Not hard at all. It took me one search to find this Article on St. Timothy (that also mentions St. Titus) in the Catholic Encyclopedia online. The sources and other information for the article are set forth at the end. I have copied and pasted them below for anyone who cannot (or does not want to) link directly to the above article:
Peace,
Lots of probables and maybes in those sources. Not strong enough for me.
For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-cotrolled, holding fast to the true message and taught so that he will be able to both exhort with sound doctrine and refute opponents.
“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the firstfruits of their labors, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.”
I do not accept your rejection of those sources out of hand, in the absence of contrary evidence. If you believe to the contrary regarding the status of St. Timothy and St. Titus, please provide your opposing evidence.
Still waiting… :compcoff:
Who kicked your dog? I’m sorry, I have four children under the age of 6 and a full time job to support them. I can’t troll the forum nonstop, nor do I answer to your time table.
Well, the Three Persons in One God is never called the “Trinity” in Scripture, either.
With all due respect, it is inappropriate to make such an assessment until you have read them. If you are not interested in learning about the history of our faith, why are you here?
This being the case, you may wish to reconsider dispensing of historical studies without exploring them. It seems that you are taking our responsibilities as a parent seriously, and that you are devoted to your family.
What bits of the Bible should be taken literally if not the conception and birth of Christ?
Do you have any evidence to show that it may be a mistranslation?
Given what we know of science, is it possible for a person butchered on a cross to come back to life? Is it possible for them to ascend into heaven body and soul?
How do we know that the crucifiction and ressurection naratives were not added to the Bible at a later date?
We wouldn’t expect you to believe in the virgin birth since, as a Unitarian, you deny the divinity of Christ and the Church dogma of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one God.
If Jesus isn’t divine, then Mary must have had relations with a man other than Joseph, and thus she would’ve committed adultery, having been betrothed to Joseph at the time she conceived our Lord. Joseph was prepared to divorce Mary quietly after she was found with child. He could only believe that his betrothed was unfaithful to him, until the angel Gabriel explained to him in a dream what had happened (Mt 1: 18-20). If Mary had in fact committed adultery, then the angel’s declaration *Hail, favored one! * would have made no sense. An adulteress couldn’t have found favor with God (Lk 1:28, 30).
The evangelist understood the true meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy in its given secondary fulfillment. No prophet is the interpreter of his own prophecy. In its primary fulfillment the word almah must be defined in the strict sense when reading 7, 14: a young woman. Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew and was well aware of the strict meaning of the word ‘almah’ and of its broader meaning: a young virgin who may be betrothed. He interpreted the scriptures in light of Apostolic Tradition. And what he wrote in Hebrew specifically meant “a young virgin” who was betrothed and brought Isaiah’s prophecy to its ultimate fulfillment.
The good news of the virgin birth had been proclaimed by the apostles and traditionally believed in by the faithful before the first gospel was written. Scripture comes from Tradition.
Honestly, there are very few things in the Bible that I take literally. I don’t really believe in miracles (though I don’t deny that they are possible). I do, however, take literally that in the Bible which is meant to be taken literally which is usually made obvious by the context and such. Even if I do take parts of the Bible literally though, I do not feel compelled to do everything that the Bible says to do. I realize that the Bible was written for a different culture and a different time. That said, the Bible does have some truths that are applicable even to this day such as “Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Who knows. It was likely Joseph since she was betrothed to him but it is also possible that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier or that she committed adultery. Personally, I choose to believe that she got pregnant by having marital relations with her betrothed, Joseph. She could have been stoned for committing adultery back then so I doubt she would have been willing to do such a thing.
I do not believe so. But then again, I don’t believe that Jesus was the son of God anyway. I believe that he was a good man but that he has had some sayings attributed to him that likely are not his own sayings (such as the “I and the Father are one.” statement). That said, I do not believe that Jesus is the son of God but that doesn’t mean that it is wrong to believe that he is the son of God.
Of course I don’t. How could I possibly have such proof?
