Did Paul Invent Christianity?

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Why do you care so much about my thoughts? Do they bother you? Well I am not going to change because you want me to, that is for sure. If you want to waste time telling me about Orthodoxy and your personal pseudo metaphysical speculation be my guest but I am not as interested in what you say as you are in me. Not even close. You have your opinion and I could not possibly care less if it differs from mine, especially about a topic with no way of proof + or -.

Why should I care about your thoughts? For the same reason you care about others thoughts. You posted a very long rant on your thoughts on an open forum and doing so you should expect others the same courtesy. You do understand that this is an open forum and on an open forum it involves discussion by any one who should want to join the discussion do you not?

Normally I would not care about what you think but then I am a Nazarene of the order of James and the brother of the Christ Jesus

The Nazarenes were declared heretical as some rejected the Virgin birth, ALL rejected the deification of Christ and the Trinity concept and viewed the Holy Spirit as Jesus "Mother" and God his adopting Father.

And for rejecting Paul.

He was the Messiah and son of God but not God or divine to the Nazarenes who retrained Mosaic law and along with the Ebionim were called "Neither Jew nor Christian" and they used the original now lost Gospel "of the Hebrews" translated by Augustine but lost and not the same as any Gospel we have although it may have resemblance to parts of Matthew.

There are no more legitimate successors to the Nazarenes as they were wiped out by Rome.

People such as yourself whose faith is more emetional than intellectual or educated, you don't seem to have any idea of history in the first four centuries proven by calling yourself a Nazarene while accepting Christianity, the religion that erased the Nazarenes for "heresy" because they, the first Yeshua based Messianic Jews, were heretics.

I believe anyone can see the fallacie in claiming to be a Nazarene while being a member of the descendants of their enemies religion that was paganised.

and being a brother of the order of James I am also a brother of Paul the thirteenth apostle of The Most High El.. Naturally when some one declares my brother to be a false prophet and a liar I then take issue with that claim and ask for evidence.

You don't realize it but you are speaking nonsense and have no idea what you are talking about.

Paul was a Nazarene reject who abandoned the movement to start his own because he couldn't play second fiddle, never mind the status of plain old "brother" (2 Peter) or even 13th fiddle.

If such a thing existed. 12 is the maximum at once and for all time with the exception of Matthias replacing Judas.

And Paul is only a self proclaimed apostle, Biblically speaking, he is not acknowledged by the apostles except once as brother not apostle, which tells me he was not considered an apostle as the disciples were all called brother and sister, not only apostles.

If you were a Muslim would you not take issue with your Muhammad

Who said I was a Muslim?

You are just off, not on point, and don't have any idea what you are talking about, are fantasising about a non existent order and being a member while not even knowing its history of rejecting Paul.

I can't even take you seriously anymore.

being declared a false prophet and a liar and a murderer and a pedophile among other justified insults? Of course you would. All over the world people are being murdered for those very same declarations.

And a whole lot of other reasons. But I don't think it is smart to go to a Muslim majority nation and insult their Prophet and you are seriously over exagerating with "all over the world...for.." It happens no more than people get killed over here for racism in the West, especially in the USA.

Or Christians killing abortion doctors, commiting violence against Muslims or killing in the name of Uncle Sam.

Pedophilia is rampant in Catholicism, not Islam.

As for Mohammed being a pedophile you don't know that and Hadiths were written hundreds of years after his death.

He was actually an honorable man so I give him the benefit of the doubt as Aisha loved him and was the second most important Woman after Khadija, an honorable woman who married Mohammed for his acumen and honorable upright character.

Insulting the dead, especially a great Prophet of the world's second largest religion, shows bad character and judgement and an unnecessary hatred of Islam, probably because they exist and you are a Christian, Christians are not known for being tolerant of any religion not Christianity, Islam especially because it honors but doesn't worship Jesus.

Like the Nazarenes did.

Islam is more like the Nazarenes than Paulianity.

So in lite of that, why is it not proper for me to defend my brother's honor from liars and thieves? That is the only reason I take issue with you

You have no issue with me I didn't lie or steal .

and I do not repent when a truth is spoken by me. I have the same rights as do you and even though I would not harm anyone for that right I also expect the same to apply to myself.

Yes your thoughts do bother me in that I do not wish to see any personage lose the right to live forever with my brothers and sisters in the kingdom of heaven.

