Evidence for God from Science

hey evrybody i havent been posting here in a while and that is because i found this other secular "sub-forumn" as they call themselves. I was debating with this guy...

[My quote]The Bible also says God created time and was acting before time began This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)[/quote]

The guy: Please don't quote anything from 2nd timothy and use it as authority, it is a forgery. Just trying to save you some time, before you embarrass yourself in the future quoting more of it.

The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)

Titus is also a confirmed forgery.

Can someone help me out with the exact nature of the problem? I know paul had used other names or something to that degree, and the doctrines line up with the theology...but if anybody else could provide something more concrete for me to combat this guy with that would be great thanks

Truly
Grace isn't enough

From the James Robison KJV Bible

Timothy I :
The first letter to Timothy and the one to Titus were written during travel and missionary work between Paul's two Roman imprisonments
A date between AD 61 and 63 can be set since the second epistle to Timothy contains the last words found from the apostle before his martyrdom generally set between 65 and 68 AD.

Timothy II:
The Pauline authorship of the pastorals (I,II Timothy and Titus) is contested.
However, the prima facie evidence of the writings themselves indicates that
Paul is the writer, since his name appears in the salutation, and autobiographical remarks fit the life of Paul.


With the introduction to Titus the forgery accusation is dealt with, but its too long to reproduce here easily. I will try to do a summary.

Argument for forgery:
1. non-pauline language and style

2. opposition of pastorals to 2nd century gnosticism

3. discrepancies between pastorals and acts
belief that Paul was put to death after only one imprisonment

4. advanced ecclesiastical organization beyond pauls time


Addressing thoses arguments:

1. Paul chose to speak in a style different than that used to address the church.

2. The gnosticism was not advance as some argue.

3. Pauls life extends beyond Acts. Pastorals product of Paul's 4th missionary tour and second imprisonment.

4. The elements of eccelesiastical organization found in the pastorals are found elsewhere in the New Testament.

A search on the web quickly yields sites that argue for forgery.
The turth usually requires a little deeper digging.

I will help in the digging if I can

Michael
Thomas

okay its a long read but good

http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/3e/2i/I ... each1F.htm

This is my favorite line from the article

In light of how tradition was established, the claim of pious forgeries of 1 and 2 Timothy would imply that the early church fathers were either at best duped or at worst conspirators of the forgeries, and that the heretic Marcion was correct.

In this debate can you use other parts of the Bible that are less debatable?

Michael
Thomas

Grace isn't enough... wrote:hey evrybody i havent been posting here in a while and that is because i found this other secular "sub-forumn" as they call themselves. I was debating with this guy...

[My quote]The Bible also says God created time and was acting before time began This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)

The guy: Please don't quote anything from 2nd timothy and use it as authority, it is a forgery. Just trying to save you some time, before you embarrass yourself in the future quoting more of it.

The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)

Titus is also a confirmed forgery.

Can someone help me out with the exact nature of the problem? I know paul had used other names or something to that degree, and the doctrines line up with the theology...but if anybody else could provide something more concrete for me to combat this guy with that would be great thanks

Truly
Grace isn't enough[/quote]

Mike's information is pretty close.

Consider that these were Paul's last epistles. There is evidence he had eye problems. He was also in captivity. Many of Paul letters may have been dictated and the scribe taking the dictation in turn wrote and polished the letter. That accounts for some of the difference in style. An appeal to textual style is very tenuous at best. It does not prove anything except that the "style" or characteristics of one epistle differed from the other. Frankly, you could take writing I have done 5 - 10 years ago and do a stylistic analysis between it and what I write now and make a case that I didn't write both of them, even though I might be sitting there and affirming to you that I did indeed write both samples. Especially in a shorter epistle, this appeal to stylistic differences is a manufactured argument often used by liberal scholars to manufacture doubt and skepticism where they begin with an agenda to accomplish just that.

All sorts of things affect the style of a particular manuscript, including textual sources, if they are being utilized (not likely in most epistles), time taken to write, circumstances at the time of writing, direct writing or dictatated to a scribe, what the author has read recently and how that writing might affect him to mimic the style or include content etc. etc.

While Gnosticism was a greater infulence in the 2nd and third centuries in terms of proto-orthodox reaction to it, it certainly was present in shortly following Christ's crucifixion and further there are evidences in Johannine writings, which are generally accepted to have been in the later part of the first century and based on that, particularly in gentile cities, there is every reason to believe it was very early on recognized as a challenge to Christianity that needed to be addressed.

There can be no real debate when the other side does not accept the same authority. In this situation, your debater has grossly overstepped his sources in using words like "proved" etc

Pauline authoriship may be in question, however, claiming the matter to be beyond doubt is ridiculous. First, such a statement is a negative and the very nature of debate does not allow the proof of a negative. Second, the issue is inspiration, which the early Church gave recognition of both of these letters at a time much closer to the original than what we have now.

People who cannot accept ambiguity and concede some doubt to such a point are no longer debating from a desire to learn more. They have drawn conclusions they cannot support and their use of absolute terms in such a context are usually as much or more to convince themselves then to engage in any kind of meaningful debate.

hey thanks for all the information guys it's been a big help. I appericiate the digging this place is as much a sacnuary for me as a scriptual database.