Virgin birth

Participant

Hi C,
God wants us to show more respect to the Word than you seem to imply-perhaps I misread you.

Jesus said “consecrate yourselves to truth; my Word is truth”
What do you make of
2Tim 3.14f, 2Peter 1.19f.?

July 13, 2005 at 11:06 am#151364

Participant

well- first – before I comment on 2 Tim and 2 Peter – it should be noted that those two particular books were likely not written till after Peter and Paul were dead – sometime in the second century. Most Christians do not know that the scholars have doubted those two books (as well as 1 Timothy and Titus) for some time due to various reasons too extensive for this little post.

You say God wants us to show respect to the 'Word' – meaning the Bible – I assume…

The Old Testament – was the only scripture ever discussed by Jesus. The New Testament was not in existence when Christ walked our planet. The first books of the New Testament (or oldest books) were not the Gospels, but Paul's Epistles, which he never thought of as scripture – but as letters to churches he started as instruction for their daily struggles.

Comments on 2 Timothy 3:14 – assuming you believe that Paul wrote this – let me ask – do you think that, ask yourself this question – was the book of 2 Tim preaching what Paul taught previously? 2 Tim 4:14 actually has Paul proclaiming that Alexander, who opposed Paul – would be repaid for his opposition – – where is the prayer for Paul's enemy?

as for 2 Peter 1:19 – the author was referring to the 'word of the prophets' – ie – Old Testament writings, NOT the NT.

God doesn't give as the world gives – and we are called to worship Him in spirit. I believe the Bible is a gateway to finding Jesus – and ultimately the Holy Spirit – but I assure you that I believe God has led me AWAY from the notion that the Bible is perfect – or entirely His.

I am not sure if this will make a lot of sense to you guys – and I can comment further on it – but if you consider how the OT came together (oral traditions to writings – See Jeremiah 8:8 to see how perfectly the Law was scribed) – and then how the NT came together – going through editing and harmonizing by Jerome for the Catholic Church – I don't see how people hold it as perfect.

If only God is perfect – aren't we slandering Him by calling a book 'perfect'?

July 13, 2005 at 6:05 pm#151365

Participant

Hi C,
But you are making yourself greater than scripture to judge it and greater than the Spirit who wrote it through men? If you do not hear the voice of the Shepherd in some of the books then you have to ask yourself if you have the Spirit rather than questioning the veracity of the books.

July 14, 2005 at 2:22 am#151366

Participant

Hi Nick –

When did Jesus say – I will send the Holy Spirit to scribes who will write you what you need to know…

In fact – the Holy Spirit is a living teacher available even today!

I do not mean to say the Bible isn't the GREATEST book we have available about God – but I am saying that I feel the Holy Spirit has led me to the knowledge that the Bible is not a perfect work.

You say that the Bible was written by the Spirit through men – what makes you believe this is the case? Perhaps you are referring to this verse…

2 Timothy 3
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Ok – ignoring the fact that 2 Timothy may not have been a true Epistle of Paul's – let's examine what the verse says …. and doesn't say…

First – it says that all scripture is God – breathed. It might behoove has to consider the fact that all life is God breathed as well – and none of us are perfect because of it.

If we examine the scriptures we can see that the author of 2 Timothy was ignorant of what Paul himself wrote in 1 Corinthians 7 –

1 Corinthians 7
25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

Do you think Paul considered his letters to be scripture? Did he forget what he wrote? Most likely – it was another author who had no idea what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians. Remember that the letters – while circulated to some extent – were not in a book form till Constantine commissioned the Bible at Nicea.

Second – was scripture not the Old Testament to the early church? It wasn't until the 2nd century that anyone tried to canonize a New Testament – which people came to consider scripture too. This isn't to say that churches did not consider writings to be scripture by at least the second century – but there was not the consensus we inherited.

So what was all scripture? If one reads 2 Timothy – and believes that all scripture is God breathed – then we know for a fact that 1 Corin. 7:25 is NOT scripture. As you can see – it doesn't add up when you consider the facts unless you somehow overlook this issue of Paul's opinion!

Third – the passage NEVER claims the Bible – or the scriptures – are perfect!

I know that most Christians think to discredit the Bible is blasphemy – but I think its is blasphemy to make claims of its perfection when there are points that prove it isn't – you can claim I lack the Spirit to understand the scriptures – but I could return the notion that you lack the Spirit to see through the corruption that men have added to it.

I should ask you – why do you think the Bible is perfect?

You have stated in another post that you don't really hold theologians in high regard – but who told you the Bible was perfect if not theologians?

July 14, 2005 at 3:39 am#151367

Participant

Hi C,
The witness is the Spirit within.
These forums involve people who at least love and respect the Word of God and do not doubt it's veracity but come together to more deeply understand it by comparing verse with verse.How do you explain to someone that scripture is sacred?
Jesus respected it and quoted from it as if every comma mattered. Certainly the NT was not quoted by Jesus because it did not exist. But it does raise the question of what you do accept.

Are any of the words of Jesus written down, maybe 30 years or so after his death, false? Why should you believe Matthew,Mark, Luke and John? Surely you must mistrust their memory so long after the events? They were just men like you and me after all.

If you throw out any then you will have to throw the lot out. Either you accept scripture as totally inspired or none of it is trustworthy. Or do you think we should contact you for an acceptable version of Truth?
Are there any parts of Peter's letters or those of James and Jude and the other letters of Paul that you find unpalatable? Perhaps some of the OT is a bit squiffy too?
I do not mean to be trivial but we are not dealing with Harry Potter here. Jesus loved the inspired Word and demands we do too if we follow him. We have the words of Peter too recorded as supporting Paul in 2 Peter.Do you not accept his word either?
People here have found all of the Word is inspired and have no reason to think otherwise as they have an internal witness supporting every verse as beauty and light. I can only hope you will too but seek the Spirit as there are many false spirit's that will not be able to show you this truth.

