It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Early Christian Conspiracy - How Was It Done?

page: 9
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


I tire easily of those who repeat the liberal, modernist mantra "Paul never mentioned the historical Jesus." See the following passages (I Corinthians 7:10-11 in which Jesus paraphrases a saying on marriage and divorce of the historical Jesus); I Corinthians 9:14 (concerning the sending out of the 72); I Corinthians 11:23-25 (about the last supper); I Corinthians 15:3-5 (concerning Jesus' physical death, burial, resurrection and post-resurrection appearances); Romans 1:3 (Jesus as descendant of David); II Timothy 2:8 (Jesus as descendant of David); Philippians 2:8; Romans 4:25; 5:6,8; I Thessalonians 2:15; 4:14 (Jesus' crucifixion); I Timothy 6:13 (Jesus' testimony before Pilate).

We could argue, as scholar have, until the cows come home whether the above writings attributed to Paul were actually written by Paul. But seeing as they're the only writings we have to go by at present concerning Paul's teachings and beliefs, they're pretty clear in solidifying Paul's understanding of Jesus in a historical context. The fact that he writes a lot about the glorified Jesus does not detract from this.




posted on May, 5 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by satanictemple
reply to post by Kapyong
 


I tire easily of those who repeat the liberal, modernist mantra "Paul never mentioned the historical Jesus."


Well, perhaps you should have a good lie down then, poor thing.



Originally posted by satanictemple
I Corinthians 7:10-11 in which Jesus paraphrases a saying on marriage and divorce of the historical Jesus);


"10 To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband 11(but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife."


Wrong.
Paul refers to a teaching of "the Lord".
He does NOT say "Jesus", he does NOT give ant historical details such as a time or place.

Paul has made it clear he got his Gospel from "no man", but from revelation and from the scriptures. Paul says he is just as much as apostle as the others "have I not also seen Christ?" (in a vision.)

Paul is simply saying he had a revelation.
But believers like satanictemple are SO CONVINCED Paul refers to a historical Jesus they simply read theown OWN BELIEFS into Paul.

But Paul NEVER connects his Christ Jesus with a historical time and place.

A historical reference might go :
"remember the words of the Lord Jesus at Capernaum when he spoke and said ..."

We have NOTHING like that.
Paul speaks of a spiritual Christ who was crucified by demons in the heaven worlds.




Originally posted by satanictemple
I Corinthians 9:14 (concerning the sending out of the 72);


"14In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. "

The LORD commanded - nothing about a historical Jesus there.
It's just Paul describing what he learned from VISIONS.

Paul made it clear he got his teaching from NO MAN - he is JUST as GOOD an apostle as the others because he has SEEN Christ too. In a vision.

There is nothing to connect this to a historical person.
Just YOUR BELIEFS.




Originally posted by satanictemple
I Corinthians 15:3-5 (concerning Jesus' physical death, burial, resurrection and post-resurrection appearances);


PHYSICAL?
No.
YOU just added that word.
Paul does NOT ever say Jesus died physically.
You seem blind to the problem.

Paul describes a spiritual death, YOU changed it to a physical one.
If you can just change what Paul says, then you can pretend anything you want about.

But you aren't actually reading Paul, your preaching satanictemple.



Originally posted by satanictemple
II Timothy 2:8 (Jesus as descendant of David);
I Timothy 6:13 (Jesus' testimony before Pilate).


1 & 2 Tim were forged in 2nd century - the myths about a historical Jesus were widespread by then.



The others are no better - Paul RECEIVED the knowledge about Jesus from revelation - nothing historical.

Paul NEVER connects Christ with historical time and place.


K.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 





Paul is simply saying he had a revelation. But believers like satanictemple are SO CONVINCED Paul refers to a historical Jesus they simply read theown OWN BELIEFS into Paul.


Et Tu, Brute?

But unbelievers like kapjong are SO CONVINCED Paul refers to a spiritual Christ they simply read their own OWN BELIEFS into Paul.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by jagdflieger
reply to post by Kapyong
 

Et Tu, Brute?
But unbelievers like kapjong are SO CONVINCED Paul refers to a spiritual Christ they simply read their own OWN BELIEFS into Paul.


