This table is a general summary of the style. There are exceptions to any rule. The contrast in general is more important than specific examples that do not follow the rules.

When writing a forged prequel, one could use many of the same words or phrases (e.g., in the introduction or ending) and change a few selected words.

1. From the time of Aristotle (and before) through the time of the Early Church Fathers (and beyond), writing a work anonymously and attributing it to someone else who was more well known was not unusual.

2. A sequel is a work that follows the original work. Many sequels do not live up to the expectations of the original work.

3. A prequel is a that is written to precede the original work. The Star Wars episodes are a famous example of prequels.

In writing such a forgery, it is easier to write a prequel rather than a sequel. One can use the original and include a few desired things (rules, policies). A sequel would require intimate knowledge of events after the original.

More: Paul's opening lines to the churches and pastors

This claim of a "commandment" to "me" seems to be a bold claim.

The ancient Greek word "τίκτω" ≈ "beget, give birth, bear, produce" and is related to "τέκτων" ≈ "builder, carpenter, craftsman" and "τέχνη" ≈ "craft, skill, trade" and is the source of the English word "technical" and the first part of "technology".

More: Paul's opening lines to the churches and pastors

• The "no other (different) doctrine" does not clearly specify the "doctrine".

Is commanding or charging someone not to teach something making oneself God? Is this in line with the conflict resolution protocol given by Jesus in Matthew 18?

Might it be better to point out which parts of what is taught are not appropriate and why?

More: Matthew 18:15-17 Conflicting and faulty resolutions

At the start of Paul's letter to the Galatians, Paul is clear about the Gospel, who taught it, and any other (different) Gospel.

• Likewise, the general "myths" and "endless genealogies" is not very specific.

The ancient Greek word "μῦθος" ≈ "speech, story" with the idea that what is said or told is more false than true. There is no consensus as to the origin of this word.

The verse says that they "minister questions". Does not the truth also "minister questions"? That something brings up questions is not a deciding factor.

The ancient Greek word "ἀπέραντος" ≈ "vast, endless, boundless".

The Greek word for "geneologies" is used only in (disputed) 1 Timothy (once), Titus (once), with a similar word used in (disputed) Hebrews.

The Greek translated as "questions" is that of "asks" (in the "ask", "seek", "knock" sequence) which can be abstract "questions" or "asks" for concrete things.

The Greek for "strivings" as that of "battles".

How does one know to avoid a question without knowing what the question is?

• Do you not want people to ask questions?
• Are you assuming that such a question is (automatically) a stupid question.

The wording is not clear as to how to make the distinction.

The Greek translated as "end" is that of "purpose" where the English "end" has multiple meanings, one of which is "purpose".

The Greek translated as "commandment" is that of an "announcement" as in the Good News.

The Greek word translated as "unfeigned" is that of "not acting" where the Greek word for "acting" is translated as "hypocrite" which today, has a different meaning.

What is the difference in the following? (black box model)

☐ Doing something with a "pure heart", "good conscience", or "faith" "un-acted".
☐ Doing something because Jesus wants you to do it.



More: An actor as a hypocrite is not real

• The Greek translated as "swerved" is that of, literally, "not on target" or "missing the mark".
• The Greek translated as "turned aside" is used three times in 1 Timothy, one time in 2 Timothy, and once in Hebrews.

The author is bold to drop the name of "Satan" many times.

The name "Satan", from the Hebrew (and Greek), has the meaning of the "accuser". Here, Paul is playing the role of an "accuser".

To which "law" does this refer?

This verse implicitly affirms the "law". But which "law"?

• Do they not understand what they say?
• Does Paul not understand what they say?
• Do they not know what they affirm?
• Does Paul not know what they affirm?

Why would such certain statements be made of what appears to be nebulous ideas?