That's odd, my thoughts bother you? You have a freedom of thought issue?

Nobody is going to lose that right because I spoke the truth and they listened or for any other reason than they were evil.

Heaven is not a Christian Kingdom.

Yes even with brother Paul the thirteenth apostle

Not even AN apostle, 12 is the max.

Paul was an apostle of Paul.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

The Nazarenes were declared heretical as some rejected the Virgin birth, ALL rejected the deification of Christ and the Trinity concept and viewed the Holy Spirit as Jesus "Mother" and God his adopting Father.

Not true at all. You have no conception of Christianity whatsoever.

You are a very confused person and do not seem to understand the entire subject.

Epiphanius of Salamis was a fourth century Greek Catholic and was the first to call Nazarene's heretic's. The discussion was not of forth century Roman appointees such as Epiphanius or Augustine. Get your mind clear and try to digest the subject matter.

As a first century Nazarene of the order of James, I do not subscribe to the Roman ideology of butchers who slaughtered untold numbers of people. You very cleverly left out "the order of James" from your rant. That is the first lie of your post. Learn to understand that which is written. There are some that followed John the Baptist who also rejected the order of James. So get your mind in order and read correctly. You simply do not know what you want others to believe you know.

Now as far as my denigrating Islam or Mahummad, you had best reread my post.

In fact here is what I posted ---

Quote “If you were a Muslim would you not take issue with your Muhammad being declared a false prophet and a liar and a murderer and a pedophile among other justified insults? Of course you would. All over the world people are being murdered for those very same declarations.” Unquote

And what did you quote me as saying?

“being declared a false prophet and a liar and a murderer and a pedophile among other justified insults? Of course you would. All over the world people are being murdered for those same declarations.”

There is another lie by misquotes.

You then go into another rage in defense of Muhammad. You see how you deceive others? I do. You did not quote me properly and you intentionally misled the readers of the subject matter. My entire quote was a question and not a statement. Within that post alone you have lied twice by misquotes in order to deceive. That makes you a liar with no credibility left and that is why I have no respect or believe any of what you write. Your ignorance is only surpassed by intense hatred. No credibility whatsoever ---------------------------------------

a reply to: Seede

Epiphanius in his Panarion (Medicine Chest) in 29 writes of the Nazarenes and in 30 about the Ebionite inventing a lot about both but admitting that they use the same scriptures and both live in Borea and Pella where the original Nazarenes fled to.

He declares both groups heretics, the purpose of writing the book was to denounce every non Orthodox Catholic group and philosophical system in existence and they are not left out.

Symmachus is called an Ebionim, his followers Nazarenes.

Jerome got the Gospel of the Hebrews from the Nazarenes but attributes it to the Ebionites.

Theodoret (haer. fab Ii 2)says they believed Jesus was fully human and used the Gospel of Peter.

And in Corinthians 11:5 Paul sarcastically calls the apostles arch-apostles and boasts of his non inferior status saying that they gave him nothing and his gospel was not only better but that they should beware of theirs.

11:13 he takes it up a notch.

"These people are counterfeit apostles, dishonest workman disguised as apostles of Christ. There is nothing unexpected about that; if Satan himself goes disguised as an angel of light, there is no need to be surprised when his servants too, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness."

I honestly didn't read your reply yet, but I am guessing that should address your questions.

And if you doubt my information here is an article from an encyclopedia, a Jewish one so it's a neutral source that is not out to hide uncomfortable facts although all this information is available individually online for free for further verification purposes.

Nazarenes

Further, while the Church Father's are jumbled about Nazarenes, especially Epiphanius, the earlier Ebionites are more consistently reported on, earlier and more frequently outside of the New Testament where both are actually mentioned, albeit obscured and Ebionim translated to its meaning losing its identity in the process as "Poor Saints."

And if you examine all the evidence you will begin to realize that they were two united groups, but the same, regardless of reported difference that can't be relied upon as accurate the similarities and fact of definite existence in the same place and time is all you need to know, for FOUR centuries, to tell you this.

So whatever argument you made if it was that the Ebionites and Nazarenes were different, they were not.

If it was that they accepted Paul, they did not, and Paul did not accept them, paying the least amount of lip service possible but secretly teaching counter to the Law of Moses.

