Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Only a few biblical scholars call themselves atheist or agnostic, but many are. It's hard to study the bible as a scholar and "believe" in it, though they may identify as "Christian." There are biblical "apologists" who defend the Bible, but they are generally not academics.

Great. Can you name some biblical scholars who fit this criteria? Otherwise, it sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Only a few biblical scholars call themselves atheist or agnostic, but many are. It's hard to study the bible as a scholar and "believe" in it, though they may identify as "Christian." There are biblical "apologists" who defend the Bible, but they are generally not academics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Paul opens his letters with the Greek "charis" (grace) and the Hebrew "shalom" (peace). The standard secular greeting at the time was the Greek "chairein" (greetings). There's no reason to think Paul's openings were anything more than good wishes to his readers.

Great. Now deconstruct the rest of his letters and show why what he said isn't what he said.

Seriously, that's your answer? It's a good response to OP. (You're clearly the mean evangelical and not OP.) Why are you responding with snark instead of addressing this point?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We discussed some of this on the other thread.

Romans I refers to "the lust in their hearts." As others have said, this could refer to almost anything, including lust for worldly goods or sex outside of marriage. Putting a homosexuality connotation on the English translation into "lust" seems dangerous.

In Corinthians I, Paul talks generally about our bodies and specifically about prostitutes and general "immorality."

Again, you can claim Romans and Corinthians are referring to homosexuality, based on your own assumption that "Jesus must have said that homosexuality is bad." For many of us, though, without an explicit mention from Jesus in the gospels, this too seems like a reach.

The only mention of "sodomites" is in Timothy. As somebody else posted at 21:27 on page 1 of this thread, most modern scholars do not consider Timothy to have been written by Paul.

Paul explicitly tells us: “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” (Rom. 1:26–27).

Exactly. He also says this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Chris and by the Spirit of our God."

And in 1 Timothy 1:8-11, he writes, "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

And there's that pesky "with which I have been entrusted" part exactly after delineating what THE LAW is, this being the law of God, not Paul's own advice.

It's easy to make the text say anything you want (or not say anything you don't want) if you don't actually pay any attention to what the text says.

Why do you refuse to address the point that most schokars today think that Paul (whatever you think his attributes are) didn't write Timothy????

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Paul opens his letters with the Greek "charis" (grace) and the Hebrew "shalom" (peace). The standard secular greeting at the time was the Greek "chairein" (greetings). There's no reason to think Paul's openings were anything more than good wishes to his readers.

Great. Now deconstruct the rest of his letters and show why what he said isn't what he said.

Seriously, that's your answer? It's a good response to OP. (You're clearly the mean evangelical and not OP.) Why are you responding with snark instead of addressing this point?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We discussed some of this on the other thread.

Romans I refers to "the lust in their hearts." As others have said, this could refer to almost anything, including lust for worldly goods or sex outside of marriage. Putting a homosexuality connotation on the English translation into "lust" seems dangerous.

In Corinthians I, Paul talks generally about our bodies and specifically about prostitutes and general "immorality."

Again, you can claim Romans and Corinthians are referring to homosexuality, based on your own assumption that "Jesus must have said that homosexuality is bad." For many of us, though, without an explicit mention from Jesus in the gospels, this too seems like a reach.

The only mention of "sodomites" is in Timothy. As somebody else posted at 21:27 on page 1 of this thread, most modern scholars do not consider Timothy to have been written by Paul.

Paul explicitly tells us: “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” (Rom. 1:26–27).

Exactly. He also says this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Chris and by the Spirit of our God."

And in 1 Timothy 1:8-11, he writes, "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

And there's that pesky "with which I have been entrusted" part exactly after delineating what THE LAW is, this being the law of God, not Paul's own advice.

It's easy to make the text say anything you want (or not say anything you don't want) if you don't actually pay any attention to what the text says.

Why do you refuse to address the point that most schokars today think that Paul (whatever you think his attributes are) didn't write Timothy????

