The Sacred Letters of Timothy..OT Law or NT epistles?

Mitspa · Mar 8, 2015

Well, I have not forced you to debate this issue...and the fact is if you didn't see some of the points I have made you would not have spent so much effort to try to argue against it. The Best you could do was make a argument from the New Testament as to why Timothy would not have needed the New Testament ...

The fact is that as these churches was established they had and shared New Testament doctrine in letters (that's well known) and in all reason, Timothy would have been brought up reading letters from the Apostles even Matthew and Mark, in fact its really rather silly to think he would not have.

JesusistheChrist · Mar 9, 2015

Mitspa said:

Actually, you're the one who is without understanding.

Matthew chapter 22

41] While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
[42] Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
[43] He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
[44] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
[45] If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
[46] And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

When David, IN SPIRIT, called his "son", the Messiah or the Christ, Lord...

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Psalm 110:1)

...what makes you think that the Same Spirit didn't give him understanding of the same? IOW, don't you think that David was calling the Messiah or Christ "Lord" knowingly?

Again, have you ever heard of the Holy Ghost?

He's the One Who reveals Christ to people and He revealed Him to the Old Testament saints.

Well, you'll miss the point somehow and just keep on speedily driving your antinomian bus downhill and into a wall eventually, but somebody will get it.

I'll be on the road all week for work, so I probably won't be posting until this weekend.

ChristInUs · Mar 9, 2015

Wow Mitspa how will you respond to this 12 round fight? This guy is clearly angered and ready to give a blow below the belt. Is this Christian or are we chopping off heads?

Mitspa · Mar 9, 2015

JesusistheChrist said:

Actually, you're the one who is without understanding.

Matthew chapter 22

41] While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
[42] Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
[43] He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
[44] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
[45] If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
[46] And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

When David, IN SPIRIT, called his "son", the Messiah or the Christ, Lord...

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Psalm 110:1)

...what makes you think that the Same Spirit didn't give him understanding of the same? IOW, don't you think that David was calling the Messiah or Christ "Lord" knowingly?

Again, have you ever heard of the Holy Ghost?

He's the One Who reveals Christ to people and He revealed Him to the Old Testament saints.

Well, you'll miss the point somehow and just keep on speedily driving your antinomian bus downhill and into a wall eventually, but somebody will get it.

I'll be on the road all week for work, so I probably won't be posting until this weekend.

So again you use the New Testament to reveal the Old Testament, which only makes my point, and Paul was not telling Timothy to depend on the Holy Spirit, he was telling him to trust his doctrine and the writings he had known from his youth.

So you have not made any point that I can see?

Mitspa · Mar 9, 2015

ChristInUs said:

I don't take things personally, I know I challenge some long held beliefs for some and they get very defensive when you start to challenge their accepted dogma...

As I heard a fellow say, if your not getting any flack, its because your not over the target....old pilot talk

royalscot · Mar 9, 2015

Mitspa said:

and to add to this.
Micah 7: Wait for the God of Salvation
God's Steadfast Love and Compassion
18 Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity
and passing over transgression
for the remnant of his inheritance?
He does not retain his anger forever,
because he delights in steadfast love.

and
Isaiah 49: The Servant of the LORD

6 he says:
"It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
to raise up the tribes of Jacob
and to bring back the preserved of Israel;
I will make you as a light for the nations,
that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth."

sparty-g · Mar 9, 2015

Thank you, Mitspa, for creating a separate thread on this topic. I would have jumped in sooner but I attended Sabbath service and then on Sunday a Purim celebration.

Personally, this thread has been very educational, particularly with respect to understanding why people believe what they do. Secondly, it's apparent there is not a whole lot we know about Timothy, his mother, or his grandmother.

One simple piece of very relevant information is when he was born, and we don't even know that. It's relevant to understanding which Scriptures he could have known as a child. Various interpreters and commentators understand the Greek here for "youth" to mean a very young age. It's only other usage in the NT refers to unborn children, newly born children, or infants.

So when was he born? The traditional date is 17 AD. Yes, it's from the apocryphal Acts of Timothy, but it's the earliest known record of an attempt to provide an exact date of his death and age at death, which gives us a year of birth. Though that source is certainly suspect, I don't know if I've seen a proposed date later than 25-30 AD. This certainly creates a wider gap in age between Timothy and Paul, who is thought to have been born between 5 BC and 5 AD.

These proposed dates are before the Messiah's ministry, making Timothy anywhere from 3 to 16 years old when He was crucified. The traditional date of the Jerusalem Council is 50 AD, which would make him 20 to 33 years old when the letter to the Gentiles went out, which would be a similar age to when Paul start writing the letters we have with us today. For him to have been raised on a multitude of Paul's letters since a very young age (let's say 5 to 10 years old), he would have needed to be born around 45-50 AD.