Which the Church Father's all agree, both groups followed, as did James and the apostles.

Paul declared the Law "dead" and a "curse."

a reply to: Seede

When you have to resort to personal attacks like saying I have no conception of Christianity, have no credibility though you have not displayed any yourself and I have and/or can prove everything I said.

Bring up Mohammed and Islam in a thread about Paul to a non Muslim, bring up pedophilia, all to distract from the fact that your mind is not functioning according to actual facts but delusions of grandeur, it's time to get a new religion.

Because not only was everything I said true, but you've acted like an imbecile all along, are not a Nazarene because they have not existed since the 5th century and didn't believe Jesus was God, you do.

And your words are of someone of distemperate demeanor, not humble, angry that his "true" religion is being attacked, where as someone who knows they are true and upright doesn't particularly care about others opinions of their beliefs and acts like a respectable gentleman and not a cranky 5th term Senator at a debate about abortion.

I think credibility is your problem, my house and its reputation is secure and in order, yours a mix of fantasy and religion, more fantasy.

Modern day Nazarene revival movements also repudiate Paul and take a stance against Orthodoxy in almost every regard.

You are just a Catholic turned Protestant Bible user who calls himself a Nazarene.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

The Nazarenes were declared heretical as some rejected the Virgin birth, ALL rejected the deification of Christ and the Trinity concept and viewed the Holy Spirit as Jesus "Mother" and God his adopting Father.

Not true at all. You have no conception of Christianity whatsoever.

You are a very confused person and do not seem to understand the entire subject.

Epiphanius of Salamis was a fourth century Greek Catholic and was the first to call Nazarene's heretic's. The discussion was not of forth century Roman appointees such as Epiphanius or Augustine. Get your mind clear and try to digest the subject matter.

As a first century Nazarene of the order of James, I do not subscribe to the Roman ideology of butchers who slaughtered untold numbers of people. You very cleverly left out "the order of James" from your rant. That is the first lie of your post. Learn to understand that which is written. There are some that followed John the Baptist who also rejected the order of James. So get your mind in order and read correctly. You simply do not know what you want others to believe you know.

Now as far as my denigrating Islam or Mahummad, you had best reread my post.

In fact here is what I posted ---

Quote “If you were a Muslim would you not take issue with your Muhammad being declared a false prophet and a liar and a murderer and a pedophile among other justified insults? Of course you would. All over the world people are being murdered for those very same declarations.” Unquote

And what did you quote me as saying?

Whatever I said, I also quoted every word you wrote and you are about to accuse me of misquoting you, impossible since they were your words from your quote directly quoted from.

“being declared a false prophet and a liar and a murderer and a pedophile among other justified insults? Of course you would. All over the world people are being murdered for those same declarations.”

There is another lie by misquotes.

You then go into another rage in defense of Muhammad. You see how you deceive others? I do. You did not quote me properly and you intentionally misled the readers of the subject matter. My entire quote was a question and not a statement. Within that post alone you have lied twice by misquotes in order to deceive. That makes you a liar with no credibility left and that is why I have no respect or believe any of what you write. Your ignorance is only surpassed by intense hatred.

Seede has:

No credibility whatsoever ---------------------------------------

It's true.

No.

originally posted by: whereislogic
No.

It is over.

''Satan's servants ''?

If anything, better than a website only dedicated to bashing Paul, it shows the fallacious nature of the Christian arguments for Paul.

originally posted by: whereislogic
No.

Yes:

I'm just going to go back to the "OP'S" original question...."Did Paul Invent Christianity"?
Yes. He did. Or, those who chose to include his letters in the NOT "infallible, inerrant, holy, word of "god"....
Paul is the sole reason we have umpteen threads, pages, and debates on CHRISTIANITY. Because a lying, false apostle, leads the way in Christianity.
No wonder that Jewish man dumped Christianity (and Paul) and went back to his original religion. (though, I don't agree with Judasim as the sole truth, either).
Either way, religion in any way, shape, or form....DIVIDES people. Just look at this forum if you don't think so.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Malocchio

Proverbs 29:

9 When a wise man enters into a controversy with a fool, There will be ranting and ridicule, but no satisfaction.
11 A stupid person gives vent to all his feelings, But the wise one calmly keeps them in check.
20 Have you seen a man hasty with his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.
23 The haughtiness of a man will humble him, But whoever is humble in spirit will obtain glory.

