Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Timothy

New Revised Standard Version
The New Oxford Annotated Bible
p 300NT


The First Letter of Paul to Timothy

The two letters to Timothy and the one to Titus, commonly called
the Pastorals, are similar in character and in the problems they
raise concerning authorship.,   It is difficult to ascribe them
in their present form to the apostle Paul.  The vocabulary and
style of these letters differ widely from the acknowledged
letters of Paul; some of his leading theological themes are
entirely absent(e.g. the union of the believer with Christ, the
power and witness of the Spirit, freedom from the law) and some
of the expressions bear a different meaning from that in his
customary usage(e.g. :the faith" as a synonym for the Christian
religion rather than the believer's relationship to Christ)



A few scholars, attempting to maintain Pauline authorship,
account for the differences by assuming changes in his
environment as well as modifications of his vocabulary, style,
and thought.  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.  The purpose was to present Paul's teaching as it
was then understood in the church, using it as a bulwark against
wrong teaching and practice.  Some scholars believe that
fragments of letters written by Pual are incorporated into these
three letters, while others hold that the personal greetings are
simply a framework that the author used to give Paul's authority
to the teachings of the letters.

Timothy

The Women's Bible Commentary
Carol Newsom and Sharon Ringe, Editors,
p 359
1 Timothy (Joanna Dewey)

First and Second Timothy and Titus, which are very similar in
style and content, are called the Pastorals because instructions
for pastors of congregations.  They claim to be letters from
Paul to two of his colleagues, Timothy and Titus;  however they
are neither true letters nor from Paul.  They appear instead to
be handbooks for church administration written in the early
second century, decades after Paul's death by an unknown author.
 Since a major concern of the writings was to limit the role of
women in the church, the author was probably a man
.
Pseudonymity, writing in the name of someone else(usually dead,
was realtively common in antiquity among both pagans and
Christians, as a way to claim the authority of the supposed
writer for the contents of the document.  Sometimes that
practice was considered a legitimate way to extend the thought
of the supposed author into a new time and place.  At other
times it was rejected as deceptive.  Ancient evalution of the
Pastorals woul probably  have hinged on whether or not the
evaluaationr agreed with the author's representation and
interpretation of Paul's point of view.

The evidence that Paul did not wirte the Pastorals is
overwhelming.  There are no references to these to these
"letters" in in any other documents until the late second
centrury, considerably later than references to the other
Pauline writings.  The writing style is not typical of Paul but
rather of a more general Hellenistic literary Greek.  The
theological  concerns and vocabulary differ substantially from
Paul's and are similar to vocabulary found in such other early
second-century Christian writings as 1 Clement and the letters
of Ignatius.    For example the Pastorals use the term "savior"
frequently, but Paul uses it only once.  The Pastorals speak of
Christ "appearing" but Paul never does.  The Pastorals are
concerned with church offices that had not developed in Paul's
time.  Finally it is exceedingly difficult to fit these letters
into any biography of Paul.  The evidence for pseudoonymity
suggests a date in the first decades of the second century,
perhaps around 123 C.E.

Since the writings are not by Paul, neither are they to the
Timothy and Titus of Paul's letters.  It is doubtful that they
are written to specific church leaders at all.  Their late date,
their similarity of style and content and their reference to
"books" (2 Tim. 4:13) suggest that they were originally written
on a codex(or booklike manuscript) along with other texts, in
order to supplement or correct the earlier Pauline letters.  The
Pastorals are an attempt to use the authority of Paul to
influence the understanding of Paul in the second-century
churches.

Engaging the New Testament
An Interdisciplinary Introduction
Russel Pregeant
p 257

The Question of Authenticity

What the pastorals have in common with one another also sets
them apart from the undisputed letters.  The difference in
word-usage is striking.  To begin with, a number of shorter
words appearing frequently in the other leetters-such as the
Greek terms for "now', 'therefore' 'so that' do not occur in the
pastorals.  In addition, a nymber of key words with theological
import in the pastorals are found rarely or not at all in the
other letters.  Thus, for example, eusebeia-translated as
"godliness," "piety" or "religion" occurs ten times in the
pastorals but never in the uncontested letters.  It is also
significant that the terminology in these writings closely
parallels that of Christian writings from the seconde
century-long after the time of Paul.

In some cases, differences in usage suggest theological
differences.  In the undisputed letters, the word "faith" refers
to a dynamic reality--the act of the total human being in
appropriating God's grace.  In the pastorals, however, it
generally designates a body of doctrine, a set of specific
beliefs.  The author of the pastorals, moreover, never uses the
term "son" for Christ, never employs the formula "in Christ" in
its "mystical" sense, and never mentions the cross at all!

The pastorals also presuppose a situatrion quite different from
that depicted in the undiputed letters.  While the latter make
references to various functions within the Christian community,
authority seems to be primarily charismatic in nature.  the term
episkopos-translated as either "overseer" or "bishop" occurs
once in the undiputed letters(Phil 1:1) but does not seem to be
intended in the later, more formalized sense and may even be an
insertion.  The bishops mentioned in the passtorals probably did
not posses the monarchical authority later associated with this
term, but the lengthy discussions of the office of episkopos,
along with that of deacon and elder, reveal a greater degree of
formalization in church order than is evident in the undisputed
letters.

There is moreover, at least one apparent reference to an early
form of ordination in the pastorals(1 Tim 4:14)  Although we
cannot find her any sign of the hierarchical arrangement of
power that eventually developed, scholars generally agree that
in the pastoral letters we have clear evidence of "early
Catholicism"-the beginnings of an institutionalized church.  The
emphasis upon an ordained ministry dovetails with that upon
formalized doctrine: a function of the officers of the community
is to unsure sound doctrine

It would appear almost certain that 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus
are the work of a pseudonymous author writing sometime between
the last decade of the first century and the middle of the
second century

RE:             <<< Note 877.2 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>
                    -< Woman's Bible Commentary Reference >-

>concerned with church offices that had not developed in Paul's
>time.  Finally it is exceedingly difficult to fit these letters



 The offices of Deacon and Elder are mentioned in Acts.




Jim

    Acts too was written much latter than Paul's letters.
    
    Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    Then there are two possible alternatives if your point of view is
    correct.
    
    A. There was a man named Paul, a few centuries later but was also an
    apostle and was a discipler of a young man named Timothy.  Also similar
    to the Paul of the Bible, this later Paul was thrown in a cold prison
    in Rome and was awaiting execution just as the biblical Paul was.  The
    parellels of these two Pauls would be unspeakable amazing.
    
    B. The document is a counterfeit and was plageurized by an individual
    centuries later who misrepresented himself as the apostle Paul.  Motive
    would be unknown. (See Paul's greetings to Timothy in chapter 1 of each
    letter.)
    
    If the premise of the authenticity of Paul's authorship is to undermine
    the validity of the teaching in these epistles, i.e. women's roles in
    the church, then may I suggest that you aren't full of prunes but the
    original writers of .2 and .3 might be.  (Notice I said Might Be!)
    
    Personal feeling without really dealving into arguments for or against;
    I believe this is a weak argument put forth by the feminist movement to
    undermine the teachings of Paul and the conduct of the local church.
    Even if these epistles were forged, we still have to take into
    consideration the doctrines put forth by Paul in 1st Corinthians
    regarding the roles of the sexes.
    
