the pastoral epistles is the name given to 1 and 2 timothy and titus.
each of these letters explicitly claims to be the work of the apostle paul, but the higher critical school has concluded that these letters were written by a disciple of paul's, sometime in the early second century, and that his name was affixed to them to lend them authority.
this is so ingrained in liberal scholarship that it is taken for granted the letters are not from paul.
Narkissos....I was referring to P. N. Harrison's generally accepted thesis that Polycarp's letter comprises two letters: a brief one (ch. 13-14) that was written at the time of Ignatius (i.e. A.D. 115-117) and a second one, containing the Pastoral allusions, written around A.D. 135. Michael Holmes notes that more recent discussion on the date of Polycarp's letter has moved the date of the second letter closer to the time of Ignatius.
Leolaia
the pastoral epistles is the name given to 1 and 2 timothy and titus.
each of these letters explicitly claims to be the work of the apostle paul, but the higher critical school has concluded that these letters were written by a disciple of paul's, sometime in the early second century, and that his name was affixed to them to lend them authority.
this is so ingrained in liberal scholarship that it is taken for granted the letters are not from paul.
I'm not up-to-date on research on the Pastorals as my interests have not yet taken me to study them as closely as some other matters, but I do agree with ThiChi on their linguistic dissimilarity with the accepted Pauline corpus. Moffitt and others do consider that genuine Pauline fragments may be embedded therein, though short and contained within a later context. One possibility I've thought about is whether these were written by Timothy himself or another second-generation associate of Paul who mixed material from private notes they might have received from Paul into their own general epistles written to the churches but released under the name of Paul. That would explain how they were so quickly accepted as genuine, if Timothy or some other leader of the late first century vouched for them. I think they were written no later than the 90s since they were very obviously used by Polycarp of Smyrna in his epistle to the Philippians. This is the main reason why I don't agree with a date as late as 125.
last night, on the discovery channel, they interviewed a researcher who analyzed a scrap of papyrus that recorded revelation.. he contended that the critical passage of the "number of the beast" actually read 616 in greek, not 666. he tried to apply.
this to caligula thru numerology.. i had never heard of this variant reading before.. .
metatron
Narkissos....as I mentioned earlier, the earliest witness is Irenaeus (c. A.D. 190) on the basis of both Papias (c. A.D. 130) and the manuscript evidence of his day. He writes in Adversus Haeresies 5.30.1:
Now such being the state of the case, and since this number [i.e. already mentioned as 666] is found in all the good and old copies, and the very men who had seen John with their own eyes [i.e. Papias] testify to it, and reason teaches that the number of the name of the Beast, according to the reckoning of the Greeks, is 666 ... some, though I do not know how, have erred, following a particular reading, and have taken liberties with the middle number of the name, subtracting the value of fifty and choosing to have only one ten instead of six.
When this is added to the extant manuscript evidence, the conclusion is pretty clear that 666 was the original number.
.
i read that tradition says that gabriel will sound the last trumpet when the end comes.. who who in the bible,readers digest.
The word "archangel" does not imply that there was only one, any more than "archbishop" means that there is only one archbishop. The term means "chief angel" and the use of the term outside the NT shows clearly that the term carries no such exclusive implication in Greek.
.
i read that tradition says that gabriel will sound the last trumpet when the end comes.. who who in the bible,readers digest.
Beliar = Satan.
the ascension of isaiah preserves what might be a cognate but independent tale about jesus' birth.
this book was initially pre-christian and was known to the author of hebrews (cf.
hebrews 11:37 = ascenis 5:2-15), but was heavily interpolated in the first and second century a.d. the first interpolation, 3:13-4:22, most likely dates to the end of the first century (as it was known to second-century writers in its literary form) but the second, the so-called vision of isaiah (11:2-22) is later, probably from the first half of the second century.
Thank you, Steve, Mulan, toreador, Xena, LittleToe, et alia...
Jesus did not just espouse a philosophy of social justice, it seems pretty clear that the ethics he taught was tightly bound to spirituality, living for the Kingdom and receiving the Kingdom was accepting the Father and approaching him as a child to "Abba" with the intimacy and spiritual closeness it brings. I think I agree with Thomas Sheehan that Jesus sought to undo organized religion, especially the Pharisiacal notion of God as remote and impersonal and only approachable by following ritualistic rules and supplication in the Temple. Jesus said, no, God's Kingdom can be in you and have "the immediate presence of God as a loving Father" (Sheehan, p. 60). Even those rejected by society as unclean, unworthy of approaching God in the Temple or be purified in ritual baths, they are closer to God than those who follow all the purity rituals but do not have an open heart.
How ironic then that this is the basis that some have organized new religions that teach that for the vast majority of mankind, God is inaccessible and even access to Jesus requires the mediation of a human organization that requires you to follow all sorts of rules and "rituals" in order to be "approved" by God.
the ascension of isaiah preserves what might be a cognate but independent tale about jesus' birth.
this book was initially pre-christian and was known to the author of hebrews (cf.
hebrews 11:37 = ascenis 5:2-15), but was heavily interpolated in the first and second century a.d. the first interpolation, 3:13-4:22, most likely dates to the end of the first century (as it was known to second-century writers in its literary form) but the second, the so-called vision of isaiah (11:2-22) is later, probably from the first half of the second century.
Also Ezekial 44:2 was interpreted as a prophey of her remaing physically virginal. "As regards this gate, shut is how it will continue. No mere man will come in by it; for the Lord the God of Israel has come in by it, and it must continue shut."
Ah, there it is! That was the scripture I was trying to remember, thank you! I wonder if there was some literary connection between the concept of Mary's birth as painless and Gen. 3 -- under the view of Jesus as undoing the curse on humanity (as the "seed" of the woman), related perhaps also to the Pauline view of redemption. It would be odd tho to view Christ as the Second Adam but Mary, his mother, as the "Second Eve" -- tho Epiphanius placed Mary of Magdala (the other Mary) in this role. Coincidentally, tho, the antecedent of the Yahwist Eden story possibly viewed Eve as a creator goddess, along the lines of Aruru and Marduk with respect to Adapa.
Leolaia
here's the book of enoch link for those interested:.
lets compare the book of jude, 2peter and1enoch and notice some startling similarities:.
jude -14 yes, the seventh one [in line] from adam, enoch, (enoch 60: 8 ) prophesied also regarding them, when he said (enoch 1:9): "look!
frankie....i think we have similar ideas. Enoch sheds some light, but the rest of the pseudepigrapha and other early Jewish and Christian literature help as well. They show how otherwise obscure things in the NT fit in to the overall range of beliefs of the period.
last night, on the discovery channel, they interviewed a researcher who analyzed a scrap of papyrus that recorded revelation.. he contended that the critical passage of the "number of the beast" actually read 616 in greek, not 666. he tried to apply.
this to caligula thru numerology.. i had never heard of this variant reading before.. .
metatron
The author (or compiler) of Revelation was most likely John the Presbyter, an influential church leader in Ephesus. Around A.D. 130, one of his disciples, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, wrote a five-volume work that gave some of the earliest interpretations of Revelation. He indicated the number as 666, as Irenaeus testified.
here's the book of enoch link for those interested:.
lets compare the book of jude, 2peter and1enoch and notice some startling similarities:.
jude -14 yes, the seventh one [in line] from adam, enoch, (enoch 60: 8 ) prophesied also regarding them, when he said (enoch 1:9): "look!
frankiespeakin.....did my list give you what you were looking for? Just curious because it took a lot of time to put it together.
