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

[blue_ladybug]

*momentary derail*

To whoever it is that is lying about me and spreading rumors, you are quite mistaken in your information. I haven't spoken bad about anyone here, nor would I. Maybe you need to remember the commandment "thou shall not bear false witness." Shame on you. Your behavior is unchristian and I'm sure Jesus expects better of you. I hope you hang your head in shame when/ if you read this, for you have disappointed your Lord.

 

[The_highwayman]

*momentary derail*

To whoever it is that is lying about me and spreading rumors, you are quite mistaken in your information. I haven't spoken bad about anyone here, nor would I. Maybe you need to remember the commandment "thou shall not bear false witness." Shame on you. Your behavior is unchristian and I'm sure Jesus expects better of you. I hope you hang your head in shame when/ if you read this, for you have disappointed your Lord.

Interesting I am not alone....

 

[blue_ladybug]

Interesting I am not alone....

..........

 

[Mitspa]

*momentary derail*

To whoever it is that is lying about me and spreading rumors, you are quite mistaken in your information. I haven't spoken bad about anyone here, nor would I. Maybe you need to remember the commandment "thou shall not bear false witness." Shame on you. Your behavior is unchristian and I'm sure Jesus expects better of you. I hope you hang your head in shame when/ if you read this, for you have disappointed your Lord.

Maybe I ask you about the issue in the wrong way? I just heard they was a special thread about me today and you and 3 others posted on it, I don't think the person who told me was trying to bear false witness, but just mentioned those that was posted...maybe I assumed the worse and that's why I sent you a PM to ask you about it...I have seen you defend me before, for which I am thankful, so was a little surprised that you might have part in that kind of attack? I hope this issue would be forgotten, I don't get offended or hurt when folks attack me personally, it often helps make the point I am trying to present ... God bless you blue....try to just forget this if you will, In the Name of the Lord

 

[blue_ladybug]

Maybe I ask you about the issue in the wrong way? I just heard they was a special thread about me today and you and 3 others posted on it, I don't think the person who told me was trying to bear false witness, but just mentioned those that was posted...maybe I assumed the worse and that's why I sent you a PM to ask you about it...I have seen you defend me before, for which I am thankful, so was a little surprised that you might have part in that kind of attack? I hope this issue would be forgotten, I don't get offended or hurt when folks attack me personally, it often helps make the point I am trying to present ... God bless you blue....try to just forget this if you will, In the Name of the Lord

Mitspa, I don't know what thread it was, but as I told you, the only comment I made about you today was telling someone they misspelled your name. That doesn't constitute talking bad about you. I have more important things to focus on than someone who has way too much time on their hands, making stuff up. God bless..

 

[blue_ladybug]

*momentary derail*

To whoever it is that is lying about me and spreading rumors, you are quite mistaken in your information. I haven't spoken bad about anyone here, nor would I. Maybe you need to remember the commandment "thou shall not bear false witness." Shame on you. Your behavior is unchristian and I'm sure Jesus expects better of you. I hope you hang your head in shame when/ if you read this, for you have disappointed your Lord.

thanks for the rep comment on this post, phil.. I appreciate it..

 

[SoulWeaver]

Mitspa, I don't know what thread it was, but as I told you, the only comment I made about you today was telling someone they misspelled your name. That doesn't constitute talking bad about you. I have more important things to focus on than someone who has way too much time on their hands, making stuff up. God bless..

Blue's telling the truth. I've seen that comment.

 

[Mitspa]

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)

Actually there is only one place to establish a date for Paul and his actions, according to the known historical record...Felix and Festus have known dates they served in their positions.... and I have tried to calculate this issue for the last couple days, and nothing adds up if you take the word babe to mean literal "babe" if you the bible to translate this term in spiritual terms, Paul used the word to describe Timothys spiritual growth.... Which makes sense in context of the passage.

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.

 

[The_highwayman]

Maybe I ask you about the issue in the wrong way? I just heard they was a special thread about me today and you and 3 others posted on it, I don't think the person who told me was trying to bear false witness, but just mentioned those that was posted...maybe I assumed the worse and that's why I sent you a PM to ask you about it...I have seen you defend me before, for which I am thankful, so was a little surprised that you might have part in that kind of attack? I hope this issue would be forgotten, I don't get offended or hurt when folks attack me personally, it often helps make the point I am trying to present ... God bless you blue....try to just forget this if you will, In the Name of the Lord

I posted the "special thread" about you. It was not an attack...it was pointing out the obvious, that every topic you post is essentially the same thing...if you have that much energy and feel the need to consistently and constantly spread this doctrine then PM or blog it, but don't continue clogging up the forum the same topic different Bible verse and just argue to argue...

I take the infraction but someone got an admin involved...so someone, unlike you got hurt and offended....

Like I said, if this doctrine is this important to you...make it a blog, write articles and discuss, no worries, but give the rest of us a rest that got it and are good...

And to whoever got an admin involved good for you, that is your right to do. I even tried to delete it but time ran out....however, I think Mitspa is big enough to fight his own battles....

 

[phil112]

..........

 

[Mitspa]

I posted the "special thread" about you. It was not an attack...it was pointing out the obvious, that every topic you post is essentially the same thing...if you have that much energy and feel the need to consistently and constantly spread this doctrine then PM or blog it, but don't continue clogging up the forum the same topic different Bible verse and just argue to argue...

I take the infraction but someone got an admin involved...so someone, unlike you got hurt and offended....

Like I said, if this doctrine is this important to you...make it a blog, write articles and discuss, no worries, but give the rest of us a rest that got it and are good...

And to whoever got an admin involved good for you, that is your right to do. I even tried to delete it but time ran out....however, I think Mitspa is big enough to fight his own battles....