A field such as described would be computer science. Many (especially smaller) colleges and universities have computer science departments. Very few of these professors have a computer science degree. And even fewer have actual real world experience in the field (as in having been paid a lot of money to do what they are teaching). Those faculty desire to be teachers of the field since that field pays a lot more money than the field in which they hold their degrees (for some of those fields, they would not be able to get a job on the outside).

To which "law" does this refer?

☐ Is man's law "good"? Did Jesus have this view?
☐ Is God's law "good"? Did Jesus have this view?

To use the "law" "lawfully" is a reflexive reference which results in a "fixed point".

This is continued in the next verse.

More: Reflexive relationships in the Bible

To what "righteousness" does this verse refer?

☐ man's righteousness
☐ God's righteousness

Is it true that that there is no need for "law" if everyone were "godly"?

The list provided appears to be that of a "straw man" which can then be knocked down to prove a point.

The list is continued. This is a rather long and specific list.

The Greek word for "glory" is that of "opinion". Over time it acquired the meaning in line with how most people define "glory" today. The only other place where the "gospel" or "Good News" is called "glorious" is in 2 Corinthians 4:4.

There are very few places where the Greek word for "happy" is used to describe God. This Greek word for "happy" did, over time, change meaning to that of what would be called "blessed". This is the only place I can find this combination. It is common to have people described as "happy" but not God.

Paul is saying that this "Good News" was committed to "his trust". Is there not anyone else (e.g., the other apostles who walked and talked with Jesus) to which this "Good News" was committed?

In context, the "glorious" "gospel" is the "opinion" of Christ. This becomes obvious at the start of the next verse.

This is not clear from context (there is none) in 1 Timothy 1:11. Such a statement should require some explicit context.

Discuss:

☐ Does this verse "glorify" "ministry" as in the leadership of the church?
☐ Does this verse "glorify" "ministry" with respect to the goal of reaching those who need the Good News?

The Greek word translated "injurious" is that of "hubris" and is the source of the English word "hubris".

• Who did Paul previously "blaspheme"? Was it God?
• To what "unbelief" is Paul referring?
• Of what was Paul "ignorant"?

Discuss:

☐ Did Paul receive "mercy" because he did it "ignorantly" in "unbelief"?
☐ Did Paul receive "mercy" because God chose him to be a "chosen" "vessel"?

Is the superlative "exceeding abundant" needed here? Would a word such as "sufficient" be appropriate?

☐ Is "faith" and "love" (inherently) "in" "Christ" "Jesus"? (what the verse says)
☐ Do you need to have "faith" and "love" "in" "Christ" "Jesus"?

The Greek word translated "grace" is that of "favor".

More: A joyous thank you for the grace of a gaudy favor

• Is everyone a "sinner"?
• Who did Jesus not come into the world to save?

Paul uses the Greek phrase "into the world" only in the following places.

• Romans 5:12
• 1 Timothy 1:35 (disputed)
• 1 Timothy 6:7 (disputed)
• Hebrews 10:5 (disputed)

In a sense, we ourself are brought "into the world".

Is this pattern seen in "me" "first" somewhat egotistical on the part of Paul.

Jesus is both Messiah and King. Here, Paul only mentions King.

What are the "prophesies" to which Paul is referring?

Unlike Ephesians 6, where all the spiritual warfare analogies refer to previous parts of the letter, this statement on "war" and "warfare" appears without context.

More: Ephesians 6: Defending the full armor of God

To what does the "shipwreck" reference refer? Are we to be judges of others in this way?

So Paul is so bold as to have the power to "deliver" others to "Satan". Unlike other places (e.g., Philippians) where Paul appears to use a generic descriptive name where those at that church would, from the description, know to whom it refers, here Paul appears to use actual names.

The name "Satan", from the Hebrew (and Greek), has the meaning of the "accuser". Here, Paul is playing the role of an "accuser".

In this first chapter of 1 Timothy, I could not find the following.

• play on words
• references to Greek philosophy
• a clear path of reasoning (rather, a series of somewhat random claims)