I thought I explained in my first post why I disbelieve in the virgin birth. I am under no obligation to prove anything here. I was only stating my beliefs.Perhaps it isn’t a mistranslation. I really do not know for sure as I am not a Biblical scholar. However, I believe that some translations of the Bible have translated the prophecy in the Old Testament as saying young woman. Indeed, the Revised Standard Version, a version often used by Catholics translates the word in the prophecy as “young woman”:
It is entirely possible that 2000 years of Christianity and all the major denominations are wrong. Besides, it is entirely possible that the virgin birth (among other things) were taken from the Roman soldiers’ cult of Mithraism. To learn more about the similarities of “orthodox” Christianity and Mithraism, watch this Youtube video:
What exactly is sacred oral tradition? There are many early Christian writings and traditions. Why is it that only certain ones are accepted? Also, why is it that tradition must be right? People can get things wrong from time to time. Who is to say that the early Christians didn’t get this wrong? Who is to say that they weren’t somehow deceived by someone or something?
No, of course this is not possible with science. It is possible that a miracle happened and that Jesus did rise from the dead and that he did ascend in to heaven but it is rather unlikely as well.
Why don’t you answer your own question? It seems rather strange to ask a non-Christian who is skeptical of Christianity such a question don’t you think?
This is true. Nothing is impossible with God. However, don’t expect me to just suddenly believe in Christianity. I mean, don’t get me wrong, Christianity is a good religion and all for the most part but there are some things that simply make it very hard for me and others to believe.
If you don’t believe in miracles, then I find it hard to believe you believe in God.
Have no fear, we Christians aren’t required to be circumcized; nor do we follow the Judaic dietary prescriptions of Mosaic Law. We like our slab of bacon with eggs in the morning. 
If it were Joseph, then why did he want to divorce Mary quietly when he learned that she was with child? Moreover, Joseph was a “righteous man” so I doubt he violated Mosaic Law by having conjugal relations with his betrothed spouse (Mt 1:19). :newidea: Unitarianism is supposed to be grounded on purely rational thinking, but where there’s pure reason at the expense of faith there’s fallacy. Governed by your own set of principles, you have yet to demonstrate how belief in the virgin birth - or the event itself - is unreasonable.
Isaiah wasn’t aware of the full scope of his prophecy. In its primary context, the prophecy was partially fulfilled in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother at the time of Isaiah’s prophecy would have been a young, unmarried woman, possibly betrothed: (almah). Aware of the events surrounding the life of Christ (Sacred Tradition), and in acknowledgement of Christian beliefs, Matthew perceived a complete fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy in our Lord (God with us) and his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. The nativity of King Hezekiah was seen as a prefigurement of Christ’s.
Fair enough. Get back to me when you can.
Thank you. I have very limited time to do this sort of thing, and it can be days before I can reply.Fair enough. Get back to me when you can.
Peace,
Robert
P.S. - I didn’t mean to tick you off. I posted the “waiting” as a tickler not to imply that you were tardy, but because perhaps this was something that slipped off your radar. Sorry if I offended you. I’m just curious to know on what basis you reject the notion that Titus and Timothy were bishops appointed by an Apostle. Take all the time you need to gather your thoughts and respond. I’m not dictating a timetable for you - Because I have two young children of my own, and a busy professional practice, I can sympathize with the situation you described.
I thought Jesus had half brothers from his mother. No?
No. This notion has never been part of the deposit of faith. It is foreign to the sacred Tradition of the Church and finds no confirmation in the canon of Scripture.
Mary had no other children who would have been conceived in the slavery of sin, as Sarah had no other children after she gave birth to her firstborn and only son Issac who was born a free heir of promise. Ishmael was a son of Abraham and the son of Abraham’s concubine Hagar, a slave and the maidservant of Sarah, the free woman of promise. Jesus, the Only-begotten Son of the Father, and true heir of promise, was miraculously conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit who overshadowed Mary, the true free woman of promise, who was preserved free from the stain of original sin at the first instant of her conception, rendering her free from the slavery of sin. Like Sarah, Mary miraculously conceived and bore a firstborn and only son. Luke wrote his infancy narrative in light of the Old Testament drawing typologies, for instance, of Jesus and Mary with Isaac and Sarah.
