The writers of post-biblical church history, the faction that eventually became the Catholic Church, didn't consider Timothy to be that big a deal, he wasn't one of the twelve apostles, hence, few if any legends or speculation about his life. You don't hear anything about Barnabas, Silas, Agabus, etc, but there are legends galore about Thomas, Philip, etc. Many early churches claim to have been founded by one of the twelve
Too bad? He was a faithful minister who carried the Gospel to our ancestors.
Persecution is a given as a Christian, evangelists and missionaries are martyred every day around the world. While we get in a huff if the ACLU wants to move a Nativity scene.
Let's take an informal poll, an electronic show of hands if you will. How many of us have read 'A Christmas Carol' by Charles Dickens? Great, quite a few of us have. And how many have seen any number of stage, screen or television adaptations of said story? More of you, of course! Well, retain memory of one major character and one minor character from 'A Christmas Carol' (namely Uncle Ebenezer and Tiny Tim), add several decades to the story, and add liberal doses of thriller, mystery and pulp and you'll get 'Mr. Timothy' by Louis Bayard.
'Mr. Timothy' follows the exploits of an independent 23-year-old man making his way through 1860s London. The independent man named Timothy Cratchit is no longer Tiny Tim but stands 5'8” tall while still displaying a slight limp, a reminder of a cured childhood condition.
"Persecution is a given as a Christian, evangelists and missionaries are martyred every day around the world. While we get in a huff if the ACLU wants to move a Nativity scene"
Persecution is a given in any religion, Def. They've all ben persecuted at some point or another, many still are to this day - others will be in the future.
Persecution will continue as long as WE continue to put more emphasis on the differences and ignore the likenesses. It will continue as long as WE continue to allow the few fanatics to be seen as representatives as the whole, when in fact they do not represent the whole.
Most people on this earth, be they Jews, Christians, Muslems, Hindu's, or athiests simply want to live a peaceful life with their families and loved ones. We want a roof over our heads and sufficient food, along with some good health.
We seek to give back as we know we have been given too and as much as possible to leave a mark on this world that is a blessing instead of a cursing.
Regardless of the names used, the gods are but one and religion but a reflection of our own strengths and weaknesses.
Timothy - honouring God, a young disciple who was Paul's companion in many of his journeyings. His mother, Eunice, and his grandmother, Lois, are mentioned as eminent for their piety (2 Tim. 1:5). We know nothing of his father but that he was a Greek (Acts 16:1). He is first brought into notice at the time of Paul's second visit to Lystra (16:2), where he probably resided, and where it seems he was converted during Paul's first visit to that place (1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 3:11). The apostle having formed a high opinion of his "own son in the faith," arranged that he should become his companion (Acts 16:3), and took and circumcised him, so that he might conciliate the Jews. He was designated to the office of an evangelist (1 Tim. 4:14), and went with Paul in his journey through Phrygia, Galatia, and Mysia; also to Troas and Philippi and Berea (Acts 17:14). Thence he followed Paul to Athens, and was sent by him with Silas on a mission to Thessalonica (17:15; 1 Thess. 3:2). We next find him at Corinth (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1) with Paul. He passes now out of sight for a few years, and is again noticed as with the apostle at Ephesus (Acts 19:22), whence he is sent on a mission into Macedonia. He accompanied Paul afterwards into Asia (20:4), where he was with him for some time. When the apostle was a prisoner at Rome, Timothy joined him (Phil. 1:1), where it appears he also suffered imprisonment (Heb. 13:23). During the apostle's second imprisonment he wrote to Timothy, asking him to rejoin him as soon as possible, and to bring with him certain things which he had left at Troas, his cloak and parchments (2 Tim. 4:13). According to tradition, after the apostle's death he settled in Ephesus as his sphere of labour, and there found a martyr's grave.
Interestingly enough, I had read something years ago (unfortunately I cannot recall the book or its author) wherein the writer considered the unsettling thought that "the Church of Ephesus" chastised in "Revelation" for being so "luke-warm" was headed by Timothy at the time, being an indication of Timothy's
failure in that regard...
