Who was Heli?

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
He/she does it all the time. I don't think he/she is making it up but has a source. He/she should quote the source along with the arguments the source uses to support claims against the traditional church view of authorship. It's odd that the sources are not directly offered as support instead of pure speculation.

Obviously John wrote the gospel that bears his name. Nobody with any discernment could read his main epistle and not recognize by its style that its the same author as the gospel.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Obviously John wrote the gospel that bears his name. Nobody with any discernment could read his main epistle and not recognize by its style that its the same author as the gospel.
The introduction to the gospel of John in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, has as its final determination of the author "Today most scholars think that Johannine traditions stem from an unidentified follower of Jesus, not one of the twelve disciples" and dates it 90-100 ce.
I'm going to stay with the apostle John of Zebedee, which is the traditional church view. I would need more information than the short 2 paragraphs provide regarding authorship.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
It's not obvious to Bart Ehrman.


Maybe @The Pixie is a paid subscriber of his blog.

First of all, even if I found out that it was written by Mary Magdalene it would not impact my faith in the slightest, so there's no "gotcha" possibility for Pixie on that account. Nevertheless,

Compare the style of the gospel with that of the epistle here:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness,
and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.


4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

The similarity in style is obvious. And notice the emphasis on light. And look specifically at what the writer of the epistle says in bold. That is someone personally acquainted with Jesus of Nazareth, in the flesh. It's John. And Pixie never explains the motive for the early church's supposed deception as to authorship.
 

Lucian

Active member
Another poster said: "Jesus was begotten not adopted. As a Christian I am adopted by God through Christ."

I responded: "Bear in mind what Paul said of Onesimus
Philemon 1:10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains,
To Paul at least, "begotten" could include adopted."

My point being that the Bible saying Jesus was God's begotten son does not tell us the author did not believe God adopted Jesus, given the term "begotten" is also used in one instance where it clearly means the guy was not the biological offspring.

The verse Philemon 1:10 proves that begotten is not used exclusively to show a "biological" parent-child relationship.
Okay, so you were presumably wrong to suggest that Paul was referring to adoption in Philemon, as we've seen.

As for your argument beyond that, it's not very compelling: you're taking an adjective used by one author (you don't specify who, referring vaguely, and oddly, to 'the Bible saying') and trying to draw inferences about its Christological implications by making a (rather bland) observation, albeit incorrect in the details, about the lexical range of a verb used by another author. This is pretty much worthless, to be frank, and smacks of skim-reading in English in order to reason from conclusion to evidence, rather than the preferable reverse procedure.

My tardiness in understanding your argument resulted partly, I think, from the fact that I hadn't been expecting you to argue something so flawed.
You said before: "He doesn’t call him his ‘begotten son’, but says that he begot him." I asked you to clarify, and you have yet to do so.
What's there to clarify? You said that Paul calls Onesimus his begotten son; he doesn't.
 
Last edited:

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Sorry, I just assumed, and should not.
No worries. I'm not offended.
I read it as replacing it.
Do we end up with the same result? or do you end up with a dead body and a new body?
Agreed. Quite different to what the gospels describe.
I don't see any difference between the resurrected Jesus in the gospels and the resurrected Jesus that Paul saw on the Damascus Road.
What do you see as the difference?
That is what Paul describes.
And what the gospels also describe.

I'm a dualist. I believe a human is composed of a material body and an immaterial soul/spirit. When Jesus died on the cross, his spirit left his body. The same thing happens to us. Those who have died in Christ are waiting in the afterlife for their new, resurrected spiritual bodies. I don't know if this makes any difference to our discussion about the resurrection. Luke 23:46 2 Cor 5:1-10
That the spiritual body is different to the original. Jesus could leave his original body like a discarded coat, as he was resurrected in a different body.
Ahh, I see where we disagree. Jesus' original body was changed just like Paul wrote in 1 Cor 15:1-52 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Look, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

When that change happens, the resurrection, those who are alive will be changed. They will not leave behind a dead body and go to the meet the Lord in a new immortal body. Their mortal bodies will be changed to become immortal. That is what happened to Jesus since his body was still in the tomb. His body in the tomb was resurrected to an imperishable body, never to die again.
So being resurrected does not imply an empty tomb.
Yes, it did for Jesus. I don't know how you can read the NT and come away with what you propose.
The Jewish version was that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, the new king of the Jews, a man of the seed of David, appointed by god, and Jesus was raised in a spiritual body, as described in Dan 12.
The prophecy in Daniel 12:1-4 hasn't been fulfilled yet. It will be fulfilled in part when Jesus returns and then completely fulfilled when Satan and his army is destroyed. Revelation 20
The gentile version was that Jesus was born divine, the product of a virgin birth, and was raised in his original body.
That is what the gospel's witness and the OT prophecies. There is no Jewish and Gentile version. It's one gospel.