July 14, 2005 at 5:17 am#151368

Participant

oh Nick –
It is as easy as understanding where and how things happened – and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Let me try to answer your points…

These forums involve people who at least love and respect the Word of God and do not doubt it's veracity but come together to more deeply understand it by comparing verse with verse.How do you explain to someone that scripture is sacred?

I do not explain that scripture is sacred – it is simply the best record we have on God. Jesus certainly quoted it – but it is interesting that He changed so many 'laws' (such as in Matthew 5-7) … this is hardly the picture of respect you paint about His view on the scriptures.

Well – to answer this – one has to assume that the Gospels are as they were from the beginning. Sadly – there are no manuscripts of the NT that I know of that date BEFORE the Catholic Church did their editing with Jerome in the 4th century – older fragments exist – but they are not even close to being complete in any shape or manner. As a matter of honesty – I do believe there are certain 'additions' to the Gospels that are revealed when studying Messianic prophecy and writings of the Apostles.

Let us consider the Virgin Birth – since this is a thread about that…

Did the Jews ever look for a virgin born messiah – No. In fact – without the (Greek) Septuagint, we have no such prophecy whatsoever. Jews are still waiting for the Messiah, but none of them are watching for a virgin birth.

Does Peter – Paul – John – Jude – or any other writer outside of Matthew or Luke ever mention the Virgin Birth? No. Now I did read that many think this doesn't mean the Virgin Birth is false – but I ask you – what men trying to share that Jesus is the Son of God would neglect to mention it if they knew about it?

In fact – Paul wrote this about our Savior – – –

Romans 1
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

According to terms of the time – the 'seed' always referred to a man – meaning Joseph. Paul did NOT receive his Gospel from men – but from Jesus — did Jesus forget or neglect to share the Virgin Birth with Paul? I don't think so!

Also – if Mary was bethroned to Joseph – she was considered to be his wife – to believe in the Virgin Birth story – I have to first believe that God committed adultery with Mary – then ordered Joseph and Mary to lie about it… this isn't of God – but of men who desired to make Jesus equal to pagan gods in the eyes of pagans…

When you compare these things to the fact that the pagans had many so-called virgin born 'god-men' since at least the days of Babylon – and you understand how the Catholic Church assimilated pagan beliefs into their religion for the sake of recruitment… you can at least see my perspective of Virgin Birth – even if you disagree with it.

I trust the memory of Matthew Luke Mark and John – but I do not believe their memory has been handed down to us without corruption – which the Holy Spirit reveals – as do the letters of the Apostles – its as simple as that.

if you throw out any then you will have to throw the lot out. Either you accept scripture as totally inspired or none of it is trustworthy. Or do you think we should contact you for an acceptable version of Truth?
Are there any parts of Peter's letters or those of James and Jude and the other letters of Paul that you find unpalatable? Perhaps some of the OT is a bit squiffy too?

Forgive me my friend – but that (if you throw out any then you will have to throw the lot out) is a load of bull. That is actually a theological argument that is used by men who do not have an answer to problems in the Bible as a way of alienating a fellow believer whom they disagree with. If you were to learn that a verse was added to the Bible at any point – would you throw it out? No WAY! You have argued against 1 John 5:7-8 as an addition and a bias of the KJV translators – does that mean the KJV is corrupt and not worthy to be called the Bible? I don't think so, it is merely another demonstration of men and their imperfection.

It is believed that there are many things added to the Bible, speaking from a manuscript point of view – especially in the New Testament – such as the end of Mark (early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.), or the story of the adulteress in John (early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11). Will you disregard any Bibles including or excluding them? How would you determine which one is the real deal? The only way TO determine it is THROUGH the Holy Spirit.

As far as the ill-fated remark about coming to me for the acceptable version of the truth – all I can say is you should go to God – as I did – to verify the things I am sharing.

Are there any parts of Peter's letters or those of James and Jude and the other letters of Paul that you find unpalatable?

as I said earlier – I believe 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus and 2 Peter are all forged writings…

We have the words of Peter too recorded as supporting Paul in 2 Peter.Do you not accept his word either?

AS I stated – 2 Peter is not – in my opinion – a true letter written by Peter.

Perhaps some of the OT is a bit squiffy too?

Have you read Jeremiah 8 – specifically verse 8? You read that and tell me how reliable the Old Testament is – and remember after reading it – that Jesus did in fact change many of the laws – such as eye for an eye.

People here have found all of the Word is inspired and have no reason to think otherwise as they have an internal witness supporting every verse as beauty and light. I can only hope you will too but seek the Spirit as there are many false spirit's that will not be able to show you this truth.

Inspired is VERY different than 'perfect'. I do believe the Bible is Inspired – but inspiration is not perfection. The Holy Spirit DOES testify that the truth is IN the Bible – but not all that is in the Bible IS the truth. I can only say I know who is teaching me – and I have faith in Him above the all the people who claim the Bible's perfection. The number of people behind a belief doesn't make it any more true.

You say the Spirit has guided you to your belief –

I know you mean well – as do I – but I have to tell you this –

I do NOT believe the Holy Spirit has revealed anything to you or anyone else that would claim the Bible is perfect simply because that would be making God a liar – at least in what He has taught me – the idea that the Bible is perfect is as baseless as the Trinity itself, and as people refuse to hear the Holy Spirit about the Trinity – people refuse to hear the Holy Spirit about the problems in the Bible.

