    who posted the first few verses of Titus. Compressed, those verses
    read "Paul... to Titus...". If one (scholar or otherwise) denies that
    the message is Paul's he/she is claiming the Bible to be in error. The
    same formula exists for the letters to Timothy as well.
    
    	BD�
    
    P.S. Patricia, according to the sources you posted, I still haven't
    found any of them to claim that "most" scholars deny Pauline
    authorship. Is there a source that uses "most", or can we agree that
    even the way you've defined scholar that it may well be the minority
    that deny Pauline authorship? Thanks.

>    I believe that the words, the deeds, the speech, the examples of the
>     Historic Jesus  are impacted and influenced by the culture of the day.
    
>    For Jesus to be fully human, means in his humanity he is part of the
>    flow of history and culture.  In the time of Jesus, people very much
>    believed in God as a superhuman Father.  
    
    Hebrews 13:8  Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for
    ever.
    
    Humanity can and cultures may change but Jesus doesn't.  The weather
    may change but Jesus doesn't.  Jesus likens himself to a rock.  Jesus
    is the rock.  A house that was built 100 years ago if on a firm
    foundation will stand the test of time.  Though the winds may change,
    the rock remains firm.  
    
    Be careful to espouse a doctrine of a changing Jesus to keep up with
    the changing time.  The application of the Bible and need for salvation
    remains no matter what the weather of humanity brings.
    
    Luke 6:48  He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and
    laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat
    vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded 
    upon a rock.
    
    1Corinthians 10:4  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they
    drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

>    Be careful to espouse a doctrine of a changing Jesus to keep up with
>    the changing time.

Espouse means "hold fast to".
It means you believe and promote such a doctrine.

I think you mean _exactly_the_opposite_.

Maybe "eschew" (avoid) is the word you meant to use.

/john

>    I believe that the words, the deeds, the speech, the examples of the
>    Historic Jesus are impacted and influenced by the culture of the day.

I can agree that in some cases, Jesus chose forms of speech and examples that
the people of His day would understand.  The extent to which He did so,
however, is only such an extent as would clearly communicate what He wanted
to get across.  I don't believe that the essence of anything that He said is
not applicable across the ages.  

So, for example, Jesus often used the metaphor of a shepherd in describing
himself.  Many people in the culture He lived in were shepherds, and they
would all understand the metaphor easily.  If Jesus were living in today's
culture, He may have chosen a different, more familiar metaphor, and may very
possibly have never referred to Himself as a shepherd at all.  However,
though I'm not particularly familiar with sheep or shepherding, so it takes
more research for me to determine what He means than it did for the people of
His time, I believe that this metaphor is as perfectly applicable today as it
was then.

All of what Jesus was trying to communicate by only ever calling God "Father"
is still there, though years and culture separate us from when He said it.

>    For Jesus to be fully human, means in his humanity he is part of the
>    flow of history and culture.  

For Jesus to be fully divine, means that nothing He said was accidental, or
was said without His fully understanding all the shades of meaning attached
to it.

> In the time of Jesus, people very much
>    believed in God as a superhuman Father.  

I don't believe that this is true.  Judiasm does not significantly refer to
God as "Father."  There are only a few passages in the Old testament that
speak of God as father.  In Judiasm, God is much more "other" and unknowable
than in Christianity.  In fact, Jesus' use of the term "Father" for God was a
source of considerable controversy, and one of the main reasons that He was
ultimately crucified.  By using the term, He dimished the "other-ness" of
God, which the Jews considered blasphemy.

And if He was willing to shock the people of His day so completely by calling
God "Father," why would He not also call God "Mother," if there were
something for us to learn and understand about the nature of God by His doing
so?

>If we believe that God is
>    beyond human gender and we do not live in the first century, then it
>    does not matter whether we call God Mother or Father.  

As I've said, this is not true.  I believe that God is beyond human gender,
and I don't live in the first century.  But I believe that what Jesus told us
about God is just as true today as it was then.

>If it matters,
>    then there must be something inherently superior about addressing God
>    as a Father and not as Mother.

I can't fully parse this sentence in context.  But yes, there must be
something inherently superior about addressing God as a Father and not as
Mother.  I don't fully understand what it is, but I don't believe that Jesus
"accidentally" or "because of His culture" used the term "Father" exclusively.

Paul

    Re: Note 601.58 by POWDML::FLANAGAN
    
    Thanks for responding. Unfortunately, your second sentence does not
    support your first...

�    Most Scholars do not accept the Pauline authorship of Timothy and
�    Titus.  The writing that I have posted have said such things as the
�    evidence is overwhelming against the Pauline authorship.
    
    Your notes simply say that those particular scholars feel there is
    overwhelming evidence against Pauline authorship. It does not follow
    that "most scholars" agree with this alleged overwhelming evidence.
    
    There are many scientists who feel that there is "overwhelming
    evidence" for creationism (versus evolution), yet I doubt that *most*
    scientists are prepared to accept this evidence.
    
    I won't press it further. I appreciate your effort.
    
    	BD�

    .61
    
    Patricia,  is it your opinion that because Christ lived in the 1st
    century as a Jew, that he cannot understand feminism in 1994.

    John, not was missing in my sentence.
    
    Thanks for pointing that out.

 Sure He was..He was addressing every -ism that was to come down the pike.


 "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God..."  humanity has kind of gotten away from
 that with all their -isms, etc, by placing themselves and their "rights"
 ahead of God.





Jim

    Hi Patricia,
    
    I haven't had much to add here, not being a true Biblical scholar
    myself.
    