Paul SAYS several times in various ways that Christ is a spiritual being.

Here he contrasts earthly Adam with heavenly Christ,
each pair has these two :
1. earthly,
2. spiritual
Christ and his body are repeatedly and clearly described as
"heavenly" and "spiritual" :


1 Corinthians 15:40-50 (New International Version)

40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead.

The body that is sown is perishable,
it is raised imperishable;

43it is sown in dishonor,
it is raised in glory;

it is sown in weakness,
it is raised in power;

44it is sown a natural body,
it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body,
there is also a spiritual body.

45So it is written:

"The first man Adam became a living being"[a];
the last Adam (i.e. Christ), a life-giving spirit.

46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural,
and after that the spiritual.

47The first man was of the dust of the earth,
the second man (i.e. Christ) from heaven.

48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth;

and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.

49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man,
so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.



Paul clearly and repeatedly says Christ was :
"of heaven"
"spiritual",
"the man from heaven"

AND, he has some vague and ambiguous statemenst which could be interpreted in either way.

All you do is take the ambiguous statements and INSIST they refer to a historical Jesus, when in fact, none of them do so clearly.

Meanwhile, you just ignore all the CLEAR statements that Paul says Christ was a "heavenly" being.


Clear statements that Christ is heavenly and spiritual :
Several

Ambiguous statements about Christ :
Several

Clear statements that Christ was historical :
Zero.



K.


[edit on 5-5-2010 by Kapyong]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Gday again,

let's look at some of Paul's words :

2 Cor 1:22
"God has set his seal on us by sending the spirit."

Not Jesus, but the spirit.


1 Cor 36
"36Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37(A) If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord."

Paul's teachings are prophetic and spiritual.
Nothing to do with a historical teacher.


2 Cor 5:5
"God has shaped us for life immortal, and as a a guarantee of this he has sent the spirit"

No mention of sending Jesus at all!


Gal 1:16
"God chose to reveal his son IN me, in order that I might preach him among the gentiles"

Christ was revealed IN Paul (most bibles fudge that word) - nothing to do with a historical Jesus.


Rom 16:25
"...about Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept in silence for long ages but now revealed and made known thru prophetic writings at the command of God."

Christ was only NOW revealed IN Paul.
Nothing to do with a historical Jesus.

Col 1:26
"26(A) the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints."

The mystery is NOW revealed thru saints like Paul.
No room for a historical Jesus at all.


Paul's writings say things like this over and over - his Christ is a spiritual being that HE has now revealed thru visions giving a new understanding of the scripture.

When Paul says "according to scripture" he is saying that HE now understands what scripture actually meant.

This has NOTHING to do with a historical Jesus, in fact it completely excludes a historical Jesus.


K.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
From my attendance, it's typically a "Think Happy Thoughts" type thing for most. As Modern Psychology mandates, good behavior.

With advances, there'll be decline. As, If it's broke, you will fix it mentallity grabs hold.

Really, for most, not much more than 'Wishful Thinking'.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


quote]
2 Corinthians
(2Co 4:10) always bearing about the dying of the Lord Jesus in the body, that also the life of Jesus may be revealed in our body.
(2Co 4:11) For we who live are always being delivered up to death on account of Jesus, that also the life of Jesus may be revealed in our mortal flesh;
(2Co 4:12) so that death indeed works in us, and life in you.


Well I see a man with a physical body here, you may interpret as being some spiritual reference.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


The most logical reason Paul so often refers to Jesus in spiritual terms is because he is writing about the post-resurrection Jesus - a Jesus who was in the flesh and raised "incorruptible."



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by jagdflieger
(2Co 4:10) always bearing about the
dying of the Lord Jesus in the body,
that also the life of Jesus may be revealed in our body.
(2Co 4:11) For we who live are always being delivered up to death on account of Jesus, that also the life of Jesus may be revealed in our mortal flesh;
(2Co 4:12) so that death indeed works in us, and life in you.