When we hold the Bible as perfect – what we do is idolize it – and we actually end up relying on it before the Holy Spirit. In fact – if you are testing the Holy Spirit to the Bible – and you find it doesn't match the Bible – you admittedly will forsake the Holy Spirit because of the Bible – mistaking it as a false spirit. We are no different than the Muslims with their the Q'uran when we profess that a book is 'perfect' despite all the evidence that reveals otherwise.

btw – a false spirit is easily revealed my friend…

1 John 4:2-4
2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the f
lesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

The Spirit that teaches me – the Holy Spirit – readily confesses that Jesus is from God – in this same manner – the Holy Spirit has revealed the Trinity is false to me (and you I assume) – and in the same manner – the Holy Spirit has revealed the Bible is not perfect.

I am going to bed now – and I will pray especially for the words to share with you what He has shown me in a way that you can see what I am saying – but I can tell you this – you wouldn't be the first person I have encountered who loves and follows Christ but cannot hear what the Holy Spirit has to say about the Bible.

BTW – this doesn't make me anything more than a follower of Christ – I am not a prophet – or a 'teacher' or a messenger – I am simply one who loves Jesus enough to accept what the Holy Spirit TRULY reveals about the Bible as we have it today.

We aren't to worship a book – but the God of Jesus Christ… His Father and Our Father. The scriptures are about them – but the are not them!

I love you Nick – and I pray regardless of our disagreements – we can find unity in Jesus – God Bless you!

July 14, 2005 at 9:17 am#151369

Participant

PS.

John 5
39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

As it was – it still is –

July 14, 2005 at 7:12 pm#151370

Participant

Quote (Christofer @ July 14 2005,10:17)

PS.

John 5
39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

As it was – it still is –

Hic,
They rightly studied the Spiritually inspired scriptures but they missed the message therein because their attitude to God was wrong and they did not listen to the Spirit to guide them.

The Ark of the Covenant contained a stick. It was an ordinary stick that looked like any other. The reason that it was kept was that is was in remembrance of the work God had done among His people. That stick had flowered in the hands of a servant of God by the power of God .

The Word of God is likewise evidence that God visited His people. The Words are pure, spoken then written by the Spirit of Truth through men.

The Spirit that filled Jesus also was passed on to the Apostles who spoke and had recorded what God taught them. We do well to search for the Spirit in all these words. We should not judge them by our spirit but submit to the Spirit in them and learn from God Himself.

There are variations in manuscripts such as seen at Acts 20.28. There are inspired opinions expressed at times by Paul. There are translation errors that can be discerned by further study.

There is intentional insertion and mistranslation such as in the KJV of 1Jn 5.7 and Matt 28.19 but the Spirit also exposes these if we search. We too do not yet grasp every aspect because we are unfamiliar with Jewish custom and traditions.

None of these things destroy the veracity of the message given by God through men. I fully accept all the canon of the NT and believe there are other books that should have been included such as Enoch but as it is it is enough.

We do not worship these books but we do listen to God in them rather than judging them according to our limited minds.

It is the best evidence God has left us of Himself and we can check whether we are in the Spirit by how we are taught by it.

July 15, 2005 at 12:12 am#151371

Participant

Amen Nick – I especially agree with Enoch – but there is so much there historically about the various problems with the Bible that all Christians should review for themselves. But why would they review the information if they see others ask sincere questions about difficulties in scripture who are humiliated and insulted regardless of the topic?

You have been somewhat kind in your responses to me compared to the pastors who have thrown me out of their offices – or the reverends who have attacked me in email – etc etc… I am sure you have had experiences like these… surely you can see how destructive it all is…

To me the bottom line is if one loves the Son of God and follows Him as best as they can, they will exhibit the fruits of the Spirit and find a common ground to praise Him on with many believers more believers as opposed to always bickering about God – never truly praising God – but merely using Him as a trophy that goes to the 'perceived' winners.

I respect your belief in the Bible and I won't say anything more about it for the sake of peace – ok?

July 15, 2005 at 3:46 am#151372

Participant

Quote (Christofer @ July 15 2005,01:12)

I respect your belief in the Bible and I won't say anything more about it for the sake of peace – ok?

Hi c,
If you were in a lifeboat and safe for the moment against the fierce seas and winds and someone clever person pointed out a little flaw in the design of the boat would you leave the boat and swim around looking for another?
” And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts”

Of course these beautiful words come from 2 Peter so you will take them with a grain of salt but they say to me that no man should judge the Word of God till Jesus, the Lord of all including the Word itself, is complete in him to be able to do so.

We have had some here who have rejected John as his words offend. We say to him and to you to “make sure the light in you is not darkness for O how deep that darkness can be”.

July 15, 2005 at 4:07 am#151373

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 12 2005,20:29)

Hi E,
The Holy Spirit is given to individuals, not to traditions or theologies. By all means we should listen for the voice of the Spirit in those who claim it but often we find other voices, those of strangers. Test all things, even the words of so called “divines” lest they be deceivers and test them against what is known to be true-the Word of God.
Sooner or later we have to stand on our own feet and let go of the hands of others such as tradition. Hiding behind them is not safety.

Gal 5.25
” If we live by the Spirit let us also walk by the Spirit..”

Nick, you are preaching to the choir here… lol…. I never said:

The Holy Spirit is not given to individuals

that the holy spirit is given to theologians or traditions

I never said we should not test the words of men like the Westminster divines (not a term of divinity to be sure lol! just an old word indicating that they were men of God)

nor did I ever say that I was stainding solely on their words and not my own 2 feet

nor am I hiding behind them in anything I believe

you make a career out of erecting straw men Nick!! lol… perhaps you just enjoy the fireworks when they go up in flames or something? I can't imagine why else you would spend so much time building them….

how about this Nick….

don't put words into my mouth

don't accuse me of believing things unless I specifically say that I believe them

don't encourage me to start or stop doing anything unless you have solid evidence that I need to start or stop doing or believing anything….

you will save yourself a whole lot of time this way… though I guess this would put a serious cramp in your writing…. but I am sure you can find something else to write, can't you? sure you can! simply avoid creating straw men by responding directly to points raised, directly to beliefs that you know someone else has…. this will prove to be far more productive for everyone…. but hey…. if you enjoy accussing others of believing things they don't actually believe, and want to encourage them to stop believing something they do not in fact believe, or want them to start believing something they already do believe…. lol… welll then have it! its a sinful waste of time, but I guess you do not have anything better to do ehhh?

