It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by SasquatchHunter
He doesn't contradict the OT because he was a Pharisee. Do you know what Jesus called the Pharisees? A brood of vipers whose father was the devil. He considered them to be liars and hypocrites who twisted scripture to fit their own needs. So why do you think it is so far out of reason to think that Paul, who was a Pharisee himself, did the same with Jesus and his teachings? Because his epistles were put into the bible by wealthy Roman aristocrats 300 years later? Not a very good argument in my opinion.
And yes, it is agreed on by most scholars that 2 Peter 3:16 was interpolated by a later author. Peter talks of Paul as if his epistles are already considered scripture and that people were already very aware of his writings. This would not have have been the case at the time of 2 Peter being written, meaning that most likely it was added in later by an anonymous author.
Why do you think it would have been added in later? The only reason I can think of is that Paul was a liar and the people who made his epistles canon needed one of the apostles to back him up, so they inserted it in later to give Paul some kind of authority.
2 Corinthians 11
31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I do not lie.
20 In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!
1 Timothy 2
7 For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the gentiles in faith and truth
1 I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying
I find It a bit odd that Paul insisted so many times he wasn't a liar. That sounds exactly like something a liar would do, insist that they aren't lying.
Why would Peter classify Paul's letters as scripture when they weren't considered to be until 300 years later? Why would Peter assume Paul's letters were well known when they couldn't have been at the time of 2 Peter being written?
Most importantly though, if 2 Peter 3:16 was interpolated, which is what the evidence suggests, why does it have to do with Paul's letters and the fact that they are "hard to understand"? Didn't Jesus say his yoke was easy and burden light? Hard to understand teachings do not fit well with Jesus and his message.
I fail to see how Paul being illegitimate means the rest of the books are as well. While I don't believe the gospels are 100% legitimate themselves, that's beside the point. Are you saying Paul defines the entire NT? I thought that was Jesus' role?
Jesus and Paul are polar opposites when it comes to teachings. Jesus taught about God, Paul taught about traditions of men.
edit on 11-11-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by EnochWasRight
According to comparative evidence, the word "heart" is not semitic in origin, but proto-indoeuropean.
List of English words of Hebrew Origin
List of English words of Semitic Origin
Etymologists avoid Hebrew like a Scientist avoids God as Creator. There is clear evidence that nearly 75% of the most important words we use in the English language originate from a Phoenician or Hebrew origin. I have shown this clearly in connection to the Cor/ Homer / Hart / Herz. Even our word Hertz comes from the frequency association with a beating heart. Herz is directly connected to the young stag, or hart. Further, there is a morphological connection to Hebrew if you can find a word on the branch of Hebrew that appears in another language. Like I stated, the branches of Hebrew have fruit that grows in every language.
Old English heorte, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch hart and German Herz, from an Indo-European root shared by Latin cor, cord- and Greek kēr, kardia .
From Middle English herte, from Old English heorte (“heart”), from Proto-Germanic *hertô (“heart”), from Proto-Indo-European *ḱḗr (“heart”). Germanic cognates: see *hertô. The Indo-European root is also the source of Latin cor, cordis, Greek καρδιά (kardiá), Welsh craidd, Irish croí, Armenian սիրտ (sirt), Russian сердце (serdce), Lithuanian širdis and Albanian kërthizë (“navel, central spot”).
Old English heorte "heart; breast, soul, spirit, will, desire; courage; mind, intellect," from Proto-Germanic *khertan- (cf. Old Saxon herta, Old Frisian herte, Old Norse hjarta, Dutch hart, Old High German herza, German Herz, Gothic hairto), from PIE *kerd- "heart" (cf. Greek kardia, Latin cor, Old Irish cride, Welsh craidd, Hittite kir, Lithuanian širdis, Russian serdce "heart," Breton kreiz "middle," Old Church Slavonic sreda "middle").
Spelling with -ea- is c.1500, reflecting what then was a long vowel, and remained when pronunciation shifted. Most of the figurative senses were present in Old English, including "intellect, memory," now only in by heart. Heart attack attested from 1875; heart disease is from 1864. The card game hearts is so called from 1886.
ORIGIN Old English heorte, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch hart and German Herz, from an Indo-European root shared by Latin cor, cord- and Greek kēr, kardia .
No Hebrew is mentioned.
Paul was raised a Pharisee so what? Paul was many things but he wasn't a liar. If you can provide any evidence to support that please do so.
Even if you somehow believe that.... We have Luke and 2Peter who support Paul.
Paul was first a Jew so he understood Yahweh
Yahweh said to have Faith and so did Jesus.
Jesus means Salvation of Yahweh, so if Yahweh is The Devil then Jesus is the anti-christ.