Hi all. Hi Timothy.

Let's continue to leisurely explore this interesting and important subject. All truth comes from the Almighty and his Son. Therefore we are always eager to learn new things. Or to see confirmation of the old.

Timothy, can you further clarify your position? In other NT letters, 1 Peter and Phillipians for example, mention is made of leadership of some sort. Are these legitimate, spirit-inspired documents in your estimation?

True enough, most modern scholars and museum curators reject these letters as not from Paul and of a later date. However, it must be said that most modern scholars reject the idea of inspiration as well. Even the supernatural altogether, frequently. I sometimes wonder what motivates most modern scholars to teach others and to write books about a God which really cannot be known or even exists.

With regard to the word which was slipped into 1 Timothy 6:11, I need further assistance. Looking at all these translations, new and old, it does not appear to me that the forger successfully, enduringly introduced hierarchy or pagan practices into the scriptures or the church. I would have expected at least from the Catholic translations to have highlighted it. Since they are so keen on a priest controlled, priest dictated church life - beginning, middle and end.

If there were in these letters a clear passage about a regional bishop or a guy who had the sole right to speak and to preside at the Lord's table - that would be very suspicious to me.

Can you reference another source (book or website) where the early church was changed by the insertion of this particular word and verse (eusebia in 1 Timothy 6:11)? And as being the basis of something huge, previously unknown? Yes, we realize that many of the historians and church fathers were biased and occasionally way off the mark.

In Timothy as well as Acts, I see elder appointment. So, I have difficulty rejecting 1 Timothy on the basis that teaches a new kind of church government with professional priestly churchmen at the top. This, of course, is just one of many challenges brought against the so-called pastoral letters.

Let me add that one of the house church movement's most prolific writers and influencers, Robert Banks, who has written scholarly books on the subject since the early 90's also refers to "Paul's undisputed letters". So, yours is not to be regarded a silly opinion. Not at all.

The question is whether the alleged negative evidence overcomes the alleged positive evidence.

Let us prove all things. Hold to that which is good.