Well I see a man with a physical body here, you may interpret as being some spiritual reference.


Wow.

You carefully editted the passage to make in falsely appear to be talking about Jesus dying bodily ! How dishonest.

In fact, this passage says something quite different :


10We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.

What Paul actually said, (before you chopped up the passage to make it say something else), was that

"We carry the death of Jesus around in our body"

Not Jesus's body - but PAUL'S body, and the other Christians.

So, if that is a real physical death, then is Paul saying he carries a piece of the true cross and a chunk of Jesus's body embedded in his own flesh?

No?

Then how do YOU explain that Paul's carries "Jesus' death" around in his own body?


This is OBVIOUSLY a spiritual metaphor,
but you cannot admit error, so now you are reduced to deliberate dishonesty.

Shame on you.


K.


[edit on 5-5-2010 by Kapyong]

[edit on 5-5-2010 by Kapyong]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 




Literal Version
(2Co 4:10) always bearing about the dying of the Lord Jesus in the body, that also the life of Jesus may be revealed in our body.
(2Co 4:11) For we who live are always being delivered up to death on account of Jesus, that also the life of Jesus may be revealed in our mortal flesh;

King James Version
(2Co 4:10) Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
(2Co 4:11) For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

NIV
We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body. 12So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you.

NASB
always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that (AC)the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body
For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.

Amplified Bible
10Always carrying about in the body the liability and exposure to the same putting to death that the Lord Jesus suffered, so that the [[a]resurrection] life of Jesus also may be shown forth by and in our bodies.
11For we who live are constantly [experiencing] being handed over to death for Jesus' sake, that the [resurrection] life of Jesus also may be evidenced through our flesh which is liable to death.

New Living Translation
Through suffering, our bodies continue to share in the death of Jesus so that the life of Jesus may also be seen in our bodies.
Yes, we live under constant danger of death because we serve Jesus, so that the life of Jesus will be evident in our dying bodies

Youngs Literal Translation
10at all times the dying of the Lord Jesus bearing about in the body, that the life also of Jesus in our body may be manifested,
11for always are we who are living delivered up to death because of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our dying flesh,

Worldwide English
10We always feel as if our body is dying, just as Jesus died. Then the life of Jesus also can be seen in our body.
11While we live we are always ready to die for Jesus. And so the life of Jesus is also seen in our bodies which will die.
[\quote]

Pick your translation



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jagdflieger
We have the following skeptic contentions:

1. There are no Roman records of Jesus; there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus, and the claimed evidence is very weak, late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all. Therefore the historical Jesus never existed.


This is what I would tell the skeptic:
One of the leading scholars, translators, and commentators on Josephus is Steve Mason. In his book on Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson:1992), he discusses the two references to Jesus in Josephus' writings, and concludes that "if it were needed", they would provide independent testimony to the existence of Jesus. He writes:
"Taking all of these problems into consideration, a few scholars have argued that the entire passage (the testimonium) as it stands in Josephus is a Christian forgery. The Christian scribes who copied the Jewish historian's writings thought it intolerable that he should have said nothing about Jesus and spliced the paragraph in where it might logically have stood, in Josephus' account of Pilate's tenure. Some scholars have suggested that Eusebius himself was the forger, since he was the first to produce the passage…Most critics, however, have been reluctant to go so far. They have noted that, in general, Christian copyists were quite conservative in transmitting texts. Nowhere else in all of Josephus' voluminous writings is there strong suspicion of scribal tampering. Christian copyists also transmitted the works of Philo, who said many things that might be elaborated in a Christian direction, but there is no evidence that in hundreds of years of transmission, the scribes inserted their own remarks into Philo's text. To be sure, many of the "pseudepigrapha" that exist now only in Christian form are thought to stem from Jewish originals, but in this instance it may reflect the thorough Christian rewriting of Jewish models, rather than scribal insertions. That discussion is ongoing among scholars. But in the cases of Philo and Josephus, whose writings are preserved in their original language and form, one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious scribal alteration. To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity." (p.170-171)
By Glenn Miller


Originally posted by jagdflieger
2. The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, Jesus was never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived. Paul and other early writers speak of Jesus entirely in terms of a spiritual, heavenly figure.


