The Bishop of Ephesus

[Bob Hope]

It is irrelevant.



No assumption just logic and reason. Paul not only told him to preach but there were other duties that Paul told him to be faithful to that are those duties which are that of a pastor, as I have already laid out.



Hardly? It is much more than hardly.



Which is very likely since he and any audience already knew who he was. However, Paul's instructions on his duties to be faithful to make his role as pastor very clear.

LOL, no need to respond to such a inferior quality post. It's this kind of ignorant answer that drives people away from God and not to Him.

 

[Revmitchell]

LOL, no need to respond to such a inferior quality post. It's this kind of ignorant answer that drives people away from God and not to Him.

Is that all you got?

 

[Bob Hope]

Is that all you got?

I make my best attempt at Matthew 7:6

 

[DHK]

And what of the book written by Hippolytus? You skip addressing it and instead go after the blog because he uses assumptions as you have done.

You have made an assumption that just because Paul said that Tim should preach that it makes him a bishop. That's hardly proof. No where in the bible does anyone refer to Tim as a pastor or bishop. Yet Paul makes it clear that all Asia had turned against him. We have by Paul's own hand a written account that he had issues with these two men Phygellus and Hermogenes, which Hippolytus confirms were at Ephesus. This is consistent with Paul's issues with the churches in Asia.

1. Where does it say that all Asia turned against Timothy in particular.
2. Even if all the world did turn against Timothy, that would be nothing more than a compliment. Did you know that everyone of the Apostles were martyred for their faith except for the Apostle John who was eventually exiled. There is good evidence in the ECF writings that after John's exile he returned to Ephesus and there settled as the pastor living out his last days. Does that fit into your scheme of things?
3. The Book of Hippolytus is a book. It has no more authority than books written by Hans Christian Anderson. Perhaps the latter has greater authority for at least we know that he lived. The book you refer to was written by a man, is not inspired, contains mistakes, etc.
4. The book I quote is inspired by God, preserved by the Holy Spirit, and is our only authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. Its authority is over and above all the books that you could stack together in one pile. It has the greatest authority of all. If you can't refute it, each and every verse, your arguments are not worth listening to.
5. You are simply putting the philosophies and vain imaginations of man as more important than God's Word and that is shameful.

 

[Bob Hope]

1. Where does it say that all Asia turned against Timothy in particular.
2. Even if all the world did turn against Timothy, that would be nothing more than a compliment. Did you know that everyone of the Apostles were martyred for their faith except for the Apostle John who was eventually exiled. There is good evidence in the ECF writings that after John's exile he returned to Ephesus and there settled as the pastor living out his last days. Does that fit into your scheme of things?
3. The Book of Hippolytus is a book. It has no more authority than books written by Hans Christian Anderson. Perhaps the latter has greater authority for at least we know that he lived. The book you refer to was written by a man, is not inspired, contains mistakes, etc.
4. The book I quote is inspired by God, preserved by the Holy Spirit, and is our only authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. Its authority is over and above all the books that you could stack together in one pile. It has the greatest authority of all. If you can't refute it, each and every verse, your arguments are not worth listening to.
5. You are simply putting the philosophies and vain imaginations of man as more important than God's Word and that is shameful.

Paul said Asia was against him, not Tim. Not sure what purpose Hippolytus had in lying about who was bishop at which church...Also, there is no record of Paul's martyr. Unless it says Tim was the bishop then you are simply speculating. My position puts no scripture in doubt. I fail to see how your verses prove Tim was anything more than a brother. If Tim had been the bishop Paul would have made mention of it specifically.

 

[DHK]

Paul said Asia was against him, not Tim. Not sure what purpose Hippolytus had in lying about who was bishop at which church...Also, there is no record of Paul's martyr. Unless it says Tim was the bishop then you are simply speculating. My position puts no scripture in doubt. I fail to see how your verses prove Tim was anything more than a brother. If Tim had been the bishop Paul would have made mention of it specifically.

All sources have their agendas. RCC historians have revised history according to their own agenda.
I am not sure what bias or what color of eye-glass the book you refer is looking through. No doubt it is not completely objective. It has a purpose for being written.

