[CatherineofAragon]

Look, I’m not going to get into a debate with you on doctrine. This forum is full of Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic; we’re brothers and sisters in Christ.

Since you asked, my belief is that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says Scripture provides us with what we need. In verse 17, the Greek for adequate is artios, defined as “complete, capable, proficient, able to meet all demands.” The Greek for equipped is exartismenos, meaning “having been finished, fully equipped”.

[JCBreckenridge]

That says that scripture is adequate.

Timothy is also exhorted to ‘pass on the traditions that have handed down to you’.

Do you believe that Timothy was taught by a written NT?

[Campion]

In verse 17, the Greek for adequate is artios, defined as “complete, capable, proficient, able to meet all demands.” The Greek for equipped is exartismenos, meaning “having been finished, fully equipped”.

And both of those Greek adjectives modify "man of God," not "scriptures". The preceding verse makes it clear that Paul had in mind the Tanakh, since those are the only Scriptures Timothy could have known since his infancy.

[Mrs. Don-o]

But think, Catherine: at the time that Paul wrote 2 Timothy (approx. 63 AD), all of the NT hadn't even been committed to writing. That would include: 1 Peter, 1 Peter, Matthew, Hebrews, Jude, John (the Gospel) 1 John and 2 John (Epistles), and Revelation.

That's give-or-take a few: these timelines are apaproximate.

So all of the Canonical NT books after 2 Timothy--- were they extraneous? --- since, as you interpret it, the existent canon of Scripture at that time, was "complete" and "finished"?

And how is it that Peter and Paul both instructed the Churches to imitate them (their actions) and to hold onto what they taught (their words), both as preached (spoken tradition )and as written (books, letters and sermons)?