July 15, 2005 at 4:30 am#151374

Participant

Quote (Christofer @ July 13 2005,03:49)

This might seem off topic – but the Bible is written by men – inspired at best. I believe that Jesus didn't write a book – as the prophets did – because His Gospel is truly meant to be delivered in person – not writings. The Apostles were ordered to 'teach the Gospel to all nations' (Mt 28:19-20).

The Bible is the best earthly resource we have on Jesus – but there is a greater resource – namely the Holy Spirit. I believe that if we seek – we will find – and we find by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible is called the Word of God – but I do not think it is a suitable title – considering that Jesus is the actual Word. I like to say the Word of God is in the Bible – but the Bible is not the Word of God itself.

Chris, you speak alot of Jesus, then turn around and degrade the only source of information you have about Him…. how can that be? If the Bible is not inspired, in the biblical sense of the term as Paul gives it “theopneustos”, ie “God-breathed”, then you really have no source of trustworthy information about Him… so all the talk in the world about “Jesus”, without being able to give solid trustworthy content to the word and or concept “Jesus”… means that in reality, the term “Jesus” ends up being nothing more than a purely human creation…. “Jesus” ends up being nothing more than a purely human creation, “Jesus” becomes whatever the individual wants him to be….. reminds of one of those memorable quips from Mark Twain….

“in the beginning, God created man, and ever since that time, man has been trying to return the favor”

besides, “Jesus” promised that He would bring His words to His disciple's remberance, so they could faithfully recount His words and activities to others….
John 14:25-26 NKJV “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. (26) But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

so in this case, its really an “all or nothing”…. you either have to believe that Jesus did as He said…. or, you have to deny it…. and if you deny it, you have nowhere else to turn for the words of life…. nowhere except your own navel…. as you gaze inward and accept yourself as the divine being in your life, the only being you will trust to take you to God…. and this, Chris, is a very dangerous thing to do…. Jesus made it very clear there is nowhere else to turn, but to Him….

John 6:65 NKJV And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

Now Chris, I grant that this is not an easy thing to accept…. it was not easy in Jesus' day either… so I leave you with the very next words to come from Christ, as the “hard saying” was explained…. hopefully you can come to the same conclusion as Peter wisely did… otherwise, you are lost in your search for truth….

John 6:66-69 NKJV From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. (67) Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?” (68) But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. (69) Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

blessings

July 15, 2005 at 4:45 am#151375

Participant

Chris, re your saying “well- first – before I comment on 2 Tim and 2 Peter – it should be noted that those two particular books were likely not written till after Peter and Paul were dead – sometime in the second century. Most Christians do not know that the scholars have doubted those two books (as well as 1 Timothy and Titus) for some time due to various reasons too extensive for this little post.”

I have good reason to disagree, here are a few of those reasons, but I think you should know that not many Liberals are aware that the Germanic liberal schools ideas have been solidly refuted… sadly, the liberals are far slower to change their dogmatic views then their conservative theological opponents sometimes… ;):