Here is what Smith writes, from the Smith Bible Dictionary:

He (Timothy) must have joined the apostle, however, apparently soon after his arrival at Rome, and was with him when the Epistles to the Philippians, to the Colossians and to Philemon were written. Phi_1:1; Phi_2:19; Col_1:1; Phm_1:1. All the indications of this period, point to incessant missionary activity. From the two Epistles addressed to Timothy, we are able to put together a few notices as to his later from 1Ti_1:3, that he and his master, after the release of the latter, from his imprisonment, A.D. 63, revisited proconsular Asia; that the apostle , then continued his Journey to Macedonia, while the disciple remained, half reluctantly, even weeping at the separation, 2Ti_1:4, at Ephesus, to check, if possible, the outgrowth of heresy and licentiousness which had sprung up there.
The position in which he found himself might well make him anxious. He used to rule presbyters, most of whom were older than himself 1Ti_4:12. Leaders of rival sects were there. The name of his beloved teacher was no longer honored as it had been. We cannot wonder that the apostle, knowing these trials should be full of anxiety and fear for his disciple's steadfastness. In the Second Epistle to him, A.D. 67 or 68, this deep personal feeling utters itself yet more fully.
The last recorded words of the apostle express the earnest hope, repented yet more earnestly, that he might see him once again. 2Ti_4:9; 2Ti_4:21. We may hazard the conjecture that, he reached him in time, and that the last hours of the teacher were soothed, by the presence of the disciple, whom he loved so truly. Some writers have seen in Heb_13:23, an indication that he even shared St. Paul's imprisonment, and was released from i, t by the death of Nero.
Beyond this, all is apocryphal and uncertain. He continued, according to the old traditions, to act as bishop of Ephesus, and died a martyr's death, under Domitian or Nerva. A somewhat startling theory as to the intervening period of his life has found favor with some. If he continued, according to the received tradition, to be bishop of Ephesus, then he, and no other, must have been the "angel" of the church of Ephesus, to whom the message of Rev_2:1-7 was addressed.

There is no reason not to believe the above account in that it accords with Scripture.

 

[Bob Hope]

All sources have their agendas. RCC historians have revised history according to their own agenda.
I am not sure what bias or what color of eye-glass the book you refer is looking through. No doubt it is not completely objective. It has a purpose for being written.

Here is what Smith writes, from the Smith Bible Dictionary:

He (Timothy) must have joined the apostle, however, apparently soon after his arrival at Rome, and was with him when the Epistles to the Philippians, to the Colossians and to Philemon were written. Phi_1:1; Phi_2:19; Col_1:1; Phm_1:1. All the indications of this period, point to incessant missionary activity. From the two Epistles addressed to Timothy, we are able to put together a few notices as to his later from 1Ti_1:3, that he and his master, after the release of the latter, from his imprisonment, A.D. 63, revisited proconsular Asia; that the apostle , then continued his Journey to Macedonia, while the disciple remained, half reluctantly, even weeping at the separation, 2Ti_1:4, at Ephesus, to check, if possible, the outgrowth of heresy and licentiousness which had sprung up there.
The position in which he found himself might well make him anxious. He used to rule presbyters, most of whom were older than himself 1Ti_4:12. Leaders of rival sects were there. The name of his beloved teacher was no longer honored as it had been. We cannot wonder that the apostle, knowing these trials should be full of anxiety and fear for his disciple's steadfastness. In the Second Epistle to him, A.D. 67 or 68, this deep personal feeling utters itself yet more fully.
The last recorded words of the apostle express the earnest hope, repented yet more earnestly, that he might see him once again. 2Ti_4:9; 2Ti_4:21. We may hazard the conjecture that, he reached him in time, and that the last hours of the teacher were soothed, by the presence of the disciple, whom he loved so truly. Some writers have seen in Heb_13:23, an indication that he even shared St. Paul's imprisonment, and was released from i, t by the death of Nero.
Beyond this, all is apocryphal and uncertain. He continued, according to the old traditions, to act as bishop of Ephesus, and died a martyr's death, under Domitian or Nerva. A somewhat startling theory as to the intervening period of his life has found favor with some. If he continued, according to the received tradition, to be bishop of Ephesus, then he, and no other, must have been the "angel" of the church of Ephesus, to whom the message of Rev_2:1-7 was addressed.

There is no reason not to believe the above account in that it accords with Scripture.

So let's recap some of Smiths key words...

"Apparently"
"All indications"
"Hazard the conjecture"
"Some writers"

Then he finishes this guess work with "beyond this, all is apocryphal and uncertain."

Looks like his entire writing is uncertain.

 

[DHK]

So let's recap some of Smiths key words...

"Apparently"
"All indications"
"Hazard the conjecture"
"Some writers"

Then he finishes this guess work with "beyond this, all is apocryphal and uncertain."

Looks like his entire writing is uncertain.

And you are certain and very dogmatic about unwritten history?
He is very careful about the way things are expressed for good reason. You should be too.
Remember that the book of Hippolytus is a fallible book written by sinful men and prone to many errors.