    If possible, could you provide the greek words in Romans verses Timothy
    fot eh word, "faith"?  I believe you will find the greek word to be the
    same.  
    
    -Jack

    Wrong Jack,
    
    
    This is generally accepted Knowledge held by most Biblical scholars. 
    
    Your theory A.  is farfetched.  Theory B. may be accurate.
    
    It is my judgement that this practice is a fraud and contributed for
    one to the undermining of the position of women in the church.  None of
    the three readings I posted cite that judgement.  The women's Bible
    commentary comes the closest to alluding to the issue.
    
    I do agree with you though Jim.  Such generally accepted Biblical
    knowledge must be scary for those whose faith depends upon the
    innerancy of the Bible.  Just as scary as the Christian message was to
    those whose faith depended on adherence to the Law.

    Patricia,
    
    Your arguments are moot to me as I believe these to heretical
    tranlations of the word of God.  The men of God who translated the
    scriptures were persecuted and burned at the stake for having done so. 
    They knew the consequences at the time of their writing, but gave their
    lives for the Bible now known as the King James Version.  This is the
    *only* translation that is valid imho.
    
    Show me one translater for the NRSV that died for the cause of the
    translation....
    
    I'd say the character of the men of God who translated the KJV is not
    in question, again imho.
    
    

    I can cite quite a few Unitarians who were burned to the stake by
    Christians because they argued, based on the Bible for the Unity of God.
    
    I can cite quite of few Christian Women who were burned to the Stake as
    witches, because their life styles were non comformist.
    
    BTW the question about the authenticity of Timothy and Titus transcends
    which translation of the Bible is used.  the NSRV is the version
    generally accepted today in the Ecumenical Christian Church.
    
    So are you stating that you only believe in the innerancy of the King
    James Version of the Bible?
    
    Patricia

    Actually, does this question belong in this string?  It is a valid
    question and I am interested since I use the Ryrie NASB and the NIV.
    I have trouble even with these translations from time to time as there
    are certain verses omitted from the KJV.
    
    Regarding theories A and B, you are correct Patricia, theory A would be 
    absurd.  Tell me, if the issue of women's roles in the local church
    wasn't addressed, would this really be an issue with you?  What I'm
    getting at is this.  Once again, we are falling into the horrible habit
    of accepting certain books ONLY if it fits into our political agenda of
    life.  Fair assessment?
    
    -Jack

    .9
    
    Hmmm... good question.. on a whole, I guess my answer would have to be
    Yes... I only use a KJV Bible, I once had an NIV, but found too many
    discrepancies to continue its use.
    
    I don't get into telling others which version of Bible to use, but when
    I see scripture from other versions, I always check the KJV.
    
    Your statistics on Christian women and Unitarians... are comparing
    Apples and Oranges... but I understand the purpose for the citation.

    No Jack,
    
     Actually what I think is most brilliant about Paul is his theology of
    the spirit and his mystical approach to spirit.  THis is missing in the
    Pastorals.  The shift to the importance of doctrine as opposed to life
    in the spirit is accompanied by moving from the real letters to the
    fake letters.  My adjectives are a little stronger than the Biblical
    Scholars though.
    
    I am actually appalled at how Male scholars suggest that almost all of
    Paul's notorious quotes are spurious.  The first Corinthian demand for
    women to keep quiet in the church is an example.  More scholars than
    not, say that is fake.  Antonette Ware, a Feminist Scholar says that it
    is real and a key to understanding 1 Corinthians. SHe argues that
    Paul's primary opponents in Corinth were the women prophets.  I agree with
    her there.
    
    Patricia

    Well, since prophets are called by God to do God's work, it would be
    wrong of Paul to look at them any other way than co-laborers in Christ.
    
    I would like to see historical documentation on this since the
    accusation was made by a feminist.  
    
    -Jack

    Read the book.  it is persuasive.

    Patricia:
    
    Ever see the TV show, COPS?  It is also persuasive.  The question is
    how valid are the stories.  I know some of them are made up.
    
    Keep in mind that a point of view is only as valid as it's source.
    There are many solid teachers, (present day pharisees as you call
    them), who preach on eschatology with differing viewpoints.  Not
    because they are trying to appease their political agenda, but because
    they are using prophecy and historical evidence to back up a point of
    view.  
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    I think you are as misdirected and mistaken in your conclusions as you
    think I am.  I choose to argue my case based on the only evidence that
    you will listen to and that is the Bible.  You also argue your case
    based on the only evidence you will listen to The Bible.  
    
    Patricia

>They knew the consequences at the time of their writing, but gave their
>lives for the Bible now known as the King James Version.

No one who worked on the KJV died for that work.

About 300-100 years before the KJV was translated there were people
involved in producing their own translations into English who were
convicted of various heresies.

In 1604, a group from the Church of England requested that the existing
translations be revised because they "were corrupt and not answerable to
the truth of the original."  King James I immediately made the project
his own, and approved a board of 54 translators (of which 47 actually
participated).  The KJV, consisting of all 81 books commonly used in the
Church of England (not just the 66 used by the Protestants), was published
in 1611 with the King's approval.  The KJV is only the "Authorized Version"
(i.e. the version authorized by King James) if it includes all the books.

My own printed Oxford KJV is complete, and I have recently obtained online
copies of the 15 books rejected by the Protestants.

/john

    .17
    
    John,
    
    I will post names of the translators who gave their lives for this
    Bible.... perhaps I misunderstood who these men were, but I don't think
    so... as I told you it was in a Bible conference and we had some of the
    authentic original translations... first editions.
    
    

    Patricia:
    
    On the contrary, I believe the use of outside historical data is
    crucial.  Cindy Painter and I have had differences of opinion on the
    historical documents provided by Josh McDowell's, "Evidence that
    Demands a Verdict".  I am also a proponent of the works of Josephus
    and other writers such as Andrew Murray, Chuck Swindoll, Billy Graham,
    and others.  
    
    I will not ridicule your source from this point on but I will challenge
    it.  It is important to remember that Pauls epistle to a church vs. an
    individual are going to be different.  To Timothy, it will be more in
    the line of being personal as opposed to general.  If I wrote my group
    an EMail message, the style would be different than that of a letter to
    my organization.
    
    I believe the book of Hebrews wasn't written by Paul because that
    letter, although written to a group, is vastly different from the style
    Paul uses in the other letters.  However, I find its contents extremely
    valid.  The theme:  We are justified by what Jesus did on the cross,
    not what we do here.  We receive crowns of life, righteousness,faith by
    what we do here.  
    
    I would like to continue this tomorrow.  Thanks Patricia for typing 
    all your notes in.  It brings about interesting discussion!!
    
    -Jack

Something that *must* be understood and that isn't, as is evident here
and in other conversations, is that there were no copyright laws in biblical
times.  Nobody became wealthy from the proceeds of book sales.  These
are (relatively) modern capitalistic ideas.

Shalom,
Richard

    RE: .18
    
    I see a trap waiting for you, then Nancy. The KJV has been constantly
    updated over the years. If you are saying that the KJV is the only
    correct one, then you have to use the original KJV of 1611. The one
    you have now, isn't the same as the 1611 one.
    
    The original translation did not have the info from the dead sea
    scrolls
    either. Are you to reject that info?
    
    My current preference is the NRSV.....
    
    Marc H.
    
    By the way, I have access to a 1602 Old Testament and a similar dated
    Greek New Testament. Neet looking books! 