“
1. Canonicity and Authorship.
In the patristic church the reception of the letters into the NT canon was tied to their Pauline authorship for, as Serapion (died c. a.d. 211) bishop of Antioch put it, “we receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ, but pseudepigrapha in their name we reject” (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6.12.3). This judgment was virtually unanimous, explicitly witnessed by the Muratorian Canon and Irenaeus (c. a.d. 180; Haer. 1.16.3; 2.14.7; 3.14.1), and probably to be inferred from earlier quotations (cf. Theophilus Autol. 3.14; Polycarp Phil. 4.1) and allusions (cf. Ignatius Eph. 14:1). The Pastorals (along with 2 Thess and Philem) are lacking only in one incomplete manuscript of Paul’s letters (P46; c. a.d. 200), and were rejected only by certain heretical teachers: 1-2 Timothy by Tatian and Basilides (cf. Clement Strom. 2.11, end; Jerome Commentary on Titus, Preface) and all three by Marcion (cf. Tertullian Marc. 5.21). However, they encountered serious objections in the literary criticism of the nineteenth century.
1.1. The Baur School. In 1835 F. C. Baur, drawing upon earlier literary questions about the Pastorals, concluded that they reflected a post-Pauline context and identified them, in his Hegelian reconstruction of early Christian history, as second-century forgeries (cf. Ellis, “F. C. Baur and his School,” in Making). His views were elaborated by H. J. Holtzmann, who summed up the objections to Pauline authorship: (1) the historical situation, (2) the gnosticizing false teachers condemned, (3) the stage of church organization, (4) the vocabulary and style, and (5) the theological views and themes. Baur was ambivalent about the effect of his criticism on the canonicity of the Pastorals, but most of his followers thought that it should have no effect, asserting against the evidence that in antiquity pseudonymity was an innocent device (see Ellis, “Pseudonymity,” in Theology and Criticism). They often attributed the Pastorals to “disciples” of Paul and cited as precedents the schools of Pythagoras and Plato, who wrote letters in the names of those philosophers. However, there is no evidence that a “school” of Paul existed after the apostle’s death: The earliest postapostolic writers, such as Clement of Rome, Papias, Ignatius and Polycarp, cite or appeal to various apostles and display no knowledge of any “school” tendency to transmit only teachings of a particular apostle (see Paul and His Interpreters).
1.2. The Nineteenth-Century Debate. J. B. Lightfoot and T. Zahn countered the Baur school with the observations that (1) the changed historical circumstances and (2) the more advanced church organization were well accounted for if some years separated Paul’s earlier letters from his writing of the Pastorals, that is, after his release from his first Roman imprisonment, a release well attested in 1 Clement 5 (c. a.d. 95, Lightfoot) and in second century literature (Muratorian canon; Acts of Peter [Vercelli]). Anticipating twentieth-century criticism, Lightfoot argued that (3) gnosticizing false teachers were already present during the ministry of Paul (cf. Ellis 1993, 89–95), and he also attributed (4) changes in vocabulary, style and (5) in theological emphasis to the origin of the Pastorals in the last years of the apostle’s ministry.
In the nineteenth century both traditional and speculative scholars assumed that Paul himself penned his letters or dictated them verbatim. They consequently supposed that if the major letters were taken as a touchstone, the genuineness of the others could be determined by internal criteria of vocabulary, style and theological motifs. They differed only as to whether variations in such matters were sufficient to exclude Pauline authorship (the Baur/Holtzmann tradition) or lay within the literary range of a versatile writer like the apostle (the Lightfoot/Zahn tradition). The debate, which has continued and developed through the present century, was something of a standoff (Prior; Ellis 1979). However, the pseudepigraphal viewpoint was undermined by three new insights of twentieth-century criticism: the role of the secretary; the function of cosenders; and the presence of a considerable number of preformed, non-Pauline pieces in almost all of Paul’s letters (see Creeds; Hymns; Liturgical Elements).
1.3. Developments in the Twentieth Century. The problem of the Pastorals continued in the minds of many to lie in their vocabulary and style, in their more developed church order and in the difficulty of “placing” them within the Pauline missions in Acts.
1.3.1. Vocabulary. With respect to vocabulary it was not just the divergence from the terminology of the recognized Pauline literature but also the absence of many word groups common to Paul (e.g., apokalyptoµ, energeoµ, kauchaomai, perisseuoµ, hypakouoµ, phroneoµ) and the use of different terminology for the same concepts in eschatology (epiphaneia vis-á-vis parousia), church organization (presbyteroi vis-á-vis prohistamenoi and poimenes) and soteriology (cf. Dibelius). At the same time many Pauline expressions in these letters were evident to all.
Three attempts were made to resolve this problem. Writers in the Baur/Holtzmann tradition ascribed the Pauline traits to a conscious attempt by the forger to imitate Paul, either to gain apostolic authority for his deception (Donelson) or, reworking certain Pauline traditions, to offer under the apostle’s name what he thought Paul might have taught had he been there (Wolter). Some in the Lightfoot/Zahn tradition contended that the role of the secretary and Paul’s use of traditions composed by others accounted for the differences in the Pastorals’ style, vocabulary and theological idiom (see 4 below). A few scholars early in the twentieth century argued that the Pastorals were genuine Pauline letters supplemented by second-century interpolations, mainly on church order (Harnack), or that they were early second-century products incorporating some genuine Pauline fragments (Harrison). The fragment hypothesis failed to convince very many because it could not explain why and how a forger would have used the fragments in such a strange way (Guthrie; Dibelius). The interpolation hypothesis was a possibility in its day. But with the advances in textual criticism and in the understanding of writing practices of the Greco-Roman world, it lost credibility.
As was the custom in antiquity (cf. Cicero To Friends 7.25.1; Richards, 6–7.), Paul retained a copy of his letters both for subsequent reference (cf. 1 Cor 5:9–10; 2 Cor 7:8; 2 Thess 2:15) and because of the danger of loss or damage in transit (cf. Cicero Friends 16.18. end). It is also likely that he allowed the church where he was writing to make a copy of the letter for its own use and that he permitted or instructed the recipients to make copies for themselves or for neighboring congregations (cf. 2 Cor 1:1, Achaia; Gal 1:2; Col 4:16). In this way the apostle himself initiated, virtually at the outset, different textual traditions with inevitable variations in the wording of his correspondence. Therefore,
it appears to be quite impossible that an interpolator, who anywhere in the stream of tradition arbitrarily inserted three verses, could force under his spell the total text
ual tradition (which we today have before our eyes in a way quite different from any generation before us) … so that not even one contrary witness remained. (Aland, 141)
What is said here of Romans applies also to the Pastorals. Any theory that certain verses were later additions must produce some manuscript that omits the verses, or it will lack all historical probability. The sections that Harnack thought were later interpolations are not absent from any manuscript and were, therefore, in all likelihood a part of the Pastorals from the beginning.
1.3.2. Church Organization. The Baur tradition (and also Harnack) supposed that the qualifications demanded for the ministry of “bishop” or “overseer” = ? “elder” (1 Tim 3; 5; Tit 1) reflected a “developed” church order that was post-Pauline. It rested its case on the twin assumptions that the earliest congregations had no structured ministries and that early Christian (theology and) praxis moved forward gradually and stage-by-stage as a block. These assumptions were deeply embedded in nineteenth-century consciousness from theories of egalitarianism, of historical and social progress and of biological evolution. But they do not accord either with the variegated church order of the apostolic congregations nor with the present-day recognition that “development” may be either gradual or extremely rapid (see Ministry; Church Order and Government).
From the beginning the congregations of all the apostolic missions had some measure of church order. The church at Jerusalem with its leadership of resident apostles, especially Peter (c. a.d. 33–42; Gal 1:18; Acts 2:14; 3:12; 5:3; 8:14; 9:32; 12:17) and James (c. a.d. 42–62; Gal 2:9; Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18) and elders (Acts 11:30; 15:2; 21:18; cf. Jas 5:14) had a more structured organization, probably similar to that of the synagogues and of the Qumran community (e.g., Lk 7:3; CD 13:9–10; 1QS 6:14–15, 19–20: mƒb_aqqeµr, paµqéÆd_; cf. Schürer II.427–39; Thiering; Weinfeld). According to 1 Peter (1 Pet 5:1–3; cf. 1:1; c. a.d. 64) and Acts (Acts 14:23; 20:17, cf. 20:28; c. a.d. 65), certain churches in Asia Minor and Greece founded by the Petrine and Pauline missions also had a recognized church order, even if the term elders (presbyteroi) in Acts is a Lukan idiom for ministries given different designations in Paul’s earlier letters. These letters disclose established ministries of administrative and teaching leadership, although they identify them more often as activities (Rom 12:8; 1 Cor 12:28; Gal 6:6; 1 Thess 5:12–13) than as appointed offices (cf. Phil 1:1). The Pastorals give more prominence to appointed ministries and to the qualifications for them because, among other things, of the increasing threat to Paul’s churches by false teachers (Ellis, Ministry, 92–107; idem, Prophecy, 113–15). They represent an understandable development of his earlier usage.
1.4. Conclusion. The role of the secretary (Richards, Roller) and the use of preformed traditions (see 4.3 below) in the composition of the Pastorals cut the ground from under the pseudepigraphal hypothesis with its mistaken nineteenth-century assumptions about the nature of authorship. They require the critical student to give primary weight to the opening ascriptions in the letters and to the external historical evidence, both of which solidly support Pauline authorship.