Since the work of P.N Harrison, the "Pastoral Epistles" addressed to Timothy and Titus are generally regarded by many NT scholars as pseudonymous fictions. Paul didn't write them. I would date them to about 150 A.D., being that they deal primarily with circumstances arising in the mid-second century.
This is an interesting topic. I was just studying some verses in Timothy last weekend.
I think the content of I and II Timothy muddlies the waters about the traditional Church teaching about Peter being the "first Pope" and Jesus' appointed successor.
The question that came to my mind is, if Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Church and appointed him to lead in his absence, why did Paul take it upon himself to appoint a leader to follow him? Did Peter transfer his spiritual authority to Paul, or did Paul just assume it along with his apostleship?
Did Peter visit Paul and somehow cede that authority to him? Was there a rift in the church, as Dave Anderson has postulated that left Paul in charge of one faction and Peter (or James) in charge of the other?
I know, that's not one question, it's three of four, but once I get started....
I think a rift in the church was as likely as anything else.
As a new faith, with no enforcement apparatus, what would keep groups or individuals with varying doctrines from splitting off from each other?
Look at what we know: Biblically, Paul laments that virtually everybody has abandoned him; there is evidently a difference of opinion about who has godly authority between James and whoever else is with him in Jerusalem versus Paul and those he has ordained/appointed out in the gentile areas. Peter seems to be the leader at the start, but hits the road after a while.
There doesn't seem to be a completely unified central governing body. There does seem to be one group attempting to set up an "organization" and Paul and other attempting to set up a "system" whereas the good news is propagated.
What we know historically is that when Constantine the Great gave his approval to Christianity, "the church" was a loose collection of semi-independent and far-flung entities, despite the Catholic conceit that all was one unified, universal church, with an unbroken line of popes from Peter onward.
It was not until the councils attempted to enforce uniformity in doctrine that some sets of beliefs came to be classed as "heresy".
They never did. Christianity was fragmented from earliest times. Why not during bibliacl times as well?
There are some interesting articles on the subject of "Peter vs. Paul" at
The Journal of Higher Criticism as well as questions concerning the Pastoral epistles (i.e., "Schleiermacher’s Dormant Discovery" by R. Price). Detering's "The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles" is also well worth checking out.
"After St. Paul's martyrdom, Timothy settled in Ephesus with the Apostle John. He became Bishop there when John was exiled to Patmos. During a pagan feast called Katagogium the crowd mercilessly attacked and killed this holy man. He was 93. His relics were later taken to Constantinople and buried next to St. Luke and St. Andrew the First-Called."
also from:http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/St_Timothy.htm
" Timothy made his way to Ephesus were he was established as bishop of the city. A frenzied mob of resentful pagans whom he denounced stoned him to death. St Timothy died a martyr for Christ on January 22 AD 72."
Generally that's the view held by many theologians and historians, that he died as a martyr (like the rest...)
I think a rift in the church was as likely as anything else.
As a new faith, with no enforcement apparatus, what would keep groups or individuals with varying doctrines from splitting off from each other?
Look at what we know: Biblically, Paul laments that virtually everybody has abandoned him; there is evidently a difference of opinion about who has godly authority between James and whoever else is with him in Jerusalem versus Paul and those he has ordained/appointed out in the gentile areas. Peter seems to be the leader at the start, but hits the road after a while.
There doesn't seem to be a completely unified central governing body. There does seem to be one group attempting to set up an "organization" and Paul and other attempting to set up a "system" whereas the good news is propagated.
What we know historically is that when Constantine the Great gave his approval to Christianity, "the church" was a loose collection of semi-independent and far-flung entities, despite the Catholic conceit that all was one unified, universal church, with an unbroken line of popes from Peter onward.
It was not until the councils attempted to enforce uniformity in doctrine that some sets of beliefs came to be classed as "heresy".