    RE: .21
    
    			Just a small note here.  The last I heard was the
    only complete book found at the Dead Sea Scrolls was the OT book
    Isaiah.  The translators were amazed at the consistancy of this new
    find and the KJV.  Interesting. :-)
    
    
    Dave  

    Patricia:
    
    I was reading a commentary of the epistle to Timothy and you are
    correct in that there is a view in existence that Paul was not the
    original author.  I will say however, that a premise has to be founded
    on principles based on historical fact which the commentary in .2 and
    .3 APPEARED to bring forth.  The issue of the writers view on womens
    roles in the church is a moot point.  Reason 1, it corroberates with
    the teachings of Paul in 1st Corinthians so they are in harmony with
    one another.  Reason 2, to say that the letter cannot be from Paul
    because it calls for the suppression of women in the church is based on
    emotion and a political agenda.  We already know Pauls position on the
    role of women from previous letters so to discredit the writer on this
    criteria makes no sense.
    
    I would be interested to know how the writer of the commentary you
    brought forth explains Pauls wonderful relationship with Timothy's
    mother, Eustis, in the Timothy letter.  Eustis is also mentioned in the
    Book of Acts so the relationship can be corroberated in two books in
    the Bible.
    
    -Jack

>The KJV has been constantly updated over the years.

Only with respect to spelling.  Any other "updates" have been given
different names, such as RSV and NRSV.

/john

There is wide acceptance that the Apostle Paul did not write the letter
to Timothy.

One of the main criteria for canonization (circa AD 370?), that is, inclusion
into the New Testament, was that the document had to be associated with an
apostle.

Shalom,
Richard

    Richard:
    
    There is not "wide acceptance that the Apostle Paul did not write the
    letter to Timothy."
    
    Maybe in 'some circles', but even in this notesfile, it's not widely
    accepted.  BTW, it isn't a popularity vote that gets something
    'accepted', it's due to scholarly study and evaluation.
    
    Ron

    Re: .24
    
    Well, I feel like putting you to the test, in the interest of learning
    more. Do you really mean that from 1611 to 1950"s( could be 40'S), the 
    words did not change at all? (except for spelling).
    
    Marc H.

    .26 Ron,
    
    Granted, a majority vote certainly doesn't make something so.
    At the same time, scholars - based on multiple criteria,
    called criticisms - have concluded that Timothy was not from
    Paul's hand.
    
    I shall not present it here, but the evidence is substantial.
    Your local public library should be helpful, if you're interested.
    
    Mind you, these are not people out to disprove the Bible.  These
    are people out for the truth.  When emotions are deeply anchored in
    pre-existing assumptions about the Bible, the truth is often eclipsed
    or ignored.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    Richard:
    
    Emotions aside, I will provide you with commentaries from various
    theologians who would disagree with your point of view concerning the
    "wide acceptance" statement you made.
    
    Give me a few days since I'm currently working on an RFP but remind me
    if I omit entering the data.
    
    Ron

    Richard:
    
    I for one am always willing to change my beliefs on an issue.  I was
    always under the belief for example, that Hebrews was written by Paul.  
    If you were to ask me today, I would say that it is not of Paul but my
    opinion is predjudice because I only attribute my opinion to the
    completely different style of the letter.
    
    I believe the text of the Pastoral epistles and Hebrews to be fully
    inspired by God...to the letter!!
    
    -Jack

    .29  Ron,
    
    There's no doubt in my mind that you can find theologians who disagree
    with any number of things I've said.
    
    I might add that when I say "wide acceptance" I don't necessarily mean
    the dominant majority, either.  What I mean, rather, is that it's not
    just liberal scholars who agree.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    I guess you would have no need for me to post my various references and
    commentaries, ranging from David Jeremiah to J. Vernon McGee.  It's
    obvious you would accept those commentaries from the ones whom you
    claim "wide acceptance."
    
    Very convenient ot, I must say...
    
    Ron

RE:        <<< Note 877.32 by GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ "Shine like a Beacon!" >>>

   >    commentaries, ranging from David Jeremiah to J. Vernon McGee.  It's
   > obvious you would accept those commentaries from the ones whom you


      Two of my favorite preacher/teachers!




    
    

    Excellent preacher/teachers and scholars of merit to boot.  McGee's 5
    volume set is not only comprehensive, but easy for the lay person to
    read and understand.  
    
    BTW, Jeremiah took over one of McGee's first churches then followed him
    to the West Coast.
    
    Ron

 Years ago I used to plan my lunch hours at work so I could hear Dr McGee
 on the radio.  I've been picking up his commentary a book (Bible book) at
 a time, though now I'm thinking of picking up the set.  I can almost hear
 his voice as I read his commentaries.


 David Jeremiah's current series on Revelation is absolutely astounding.



 Jim

re Note 877.32 by GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ:

>     Very convenient ot, I must say...
    
        And, of course, your selection of favored references and
        commentaries is very convenient for supporting your beliefs,
        right?

        Bob

    Point was, Bob, that a statement was made to the effect that "widely
    accepted" among many circles.
    
    I challenged the source and offered to include mine which clearly would
    rebut those under the "widely accepted" umbrella statement.
    
    That statement is false, I brought it to light and those that disagree
    pick at my source of references, not unlike I picked at theirs but they
    objected.  
    

re Note 877.37 by GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ:

>     Point was, Bob, that a statement was made to the effect that "widely
>     accepted" among many circles.
>     
>     I challenged the source and offered to include mine which clearly would
>     rebut those under the "widely accepted" umbrella statement.
>     
>     That statement is false, I brought it to light and those that disagree
>     pick at my source of references, not unlike I picked at theirs but they
>     objected.  
  
        Think!  You cannot refute a claim of "widely accepted" by
        stating a few examples of those who don't accept.

        "Widely accepted" does not mean universally accepted nor does
        it mean that there are no significant objectors.

        Bob

    RE: .37
    
    And just how have you helped out people, like myself that use this
    conference as a place to ask questions and explore faith?
    
    If verbal jousting is your goal.....*you* have been knocked off
    your horse.
    
    What is this thing about fundamentalists anyway? Is your faith that
    weak that it needs to be validated constantly?
    
    Set flame off...I'm in a rotten mood (virus real bad) and this stuff
    gets to be.
    
    Marc H.

    Widely accepted is an interesting phrase. I think it's as correct to
    say that a book on the Bible is widely accepted as being written by
    Paul as the other way around. So what is the point of saying so?
    
    		Alfred

    .40  I think it's an example of deliberate gnat-straining, as if every
    word I wrote in here was subject to examination on a microscopic level.
    
    As you point out, Alfred, "wide acceptance" can potentially apply to
    more than a single point of view.
    
    Richard
    

Note 877.37

>    I brought it to light and those that disagree
>    pick at my source of references, not unlike I picked at theirs but they
>    objected.  
    
Nobody objected, Ron.  Perhaps you should re-read 877.31 before making such
an assertion.

Richard

    In the texts that I read there are statements by scholars that say that
    the evidence is overwhelming to support the claims that Paul did not
    write Timothy or Titus.  I am no expert but I believe the experts
    particularly when that is the opionion in the introduction in the
    Oxford Bible.
    
    Patricia

re .43

It is not the Oxford Bible which says that the evidence is overwhelming.
That statement comes from the Woman's Bible Commentary.

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

The Oxford Bible talks of assumptions, not overwhelming evidence.