I'm going to stop here. Your next point with the scriptures you presented will take me more time to answer than I currently have.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Okay, so you were presumably wrong to suggest that Paul was referring to adoption in Philemon, as we've seen.
Not in a legal sense, but certainly adopted in some sense.

As for your argument beyond that, it's not very compelling: you're taking an adjective used by one author (you don't specify who, referring vaguely, and oddly, to 'the Bible saying') and trying to draw inferences about its Christological implications by making a (rather bland) observation, albeit incorrect in the details, about the lexical range of a verb used by another author.
It is a comment about how a word was used. Further, I am not saying it is always used to mean one thing, but that sometimes it is used to mean one thing, therefore we cannot assume it always means another. My position is quite different to how you present it here.

This is pretty much worthless, to be frank, and smacks of skim-reading in English in order to reason from conclusion to evidence, rather than the preferable reverse procedure.
Opinion noted.

What's there to clarify? You said that Paul calls Onesimus his begotten son; he doesn't.
You could state what you think the verse does mean. But I guess you would have to get down off your high horse to do that.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
First of all, even if I found out that it was written by Mary Magdalene it would not impact my faith in the slightest, so there's no "gotcha" possibility for Pixie on that account. Nevertheless,
And yet you will argue and argue and argue that actually it was John, which somewhat undermines this claim/

Compare the style of the gospel with that of the epistle here:
...
The similarity in style is obvious. And notice the emphasis on light. And look specifically at what the writer of the epistle says in bold. That is someone personally acquainted with Jesus of Nazareth, in the flesh. It's John. And Pixie never explains the motive for the early church's supposed deception as to authorship.
It is fairly well established that it is the same author; I will not argue that. But that that guy was the disciple John is pretty dubious.

There are plenty of works that claim of be authored by people Jesus knew. This is called pseudepigrapha, and some less contentious examples include the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Judas. The author of 1 John wanted his letter to have theological clout, so he pretended to have been there to see Jesus. It is as simple as that.

From here:

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.
...
If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Do we end up with the same result? or do you end up with a dead body and a new body?
That is the key question. We certainly cannot assume that was not also a dead body, and therefore resurrection does not imply an empty tomb.

I don't see any difference between the resurrected Jesus in the gospels and the resurrected Jesus that Paul saw on the Damascus Road.
What do you see as the difference?
What Paul saw was a bright light, a new body shining like a star. What the gospels describe the disciples seeing was a corpse brought back to life. That seems like a huge difference to me. I do not think Paul could have examined Jesus hands to see the crucifixion wounds, for example.

I'm a dualist. I believe a human is composed of a material body and an immaterial soul/spirit. When Jesus died on the cross, his spirit left his body. The same thing happens to us. Those who have died in Christ are waiting in the afterlife for their new, resurrected spiritual bodies. I don't know if this makes any difference to our discussion about the resurrection. Luke 23:46 2 Cor 5:1-10
That is a bit of a surprise - but it is what Paul describes.

Ahh, I see where we disagree. Jesus' original body was changed just like Paul wrote in 1 Cor 15:1-52 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Look, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

When that change happens, the resurrection, those who are alive will be changed. They will not leave behind a dead body and go to the meet the Lord in a new immortal body. Their mortal bodies will be changed to become immortal. That is what happened to Jesus since his body was still in the tomb. His body in the tomb was resurrected to an imperishable body, never to die again.

Yes, it did for Jesus. I don't know how you can read the NT and come away with what you propose.
I do not understand your comments here. How are you interpreting 1 Cor 15? I understand verse 51 to be talking about those are are still alive at the last trump - they will be changed, so they too have spiritual bodies.