Almost 70 pages since the quotations above though, it's almost like some people really want to drive home a point. The continued demonstrations of bible accuracy and reliability that I continue to observe strengthens my trust in the bible as an accurate source of the truths that are most important to understand about reality. It allows me to have confidence in what a wise man named Paul once said at Romans 3:4: "...let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar,...". Just before quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures. I would like to repeat my earlier recommendation approx. 70 pages ago to all the participants in this thread so far though:

Proverbs 32:9
Do not become like a horse or a mule, without understanding,
Whose spiritedness must be controlled with a bridle or a halter
Before it will come near to you.”

2 Timothy 3:1-9
But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 From among these arise men who slyly work their way into households and captivate weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth. 8 Now in the way that Janʹnes and Jamʹbres opposed Moses, so these also go on opposing the truth. Such men are completely corrupted in mind, disapproved as regards the faith. 9 Nevertheless, they will make no further progress, for their folly* will be very plain to all, as it was with those two men. [*: Or “foolishness.”]

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Malocchio

Proverbs 29:

9 When a wise man enters into a controversy with a fool, There will be ranting and ridicule, but no satisfaction.
11 A stupid person gives vent to all his feelings, But the wise one calmly keeps them in check.
20 Have you seen a man hasty with his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.
23 The haughtiness of a man will humble him, But whoever is humble in spirit will obtain glory.

Almost 70 pages since the quotations above though, it's almost like some people really want to drive home a point. The continued demonstrations of bible accuracy and reliability that I continue to observe strengthens my trust in the bible as an accurate source of the truths that are most important to understand about reality. It allows me to have confidence in what a wise man named Paul once said at Romans 3:4: "...let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar,...". Just before quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures. I would like to repeat my earlier recommendation approx. 70 pages ago to all the participants in this thread so far though:

Proverbs 32:9
Do not become like a horse or a mule, without understanding,
Whose spiritedness must be controlled with a bridle or a halter
Before it will come near to you.”

2 Timothy 3:1-9
But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 From among these arise men who slyly work their way into households and captivate weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth. 8 Now in the way that Janʹnes and Jamʹbres opposed Moses, so these also go on opposing the truth. Such men are completely corrupted in mind, disapproved as regards the faith. 9 Nevertheless, they will make no further progress, for their folly* will be very plain to all, as it was with those two men. [*: Or “foolishness.”]

I think Proverbs is foreign to the subject of the thread, wise words yes, applicable... open to interpretation at best.

The Timothy quote is only applicable by being a Pauline letter but nothing in the quote proves the answer to this thread's question is not yes.

While pages upon pages of quotes from the New Testament and how they show this is so and "Paul" invented at least the doctrines of Christianity followed today.

It is not the religion of or taught by Jesus, James, Peter or any apostles we have in or outside of the Canon.

It is in Paul's own words his and a revelation from heaven.

The apostles knew Jesus personally and were taught by him personally.

And the two sects, the apostles who taught what Jesus taught, and Paul who called the apostles "Satan's servants" obviously did not get along and split after the end of Acts.

There is a story about most of the apostles but they were left out purely for political reasons and not because they were any less believable but to focus on Paul and not the apostles.

Paul is said to only have authored some of the letters in his name and the Gospels are anonymous so it's not a problem of pseudepigraphy because usually the featured apostle is not the author just the subject and Paul is falsely attributed to many letters leading the reader to think he was the most important apostle.

And he was not even AN apostle but apostATE.

Heresiarch turned Orthodox by the enemies of the Jewish world, the Romans.

Shocking.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Matrix, Jesus started Christianity, Paul just carried out the teaching Jesus gave for the church to survive until he comes again.

You charge Paul with Misogyny but yet Peter teaches the same thing. You charge Paul with being ok for women to submit to their own husbands and to be quite yet Peter teaches the same thing. You charge Paul in saying it is ok for slaves and master yet Peter also teaches that slaves submit to their masters and to serve them with all goodness whether or not their masters are good or evil. You charge Paul with teaching that Jesus died for our sins a sacrifice of which Jesus said his life would be a ransom for many. Yet Peter teaches this exact thing as Paul.