/john

..and if there are scholars and experts who present an equal amount of
evidence to the contrary what will you believe?




Jim

From the NIV study Bible:

"Both early tradition and the salutations of the Pastoral Letters
themselves confirm Paul as their author.  Some objections have
been raised in recent years on the basis of an alleged
uncharacteristic vocabulary and style (e.g., see notes on 1:15,
2:2), but evidence is still convincingly supportive of Paul's
authorship."

It is interesting to note that the primary objections that
Patricia has posted stem from the assumption
about consistency of an author's style of writing.  I grant
that this should not be ignored since it is clear that people
do have styles of writing (not style, but styles).

Note also that it is insufficient to take 1 letter out and
say that it was not written by Paul; there are too many
similarities with 2 other letters claim to be written by Paul.
Therefore, the only option available to those who pursue this
methodology (at practically all costs) is to deny Pauline
authorship to all three letters (based on unproven methodology)
while downplaying as much as possible the explicit claims of
both the letters themselves and the early witness of the
church.

Collis

I thought I'd take a quick look at the overall style of
the letter.

Titus starts out, "Paul a servant of God..."

Philippians starts out, "Paul and Timothy, servants of
Christ Jesus"

Titus 1:4b says "Grace and peace from God the Father and
Christ Jesus our Savior."

Phil 1:2 says, "Grace and peace to you from God our
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

II Tim 1:3 says, "I thank God, whom I serve, as my
forefathers did..."

Phil 1:3 says, "I thank my God every time I remember
you."

II Tim 1:8ff says, "So do not be ashamed to testify about
out Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner.  But join with
me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who
has saved us and called us to a holy life - not because
of anything we have done but because of his own purpose
and grace."

Phil 1:4ff says, "In all my prayers for all of you, I always
pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel 
from the first day until now, being confident of this,
that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to
completion until the day of Christ Jesus.  If is right for
me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my 
heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming
the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me.

Obviously, there are a *lot* of similarities.  I guess that
if your goal is to find differences, you will find differences.

Also note the *many* personal references in the letters and
the STRONG supposition throughout the letters that Paul was
himself the author.  For example, II Tim 2:2 says,
"and the things you have heard ME say in the presence of
many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be
qualified to teach others."  This not only refers to Paul,
but states what is common knowledge to them both - that
there were many witnesses.

Collis

    .47  That's an English translation.  What about the style in the
    original (Greek?) language?
    
    Surprised you didn't mention this.
    
    Richard
    

Re: .48

I was referencing the subject matter and the placement
of it (as well as obviously similar words) as opposed
to anything specific about the Greek.  I didn't mention
Greek because it wasn't really the point.  The point is
that there are a lot of similarities that most anyone -
including those who don't know Greek or anything about Paul -
can see when comparing the letters that Paul is supposed
to have written with letters that some say he is not
supposed to have written.

Just for a bonus, I mentioned as well that the letters
claim third-party witnesses.

Oh, and another thing.  We must think the people living
in the second century were pretty dumb.  After all, the
claim is that this letter was written in the early second
century probably 60-70 years after Paul's death.  Who
the writer actually was is unknown.  Why he would have
written this forgery is unknwon.  Why would the people
of that time (or shortly after that time) have accepted
this letter as real???  [Answer:  because they're dumb.]

Collis

    .49
    
    I don't believe it was because they were dumb.
    
    Richard
    

    Collis, 
    
    The answer to your question is contained in at least two of the three
    references I posted.  It was common in the second century for both
    Christians and Pagans to write in the name of a teacher.  The evidence
    is much more than word usage as identified in the three articles.
    
    

    RE:  authorship
    
    I checked in my "Harpers' Commentary" over the weekend with regard to
    the authorship of these letters. The commentary suggested yet another
    idea. Namely, that the letters were written from material left behind
    by Paul. Namely scraps of Paul's letters were used by a later, not Paul
    writter.
    
    I'm sure that there will be the usual folks who disagree with Harpers'
    Commentary......fine....I'm not sure that I agree with it totally,
    but, clearly there is a real question over just  who wrote the
    Letters.
    
    By the way, my faith wouldn't be bothered one iota if Paul didn't write
    the letter; which is really at the heart of this discussion.
    
    Marc H.

    .52  My faith is also unshaken by the possibility that Paul, the original,
    may not have been the one who actually penned or dictated the letter(s)
    to Timothy.
    
    Richard
    

    .53
    
    My faith is unshaken as well... so what's the point? 
    
    I could start questioning whether or not Hillary is a lesbian... and
    get that spread out over the country so that it leaves the "question"
    in folks minds... that doesn't mean its true.

    .54  Hillary who?
    
    *<8*}
    Richard
    

    > I've heard she leaves the toilet seat up 
    
    Like Mrs. Doubtfire! :-) :-)
    
    I laughed so hard during that movie, I thought for sure, I almost
    passed out from lack of oxygen!

    RE: .54
    
    I don't understand your comparison to a scholarly discussion on Paul's
    letters and Lesbians.............
    
    Unless you view the fact that if the author of Pauls letters to Timothy
    is *not* Paul, then your whole faith is going to crumble like a house
    of cards? Is that the reason for the strong Lesbian word? Or is it
    that you will not consider, ever, that the authorship is questionable.
    
    Just trying to understand...really.
    
    Marc H.

    GREAT and I get .58 to boot!  THanks for asking Marc!
    
    In other words just be "questioning" I can cause doubt to have folks
    looking at Hillary differently then before.
    
    The "questioning" behind the authorship of said books in the Bible,
    doesn't deem it truth, just as with Hillary.
    
    BTW, this has happened.  A Rumor started that Hillary was really
    bi-sexual, but preferred women and now there is a whole host of people
    saying stupid things like, "So that's why she cut her hair so short!"
    
    Ridiculous, eh?

    What is really offensive is a scholarly discussion
    degenerating into mischevous labelling and insinuation.
    
    It is a means of argumentation that lacks integrity.
    
    If the facts and rational arguments are incontestable, why not just use
    accusations, defamation, and homophobia to prove that Paul wrote
    Timothy and Titus.
    
    Patricia

    .59
    
    Huh?  

    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. 
      
    
    
    Ron 

    Patricia:
    
    It's the PC attitude you just portrayed that is bringing our country
    into the doldrums.  Nancy was using Clinton as an example of how rumors 
    spread and are eventually presented as fact.  Then you go into your
    sensitivity speil!!!
    
    -Jack

    
    That's 'spiel', Jack.
    
    Helpfully,
    
    Cindy

    That's right...I before E except after C!  Of course this is a Jewish
    word and the rules could be different over there.  No go huh?...Well,
    I tried!

    RE: .61
    
    Seems like each commentary has their own opinion.
    
    Marc H.

    .65  Indeed.  Much of it depends on the scholars' starting point;
    their biases and loyalties.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    .62  I disagree.
    
    Richard
    

    .67
    
    Not surprised.  Jack understood exactly the point I was making.  
    
    Of course, we have gotten into insults more lately in this conference,
    then not... 
    
    

    RE: :68
    
    Yes we have , Nancy. As the offical "neutral" watcher in here, I would
    say the fundamentalists are currently leading the insult charge.
    
    It does cut both ways.....
    
    Marc H.

    Marc:
    
    Nancy made a point, Patricia's response was, "Homophobe".  Who started
    this one?!!
    