Does this seem like a reasonable date range? Or is it more reasonable that he was born much earlier? Consider in Acts 16 when Paul goes to Lystra and Timothy is already well spoken of among the brothers. Consider Paul's installation of him at Ephasus. We know he is young but how young?

sparty-g · Mar 9, 2015

Mitspa said:

I think the crux of some of the disagreement with you is how you define: which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. You are attempting to say that unless there is a "direct teaching" in the OT, for which you are creating the necessary definition to fit your personal beliefs (which seems to be an explicit reference of "Jesus Christ" by name or something very similar -- it might actually be better if you more clearly define "direct teaching"), then there is no way this statement is referring to the OT.

Why can't the statement simply mean something like, "informs someone of the need for salvation, that being through faith, or the need of a savior, that being Jesus the Messiah"? This seems to accord with many statements in the NT testament, some of which have already been presented. The Messiah says the OT testifies about Him, the apostles went to synagogues preaching and using the OT to prove Jesus is the Messiah, the Law points us to the Messiah and our need for Him, etc. The contention isn't these latter verses, so trying to find some other understanding of them isn't needed. The contention is your very narrow definition of the statement in Timothy above. Essentially, you've defined it in such a narrow way that it can only mean what you want it to imply: that Timothy must have been reading the NT Scriptures, or Paul couldn't have possibly made the statement.

Not that consensus opinion by humans matters, because it doesn't when it comes to Truth, but if you check Bible Hub, you will see that the majority of all commentators posit that the OT Scriptures are in view here. I make this statement merely as background information to demonstrate that many others see no problem with defining that statement above more generally in accordance with the understanding that the OT reveals the need for salvation and the person of the Messiah.

sparty-g · Mar 9, 2015

Moreover, I will humbly admit that you might be right in saying that the "Holy Scriptures / Sacred writings" referenced here may be whichever NT writings were available during Timothy's "youth," but this understanding includes many assumptions:

- That Timothy was born much later than traditionally believed, or that "youth" means later in life than most think when translating it as "infancy"
- That he would have had access to a multitude of these NT writings from his "youth" (if infancy is assumed, then this would be as provided through His mother and grandmother or other local believers)
- That he did not have access to hearing the OT Scriptures or lessons from them (this assumes he wasn't allowed in the synagogues in his uncircumcised state, and that the Jewish or other believers in his town never discussed these matters outside of the synagogue)
- That his grandmother and mother did not teach him the OT Scriptures (this assumes that, though his grandmother and mother were certainly raised in these Scriptures, they did not instruct Timothy in their household)

Again, many assumptions. Not all of them have to be true to meet the necessary conditions for your understanding of "Holy Scriptures / Sacred Writings," but many do, especially if you're trying to say this phrase does not include the OT Scriptures in any way. I personally don't think the available evidence bears this out, nor does it seem reasonable given what little information we do know or about which we can make an educated guess, but that's just my perspective.

The_highwayman · Mar 9, 2015

Mitspa said:

Isaiah 6.1-5

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. [SUP]2 [/SUP]Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

[SUP]4 [/SUP]And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.

The_highwayman · Mar 9, 2015

Mitspa said:

you not getting flack because you are over target , so don't break your arm patting yourself on the back...

you are getting flack because people are tolerating you.............

Mitspa · Mar 9, 2015

sparty-g said:

17 AD is a guess and not a good one...its likely that Paul didn't establish the churches there until about 44 AD and Timothy did not join him until years later, that would have made him well over 30 before he ever began to travel with Paul..not likely considering Paul yet calls him a youth in 1 Timothy. I think its a guess at best to use that date.

And of course to even use that book is not acceptable in my approach to the truth.

And if you translate the term as babe or youth it makes a difference...10 or younger would not be reading the scriptures or sacred writings but would be learning from others...which Paul may be referring to?

Mitspa · Mar 9, 2015

sparty-g said:

Salvation through Faith in Jesus is a New Testament truth that no man would have understood apart from direct New Testament teaching... They was being taught the gospel that Paul preached, and clearly it was a gospel apart from the works of the law...which we see the contention about what Paul taught to the Gentiles after his first trip to the Gentiles and then we also see letters being sent from the Apostles to these New Gentile converts...

Ac 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the

Mitspa · Mar 9, 2015

The_highwayman said:

Please stay on topic

GracethroughfaithinChrist · Mar 9, 2015

The_highwayman said:

Yeah right.......so do you have anything to add to this discussion that backs up what you state that the sacred letters spoken to Timothy by brother Paul refer to (OT or NT?) or just a pocket full of straw and finger pointing?

Mitspa · Mar 9, 2015

1Pe 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a babe thou hast known the sacred letters, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

I think I got it?...but I will take some time to pray about it...

Exact same word!

phil112 · Mar 9, 2015

Mitspa said:

Just so happens I read 2 Peter 3 this morning, which scripture I submit for your perusal.

He clearly said "us". He is making the statement that the new testament apostles were as important as the old testament prophets. That is very plain.