The prophecy in Daniel 12:1-4 hasn't been fulfilled yet. It will be fulfilled in part when Jesus returns and then completely fulfilled when Satan and his army is destroyed. Revelation 20
Agreed, but Paul believed Jesus' resurrection was of the same nature as the resurrection described in Dan 12, so Dan 12 gives us an idea of what Paul believed happened to Jesus.

That is what the gospel's witness and the OT prophecies. There is no Jewish and Gentile version. It's one gospel.
But there were competing interpretations of the gospel, different understandings of who Jesus was. Considerable more than just the two I was discussing, in fact.

I'm going to stop here. Your next point with the scriptures you presented will take me more time to answer than I currently have.
No problem.

I addressed the authorship of John in the post above to stiggy, by the way. If you do feel I am not supporting my views at any point, do say. I engage in these discussions with different people with different beliefs, and sometime I just assume a point is not contentious (and no I am not a paid subscriber of Ehrman; there are plenty of other Biblical scholars with similar views).
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
And yet you will argue and argue and argue that actually it was John, which somewhat undermines this claim.

That's a pretty amazing comment coming from an ATHEIST who will argue and argue and argue that John was NOT written by John. At least I believe the contents of the gospel. You don't. So your arguing is much more inexplicable.

It is fairly well established that it is the same author; I will not argue that. But that that guy was the disciple John is pretty dubious.

And you care WHY? Would you go on a Shakespeare discussion board and harass lovers of "Hamlet" because YOU think the play was written by Christopher Marlowe?

There are plenty of works that claim of be authored by people Jesus knew. This is called pseudepigrapha, and some less contentious examples include the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Judas.

And yet none were providentially canonized. I believe there is a divine reason for that.
The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.
...
If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.

Oooh, looky there. You know how to selectively google stuff that supports your bias. Hey, I can do that too. Check this out:


And while you're desperately searching the internet for support, try to find someone who can explain why the early church supposedly lied about the authorship, since you are apparently not up for the task.
 
Last edited:

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Are you seriously asking me what makes me certain that my faith would not be negatively impacted if I found out that John did not write John? Or did I misunderstand your question?
I'm not questioning your faith. I'm glad to know that you are stedfast in your faith. Many Christians aren't steadfast and I'm curious as to why not? I'm sure of my faith in God and Jesus as well for a number of reasons. I was wondering what your reasons are that keep you secure in what you believe.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
I'm not questioning your faith. I'm glad to know that you are stedfast in your faith. Many Christians aren't steadfast and I'm curious as to why not? I'm sure of my faith in God and Jesus as well for a number of reasons. I was wondering what your reasons are that keep you secure in what you believe.

There are so many things. I FEEL His presence daily. Scripture makes complete sense to me. It's as though my intellect has been baptized with truth. Christ has answered so many of my prayers on behalf of my loved ones that I would be a fool not to recognize divine intervention. He has delivered me from drug addiction and lust. But most of all, the darkness that once overwhelmed me has been replaced by a Light that floods my soul and shines on every thing in the world that I observe and think about. I understand the Atonement without being able to explain it, and I rejoice in its efficacy. Once I rejoiced over the faith He imparted to me to truly believe Romans 8:28, for example. Lately He has been revealing to me that it is much better to trust Him than just trust verses about Him, though He has been gracious in allowing the former. But most of all I thank Him for His amazing grace in forgiving me for the selfish, hedonistic and wasted life which I lived before He revealed His reality to me. I say I thank Him. Some day I know I'll be able to praise Him too.

Sorry, I got a little carried away there. But to answer your question more directly: My certitude about the truth of the gospel message regarding Christ's resurrection is as solid as my certitude regarding my own existence. I can't say the same thing about secondary Christian doctrines, such as "are tongues for today.". And I cannot get a swelled head about my certitude, remembering as I do that "the devil believes and trembles."
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
There are so many things. I FEEL His presence daily. Scripture makes complete sense to me. It's as though my intellect has been baptized with truth. Christ has answered so many of my prayers on behalf of my loved ones that I would be a fool not to recognize divine intervention. He has delivered me from drug addiction and lust. But most of all, the darkness that once overwhelmed me has been replaced by a Light that floods my soul and shines on every thing in the world that I observe and think about. I understand the Atonement without being able to explain it, and I rejoice in its efficacy. Once I rejoiced over the faith He imparted to me to truly believe Romans 8:28, for example. Lately He has been revealing to me that it is much better to trust Him than just trust verses about Him, though He has been gracious in allowing the former. But most of all I thank Him for His amazing grace in forgiving me for the selfish, hedonistic and wasted life which I lived before He revealed His reality to me. I say I thank Him. Some day I know I'll be able to praise Him too.