    -Jack

    Last 3 or 4:
    
    Please, discuss matters of discussing in the Processing Topic.  Note 9.
    
    Richard
    

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 877.72                     Timothy And Titus                       72 of 75
APACHE::MYERS                                         9 lines  22-MAR-1994 13:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re:  Note 877.68 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    > Jack understood exactly the point I was making.

    So did I. The scholars and other people advancing the opinion that the
    Pastoral Letters are not Pauline in authorship, are no better than
    (**offending language removed**) people who advance unfounded rumors
    with the intent of undermining the credibility and charcter of a public
    figure. 

    Eric 

    .76
    
    No don't place qualitative language around character where none was
    given, please.
    
    It is HUMAN nature to DO this regardless of said subject.  If I don't
    like a particular subject, I can question it... there is nothing wrong
    with questioning a subject... it's when the questioning turns into more
    then it warrants.. which IMHO has happened with the authorship of said
    books of the Bible.
    
    There is NO PROOF, only SPECULATION that is causing this controversy. 
    EVERY time someone has said this is inconsistent, there has been
    equally convincing comment where it is consistent.
    
    Therefore, this whole argument is based around a PERSON's OPINION or
    QUESTIONIING... 

    RE:.77
    
    Correct, human opinion for both sides of the argument.
    
    Marc H.

    .78
    
    yes, there is truth is this.. however for centuries it has been
    accepted as Paul's writing... what makes us who are now MUCH further
    away from said events think we know more?  If they came up with other
    evidence outside speculation, then I would be more apt to question
    right along with the scholars opposing Titus and Timothy, based on the
    validity of outside evidence.    
    

    re Note 877.79 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    > yes, there is truth is this.. however for centuries it has been
    > accepted as Paul's writing...

    <Shields down>

    Yes, but for those same centuries it was all but impossible to question
    to status quo. One would risk anything from banishment to death for
    questioning the Roman Catholic church. It wasn't until the 16th century
    that the first *successful* schism or reformation occurred with Martin
    Luther. It wasn't for a lack of trying either.

    The point is, for centuries free and open discussions were
    extinguished, so I think it's a little inaccurate to say that because
    Paul's letters were never questioned, there were no questions regarding
    Paul's letters.
    
    	With no sword or spear,
    
    		Eric

    RE: 80
    
    True,
     In addition scholars today have other documents to use (dead sea
    stuff) and better scientific tools.
    
    Marc H.

 Anybody want to deal with some of the specifics Ron mentions in .61?
 I think it raises some valid points, particularly when it is refering to
 the letter itself and what the letter has to say about the assumed author.





Jim

Re:  .82

Sure, I'll respond to .61.  It's right on.  :-)

Collis

    We have now for centuries been able to question against the church's
    teachings and thus, have sprung many different sects of religions... 
    
    I agree that much of what was unable to be questioned, today is, but
    again the questioning doesn't make it Truth... does it?  Am I missing
    something here?
    
    

 RE .83

 :-)

re Note 877.84 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     I agree that much of what was unable to be questioned, today is, but
>     again the questioning doesn't make it Truth... does it?  Am I missing
>     something here?
  
        Yes, but if you don't question -- and test -- you will have
        no idea what might be true, and what might not.

        Bob

    .86
    
    Yes

| <<< Note 877.70 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>


| Nancy made a point, Patricia's response was, "Homophobe".  Who started
| this one?!!

	Jack, me thinks you might want to go back and reread Patricia's .59
note. She used the word homophobia, not homophobe. There is a major difference
between the 2 and in your context is points to an individual while in her's she
was using it as one of many examples to make a point. There was no insult on
her part, but you did make it seem as though there was one. So please scratch
Patricia off your list of people throwing insults around. 



Glen

    .70
    
    Bull Glen... it was guised as a non-directed statement towards my
    questioning the questioning process!!
    
    Hmmm... who lacks integrity?
    

re: Note 877.89 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    .70
>    
>    Bull Glen... it was guised as a non-directed statement towards my
>    questioning the questioning process!!
>    
>    Hmmm... who lacks integrity?
    

huh?  .70 is from Jack Martin in this string.  To what note are you refering?

Peacw,

Jim

    Glen's note regarding .70.

    Glen:
    
    (How's it going by the way?)
    
    Homophobe...Homophobic...we were dealving into the sensitivity nonsense
    again.
    
    I think the words are poor definitions and are disingenuous at best.
    They imply that if you disagree with somebody's activities, then you
    are afraid of that activity because you surely don't understand it. 
    This is a societal lie.  True, there are Homophobes out there.  I on
    the other hand do not fear something I don't approve of so for Patricia
    to imply that a conservative response stems from attacks and
    homophobia is a ghastly attempt to point fingers.
    
    I try to not mix politics with religious discussions so I'll break it
    down short and sweet.
    
    Conservative viewpoints - Usually tweek somebody's nose
    
    Liberal Viewpoints - Usually founded on fantasy
    			 Usually costs me money
    			 Disingenuous
    			 Designed to promote an agenda
    			 Intrusive to the max
    
    Which one are you more suspicious of?
    
    -Jack

    I am not being politically correct or anything else.  The comment made
    about Hillary was clearly unacceptable gossip and homophobic.  It had
    no place in this note or in a Christian Perspective Notes Conference.
    
    I understand the difference of opinion regarding the authorship of the
    letters.  There are many legitimate notes disagreeing with the
    assumption that Paul did not write the letters.  The disparaging of
    Hillary has nothing to do with decent standards of argumentation.
    
    Patricia

    > Which one are you more suspicious of?

    The one who prejudges an idea based on its viewpoint.

    Eric

| <<< Note 877.92 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



	Nancy, ya might want to read this:


| (How's it going by the way?)

	Pretty good pal... and yerself?


| Homophobe...Homophobic...we were dealving into the sensitivity nonsense
| again.

	No Jack, we aren't. One word is refering to ONE individual. The way I
understood Patricia in her note (.59 I believe) she used several different
things to make her point. It wasn't directed at anyone in particular as your
note seemed to make it.

| They imply that if you disagree with somebody's activities, then you
| are afraid of that activity because you surely don't understand it.

	Maybe what is happening is we are looking at this from 2 different view
points. I am looking at the word homophobia as something many people could be.
I am looking at homophobic as an individual thing. But, and this is where I
think we differ, I don't see someone who is homophobic as being something bad.
If someone fears gays, then we need to look at the why's. Are their fears based
on reality? That's what we need to find out. If someone adds hate into the
picture, then there is something that can be looked down upon. I THINK that is
where the term "homophobic bigot" comes in. But to be just homophobic is not
bad per say.... but if one has a phobia, then one needs to try and face it to
end it. Can you see this Jack? 

| Which one are you more suspicious of?

	Conservative Viewpoint. You left out what often can be led to with that
type of viewpoint: hate, fear, anger, spend more of you money to try and stop
something that might not really need stopping to begin with, and the list goes
on. I mean, think of conservatives and talk about your fantasy.... :-) But I
think we both know we could go on and on about the possible things that could
result from the various groups Jack. But wouldn't it be easier to just try and
work together?


Glen

 Re: Note 877.94                     Timothy And Titus                       94 of 95
APACHE::MYERS                                         6 lines  23-MAR-1994 14:05

    > Which one are you more suspicious of?

>>    The one who prejudges an idea based on its viewpoint.