    I think Andrew said something of great importance a few notes back
    regarding the *ultimate* Authorship of the Scriptures.  Moreover, if it
    were common practice to write in your teacher's name, what is the
    issue (not saying this is the case with Titus & Timothy - just
    asking...)?
    
    As for .66, I believe that because He is eternal, He fully understands
    the issues of 1994, no matter what they are.  :-)
    
    Be well,
    
    Steve

What is "ISMS"?

Regarding predictability:

It's worth noting that the reactions on *both* sides of this discussion are
quite predictable.  That fact shows only that this issue has existed long
enough for both sides to be familiar with the existence of the other.  The
mere fact of predictability doesn't say anything about what is true.

The fact that people read the Bible and see different things is due to the
fact that we each bring with us what we want to be true.  The things that we
see in the Bible that we want to be true we amplify, and the things we see
that we don't want to be true we minimize, suppress, or ignore.  Some of us
do this to a greater extent, and some to a lesser extent, but I don't believe
that any of us are completely free of it.  I know that I've let go of a
number of things that I *WANT* to be true in recent years because they don't
match with the Word, but I also know that I've got more to go.

I am constantly asking myself the question: "What is it that I *WANT* to be
true, and how am I allowing my reading of the Word to be distorted by what I
want it to say?"

What is it that you want to be true, Patricia?

>    Fortunately for each of us God is who God is and Truth is what Truth is
>    independent of any of our claims to certainty.

That is indeed fortunate.  We agree completely.

Paul

    >I know that I've let go of a number of things that I *WANT* to be true in 
    >recent years because they don't match with the Word, but I also know that 
    >I've got more to go.
    
    Amen! I'm right there with you brother.  There have been times that the
    Lord had to "offend" my mind, because I had preconceived opinions which
    were contrary to His Word.  When I have let go of those opinions and 
    received revelation from the Lord, it ALWAYS brought freedom to depend
    on Him.  We all have traditions, cultures, upbringing, etc. which we
    bring with us [some folks have referred to these as filters].  The
    challenge is to come to the Lord and to His Word with an open mind and
    an open heart.  Many times we don't even realize that these filters
    exist.  I believe that's what David was praying in Psalms 139:23-24,
    "Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious
    thoughts; And see if there be any hurtful way in me, And lead me in the
    everlasting way".  
    
    I have realized that there is absolutely nothing worthy in my flesh. 
    Only in a dependance and submission to our heavenly Father can I (and
    we) know true freedom.
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing

>    There is an issue in how we define scholarship.  I believe that a
>    scholar must detach  himself/herself from his/her faith commitment to the
>    subject in order to honestly review the evidence.
    
    Actually, some scholars have tried this too and wound up getting saved
    ;-)  C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell are two examples that come to mind.
    
    Mike

>                  -< Not new scholarship, just new scholars >-
>
>I think it is interesting in that the staff of Oxford University Press
>has apparently changed its makeup between 1977 (RSV) and 198x (NRSV).
    
    Interesting observation.  Was it a change for the better?  Ignoring my
    "problems" with this version, I find it odd that its notes are more
    accurate than the text itself.  How many people actually bother to
    study the notes?  Not everyone is as studious as we are.  They
    should've placed the proper translation in the text where it belongs.
    
    Mike

>    I believe that the words, the deeds, the speech, the examples of the
>     Historic Jesus  are impacted and influenced by the culture of the day.
    
    not just Jesus day.  It was from Moses day up to Paul's day - spanning
    thousands of years.
    
    Besides, Jesus is God and He was a male ;-)
    
    Mike

>    1Corinthians 10:4  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they
>    drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
    
    a beautiful picture of Jesus in the OT!

    >C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell are two examples that come to mind.
    
    Interesting, I was going to put those same two names in here yesterday,
    but I forgot.
    
    Bing
    

    I finally got around to looking at my Ryrie study bible to see what it
    says.  The following is what it has to say about authorship of 1 & 2
    Timothy and Titus:
    
    Some have questioned whether Paul himself wrote these letters, on the
    grounds that: (1) Paul' travels described in the Pastorals do not fit
    anywhere into the historical account of the book of Acts; (2) the
    church organization described in them is that of the second century;
    (3) the vocabulary and style are significantly different from that of
    the other Pauline letters.  Those who hold to the Pauline authorship
    reply that: (1) there is no compelling reason to believe that Acts
    contains the complete history of the life of Paul.  Since his death is
    not recorded in Acts, he was apparently released from his first
    imprisonment in Rome, traveled over the empire for several years
    (perhaps even to Spain), was rearrested, imprisoned a second time in
    Rome, and martyred under Nero. (2) Nothing in the church orgainization
    reflected in the Pastorals requires a later date (see Acts 14:23; Phil
    1:1)[SEE BELOW]. (3) The question of authorship cannot be decided solely 
    on the basis of vocabulary, without considering how subject matter affects
    a writer's choice of words.  Vocabulary used to describe church
    organization, for instance, would be expected to be different from that
    used to teach the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.  There is no argument
    against Pauline authorship that does not have a reasonable answer. 
    And, of course, the letters themselves claim to have been written by
    Paul.
    
    
    Acts 14:23 "And when they had appointed elders for them in every
    church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in
    whom they had believed."
    
    Phil 1:1 "Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Christ Jesus, to all the
    saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and
    deacons:"
    
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing

  We've enjoyed the discussion, Patricia..






Jim

Thanks, Patricia.  May the Lord be with you wherever you go.

Paul