Sorry, I got a little carried away there. But to answer your question more directly: My certitude about the truth of the gospel message regarding Christ's resurrection is as solid as my certitude regarding my own existence. I can't say the same thing about secondary Christian doctrines, such as "are tongues for today.". And I cannot get a swelled head about my certitude, remembering as I do that "the devil believes and trembles."
Thank you. I enjoyed reading all of it. I'm on a lunch break so I don't have time go into detail.

My certitude has to do with experiences of his presence, answered prayers, gifts of the Spirit, fighting with real demons, reading the Bible convicted me to the point of repentance, and a completely transformed lifestyle. I couldn't deny the existence of God if I wanted to and I don't want to. :)
 

Lucian

Active member
Not in a legal sense, but certainly adopted in some sense.
In what sense? What evidence is there of this, especially in view of the considerations I laid out earlier?
It is a comment about how a word was used. Further, I am not saying it is always used to mean one thing, but that sometimes it is used to mean one thing, therefore we cannot assume it always means another. My position is quite different to how you present it here.
This is little more than waffling. If I’ve misrepresented your position, tell me how.
Opinion noted.
An opinion noted, but, alas, not internalised.
You could state what you think the verse does mean. But I guess you would have to get down off your high horse to do that.
What high horse? Do you mean rather that I’ve interrogated what you’ve said?

I’ve already told you what I think Philemon 1:10 means, in the context of our discussion.
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
In what sense? What evidence is there of this, especially in view of the considerations I laid out earlier?

This is little more than waffling. If I’ve misrepresented your position, tell me how.

An opinion noted, but, alas, not internalised.

What high horse? Do you mean rather that I’ve interrogated what you’ve said?

I’ve already told you what I think Philemon 1:10 means, in the context of our discussion.
I asked you to say how you interpret Philemon 1:10. You have chosen not to. You claim to have done this elsewhere, but frankly I do not believe that, and I note you qualify the claim with "in the context of our discussion". In the course of our discussion I have repeatedly asked you questions, and you repeatedly ignore them. As far as I can see this is just you doing your best to jerk me around.

If you want to play games, you can go play with yourself. I am not interested.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
And you care WHY? Would you go on a Shakespeare discussion board and harass lovers of "Hamlet" because YOU think the play was written by Christopher Marlowe?
Because Hamlet is a work of fiction, and so the authorship does not impact the truth.

If John was really the author of the gospel, that would be a great reason to think that it was all true. If John was not; if it was written by unknown Christians between AD 90 and AD 120, up to ninety years after the events it purports to record, that makes those events considerably less likely to be true.

And yet none were providentially canonized. I believe there is a divine reason for that.
Not sure I would call it divine. The author of John was more convincing and what he wrote better aligned with what the mainstream church was promoting.

Oooh, looky there. You know how to selectively google stuff that supports your bias. Hey, I can do that too. Check this out:

Fact is that most Biblical scholars reject John as the author.


How about you address the fact that the author thought Christians were banned from synagogues when Jesus was still alive.

John 9:22 His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.

The reality is that Christians were not banned until about AD 90. How could an eye-witness get that wrong?

Mark indicates John was martyred before that gospel was written.

Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. ‘Teacher,’ they said, ‘we want you to do for us whatever we ask.’
36 ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ he asked.
37 They replied, ‘Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.’
38 ‘You don’t know what you are asking,’ Jesus said. ‘Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptised with the baptism I am baptised with?’
39 ‘We can,’ they answered.
Jesus said to them, ‘You will drink the cup I drink and be baptised with the baptism I am baptised with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.’

If John is the "beloved disciple", why does John 21 not use that phrase about him?

John 21:1 Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Galilee. It happened this way: 2 Simon Peter, Thomas (also known as Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together.

How come the disciple Jesus loved, the supposed author, does not appear until chapter 13? The other gospels tell us John joined Jesus ministry right at the start.

And while you're desperately searching the internet for support, try to find someone who can explain why the early church supposedly lied about the authorship, since you are apparently not up for the task.
And yet I addressed just that in my last post. If your faith makes you pretend something is not so, the problem is with your religion, stiggy.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Because Hamlet is a work of fiction, and so the authorship does not impact the truth.