    It's not a prejudgement.  It is based on a half century of corrupt 
    government and policies.  It has been proven that sheer leftist liberalism 
    will fail.

Re: Note 877.93                     Timothy And Titus                       93 of 95
AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web"                     10 lines  23-MAR-1994 13:59

>>    I am not being politically correct or anything else.  The comment made
>>    about Hillary was clearly unacceptable gossip and homophobic.  It had
>>    no place in this note or in a Christian Perspective Notes Conference.
  
>>  The disparaging of Hillary has nothing to do with decent standards of 
    argumentation.
    
Let's put this to rest once and for all.

>>Note 877.54                     Timothy And Titus                       54 of 95
>>JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"     7 lines  21-MAR-1994 12:13

>>    .53
    
>>    My faith is unshaken as well... so what's the point? 
    
>>    I could start questioning whether or not Hillary is a lesbian... and
>>    get that spread out over the country so that it leaves the "question"
>>    in folks minds... that doesn't mean its true.

STOP RIGHT HERE!!!  Let's do a playback and read this again!!

>>    I could start questioning whether or not Hillary is a lesbian... and
>>    get that spread out over the country so that it leaves the "question"
>>    in folks minds... that doesn't mean its true.

If you read this carefully, you will see that the defendant is not making an 
implication.  She is using a horrible rumor as an example to make a point.
See the next segment to affirm this.

>> Note 877.58                     Timothy And Titus                       58 of 95
>> JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"    13 lines  21-MAR-1994 13:33
    
>>    In other words just be "questioning" I can cause doubt to have folks
>>    looking at Hillary differently then before.
    
>>    The "questioning" behind the authorship of said books in the Bible,
>>    doesn't deem it truth, just as with Hillary.
    
>>    BTW, this has happened.  A Rumor started that Hillary was really
>>    bi-sexual, but preferred women and now there is a whole host of people
>>    saying stupid things like, "So that's why she cut her hair so short!"
    
>>    Ridiculous, eh?

Yes Nancy.  It is completely ridiculous how the MEDIA AND OTHER mush minds 
with Slop Opera mentalities are saying these things about the first lady.
I believe as you do that the position of a country leader requires respect.

Re: Note 877.95                     Timothy And Titus                       95 of 95
BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....."                          46 lines  23-MAR-1994 14:23


##| (How's it going by the way?)

>>	Pretty good pal... and yerself?

Ahhhh, not bad!!

| They imply that if you disagree with somebody's activities, then you
| are afraid of that activity because you surely don't understand it.

>>	Maybe what is happening is we are looking at this from 2 different view
>>points. I am looking at the word homophobia as something many people could be.
>>I am looking at homophobic as an individual thing. But, and this is where I
>>think we differ, I don't see someone who is homophobic as being something bad.

Well, this is very surprising to me because the word homophobe has always been
used in the perjorative sense everytime I've heard it!!

>>If someone fears gays, then we need to look at the why's. Are their fears based
>>on reality? That's what we need to find out. If someone adds hate into the
>>picture, then there is something that can be looked down upon. 

Totally agreed.  Fair to say the the gay movement in this country make poor PR
people?

| Which one are you more suspicious of?

>>Conservative Viewpoint. You left out what often can be led to with that
>>type of viewpoint: hate, fear, anger, spend more of you money to try and stop
>>something that might not really need stopping to begin with, and the list goes
>>on. I mean, think of conservatives and talk about your fantasy.... :-) But I
>>think we both know we could go on and on about the possible things that could
>>result from the various groups Jack. But wouldn't it be easier to just try and
>>work together?

Yes, it would.  I think most conservatives have little or no problem with
others making their own decisions.  Its the "in your face attitude" alot of
people don't like.  

Rgds.,

-Jack

| <<< Note 877.96 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>


| | They imply that if you disagree with somebody's activities, then you
| | are afraid of that activity because you surely don't understand it.

| >>	Maybe what is happening is we are looking at this from 2 different view
| >>points. I am looking at the word homophobia as something many people could be.
| >>I am looking at homophobic as an individual thing. But, and this is where I
| >>think we differ, I don't see someone who is homophobic as being something bad.

| Well, this is very surprising to me because the word homophobe has always been
| used in the perjorative sense everytime I've heard it!!

	I think we know this word can be used in a derogatory manner when it
shouldn't be. We know there are words that are thrown around by everyone that
shouldn't be. But what I would ask you to do the next time you hear the word
spoken or written, is ask what they mean by it. This would clear up any
misconceptions on your part as to how it is being meant and could even clear up
some of the times where the word is being misused. In BOTH cases it could be a
simple misunderstanding of what the other means which would cause the word to
be said or it's implied meaning to get screwed up. But find out what is meant
and why, and don't rely on they are doing it for this or that reason. Asking
questions is not a bad thing. If we (as in everyone) would ask more and assume
less, at least � the arguments and misunderstandings would go away. (IMHO)

| Fair to say the the gay movement in this country make poor PR people?

	No, it is not fair to say. Reread what I wrote above, apply it the next
gay movement event you attend, or gay movement person you talk to who uses the
term and then you will start to see if there are misunderstandings on your part
or if the people are bad PR. Do it several times over and you will get a more
accurate view. But if it is a concern, go for it.

| I think most conservatives have little or no problem with others making their 
| own decisions.  Its the "in your face attitude" alot of people don't like.

	Jack, a gay couple make the decision to get married. If they enter the
church to do so, which group will do the squarking?


Glen

    RE: .95
    
    Glen,
     Using your definitions....what would you call someone who finds the
    homosexual behavior offensive? Not for Biblical reasons, just offensive
    and not natural?
    
    The word "wrong" can't be used!  :) :)
    
    
    Marc H.

| <<< Note 877.98 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT "I'm the NRA" >>>



| what would you call someone who finds the homosexual behavior offensive? Not 
| for Biblical reasons, just offensive and not natural?


	Marc, why do the find it offensive? To make a blanket statement is very
easy. What are the specifics?


Glen

    RE: .99
    
    No Glen...I'm asking YOU a question. If you don't want to answer it,
    O.K.
    
    Marc H.

.94
    
>    It's not a prejudgement.  It is based on a half century of corrupt 
>    government and policies.  It has been proven that sheer leftist liberalism 
>    will fail.

Ah, yes.  Truman dropping the bomb.  The Nixon years.  The Reagan years.
Oliver North.  Bush, Noriega and Iraqgate.

I can sympathize.

Richard

    
    
    
    
    Truman wasn't a politician.  He saved thousands of American lives,
    unfortunately through what was done over there.  Really messed up 
    in talks with Russia.
    
    Nixon was a paranoid, I don't deny that.  He was however, and still is 
    quite intelligent in foreign policy matters.  Call him a crook but he 
    opened alot of diplomatic doors.    
    
    What did Reagan do wrong?
    
    Kennedy - Dragged us into Vietnam - cost money and lives.
    Johnson - Social Reengineer - doomed to failure.  Also incompetant in
    foreign policy.
    Carter - Nice guy.  No foreign policy experience or backbone but a
    solid individual who meant well.  Brought economy into shambels.
    Clinton - History will show us...no comment.
    
    By the way Richard, I stated that government was corrupt, not only the
    liberal democrats.  
    
    -Jack

    .102  Thanks, Jack.  I *knew* you'd set me straight, for my own good,
    of course.  ;-}
    
    Richard
    

    Jack,

    You started talking about "Liberal Viewpoints" and then transformed
    into railing against "sheer leftist liberalism" (whatever that is). I
    just don't have patience to ride down the slippery slope of increasing
    polarization and binary thought.