I was at work and I hope you can learn to discuss these issue without making personal attacks. What topics I decide to discuss should be of no concern to you and if I am wrong you can debate the issue according to scripture. If you right and Im wrong, folks will see the truth. No need to get so upset about things and be so rude to others.

 

[MarcR]

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the (sacred letters) holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

We know this letter to Timothy was Pauls last letter, he was in Rome at the time it was written. We know Timothy was a young man relative to most others. We know Timothys mother taught him Christ from the time of his youth. I believe its quite clear that these sacred letters are New Testament letters, and not the Old Testament law..

Mitspa,

the words ἱερὰ γράμματα translated holy scriptures are correctly translated. If sacred letters had been intended, ἁγίῳ ἐπιστολαὶ would have been used.

I appreciate your thinking on this thread; but linguistically it just doesn't work.

 

[MarcR]

Mitspa,

the words ἱερὰ γράμματα translated holy scriptures are correctly translated. If sacred letters had been intended, ἁγίῳ ἐπιστολαὶ would have been used.

I appreciate your thinking on this thread; but linguistically it just doesn't work.

ἁγίῳ ἐπιστολαὶ is not found in the NT because the writings of the NT were first regarded as Scripture in the second century.

 

[gotime]

wow first time I have ever heard anyone try and reason that the scriptures spoken of are new testament scriptures.

Simply can't be.

 

[oldhermit]

ἁγίῳ ἐπιστολαὶ is not found in the NT because the writings of the NT were first regarded as Scripture in the second century.

Peter called the writings of Paul scripture on the same par with OT scripture - γραφὰς.

 

[john832]

Interesting I am not alone....

I'm used to it.

 

[Mitspa]

Mitspa,

the words ἱερὰ γράμματα translated holy scriptures are correctly translated. If sacred letters had been intended, ἁγίῳ ἐπιστολαὶ would have been used.

I appreciate your thinking on this thread; but linguistically it just doesn't work.

No Marc, the much more accurate translation is sacred writings , even the usual term for holy is not used here. Also as Hermit points out Peter established Pauls epistles as scripture and that his epistles was well established as scripture.
I would also just make the point that I am a able student of the Greek and you have for some reason made a great error in your post. What you cannot do is find where this term used here in 2 Tim is ever translated "holy scriptures" in the New Testament.

 

[Mitspa]

ἁγίῳ ἐπιστολαὶ is not found in the NT because the writings of the NT were first regarded as Scripture in the second century.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[sparty-g]

Actually there is only one place to establish a date for Paul and his actions, according to the known historical record...Felix and Festus have known dates they served in their positions.... and I have tried to calculate this issue for the last couple days, and nothing adds up if you take the word babe to mean literal "babe" if you the bible to translate this term in spiritual terms, Paul used the word to describe Timothys spiritual growth.... Which makes sense in context of the passage.

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.

If you take the word "babe" to mean a literal babe, then it does not work with an understanding that the "sacred writings" were a reference to NT writings, but it works perfectly fine with an understanding that "sacred writings" refers to OT Scripture.

If you take the word "babe" to mean a spiritual babe, as you've posited here, then that appears to be the only way it works with an understanding that "sacred writings" refers to NT writings. This is the only case I have seen anyone else make when attempting to put forth the argument for NT writings.

This is the scenario, as you've posited, combined with most commonly accepted dates:

Timothy likely received the gospel message around the age of 18 when Paul first traveled to Lystra, or possibly at a younger age prior to Paul's travels. It can't be too much younger since the younger Timothy becomes, then the more "spiritual babe" begins to align with "physical babe," thus undermining your position. Paul picks up Timothy right around the age of 20 in still the early years of his missionary work and around the time he starts writing letters. Fast forward to the time when Paul is writing the 2 Tim. epistle. It's probably been about 15 years since Paul first picked up Timothy. Your case argues that Paul is referring to "sacred writings" as those which Timothy must have read and studied during his travels with Paul.

It's not unfeasible but also not for certain. The Greek here for "babe" is used for a literal babe in all other NT Scripture references. Even the 1 Peter 2:2 passage is likening the new believers to actual newborn babies, but I certainly understand the spiritual connection you are trying to make. According to BibleHub, the Greek for "sacred writings" is used by both Josephus and Philo in reference to the OT Scripture, so it's not unheard of that Paul's use of the phrase could refer to the OT Scripture.

The next challenge to your understanding of this passage is the very next verse, which is actually the original verse under examination in our other thread that led to this one being created. How do you argue that "All Scripture" in 2 Tim. 3:16 excludes the OT Scriptures? This Greek word for "Scripture" is the commonly used one throughout the NT, even Paul's other letters including the first letter to Timothy, to refer to the OT. I don't think there is a single use of it in the NT that doesn't explicitly refer to the OT Scriptures. If Paul means the NT writings in 3:15, as you posit, then why would he revert back to the most common word referring to the OT Scriptures in 3:16 if he did not intend to at least include the OT Scriptures in his message about reproof, correction, etc.? Why didn't he simply repeat the Greek for "sacred writings" if he was referring to NT writings only?

 

[MarcR]

No Marc, the much more accurate translation is sacred writings , even the usual term for holy is not used here. Also as Hermit points out Peter established Pauls epistles as scripture and that his epistles was well established as scripture.
I would also just make the point that I am a able student of the Greek and you have for some reason made a great error in your post. What you cannot do is find where this term used here in 2 Tim is ever translated "holy scriptures" in the New Testament.

I can accept sacred writings as indeed more accurate but still no mention of letters.

I can see how you can draw that conclusion from Peter's statement. I have always read it differently; but that doesn't prove you wrong I concede you can legitimately regard Paul's writings as scripture that way. I'm still not persuaded but I will defend it as a possible reading.