They never did. Christianity was fragmented from earliest times. Why not during bibliacl times as well?
There were many pre-Constantine councils convened to discuss heresies. The church wasn't as fragmented as it was more of a confederation rather than a monolith.
This is part of the reaon I began thinking about this again.
Acts 20:
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
I just wonder how Timothy fit into all of this.
I wouldn't say that we were exactly wallowing in truth before the death of Doc Vic, but look at the infighting, factions and strife that occured not much after. All this power jockying over the reigns of a little second rate cult..
I can only imagine what happened in the first century. Just kind of intriguing, besides a few words, you don't hear much more about Timothy.
But with the fighting within and without, it could not have been very pleasant.
Yeah def, you're right about pre-Constantine councils, but it was when the power of the state backed up the words of the church that a charge of heresy became something other than name calling.
Your use of confederation, as opposed to fragmentation, is closer to what I meant, thanks for serving as my personal thesaurus ;)--> - difference of opinion was tolerated, not necessarily because they liked it, but because there wasn't anything that could be done about it.
Even after Constantine, expulsion of heretics, and supression of heretical sects was only effective in areas controlled by Rome. The "Church of the East", sometimes called the Nestorians, operated inependently of Rome & Constantinople; the Copts, the Armenians, and the Monophysites all went their separate ways as well, since they were outside the sphere of governmental control.
I would think from the verse you posted, that there was already a lot of disputing in and among the Christians of Pauls time. He probably knew that it was the respect that people had for him that sort of kept things together. We already know that in his absense, things got way off. Just look at all the doctrine, reproof and correction going on in the epistles. It makes you wonder what Christianity was realy like in the 1st century outside of the epistles.
"...Timothy, who was the celebrated disciple of the Apostle Paul and overseer of the Church in Ephesus until A.D. 97. In that year, the Ephesian pagans were celebrating a feast called "Catagogion." When Timothy saw their pagan procession, he blocked their way and severely rebuked them for their idolatry. His holy boldness angered the pagans and they attacked him with clubs and beat him so badly that he died of his injuries two days later."
If [Timothy] did not die before the year 97, we can hardly doubt but that he must be the Angel of the church of Ephesus, to whom John writes in his Revelation: though the reproaches with which he seems to load him for his instability in having left his first love, do not seem to agree to so holy a man as Timothy was.
Then the writer goes on to reason that "so holy a man" as Timothy, the leader of this church, must not be to blame for its downturn, but "members" of his church, apparently for their lack of believing or something (lol). Sounds rather familiar.
Why can we "hardly doubt" that Timothy is the angel of the Church of Ephesus? I don't see any basis for such an assumption.
quote:
Then the writer goes on to reason that "so holy a man" as Timothy, the leader of this church, must not be to blame for its downturn, but "members" of his church, apparently for their lack of believing or something (lol). Sounds rather familiar.
Too true Danny. While history concludes that many in the first century Church abondoned the Apostles' doctrine, we mustn't criticize the great names of the Bible. Those guys were all perfect dontcha know.
Recommended Posts
Oakspear
The writers of post-biblical church history, the faction that eventually became the Catholic Church, didn't consider Timothy to be that big a deal, he wasn't one of the twelve apostles, hence, few if any legends or speculation about his life. You don't hear anything about Barnabas, Silas, Agabus, etc, but there are legends galore about Thomas, Philip, etc. Many early churches claim to have been founded by one of the twelve
http://www.tntt.org/vni/tlieu/saints/St0126.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14727b.htm
TWI taught that Timothy was the successor to Paul as leader of the church
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
as it should be
in other words people want
to glorify in men rather then in God
too bad Paul was considered a big deal
he may not have had to go through what he did
i think there's a lot of pauls and timothys
around that are right in front of us
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Too bad? He was a faithful minister who carried the Gospel to our ancestors.
Persecution is a given as a Christian, evangelists and missionaries are martyred every day around the world. While we get in a huff if the ACLU wants to move a Nativity scene.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
So that's what happened to him!