    Conservative good, liberal bad. Fine, I got it. Thanks for the insight.

    Eric

    Actually, more like conservative - checks and balances
    
    			liberal      - me me me...u o me - an imaginary
    				       utopia that doesn't exist.
    
    Richard, I'm glad I could help you out.  Seriously though, I am for 
    whatever works.  Try to picture a country where every head of state
    was an exact duplicate of Michael Dukakis or Mario Cuomo.
    
    Okay...Arms up high...sway them back and forth....
    
    What the world..needs now...Is love..sweet love....
    It's the only thing...that there's just...too little of...
    
    Relax everybody, I'm just kidding.  What I'm not kidding about though
    is that the world is a very dangerous place and that since the
    beginning of mankind, it has been violent.  Paul recognized this just
    before his head was lobbed off in Rome.
    
    -Jack

    
    Re.102
    
    Reagan had the opportunity to do something positive about the impending
    AIDS epidemic, and he did nothing. 
    
    However, Surgeon General C.Everett Coop is to be credited going against 
    the administration and doing his best to educate the public anyway.
    
    Cindy

    .106  Then there's Reagan and $$$$ for El Salvadoran death squads.
    Then there's Reagan and trickle-down economics.  Then there's Reagan
    and increasing the deficit disproportionate to any previous
    administration.  Then there's Reagan and SDI (aka Star Wars).
    Then there's...
    
    Oh, never mind.  I think I'll take my nap now, Mommy.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    The Clinton administration is supporting terrorist regimes themselves.
    Trickle down works, you've been watching the networks too much...
    his deficit in proportion to GNP was better than that of JFK,
    (Incidentally that is bipartisan), and finally, Lloyd Bentsen highly
    praised SDI during his debate with Quayle and there would be no 
    Patriot Missle without it.
    
    Now...you may take your nap son!!!
    

    Cindy:
    
    Venarial diseases have been around since the Pharoes of Egypt.  If C.E.
    Koop was proactive in education, you can thank the Reagan
    administration for it since he was under that regime...no?
    
    You can blame government for failed policies, you can't blame them for
    individual resposibility or irresponsibility.  I certainly wouldn't
    blame Clinton for it either.
    
    -Jack

Could we PLEASE keep to the topic of "Timothy And Titus"?

Bob

| <<< Note 877.100 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT "I'm the NRA" >>>


| No Glen...I'm asking YOU a question. If you don't want to answer it, O.K.

	That's just it Marc. You made a blanket statement. Someone finds it
offensive. There are no reasons why they find it offensive. This is what we
need to get through. Give some reasons and it is easier to find an answer. If
we don't list reasons, then we won't know if "why" they find it offensive is
based on reality.


Glen

| <<< Note 877.102 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



	Jack, do you read your notes before you exit the editor? :-)

| What did Reagan do wrong?

	Built up an economy based on credit, then everything came crashing
down. While he had charisma, everything was only temporary and the deficit went
skyward!

| Carter - Nice guy.  No foreign policy experience or backbone but a
| solid individual who meant well.  Brought economy into shambels.

	The man brought Egypt and Isreal together! 



Glen

| <<< Note 877.108 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| The Clinton administration is supporting terrorist regimes themselves.

	I didn't know Clinton was supporting Dole.... :-)

| Trickle down works, you've been watching the networks too much...

	Works to build the deficit.... trickle down does not work for the long
term. Getting rid of the deficit will do that. It's gonna be painful, but that
is the only REAL solution.

| his deficit in proportion to GNP was better than that of JFK,

	I thought that all the budgets before Nixon were balanced? Or maybe it
was that Nixon had the last balanced budget? I know it's one of the 2. 



Glen

| <<< Note 877.109 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>


| Venarial diseases have been around since the Pharoes of Egypt.  If C.E. Koop 
| was proactive in education, you can thank the Reagan administration for it 
| since he was under that regime...no?

	NO. While he was under his regime, Reagan CLEARLY made it evidant that
he didn't think it was important because it was a homosexual disease. Koop got
out and enlightened the world to the reality of the situation.



Glen

    RE: .111
    
    So you will not answer....O.K. I can see where you might not want to.
    
    Marc H.

| <<< Note 877.115 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT "I'm the NRA" >>>



| -< Simple Question Asked >-

	That's just it Marc, it ain't a simple as you make it sound. Let me use
an example. 

PERSON A:   I think gays are disgusting.

	Now to look at this one might think it's very clear.


PERSON B:  Why?


PERSON A:  Because they go around having sex with our kids. They try to make
	   them gay!

	This is not based on reality. So the origional statement is not as
clear cut as it was made to sound. This is the reason the "why's" are so
important.


| So you will not answer....O.K. I can see where you might not want to.


	Nice try Marc, but provide some why's. Although I can see why you might
not want to.


Glen

    Second request:  Please, return to Timothy and Titus.
    
    Richard
    

    E: .117
    
    I copied my original question to Glen into the appropriate subject
    matter.
    
    Marc H.

    WHERE?
    

    The discussion involving Marc H. and Glen S. has been moved to
    topic 91.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    FWIW, my Scofield Reference Bible credits Paul with writing both
    Timothy and Titus. I concider the Scofield to be one of the better
    reference Bibles.
    
    			Alfred

    
    RE: .80
    
    > The point is, for centuries free and open discussions were
    > extinguished...
    
    Eric,
    
    What about the fact that the church at many times in history has
    gone underground and in many parts of the world still is?  Maybe
    the truth lived on despite the oppression of the age.  Although,
    you can read Foxes Book of Martyrs and see exactly who did 
    speak out...despite the consequences.  It's not accurate to say
    that the Christian world just went silent.  
    
    Jill
    
              

    Jill,

    I have not read Fox's book so can you tell me if the martyrs he
    describes were killed for speaking out against the church? 

    I am suggesting that for centuries free and open discussions were
    forbidden. That for centuries those who spoke out against the church
    were ostracized at best and killed at worst. That the ideas of heretics
    (such as those who might question biblical authorship) were not
    recorded by the church and shared with the faithful. Therefore, to
    suspect as spurious modern day (last 200 years or so) questions
    regarding biblical authorship just because such authorship wasn't
    questioned in the past, is a very poor argument.

    What have I said that you don't agree with?

    	Eric

	My contribution to keeping the note on course.

	To a greater or lesser degree, most of the books of the NT canon
	were disputed *in regard to their right to canonicity*. A few of
	these disputes centered on validity on grounds of authorship. Amongst
	others, Philemon, Colossians, Hebrews, Timothy, Ephesians and Philip-
	pians. As far as I can reconstruct these early "dog-fights" Philemon,
	Colossians and Philippians faced only token opposition, Hebrews and
	Ephesians scraped in after sometimes very bitter discussions, and the
	Timothy letters slipped in behind the dust screen raised by these.

	The early objections to Timothy centred on internal coherence and
	compatibility with less- or un-disputed texts. These objections
	have not "gone away" with time and, in fact, have been underscored
	by arguments based on style and (a little) new found knowledge
	(none of which derives from Naj Hammadi or Qumran as far as I know).