This is what I would tell the skeptic:
Some of Paul's letters were written before the Gospel. The Gospel was in them. Paul never spoke of Jesus entirely in terms of a spiritual heavenly figure. In 1 Corinthians Paul mentions the death and resurrection of Christ.


Originally posted by jagdflieger
3. Early Christianity was a Jewish sectarian version of widespread savior god belief systems (Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris).


This is what I would tell the skeptic:
John the Baptist and Jesus are both mentioned not only in the Gospels and Acts but also in Josephus' Antiquities, written in the latter decades of the first century.


Originally posted by jagdflieger
4. Only with the Gospels, which began to appear probably toward the end of the first century, was there a figure of Jesus of Nazareth as a man living in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate. The Gospels were forgeries written by persons unknown who never met Jesus of Nazareth.


This is what I would tell the skeptic:
There is new information from Chuck Missler. In his article called, "Dating the book of Matthew" he states, "Many scholars now believe that the Gospels were written before Paul's first imprisonment of AD 57-60, and Risto Santala argues in The Messiah in the New Testament, p.47-48, that virtually all of the New Testament books were written before Jerusalem's destruction."


Originally posted by jagdflieger
What I am asking is how was this "Christ conspiracy" implemented; how was it done?


The devil.


Originally posted by jagdflieger
The issue of document forgeries has been debated before. For every expert who says a particular document is a forgery, there is an expert who says it is not. What seems to be missing is a plausible scenario of implementation. A narrative of how Paul (or unknown persons) were able to put together myths (Dionysus, Mithra, Attis, Isis, etc.) and make them into a flesh and blood man and then "sell" that concept to the public.


I don't think Paul would be making up stuff so he could get beat up and almost killed.


Originally posted by jagdflieger
What I want to see is:
1. Where was the "Christian conspiracy" started.
2. When was the "Christian conspiracy" initiated and who were the imitators (note the dates can be approximations).
3. How was it spread throughout the Roman Empire and by whom.
4. Some statements on how it evolved; i. e., the evolution of savior god belief systems (Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris) into a flesh and blood man as presented in the Gospel of Mark.


Those are good questions that I'd like to see also.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
1 & 2 Tim were forged in 2nd century - the myths about a historical Jesus were widespread by then.


Irenaeus, a second century Christian, quotes from 2 Timothy as if it were common knowledge (Against Heresies, Book 3, 3:3). Since 2 Timothy is obviously a genuine letter from Paul, it stands to reason that 1 Timothy and Titus would also be considered genuine. These books, like 2 Timothy, were also cited and alluded to by early Christian writers. Polycarp was evidently immersed in 1 Timothy as he quotes from it in several places in a letter he wrote to the Philippians approximately 120 A.D.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by Kapyong
1 & 2 Tim were forged in 2nd century - the myths about a historical Jesus were widespread by then.


Irenaeus, a second century Christian, quotes from 2 Timothy as if it were common knowledge (Against Heresies, Book 3, 3:3). Since 2 Timothy is obviously a genuine letter from Paul, it stands to reason that 1 Timothy and Titus would also be considered genuine. These books, like 2 Timothy, were also cited and alluded to by early Christian writers. Polycarp was evidently immersed in 1 Timothy as he quotes from it in several places in a letter he wrote to the Philippians approximately 120 A.D.



Are you serious?

No modern NT scholar thinks the Pastorals were written by Paul.

They are obvious 2nd century forgeries.


K.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Are you serious?
No modern NT scholar thinks the Pastorals were written by Paul.
They are obvious 2nd century forgeries.