Here he goes on to indicate that the friction between him and Paul was gone, and he cautions us to heed Paul's words also. Very plain scripture.

phil112 · Mar 9, 2015

JesusistheChrist said:

That is an assumption that you cannot prove. Better to build doctrine on what the bible says, rather than what it doesn't say.

sparty-g · Mar 9, 2015

Mitspa said:

I don't know if I would say that 17 AD is a "not a good guess." Why do you think so? Is it only because Paul refers to Timothy as presently "young" in his letters to him? This could simply be young relative to others, as you said in your first post: Paul, the other disciples, the people in the community where he was teaching/leading, etc. I agree with you that Acts of Timothy is not inspired so we should not draw theological conclusion from it. But documents outside of Scripture are commonly used for historical data (such as dates) and as insight into what people have believed throughout history. But anyways, I agree with you that we can't assume 17 AD is true just because it's in this document. Like I said, I don't think I've seen any studies dating later than 25-30 AD. Here's why...

Please see this timeline of Paul's life:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/paul/timeline.cfm

Here's the practical problem I see: Either way you dice it, Paul's first trip to Lystra is just before the Jerusalem Council. You yourself said Acts 15 happens near the start of the establishment of the Gentile churches. Isn't Antioch before this the first known place where a Gentile community of believers was established? Paul picks up Timothy shortly after the Jerusalem Council. All this might be right about the time Galatians is written, but either way Timothy was already traveling with Paul before he wrote all of the canonized letters with the possible exception of maybe one. How was Timothy raised on NT letters when he was already traveling with Paul before Paul started writing the canonized letters, and also shortly after the first known Gentile churches were established and the first documented letter was written to Gentile churches?

Again, this all goes back to when we think he was born. 30 AD is a commonly cited date and this is probably the latest possible date. This would make him about 18 years old when Paul first visited Lystra and about 20 years old when Paul picked him up on his second visit. I find it very difficult to believe that Timothy was much younger than that. What mother is going to let someone take her 10 year old boy, for instance? Do you honestly believe he was this young while accompanying Paul on his early missions? Or being sent on solo missions shortly after that?

Timothy was just seems too old once the church was established in Lystra and he joined Paul a couple years later to have been raised on any NT writings. For those first 18 years or so of his life, reason stands that he would have been taught the Hebrew Scriptures by his mother and grandmother. If not, then he wasn't likely raised on any texts before the establishment of the Lystra church and joining Paul shortly after.

Anyways, I'd really like to see your proposed timeline. Here's an example of one starting with a 30 AD birth. Do you think it's off by many years? If not, that's a lot of childhood years without any NT texts.

30 Timothy born
(Acts 16:1; 2Tim. 1:5; 3:14-15)

47-48
Timothy, Lois and Eunice converted
(Acts 14:8-22; 2Tim. 3:10-12)

• Paul's first missionary journey
• Sees Paul (nearly) stoned to death in Lystra
• Timothy Baptised (1Tim. 6:12)
• Judaisers preach a “different gospel” – Galatians written

49
Timothy joins Paul on 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Journey
(Acts 16:1-3)

• Well reported of by local ecclesias.
• Prophecies about him given (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14; 2Tim. 1:6)
• Circumcised by Paul

50
Mission to Thessalonica
(Acts 17:5-15; 1Thess. 3:1-6)

• Timothy returns to centre of Macedonian persecution

51-52
Timothy with Paul in Corinth for 18 months
(Acts 18:5, 18-22; 1Thess. 1:1; 2Thess. 1:1)

• Returns from Macedonia with monetary gift (Acts 18:2-5; 2Cor. 11:8-9)
• Paul goes to Jerusalem. Timothy left behind?

52-55
Timothy goes to Corinth
(Acts 19; 1Cor 1:1; 4:15-17; 16:10-11; 2Cor. 1:1)

• Timothy with Paul in Ephesus for 3 years
• Sent to Corinth (and Macedonia too) (Acts 19:22)

56-57
Accompanies Paul to Macedonia and Greece, and Jerusalem
(Acts 20:1-6; Rom. 16:21)

60-62
With Paul in Rome and Philippian Mission
(Acts 28:16-31; Phil. 1:1; 2:19-23; Col. 1:1; Phm. 1:1)

63-64
Timothy's Ephesian Mission
(1Tim. 1:3; 3:14-15; 4:12-16; 6:20-21)

• Paul released, and revisits Asia Minor, Macedonia, Crete (1Tim.1:3; Tit. 1:5)

65
Timothy goes to Rome, Paul executed
(2Tim. 4:6, 9-21)

65?
Timothy imprisoned and released
(Heb. 13:23)

sparty-g · Mar 9, 2015

Mitspa said:

Now HERE you might have something. Not necessarily a real connection but probably the best one you've yet proposed. A good one to pray over.

The Sacred Letters of Timothy..OT Law or NT epistles?

Mitspa

Guest

JesusistheChrist

Guest

ChristInUs

Banned

Mitspa

Guest

Mitspa

Guest

royalscot

Banned

sparty-g

Guest

sparty-g

Guest

sparty-g

Guest

The_highwayman

Guest

The_highwayman

Guest

Mitspa

Guest

Mitspa

Guest

Mitspa

Guest

GracethroughfaithinChrist

Senior Member

Mitspa

Guest

phil112

Guest

phil112

Guest

sparty-g

Guest

sparty-g

Guest