Oh, you meant...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
I mean the whippings and beatings and stoning Def. If you can't see that then you are ignorant. Damn idiot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Do you know why Paul got the whippings and beatings and stoning and prison?
Because HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO OTHERS.
My bet is he learned this and taught to Timothy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
oh ****!
i think cm just chopped def's ear off!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Yeah maybe...
or opened em up hopefully...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"Persecution is a given as a Christian, evangelists and missionaries are martyred every day around the world. While we get in a huff if the ACLU wants to move a Nativity scene"
Persecution is a given in any religion, Def. They've all ben persecuted at some point or another, many still are to this day - others will be in the future.
Persecution will continue as long as WE continue to put more emphasis on the differences and ignore the likenesses. It will continue as long as WE continue to allow the few fanatics to be seen as representatives as the whole, when in fact they do not represent the whole.
Most people on this earth, be they Jews, Christians, Muslems, Hindu's, or athiests simply want to live a peaceful life with their families and loved ones. We want a roof over our heads and sufficient food, along with some good health.
We seek to give back as we know we have been given too and as much as possible to leave a mark on this world that is a blessing instead of a cursing.
Regardless of the names used, the gods are but one and religion but a reflection of our own strengths and weaknesses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Whatever became of Timothy?
I came across the following info from the "Eastman's Bible Dictionary" online:
Interestingly enough, I had read something years ago (unfortunately I cannot recall the book or its author) wherein the writer considered the unsettling thought that "the Church of Ephesus" chastised in "Revelation" for being so "luke-warm" was headed by Timothy at the time, being an indication of Timothy's
failure in that regard...
Since the work of P.N Harrison, the "Pastoral Epistles" addressed to Timothy and Titus are generally regarded by many NT scholars as pseudonymous fictions. Paul didn't write them. I would date them to about 150 A.D., being that they deal primarily with circumstances arising in the mid-second century.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
I hope you are still around Def59.
Didn't want to run you off.
Sorry if I hit ya too hard...
Yes, Paul was a faithful minister who
carried the Gospel. I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
well....def....
i should have just said you misread my post..
if you are reading this, i'll leave you with this
God is no respector of persons
all will go through hell
all will go to heaven
and the Lord will hold each one of us
all the way through both
and He won't let go till it's done
each in our own time
bury yourself in His Love
His arms, His bosum, His face
you'll need it
it'll be you and the Lord
noone else
till you are one with Christ
and we all are going to be a little surprised
at what hell and heaven are.....
for me i must reset my bearings now
maybe we'll chat sometime....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
This is an interesting topic. I was just studying some verses in Timothy last weekend.
I think the content of I and II Timothy muddlies the waters about the traditional Church teaching about Peter being the "first Pope" and Jesus' appointed successor.
The question that came to my mind is, if Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Church and appointed him to lead in his absence, why did Paul take it upon himself to appoint a leader to follow him? Did Peter transfer his spiritual authority to Paul, or did Paul just assume it along with his apostleship?
Did Peter visit Paul and somehow cede that authority to him? Was there a rift in the church, as Dave Anderson has postulated that left Paul in charge of one faction and Peter (or James) in charge of the other?
I know, that's not one question, it's three of four, but once I get started....
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I think a rift in the church was as likely as anything else.
As a new faith, with no enforcement apparatus, what would keep groups or individuals with varying doctrines from splitting off from each other?
Look at what we know: Biblically, Paul laments that virtually everybody has abandoned him; there is evidently a difference of opinion about who has godly authority between James and whoever else is with him in Jerusalem versus Paul and those he has ordained/appointed out in the gentile areas. Peter seems to be the leader at the start, but hits the road after a while.
There doesn't seem to be a completely unified central governing body. There does seem to be one group attempting to set up an "organization" and Paul and other attempting to set up a "system" whereas the good news is propagated.
What we know historically is that when Constantine the Great gave his approval to Christianity, "the church" was a loose collection of semi-independent and far-flung entities, despite the Catholic conceit that all was one unified, universal church, with an unbroken line of popes from Peter onward.