HILARIOUS. Looks like you forgot that you are an atheist. YOU think the gospels are a work of fiction, so therefore the authorship should not matter to YOU. So why are you spending so much time arguing with me, a believer, who doesn't give a damn who authored it?


If John was really the author of the gospel, that would be a great reason to think that it was all true.

Nonsense. Its truth or lack thereof is not impacted in the least by whose name is attached to it. Are you seriously claiming that if it were known as "Leroy's Theory of Relativity," E might not = MC squared?

Fact is that most Biblical scholars reject John as the author.

I'm just as much a "Biblical scholar" and I say John wrote John.

How about you address the fact that the author thought Christians were banned from synagogues when Jesus was still alive.

John 9:22 His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.

The reality is that Christians were not banned until about AD 90.

Ridiculous. There were no Christians until the morning of Pentecost AFTER Jesus' death and resurrection. Looks like YOU'RE definitely not a "Biblical scholar."

How could an eye-witness get that wrong?

Get what wrong? You screwed up in thinking Christians were around when Jesus was alive. Christians are those who believe in Jesus' resurrection. How could there be any Christians BEFORE He rose from the dead?


Mark indicates John was martyred before that gospel was written.

Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. ‘Teacher,’ they said, ‘we want you to do for us whatever we ask.’
36 ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ he asked.
37 They replied, ‘Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.’
38 ‘You don’t know what you are asking,’ Jesus said. ‘Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptised with the baptism I am baptised with?’
39 ‘We can,’ they answered.
Jesus said to them, ‘You will drink the cup I drink and be baptised with the baptism I am baptised with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.’

If John is the "beloved disciple", why does John 21 not use that phrase about him?

John 21:1 Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Galilee. It happened this way: 2 Simon Peter, Thomas (also known as Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together.

Man, that is WEAK! So weak that I can make no sense out of your attempt at logic. First of all, you don't even attempt to show us where the phrase "beloved disciple" occurs, most likely because you know it is completely irrelevant to the other scripture you slapped up on the screen. Secondly, you put up something from Mark as though it proves John was martyred before the gospel that bears his name was authored, and don't even bother to offer an explanation of how it does, most likely because you know it doesn't. And thirdly, you make the absurd implication that if a phrase is used to describe someone, it must therefore be used EVERY TIME that someone is mentioned.

"Hmm, that biographer sometimes used the phrase PRESIDENT Lincoln and sometimes just Lincoln. Duh, he must be talking about two different people."

I've seen some anemic arguments from you, but this one expressed above takes the cake.

How come the disciple Jesus loved, the supposed author, does not appear until chapter 13?

BECAUSE JOHN DIDN'T MENTION HIMSELF UNTIL THEN! Sheeeesh! Look, you have got to stop this nonsense of thinking the "absence of the mention of X proves the non-existence of X." You do this all the time and it's as annoying as it is stupid.
 

Lucian

Active member
I asked you to say how you interpret Philemon 1:10. You have chosen not to. You claim to have done this elsewhere, but frankly I do not believe that, and I note you qualify the claim with "in the context of our discussion".
You say I’ve chosen not to, and yet here is the very interpretation you claim to be unable to find (remarkably, given you recently responded to it!):

“I don't see any evidence that Paul adopted Onesimus as his son, at least in the sense which you seem to have in mind. This seems to be a florid way of Paul saying that he converted Onesimus (now his 'brother', v. 16, like Philemon himself) while he was in prison. Similar language is used of Timothy elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, and most telling is something like 1 Corinthians 4:14f:

14I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children (
τέκνα). 15For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father (ἐγέννησα) through the gospel. (NASB)

These are the same terms as used in verse 10 of Philemon.”

As for my qualification, what is objectionable to offering you an interpretation that is on topic, as opposed to random and unrelated?
In the course of our discussion I have repeatedly asked you questions, and you repeatedly ignore them. As far as I can see this is just you doing your best to jerk me around.

If you want to play games, you can go play with yourself. I am not interested.
I’ve done no such thing, as we’ve just seen.

Incredibly, you make these complaints having yourself studiously ignored your fair share of questions. And you say I’m the one ‘play[ing] games’!
 
Top