	Example: 2 Tim claims to be writtem by Paul at Rome late in his
	life. If the letter is genuine, it would be Paul's final words
	that he would direct at the person Timothy who had joined Paul in
	Asia on his second mission. Paul tells Timothy that Trophimus was
	sick and that he had left him in Miletus. But, according to the
	undisputed section of Acts, we know that  Trophimus went with Paul
	to Jerusalem (he played a significant role in Paul's arrest). After
	leaving Jerusalem, Paul never returned to Miletus.

	Arguments to get round this proposed that Paul escaped prison,
	returned to Asia, left Trophimus 'sick' in Miletus and was
	rearrested. This is clearly fantasy and has never gained any
	serious support. It is also dispproved in Acts 20:25.

	Other doubts arose because of the knowledge in Timothy of church
	structures which, at the time of Paul, did not exist. The argument
	that Paul was prophetic is extremely weak and does not hold up
	within the Timothy context.

	1 Tim has a similar "where and when" problem. It is written when
	Paul has gone to Macedonia but Timothy has remained in Ephesus to
	teach the "true doctrine". The only journey which conforms is that
	reported in Acts 20, where Paul travels from Asia to Macedonia and,
	before returning, spends 3 months in Greece. Acts 20:4 records that
	Timothy accompanies Paul on his return journey through Macedonia.
	Further, 2 Corinthians, which beyond and reasonable doubt was written
	during Pauls journey into Macedonia from Asia, is co-sent with Timothy.

	The argument that Timothy's stay in Ephesus was very short - thus
	making the above theoretically possible - is given the lie by 1 Tim,
	which is unaware of any changes, even going to great length to tell
	Timothy what he must then have known; and 1 Tim 3:14 it is clear that
	Timothy is expected to remain in Ephesus until Paul's return.

	The questions of style have added and reinforced the arguments
	surrounding the authorship of the Timothy letters, but I am not
	familiar with their technicalities.

	I first heard of the doubt in an introductory section of my KJV
	"How to read the Bible"	in which it pointed out the practice of
	mentor-authorship: people writing under the name of an admired
	teacher. The mentor, if he was aware of the text, did not cry
	"plagarist!" but was flattered by it.  Later, a Catholic Priest
	and very good friend pointed out the discrepancies I have noted
	(I always had trouble untangling Paul's journeys) and used the
	arguments I touched on above. Robin Lane Fox repeated them, more
	fully, in "The Unauthorized Version" (1991, Viking). The "Gro�er
	Brockhaus" (a sort of German "Britannica") also refers to them and
	a few other points although not in detail.

	An interesting side note, though probably irrelevant to the
	authorship question: Luke, quoting Jesus, says "Thou shalt not
	muzzle the ox and the labourer shall earn (deserves) his hire"
	(Lk 10:7 which "is written" in Deut 25:4). But Deut. does not	
	include the "and-clause". 1 Tim 5:18 quotes the Luke text giving
	the impression that Paul is quoting Luke. Luke was, however,
	undisputedly written after Paul's death. But, this "discrepancy"
	could arise from reference to an older Hebrew text which is now
	lost to us.

	I hope that you find food for thought here.

	Greetings, Derek.

    Derek,
    
    Boy do I wish I had your wealth of information.
    
    Patricia

  >Example: 2 Tim claims to be writtem by Paul at Rome late in his
  >life. If the letter is genuine, it would be Paul's final words
  >that he would direct at the person Timothy who had joined Paul in
  >Asia on his second mission. Paul tells Timothy that Trophimus was
  >sick and that he had left him in Miletus. But, according to the
  >undisputed section of Acts, we know that  Trophimus went with Paul
  >to Jerusalem (he played a significant role in Paul's arrest). After
  >leaving Jerusalem, Paul never returned to Miletus.

I scanned Acts 21 - Acts 27 and did not find any reference to
Trophimus.  Perhaps you can point out the exact reference.

But, regardless of where the reference is, I fail to see a
*necessary* contradiction.  Is it not obvious that Paul could
leave someone behind sick, that this person could recover
and then go to Jerusalem?  Do you specific evidence that this
course of events did not happen?

I'll need more time to discuss some of the other objections.
I really should get Gleason Archer's book which discusses in
detail objections (such as these) to the historical accuracy
of the Bible so that I don't have to do so much legwork myself.

Collis

	Re: .127 Collis

	>I scanned Acts 21 - Acts 27 and did not find any reference to
	>Trophimus. Perhaps you can point out the exact reference.

	Gladly: Acts 21:29 "For they had seen before with him in the
	city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had
	brought him into the temple." the action is in Jerusalem.

	>I fail to see a *necessary* contradiction. Is it not possible that
	>Paul could leave someone behind sick, that this person could
	>recover and then go to Jerasulem?

	(I did not use the term "contradiction". I may have said "problem"
	or "difficulty" or, even "incompatibility". I differentiate
	between contradictions and the other expressions.)

	This is one of several explanations that I have considered and is,
	at least more reasonable that the theory that Paul escaped prison
	in Rome, returned to Miletus where he left Trophimus before being
	recaptured. This, I rank as as credible as the theory that Jesus
	twice overturned the tables in the temple to resolve another
	problem. The escape theory would appear to be refuted, anyway, by
	"ye ... shall see my face no more" (Acts 20:25)

	Another explanation, rather more complicated, assumes that 2 Tim.
	was written by Paul, but was split into several sections which,
	when they were edited, got passages in the wrong order. A weak
	chain of logic can be established but, since we are discussing
	authorship integrity, the proposition of an editor rather begs the
	question.

	However: I think that, if you read 2 Tim 4:20, you will be struck
	its finality. There is no room in this terminology for a meeting
	after Paul had left Miletus.

	Greetings, Derek.

    For a discussion on how scholars determine that Timothy and Titus were
    not written by Paul see 877.1 877.2 and 877.3.
    
    I recommend the Women's Bible Commentary identified therein to anyone
    who is serious about Feminist Biblical Scholarship.
    
    Patricia 

.44, .46, and .61 present the evidence that the letters are Pauline.

/john

    1066.109
    
    The flourishes the writer (or writers) used under the name of Paul
    in the so-called pastoral letters, such as references to people who
    were close to the actual Paul, were not considered falsehoods (lies,
    forms of forgery or plagiarism) at the time of letters' origin.  This
    is a more recent notion.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    On the first page in the book of Timothy in my New American Standard Bible
    (NASB) under "Authorship" it states: The Pauline authorship of the
    Pastorals (1,2 Timothy and Titus) is contested.  However, the *first
    view* evidence of the writings themselves indicates that Paul is the
    writer, since his name appears in the salutation, and autobiographical
    remarks fit the life of Paul.
    
    jeff

    It was not uncommon at the time to grant authorship to an honored
    teacher whose life and teachings may have inspired the work.  Such
    is not a common practice today and in our culture.
    
    For me, the distinction is the emphasis on doctrine.  The authentic Paul
    placed more emphasis in the undisputed letters on faith.
    
    But then, I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said here before.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard,
    
    I agree with the distinction.
    
    The authentic Paul defines faith as being "In Christ".  He defines
    faith as being united within the Body of christ and having the mind of
    Christ.  It is very intuitive, spiritual, mystical.
    
    By the time of Titus and Timothy, a student was into institutionalizing
    what had already been written and proclaimed.  The definition of Faith
    changes from one of union with Christ, to following the teachings of
    the apostles and the church.  Titus and Timothy are a second
    generation, institutionalization of the Christian doctrine.