I am dead serious.
Nobody ever doubted that this letter was written by the apostle Paul for eighteen centuries until Schleiermacher almost 200 years ago rejected his authorship.
There should be no question as to who wrote this letter. The very first word should decide it - 'Paul.' It contains a number of personal references. For example, he tells Timothy in chapter 3 verse 14 and again in chapter 4 verse 13 that he will be soon paying him a visit. He makes references to such matters as Timothy's ordination, and youthfulness, and his gastric problems. There are specifics about individuals, places and situations. Paul concludes the letter by urging Timothy to live a godly life as a man of God in the church. Are there now people suggesting that all this is supposed to have been made up by someone else? From the apostolic period this letter was accepted by the church: early believers like Clement and Ignatius and Polycarp at the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century allude to it.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by Kapyong
Are you serious?
No modern NT scholar thinks the Pastorals were written by Paul.
They are obvious 2nd century forgeries.


I am dead serious.
Nobody ever doubted that this letter was written by the apostle Paul for eighteen centuries until Schleiermacher almost 200 years ago rejected his authorship.


Wrong again.
Marcion knew of a collection of Paul's letters which omitted the Pastorals.
The ancient Syriac church rejected tha Pastorals.




Originally posted by texastig
There should be no question as to who wrote this letter.


Why?
Because YOU said so?

In fact there is MUCH MUCH more than question - there is a consensus that they are forged.




Originally posted by texastig
The very first word should decide it - 'Paul.'


Riiiiight.
Because NO-ONE apart from Paul could POSSIBLY write that word?
Get real.



Originally posted by texastig
It contains a number of personal references. For example, he tells Timothy in chapter 3 verse 14 and again in chapter 4 verse 13 that he will be soon paying him a visit. He makes references to such matters as Timothy's ordination, and youthfulness, and his gastric problems. There are specifics about individuals, places and situations. Paul concludes the letter by urging Timothy to live a godly life as a man of God in the church. Are there now people suggesting that all this is supposed to have been made up by someone else?


Oh please!
SOMEONE wrote the book!

Do you think Paul is the only person in history who could "pay him a visit"?
Anyone could pay a visit, or make up such a claim.

Timothy's "ordination, and youthfulness, and his gastric problems" ?
Are you claiming Paul is the only person who could know such things?
Why?
Any person could have known these things, or made them up.

What exactly IS your argument?

You ask
"Are there now people suggesting that all this is supposed to have been made up by someone else?"

Duh !
Yes !

It is the consensus of modern scholarship, that is was made up by someone else.

And your argument against the scholarly consensus that it is forged amounts to :
"what? are some people suddenly saying it was forged?"

Wake up, Jeff!



Originally posted by texastig
From the apostolic period this letter was accepted by the church: early believers like Clement and Ignatius and Polycarp at the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century allude to it.


Polycarp used them - so what? early-mid 2nd century.
1st century Clement makes no mention or quote of the Pastorals.


K.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


It is dishonest to write that the consensus of modern biblical scholarship refuses to see Paul as the author of I and II Timothy. There are some heavyweights, though you're correct that they are in the minority, who defend Pauline authorship: Daniel Wallace, George Knight, Gordon Fee, Ben Witherington III, Luke Timothy Johnson, John Stott, and Philip Towner. For you to act like the debate is over is putting the horse before the cart. The debate on Pauline authorship is far from over, and both sides of the debate should withhold final judgment on authorship while debating what Paul would have meant if he is found to be the author of those books.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Wrong again.


The Pastoral Epistles were accepted as genuine by many, perhaps most of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers.[37][38] Some scholars have argued that the letters were certainly accepted as Pauline by the time of Irenaeus.[39]

37. A few Fathers do not mention these epistles by name, instead quoting passages found in these letters (without making it clear that they are quoting anything at all), and there is no evidence in the surviving writings of Ignatius and Justin Martyr that proves their familiarity with these texts.
38. Davis, Glen (1997-2006). "Cross Reference Table: Writings and Authorities". The Development of the Canon of the New Testament. www.ntcanon.org... Retrieved 2006-09-23.
39. see Bernard xv; James pp. 5-24
From: en.wikipedia.org...-36

-----------------------

The traditional view accepts Paul as the author. William Paley wrote in Horae Paulinae (1785),

Both letters were addressed to persons left by the writer to preside in their respective churches during his absence. Both letters are principally occupied in describing the qualifications to be sought for in those whom they should appoint to offices in the church; and the ingredients of this description are in both letters nearly the same. Timothy and Titus are likewise cautioned against the same prevailing corruptions, and in particular against the same misdirection of their cares and studies.