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Paul opens his letters with the Greek "charis" (grace) and the Hebrew "shalom" (peace). The standard secular greeting at the time was the Greek "chairein" (greetings). There's no reason to think Paul's openings were anything more than good wishes to his readers.

Great. Now deconstruct the rest of his letters and show why what he said isn't what he said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We discussed some of this on the other thread.

Romans I refers to "the lust in their hearts." As others have said, this could refer to almost anything, including lust for worldly goods or sex outside of marriage. Putting a homosexuality connotation on the English translation into "lust" seems dangerous.

In Corinthians I, Paul talks generally about our bodies and specifically about prostitutes and general "immorality."

Again, you can claim Romans and Corinthians are referring to homosexuality, based on your own assumption that "Jesus must have said that homosexuality is bad." For many of us, though, without an explicit mention from Jesus in the gospels, this too seems like a reach.

The only mention of "sodomites" is in Timothy. As somebody else posted at 21:27 on page 1 of this thread, most modern scholars do not consider Timothy to have been written by Paul.

Paul explicitly tells us: “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” (Rom. 1:26–27).

Exactly. He also says this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Chris and by the Spirit of our God."

And in 1 Timothy 1:8-11, he writes, "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

And there's that pesky "with which I have been entrusted" part exactly after delineating what THE LAW is, this being the law of God, not Paul's own advice.

It's easy to make the text say anything you want (or not say anything you don't want) if you don't actually pay any attention to what the text says.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We discussed some of this on the other thread.

Romans I refers to "the lust in their hearts." As others have said, this could refer to almost anything, including lust for worldly goods or sex outside of marriage. Putting a homosexuality connotation on the English translation into "lust" seems dangerous.

In Corinthians I, Paul talks generally about our bodies and specifically about prostitutes and general "immorality."

Again, you can claim Romans and Corinthians are referring to homosexuality, based on your own assumption that "Jesus must have said that homosexuality is bad." For many of us, though, without an explicit mention from Jesus in the gospels, this too seems like a reach.

The only mention of "sodomites" is in Timothy. As somebody else posted at 21:27 on page 1 of this thread, most modern scholars do not consider Timothy to have been written by Paul.

Paul explicitly tells us: “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” (Rom. 1:26–27).

Exactly. He also says this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Chris and by the Spirit of our God."

And in 1 Timothy 1:8-11, he writes, "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

And there's that pesky "with which I have been entrusted" part exactly after delineating what THE LAW is, this being the law of God, not Paul's own advice.

It's easy to make the text say anything you want (or not say anything you don't want) if you don't actually pay any attention to what the text says.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We discussed some of this on the other thread.

Romans I refers to "the lust in their hearts." As others have said, this could refer to almost anything, including lust for worldly goods or sex outside of marriage. Putting a homosexuality connotation on the English translation into "lust" seems dangerous.

In Corinthians I, Paul talks generally about our bodies and specifically about prostitutes and general "immorality."

Again, you can claim Romans and Corinthians are referring to homosexuality, based on your own assumption that "Jesus must have said that homosexuality is bad." For many of us, though, without an explicit mention from Jesus in the gospels, this too seems like a reach.

The only mention of "sodomites" is in Timothy. As somebody else posted at 21:27 on page 1 of this thread, most modern scholars do not consider Timothy to have been written by Paul.

Paul explicitly tells us: “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” (Rom. 1:26–27).

Anonymous wrote:We discussed some of this on the other thread.

Romans I refers to "the lust in their hearts." As others have said, this could refer to almost anything, including lust for worldly goods or sex outside of marriage. Putting a homosexuality connotation on the English translation into "lust" seems dangerous.

In Corinthians I, Paul talks generally about our bodies and specifically about prostitutes and general "immorality."

Again, you can claim Romans and Corinthians are referring to homosexuality, based on your own assumption that "Jesus must have said that homosexuality is bad." For many of us, though, without an explicit mention from Jesus in the gospels, this too seems like a reach.

The only mention of "sodomites" is in Timothy. As somebody else posted at 21:27 on page 1 of this thread, most modern scholars do not consider Timothy to have been written by Paul.