So the witness of Paul is from the Apostle which Jesus chose to be in his inner circle.

If Paul was wrong surely the radical Peter would have stopped him but he doesn't and he teaches the same as the Apostle Paul.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Matrix, Jesus started Christianity, Paul just carried out the teaching Jesus gave for the church to survive until he comes again.

You charge Paul with Misogyny but yet Peter teaches the same thing. You charge Paul with being ok for women to submit to their own husbands and to be quite yet Peter teaches the same thing. You charge Paul in saying it is ok for slaves and master yet Peter also teaches that slaves submit to their masters and to serve them with all goodness whether or not their masters are good or evil. You charge Paul with teaching that Jesus died for our sins a sacrifice of which Jesus said his life would be a ransom for many. Yet Peter teaches this exact thing as Paul.

So the witness of Paul is from the Apostle which Jesus chose to be in his inner circle.

If Paul was wrong surely the radical Peter would have stopped him but he doesn't and he teaches the same as the Apostle Paul.

I already told you I don't believe Peter authored that letter.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

So then why believe any of the Bible?

a bible believer believes it all not just parts of it they like.

Jut find another religion and go for it.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

So then why believe any of the Bible?

a bible believer believes it all not just parts of it they like.

Jut find another religion and go for it.

You don't ever stop making the argument that only your belief system understands the Bible, which is blatant nonsense, do you?

NEWSFLASH CHESTERJOHN :

A brain and the ability to read is all that is required to understand the Bible.

And you actually know less about the Bible than any impartial reader who wants to know the truth about the Bible.

Because you had beliefs before you read the Bible that dictate your interpretation, which is your particular Church's interpretation that you refuse to deviate from in the face of proof.

That is not faith, it is blind trust in mans opinion and I guarantee you that the head of your church knows Paul is a false apostle but will not, CAN NOT, admit it because... bye bye flock of admirers hanging on his every word.

Let me put it this way.

Nobody knows LESS about the Bible than a Christian. They might know the words but they don't comprehend the narrative because of BLIND faith in the Catholic then Protestant splinter churches who are Paulinists, some admittedly and claim that the 12 apostles didn't get Jesus only Paul did.

I think you agree but admitting it is not your style. You can't even admit Paul never was called an apostle in any apostolic writing.

Show me any apostle call Paul an apostle and I will concede. I know you can't do it.

Because I do know the Bible.

Your anger is BECAUSE unorthodox disciples of Christ and not Paul understand the Bible you randomly quote from with passages that don't apply to your own conversation KNOW THE BIBLE BETTER THAN YOU.


That is the truth.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Even if Peter DID author that letter:

It says Pauls teachings don't make sense and lead people astray.

People use the fact that brother was used in reference to Paul to argue that Peter supported him.

But this is proof he WASN'T an apostle, Peter may have just been being a gentleman and brother is only referring to the fact he once belonged to the Nazarene movement and Peter wasn't going to stoop to Paul's level and hurl insults because he was righteous.

I used to think that too but when I read the general epistles, EVEN 2 Peter, I see anti Pauline sentiments.

This is probably why it's deemed pseudepigraphal, brother means nothing in light of the people lead astray by the nonsense of Paul.

There is an epistle from Peter to James complaining about people teaching things in his name, an obvious reference to Paul.

It's Apocryphal but it represents Peters true feelings about the "gospel" of grace.

It's a secret book by its own standards, has instructions to only share it with trustworthy people, and is as old as ANY Canonical Bible in existence, MS. for MS. just as old.

I would never tell anyone to change their opinion but reexamine the letter, it's more negative towards Paul than positive, proves he isn't an apostle and "hard to understand" is a euphemism in translation for unintelligible or nonsensical.

So I think it is genuine and people concentrate on one word and think "Peter would never call Paul brother" and dismiss it.

Or see the obvious negative opinion Peter has for his "brother" Paul and say "Peter would never say a bad word about Paul."

But we both know Peter was a better person than Paul and Paul called him and his patron Barnabas hypocrites in a letter like a coward and disloyal scumbag.

Peter was more subtle and humble. Paul was a murderer yet Peter gets picked on because he obeyed Jesus and denied knowing him against his will... because it was not his time to die.

Yet give him more isht for defending Jesus at his arrest and he actually was at the beginning of the crucifixion unlike the other male disciples.