2. Occasion and Date.
Proponents of Paul’s authorship of the Pastorals usually, though not always (Reicke, Robinson), presuppose the tradition that Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment (Acts 28), rightly regarded by Harnack (I.240n) as “a certain fact of history,” and afterwards had a second Aegean ministry in which 1 Timothy and Titus could be placed. The tradition is supported by two considerations: (1) second-century accounts underlying the Acts of Paul (9–11; c. a.d. 170–190) of the apostle’s final trip to Rome and martyrdom under Nero on a route different from that in Acts 27–28 (Rordorf; Zahn, II.84) and (2) very early evidence for a post-Acts 28 Pauline mission to Spain.
2.1. Paul’s Mission to Spain. The probability of a missionary journey to Spain arises largely (1) from the anticipation of such a task in Romans 15:24, Acts 1:8 and Acts 13:47, and (2) from the evidence for it in 1 Clement 5.7 (c. a.d. 70, cf. Robinson), the Acts of Peter (Vercelli) 1–3, 40 (probably Asia Minor, c. a.d. 160–180) and the Muratorian Canon (Rome, c. a.d. 170–190). The last two are independent witnesses to a widespread second-century tradition that Paul journeyed from Rome to Spain and, in the Acts of Peter, that he returned to Rome for martyrdom.
Clement of Rome knows of seven imprisonments of Paul, calls Paul and Peter “our good apostles,” and, according to Irenaeus (Haer. 3.3.3; c. a.d. 180), Clement sat under their teaching. He speaks of Paul’s preaching in the West, which for a writer in Rome would mean Spain or Gaul (cf. 2 Tim 4:10), and of his reaching “the extreme limits of the West” (to terma teµs dyseoµs). The latter phrase, like “to the end of the earth” (heoµs eschatou teµs geµs, Acts 1:8), referred in the usage of the time to the region of Spain around Gades (= Cadiz), where the apostle probably traveled after he was set free from his first Roman imprisonment (cf. Ellis 1991 “End of the Earth”). These sources are supported by later traditions of Paul’s release and of his post-Acts 28 ministry (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 2.22.1–8: logos echei, 2). Since Paul’s Spanish sojourn was apparently unknown to Origen (cf. Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.1.3) and produced no churches in Spain that claimed Pauline origins, it may have been a brief mission (c. a.d. 63–64), undertaken soon after his release (cf. Zahn, II.64–66), from which he returned to his churches in the Aegean area.
2.2. The Situation of 1 Timothy and Titus. The situation of 1 Timothy and Titus differs from that of Paul’s earlier Aegean ministry (c. a.d. 53–58; cf. Kelly, 6–10). His mission had now extended to Gaul (2 Tim 4:10; Zahn, II.25–26), and his congregations around the Aegean had multiplied and now encompassed Crete, Miletus and Nicopolis (Tit 1:5; 3:12; 2 Tim 4:20). They were increasingly endangered by a judaizing-gnostic countermission (1 Tim 1:3–7, 19–20; 4:1–2; 6:20; 2 Tim 4:3–4; Tit 1:10–16; cf. Ellis, Prophecy, 92–93; 113–15) that included church leaders and probably former coworkers (2 Tim 1:15–18; 2:16–17; 3:6–9; 4:10; Tit 3:9–14). Some house churches were ravaged and near collapse, as Paul’s instructions to Titus indicate: “Restore the things that remain, and appoint elders in each city. … For many deceivers … especially the circumcision party … are overthrowing whole houses” (Tit 1:5, 10–11). This threat may have occasioned Paul’s return from Spain.
To meet the problem, Paul adopted a new strategy for his writing. He continued as before to work from a hub-city, perhaps Corinth (2 Tim 4:20), with several visits to a number of churches, for example, in Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3), Crete (Tit 1:5), Nicopolis (Tit 3:12), Miletus (2 Tim 4:20) and Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3; 3:14; 4:13; 2 Tim 1:15–18; 4:19; but see Zahn, II.17–19). But he could not, as he did earlier (1 Cor 4:17; 2 Cor 7:6, 12–13; Eph 6:21–22; Col 4:7–8; cf. Phil 2:25), send a letter to each of the many congregations, along with a colleague to explain and apply it. Instead, he sent letters to trusted coworkers, Titus in Crete and Timothy in Ephesus, which served both as instruments of personal communication and encouragement and also as vade mecums to give apostolic authorization for their teaching.
For the itinerary of his second Aegean ministry one is left largely to conjecture, for Paul’s letters and other sources offer little help. The apostle probably returned there from Spain only in late a.d. 64 and labored in Crete (Tit 1:5) and Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3) as well as in Achaia for a year or so, spending the winter of 65–66 (or 66–67) at Nicopolis in Epirus (Tit 3:12; Zahn, II.27–35, 66). He composed 1
Timothy and Titus fairly early in this period, probably in 65. In the late spring of 66 or 67 he visited Miletus, where he left Trophimus (2 Tim 4:20), and Troas, where he left his winter coat and a number of books and notebooks (membrana), which probably included copies of his previous letters and traditional materials useful in his teaching and in composing new letters (2 Tim 4:13, 20; cf. Richards, 158–60). From Troas, apparently, he departed for Rome with the intention of returning before winter.” (EE Ellis, The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, his bibliography for the article is:
“Bibliography. Commentaries: M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (Herm; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972); G. D. Fee, The Pastoral Epistles (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988); D. Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (TNTC; 2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); H. J. Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1880); J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles (London: Black, 1963); G. W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992); T. D. Lea and H. P. Griffen, Jr., 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (NAC; Nashville: Broadman, 1992); W. Lock The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958 [1924]); A. Schlatter, Die Kirche der Griechen im Urteil des Paulus (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1958 [1936]); C. Spicq, Les Épîtres Pastorales (2 vols.; Paris: Gabalda, 1969). Studies: K. Aland, “Neutestamentliche Textkritik und Exegese,” Wissenschaft und Kirche. FS E. Lohse, ed. K. Aland (Bielefeld: Luther, 1989) 132–48; D. E. Aune, “The Odes of Solomon and Early Christian Prophecy,” NTS 28 (1982) 435–60; F. C. Baur, Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe (Tübingen: Gotta, 1835); L. R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1986); G. Edmundson, The Church in Rome in the First Century (London: Longmans, 1913); E. E. Ellis, “ ‘The End of the Earth’ (Acts 1:8),” BBR 1 (1991) 123–32; idem, The Making of the New Testament Documents (forthcoming); idem, Theology and Criticism (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994); idem, “The Pastorals and Paul,” ExpT 104 (1992–93) 45–47; idem, The Old Testament in Early Christianity (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991); idem, Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989); idem, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (4th ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993); idem, Paul and His Recent Interpreters (5th ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 49–57; D. Guthrie, Introduction to the New Testament (rev. ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990) 636–46; A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristliche Literatur, Teil II: Chronologie (2 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1958 [1904]) 1.480–85; P. N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (London: Oxford University Press, 1921); J. B. Lightfoot, “The Date of the Pastoral Epistles” and “The Close of the Acts,” in Biblical Essays (London: Macmillan, 1893) 399–437; W. Metzger, Die letzte Reise des Apostels Paulus (Stuttgart: Calver, 1976); C. F. D. Moule, “The Problem of the Pastorals: A Reappraisal,” BJRL 47 (1964–65) 430–52; M. Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer (JSNTSup 23; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989); B. Reicke, “Chronologie der Pastoralbriefe,” TLZ 101 (1976) 82–94; E. R. Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991); J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM, 1976); O. Roller, Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933); W. Rordorf, “Nochmals: Paulusakten und Pastoralbriefe,” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. FS E. E. Ellis, ed. G. F. Hawthorne with O. Betz (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987) 319–27; A. Strobel, “Schreiben des Lukas? Zum sprachlichen Problem der Pastoralbriefe,” NTS 15 (1968–69) 191–210; B. E. Thiering, “Mebaqqer and Episkopos in the Light of the Temple Scroll,” JBL 100 (1981) 59–74; M. Weinfeld, The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986); M. Wolter, Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988); T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament (3 vols.; Minneapolis: Klock, 1977 [3d ed. 1909, 1st ed. 1899]) II.1–133.”

