re: The "Church" of England

quote:

---

That this wasn’t some one-sided affair.

---

You’re right. I wonder if the Prots 500 years ago knew that their actions would lead to women "Priests", openly embracing homosexuality in their places of worship, the defamation of the Mother of God, and ignoring clear instructions from the Gospels (including from the Sola Scripture bros) if they would have fought in the wars of religion.

Martin Luther didn't want a new Church, he wanted to reform it. Entire denominations not in Communion with the Vicar of Christ was not Luther's goal.

quote:

---

On the other hand, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are all concerned about second century church issues, using grammar and vocabulary very different to Paul’s genuine letters, and these three flat out contradict Paul’s genuine letters. I didn’t figure this out. It is the scholarly consensus. Now, I’m careful not to make the argument from authority, but I’ve read scholarly works on the subject matter and to me, the evidence is convincing.

---

It’s amazing how often you treat modern speculation like settled fact, all while ignoring the obvious early evidence. You keep acting like the latest scholarly theories outweigh centuries of early testimony, and presenting them as fact is starting to feel like a broken record. I’ve got to admit, it’s really getting kind of exhausting.

Let’s start with the external evidence.
By the early second century AD, Polycarp of Smyrna clearly knows material from 1 Timothy in his Epistle to the Philippians. That puts the letter in circulation within a generation of Paul’s death (c. AD 64–67). That’s not late, that’s early.

From there, it’s unanimous. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all attribute it to Paul. It shows up in every early canon that includes the Pastorals. No competing authorship. No ancient controversy. Doubt doesn’t show up until the 19th century AD. You can’t just wave that away.

The timeline is a problem for your view, not mine.
Echoes in First Clement (c. AD 95) and Ignatius of Antioch mean this material was already circulating near the end of the first century AD. So a “forgery” would have to be written, spread, and universally accepted across the church almost immediately, with ZERO PUSHBACK. That’s not how forged texts behave.

The internal evidence fits Paul just fine.
It explicitly names Paul and is full of incidental, personal details that line up naturally with Acts and his undisputed letters, classic undesigned coincidences. The theology is Pauline. The stylistic differences are easily explained by context and the use of a secretary (which Paul explicitly did). And the vague references to false teachers read like real-life context, not something a later writer invented.

Paul’s instructions about women must be read contextually.
1 Timothy limits teaching in a specific local setting, and 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 similarly instructs women to be silent in the assembly, addressing disruptions in worship. These situational restrictions reflect temporary corrective measures, not universal prohibitions or evidence against Pauline authorship.

Your position requires a forged letter to achieve instant, universal acceptance with no historical trace of dispute. The simpler explanation is the obvious one: it’s Pauline. We also have to remember that we don’t know 100% of the context these letters are addressing, which is why debates exist over issues like women in ministry.

quote:

---

So what's your point?

---

His point is, Christians have never hesitated to kill other Christians over doctrinal differences.

There were even Christian vs Christan crusades.

quote:

---

I wouldn't call the Albigensians "Christian" considering their beliefs were recycled from the Gnostic heresy of the second century. They believed in two gods (a "good" and an "evil" god), rejected all matter as evil, denied the Incarnation, denied the bodily resurrection, and rejected the sacraments of baptism, communion, and marriage. That doesn't mean they deserved death but calling them Christian is a very big stretch.

---

Fourth Crusade - Christians from western Europe vs the Byzantine Empire.

None of this will matter once Sharia law kicks in.

quote:

---

Everything wrong with the Church of England in one photograph.

---

Ah, 'hey Episcopal Church here in the Colonies', they are catching up. Didn't thing it was possible... but Church of England is making it a competition.

PS - Also the reason I left the Episcopal church here over a quarter of a century ago (wow)... And I was 20 years late.

quote:

---

How can you say that? When he says he does not permit (a) woman to teach, he doesn’t use an article “the” nor does he name any names of individuals. It’s very obvious he’s taking in very general terms. I honestly do not think you have read 1 Timothy Chapter 2.

---

Because Paul uses the present active indicative epitrepo with the negative ouk, i.e., "I am not allowing."

The use of epitrepo in the Septuagint is almost always related to a specific and limited situation rather than a universal one.

There is no "command" in 1 Timothy 2:12 within the Greek. The word order indicates that Paul is speaking cautiously here.

If, for example, a prominent woman or group of women had been causing problems, and this was meant to be read aloud, it might infer that they would have gotten the message diplomatically.

I don't know for certain, and neither do you. Hence why I said I don't think this is obvious.

quote:

---

His point is, Christians have never hesitated to kill other Christians over doctrinal differences.

There were even Christian vs Christan crusades.

---

It's very sad.

I found it very interesting when I learned that King Henry 8th even executed some fellow Protestants who refused to follow Church of England doctrine to the letter!

Ridiculous.

OP looks like a Monty Python skit