2 Peter 1:1

To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ.

God is God and the savior is Jesus, although the way it's worded I am surprised people don't use it to "prove" Jesus was believed to be God but in reality they would be wrong because calling him our savior is not calling him God and he can't be both God and the savior if he walked the earth and no way would Peter ever call a man God. Jews do not believe in calling any man God, it's why the Romans couldn't accomplish what the Greeks did and co exist peacefully with Judean Israelites and installed the puppet aristocracy of the Herodians, who were the synagogue of Satan, because Alexander understood their religion prevented it and the Roman Caesars demanded worship.

Peter is not saying Jesus is our God and savior he is speaking of both God and the Messiah.

5. For this reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with goodness, goodness with knowledge, knowledge with self control, self control with endurance and endurance with godliness, godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love.

9. Anyone who lacks these things is short sighted and BLIND.

Remember what "happened" to Paul? He went blind. I don't feel presumptuous for connecting the use of the word blind with Acts story about Paul whatsoever, but I do believe that Peter was expecting the recipients of the letter to understand he was talking about Paul.

11. For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you.

"Knowledge puffs up [makes you arrogant]"

Says Paul.

Many men were called lord among the Jews in the OT, it's not a synonym for God though YHWH was translated to LORD in every other language it doesn't mean LORD. Adon is lord, Adonai is HaShem/YHWH. Baal also means lord or prince, either way...

It's clear Peter is no "faith alone is what justifies us, not works" kind of guy and that he considered faith alone shortsighted and blind and anyone who lacks good works "forgetful of cleansing the sins of the past" which sounds like he is saying Paul is unrepentant about his past.

And Paul also claimed to be blameless for his past and WAS, in his words, (paraphrasing) unrepentant.

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our lord Jesus the Messiah, but WE have been EYEWITNESSES of his majesty. He received honor and glory FROM GOD the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory,...

Paul "cleverly" devised a myth that persists to this day, that he received revelations from Jesus and was a prophet.

Peter was an eye witness to his life and teachings and the Rock which his movement was to be built upon. Yet he does not agree with Paul's faith alone salvation theology AT ALL.

2:1 False Prophets and their Punishment

Balaam is referenced which is equal to Revelation and the whole meat sacrificed to idols thing that the Holy Spirit forbade and Jesus condemned people who taught it was OK which was what Paul taught was for the weak brothers.

In his final exhortation at 3:14 he reveals the name of the false prophet of whom he is subtlety referring to.

He loves his enemies so beloved brother means nothing, that is what Christ taught.

There are some things in them [his epistles] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do other scriptures.

Scripture, it's first century meaning in Greek or Hebrew was reserved for lesser writings outside of the Prophets and Torah that may have been widely read but were not sacred at the time.

Today it means something different and refers to any religious writing or in Christianity just the Bible.

Not the case in the first century at all so this is not an endorsement, quite the opposite, it only means "writings."

3 :17

You therefore are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.

Who is more outspoken about the Law being a curse, dead and replaced with grace than Paul himself?

Like the Gospels and Acts, someone was subtle enough to repudiate Paul and his theology so well that despite it theologically delivering a death blow to faith without works theology, it made the Canon.

Besides the feigned compliment beloved brother, the entire epistle is a polemic about Paul the false prophet.

Cleverly done.

I just wanted to add this because the thread is slowing and a great addition is to clear up the misconception that 2 Peter is supportive of Paul in a way any intelligent person would understand.

Peter needed to be subtle to preserve the message, he succeeded, but it is a narrow path that few follow to receive the message.

Just like the path to the Way.

Pseudepigraphal? Maybe.

A Pauline endorsement? Quite the opposite.

I would not count on people like CJ to understand this because it is beyond his ability to read between the lines, as is the case with most Bible thumpers who vainly seek to convert people to Orthodox Christianity so they can feel glorified about "saving souls" by spiritual extortion, threats of hell.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

that is right the BIBLE.

It alone is true, it alone has the way of salvation, it alone is the source of life and godliness. Just a Peter said.

Even though he saw the Lord transfigured, and heard God's voice from heaven, he testified that we have a much more sure word of Prophecy, that is the scriptures and that none of them came by private means or interpretation but by HOLY men who spoke as they were moved by Holy Ghost.