one other briefer word on the subject:

“Four arguments commonly raised against the Pauline authorship of the pastoral Epistles need to be answered.

1) Historical. The events in the pastoral Epistles do not fit into the account in Acts. Nowhere in Acts do we read about Paul preaching in Crete and leaving Titus there (Titus 1:5). Nor does his leaving Timothy at Ephesus fit into the Acts account. On these points all scholars agree.
But was Paul put to death at the end of his Roman imprisonment described in the closing verses of Acts? This is assumed by many scholars, and so they say that Paul could not have written these epistles.
The answer is that Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment and made further journeys, during which he wrote First Timothy and Titus. It was during a later imprisonment that he wrote Second Timothy.
There is considerable evidence for this position. Clement of Rome (A.D. 95) says that Paul went “to the extreme limit of the west.” [1] For a man living in Rome, this would mean Spain. The Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 200) says that the apostle “departed for Spain.” Paul had written to the Romans that he planned to go past them to that country (Rom 15:24, 28). Here we have the statement that he carried out this purpose, and this would have to be after his first Roman imprisonment–as any careful reading of Acts will show.
The most definite statement comes from Eusebius. He writes:

Paul is said, after having defended himself, to have set forth again upon the ministry of preaching, and to have entered the city [Rome] a second time, and to have ended his life by martyrdom. Whilst then a prisoner, he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, in which he both mentions his first defence, and his impending death. [2]

2) Ecclesiastical. In the pastoral Epistles we read about bishops, elders (presbyters), and deacons. It is claimed by scholars that this shows a more advanced church organization than existed during the lifetime of Paul.
But a careful reading of Titus 1:5-9 shows that “elders” and “bishops” are terms used interchangeably. And in Philippians 1:1 Paul addresses the “bishops and deacons” in the church at Philippi.
Very different is the situation in the Epistles of Ignatius (c. A.D. 115). Here each local church has one bishop, several presbyters and several deacons. The evidence is clear that the pastoral Epistles reflect the type of church organization known to Paul, rather than the type Ignatius was familiar with. Thus, a second-century date for the Pastorals, as held by many today, seems unrealistic.