This affinity obtains not only in the subject of the letters, which from the similarity of situation in the persons to whom they were addressed might be expected to be somewhat alike, but extends in a great variety of instances to the phrases and expressions. The writer accosts his two friends with the same salutation, and passes on to the business of his letter by the same transition (comp. 1 Tim. 1:2, 3 with Titus 1:4, 5; 1 Tim.1:4 with Titus 1:13, 14; 3:9; 1 Tim. 4:12 with Titus 2:7, 15).

Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897) gives a date for the First Epistle to Timothy of around A.D. 66 or 67 and says of 2 Timothy, "It was probably written a year or so after the first, and from Rome, where Paul was for a second time a prisoner, and was sent to Timothy by the hands of Tychicus," as the text indicates. Of the Epistle to Titus, Easton's says "Paul's authorship was undisputed in antiquity, as far as known, but is frequently doubted today. It was probably written about the same time as the First Epistle to Timothy, with which it has many affinities."

Adherents of the traditional position date the Epistle to Titus from the circumstance that it was written after Paul's visit to Crete in Titus 1:5. That visit could not be the one referred to in Acts 27:7, when Paul was on his voyage to Rome as a prisoner, and where he continued a prisoner for two years. Thus traditional exegesis supposes that after his release Paul sailed from Rome into Asia, passing Crete by the way, and that there he left Titus "to set in order the things that were wanting." Thence he would have gone to Ephesus, where he left Timothy, and from Ephesus to Macedonia, where he wrote the First Epistle to Timothy, and thence, according to the superscription of this epistle, to Nicopolis in Epirus, from which place he wrote to Titus, about A.D. 66 or 67.

Those who ascribe the books to Paul find their placement fits within his life and work and see the linguistic differences as complementary to differences in the recipients. Other Pauline epistles have fledgling congregations as the audience, the pastoral epistles are directed to Paul's close companions, evangelists whom he has extensively worked with and trained. In this view, linguistic differences are to be expected, if one is to assert Pauline authorship to them. Johnson[1] asserts the impossibility of demonstrating the authenticity of the Pastoral Letters. Donald Guthrie claims that the authorship of Paul is the most likely explanation and the burden of proof now falls to those who would dispute it.
From: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


Clement of Rome (last part of the 1st century) alludes to I and II Timothy (see Clement's Writings)



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by jagdflieger
reply to post by Kapyong
 




Literal Version
(2Co 4:10) always bearing about the dying of the Lord Jesus in the body, that also the life of Jesus may be revealed in our body.
(2Co 4:11) For we who live are always being delivered up to death on account of Jesus, that also the life of Jesus may be revealed in our mortal flesh;


WTF?


YOU claimed this referred to a physical body of Jesus !
YOU said that !

But it actually refers to
"carrying around the death of Jesus in our body".

I pointed out your glaring error, you completely IGNORED this, and posted several translations.

Why?!

You version was completely wrong.
Posting more translations just shows how wrong you were.
Not one translation says what YOU thought it did.
You were completely and utterly wrong.

But, like all the faithful apologists here, you cannot admit error.



Time after time, you make glaring mistakes, and just move on when shown wrong.

Time after time, your claims of a historical Jesus have been trashed, but you just pretend otherwise.


What a joke!


K.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by satanictemple
reply to post by Kapyong
 


Clement of Rome (last part of the 1st century) alludes to I and II Timothy (see Clement's Writings)


Wrong again.
He does not.

Which is why you CONSPICUOUSLY FAILED to quote any such allusion.
Fail!


K.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join