It was not until the councils attempted to enforce uniformity in doctrine that some sets of beliefs came to be classed as "heresy".
They never did. Christianity was fragmented from earliest times. Why not during bibliacl times as well?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
There are some interesting articles on the subject of "Peter vs. Paul" at
The Journal of Higher Criticism as well as questions concerning the Pastoral epistles (i.e., "Schleiermacher’s Dormant Discovery" by R. Price). Detering's "The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles" is also well worth checking out.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ekfrasi
I copy from:
http://www.comeandseeicons.com/inp122.htm
"After St. Paul's martyrdom, Timothy settled in Ephesus with the Apostle John. He became Bishop there when John was exiled to Patmos. During a pagan feast called Katagogium the crowd mercilessly attacked and killed this holy man. He was 93. His relics were later taken to Constantinople and buried next to St. Luke and St. Andrew the First-Called."
also from:http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/St_Timothy.htm
" Timothy made his way to Ephesus were he was established as bishop of the city. A frenzied mob of resentful pagans whom he denounced stoned him to death. St Timothy died a martyr for Christ on January 22 AD 72."
Generally that's the view held by many theologians and historians, that he died as a martyr (like the rest...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
There were many pre-Constantine councils convened to discuss heresies. The church wasn't as fragmented as it was more of a confederation rather than a monolith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
This is part of the reaon I began thinking about this again.
Acts 20:
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
I just wonder how Timothy fit into all of this.
I wouldn't say that we were exactly wallowing in truth before the death of Doc Vic, but look at the infighting, factions and strife that occured not much after. All this power jockying over the reigns of a little second rate cult..
I can only imagine what happened in the first century. Just kind of intriguing, besides a few words, you don't hear much more about Timothy.
But with the fighting within and without, it could not have been very pleasant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Yeah def, you're right about pre-Constantine councils, but it was when the power of the state backed up the words of the church that a charge of heresy became something other than name calling.
Your use of confederation, as opposed to fragmentation, is closer to what I meant, thanks for serving as my personal thesaurus
;)--> - difference of opinion was tolerated, not necessarily because they liked it, but because there wasn't anything that could be done about it.
Even after Constantine, expulsion of heretics, and supression of heretical sects was only effective in areas controlled by Rome. The "Church of the East", sometimes called the Nestorians, operated inependently of Rome & Constantinople; the Copts, the Armenians, and the Monophysites all went their separate ways as well, since they were outside the sphere of governmental control.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Well, Hammer
I would think from the verse you posted, that there was already a lot of disputing in and among the Christians of Pauls time. He probably knew that it was the respect that people had for him that sort of kept things together. We already know that in his absense, things got way off. Just look at all the doctrine, reproof and correction going on in the epistles. It makes you wonder what Christianity was realy like in the 1st century outside of the epistles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Thanks Dan. I'll add it to my readling list.
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
moony3424
According to "The New Foxe's Book of Martyrs"
Quote:
"...Timothy, who was the celebrated disciple of the Apostle Paul and overseer of the Church in Ephesus until A.D. 97. In that year, the Ephesian pagans were celebrating a feast called "Catagogion." When Timothy saw their pagan procession, he blocked their way and severely rebuked them for their idolatry. His holy boldness angered the pagans and they attacked him with clubs and beat him so badly that he died of his injuries two days later."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
From "The Life of Christ" by Rev.John Fleetwood,
(1869), p.605:
Then the writer goes on to reason that "so holy a man" as Timothy, the leader of this church, must not be to blame for its downturn, but "members" of his church, apparently for their lack of believing or something (lol). Sounds rather familiar.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Why can we "hardly doubt" that Timothy is the angel of the Church of Ephesus? I don't see any basis for such an assumption.
Too true Danny. While history concludes that many in the first century Church abondoned the Apostles' doctrine, we mustn't criticize the great names of the Bible. Those guys were all perfect dontcha know.
Cynical Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.