So yes Bible, Bible, BIBLE! If it does not agree with scriptures I will take scripture any day of the week and will stand before God on and through his very words through faith, for the just shall live by faith and by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

BTW, Peter did not say that Paul's letters did not make sense. He said Paul's words confirm that which he is teachings in his letter and that in all Paul's epistles he teaches the same things Peter is teaching, to which some of thing Paul taught were hard to understand. Not make sense is not a equal statement and thereby creates a lie and a false teaching. You pervert the words of God in saying such lies. It says and in context with the unstable that wrest them.

2 Peter 3:14-18 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 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; 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. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

like I have already said you would do well to STUDY the Bible before making such nonsensical statements.

a reply to: ChesterJohn



Everything I said is true, I don't expect someone like you to agree, but as long as you can not prevent me from saying the truth, which is 2 Peter is actually a polemic against Paul, you disagreeing doesn't concern me.

Peter did say Paul's letters didn't make sense, hard to understand is not the meaning in the Greek, it is basically intelligible or nonsensical but nobody is going to publish it if it says that so it is rendered hard to understand.

What is important is that it leads people astray, which is a clear sign it is not inspired by the Spirit of Truth.

And that you can't deny because it says people were led astray by his writings.

As you are today.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

that is right the BIBLE.

It alone is true, it alone has the way of salvation, it alone is the source of life and godliness. Just a Peter said.

Even though he saw the Lord transfigured, and heard God's voice from heaven, he testified that we have a much more sure word of Prophecy, that is the scriptures and that none of them came by private means or interpretation but by HOLY men who spoke as they were moved by Holy Ghost.

So yes Bible, Bible, BIBLE! If it does not agree with scriptures I will take scripture any day of the week and will stand before God on and through his very words through faith, for the just shall live by faith and by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

BTW, Peter did not say that Paul's letters did not make sense.

He said Paul's words confirm that which he is teachings in his letter and that in all Paul's epistles he teaches the same things Peter is teaching,

Really? I find it odd you can't supply those words from 2 Peter yet say it as though it was true.

Actually you always do stuff like that and exactly that, claim people said things they never did.

This is just one instance of you making up things.

Where does Peter say that?

to which some of thing Paul taught were hard to understand. Not make sense is not a equal statement and thereby creates a lie and a false teaching. You pervert the words of God in saying such lies. It says and I context with the unstable that wrest them.

I actually just explained the words, I didn't pervert them, Paul's teachings don't make sense and lead people astray.

I would say hard to understand is, in this case, equal to saying they are nonsense and should be avoided lest you be led astray.

You made up words that Peter never said up above, there is no hint of your words in 2Peter claiming him and Paul teach the same thing.

They don't, and Peter nor Paul say that. Paul claims his gospel is the true gospel and works are not required, only faith.

Peter says the OPPOSITE. When did same start meaning opposite?

THAT was perverting the Bible.

2 Peter 3:14-18 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 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; 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,

It may say hard to understand, I never denied that in English, but it is the same thing as saying it doesn't make sense, otherwise people would understand it through the Spirit.

The Spirit didn't inspire Paul, and hard to understand is just as good as saying unintelligible or nonsensical as he is not talking about anything that should be complicated.

If faith was all it took why write all that other nonsense?

Nothing about Paul's theology makes sense, you can pretend it does but you are living proof it leads people astray.

He isn't endorsing Paul, the epistle is against Paul and he is the subject of the entire letter written by a clever author that leads astray no one, so clever you think he is complimenting Paul when he is insulting him.

Which was the point. The reason it's allegedly pseudepigraphal is scholars figured this out and Christian scholars since before Eusebius said that about James and 2Peter because they both are against Paul.

"Senseless man, do you need to be told faith without works is dead? "

unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked,

Lawless or wicked, lawless being a better translation in a Bible that is not centuries out of date, clearly points to Paul and is probably why the KJ Bible preferred to use wicked.

Read. Between. The. Lines.

fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge

Paul: Knowledge puffs up...

of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

You do realize that I already posted this verse in modern English, right?

Because a different translation doesn't change the fact that Peter is not a supporter of faith alone salvation theology and clearly you have no ability to utilize the quote option for the purpose of refuting me because there is nothing to refute.

My commentary was accurate as was my exegesis, I didn't make a single claim that wasn't backed up by scripture.