3) Doctrinal. A third argument against Pauline authorship is the claim that the doctrinal emphases of the Pastorals are different from those in Paul's previous Epistles, especially the recurring use of the expression “sound doctrine” (2Tim 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1). Kummel makes much of this. But he admits that “the Jewish-Christian Gnostic heresy which the Pastorals combat is … quite conceivable in the lifetime of Paul.” [3] He also states, “The Pauline origin of the Pastorals was not challenged from the time of their recognition as canonical writings toward the end of the second century till the beginning of the nineteenth century.” [4]
Paul opposes Gnostic ideas in his Epistle to the Colossians. The error of the nineteenth century critics was their belief that these did not exist until the second century. Today it is generally acknowledged that Gnostic ideas had already penetrated Judaism before the advent of Christianity. But that there is no evidence of a pre-Christian Gnostic system has been fully demonstrated by Edwin M. Yamauchi in his recent scholarly study, Pre-Christian Gnosticism. [5]

4) Linguistic. The most serious argument against the genuinen
ess of the pastoral Epistles is their difference in style and vocabulary from Paul's earlier writings. This is the main point stressed today by negative critics.
Harrison found 175 words used nowhere else in the NT and 130 non-Pauline words shared by other NT writers. Working with a word-per-page method, he found an abrupt, sharp rise in new words in the Pastorals. So he concluded that Paul could not have written these later Epistles. [6]
These statistics have carried great weight with many twentieth century scholars. Guthrie answers: “But numerical calculations cannot with the limited data available from Paul's letters take into account differences of subject-matter, differences of circumstances and differences of addressees, all of which may be responsible for new words.” [7] Cambridge statistician Yule declared that samples of about ten thousand words are necessary as a basis for valid statistical study. [8] This, of course, we do not have in the case of the Pastorals. Bruce M. Metzger asserts that Harrison's use of the statistical method has proved to be unsound. [9]
In recent years several scholars have been suggesting that Luke was the amanuensis (secretary) who actually composed the pastoral Epistles for Paul. Moule writes, “My suggestion is, then, that Luke wrote all three Pastoral epistles. But he wrote them during Paul's lifetime, and, in part but only in part, at Paul's dictation.” [10] The careful student can discover a considerable number of significant Greek words that occur in both Luke-Acts and the Pastorals but nowhere else in the NT. It appears that amanuenses were sometimes given considerable liberty in writing manuscripts, and we know that Paul was in the habit of using amanuenses for the actual writing of his Epistles (Rom 16:22).
In his volume on the pastoral Epistles (in ICC, 1924), Walter Lock comes out emphatically for the genuineness of these letters. He notes that there are many points of contact between the Pastorals and Paul's farewell address to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:17-38): “The evidence of Church writers is the same as for the other letters of St. Paul.” He also declared that the doctrinal background is essentially Pauline. [11] Moreover, Lock and Guthrie point out the Lucan language in the Pastorals. [12]
Perhaps more significant is the fact that J.N.D. Kelly of Oxford, in his 1963 volume in “Harper's New Testament Commentaries,” gives adequate answers to all the negative arguments we have noted. After a careful reappraisal of the whole situation, he concludes that the evidence “tips the scales perceptibly … in favour of the traditional theory of authorship.” [13] W.J. Lowstuter wrote in the Abingdon Bible Commentary (p. 1276) that, taken altogether, the evidence is favorable to the Pauline authorship.

2. Date

The date of Paul's first Roman imprisonment was perhaps A.D. 59-61. (Some say 60-62, others 61-63 or 62-64.) The early church unanimously testifies that Paul was put to death by Emperor Nero, who committed suicide in June of A.D. 68. Since Paul asked Timothy to come to him “before winter” (2Tim 4:21), it is obvious that the second Epistle to Timothy was written not later than A.D. 67. It may have been as early as 65. This means that 1 Timothy and Titus were probably written between 62 and 66. If we assume omitted details in the Acts account, earlier dates might be possible.” (Expositors)

blessings

July 15, 2005 at 4:45 am#151376

Participant

Good points E.

July 15, 2005 at 5:19 am#151377

Participant

TY Nick…

April 18, 2006 at 7:18 pm#151378

Participant

Hi,
Ramblinrose has raised this issue and there may be interest here.

April 20, 2006 at 1:47 am#151379

Participant

Hi,
Mary said she “did not know man”. She claimed to be a virgin.

Many would try to cast doubt on these claims in support of their theory of Jesus being only a man but we do not break scripture. Neither do we reject scripture as altered without definite proof coming from outside of the text.

Joseph was going to put aside Mary as his betrothed wife when he saw she was pregnant. We are told he was a man of honour and he was going to do this to spare her embarrassment.That would only be the case if he had known he was not the father of the child. To do so for other reasons would not be honorable.

April 30, 2006 at 8:14 pm#151380

Participant

Hi,
The greek word “Parthenos” 3933 is used only in context with virginity on 14 occasions in the New Testament. It's meaning is well established. It is used about Mary in
Lk 1.27[twice] and Mt 1.23
Thus on the principle of 2 scriptural witnessses proving a scriptural fact as shown in 2Cor 13.1 and said by Jesus too, this is a stand alone scriptural fact. Mary was a virgin.

The paraphrased Quote from Is 7.14 uses the word “Almah” 5959 and this is the only time NASB translates it as “virgin”, while it is translated as “young woman” or “maiden” on the 6 other occasions.
the Matt 1.23
Why the difference? To allow for a double usage -in the local context and in the prophetic context.

Does it alter anything? No.

May 16, 2006 at 3:17 am#151381