False Apostle Paul & 2 Peter 3:15-17

[Hentenza]

I do not follow "Jewish law" - I follow YHVH Elohim's and Messiah's Law (Torah). Nor do I believe Torah saves; it is belief in Messiah's atoning sacrifice, and in following Elohim's set-apart Way as He outlined in Torah. As Messiah said Himself: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Mt 5:17-19)

Ephesians explain Matthew 5 but you threw the book away.

Eph 2
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off [j]have been brought near [k]by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [l]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 [m]by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might [n]make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, [o]by it having put to death the enmity.

 

[Gareth]

Do some people really believe that the Bible is not inspired of God? It would seem so. Have not men been moved by holy spirit to do things? So who are some of you to put a human slant on the inspired Scriptures. So shall it be said Jesus wasn't the Messiah? Or that not one word of God has ever failed?

There could be a reason in that the beloved Apostle Paul as Peter called him, says things that don't sit easy with some. Maybe it's about an aspect of doctrine or conduct they disagree with so they assault the books that contain it to denigrate those words. Instead of taking the whole Bible they prefer to read only the bits they like because it fits them as they like having their ears tickled.

 

[ananda]

All 66 books of scripture are agreed upon by ALL mainstream churches from before the second history. The disagreement relates to the apocryphal books.

Thank you for your response However, I do not believe that an appeal to the majority is a valid defense; as Messiah said: "Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because narrow is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Mt 7:13,14

There was no dispute regarding the majority of the epistles of Paul. The books that the early church question were James, Hebrews, and 3 John. Even Peter recognized Paul's writings as scripture.

"Ebionites ... [were] a Jewish Christian sect or sects that existed during the first centuries of the Christian Era ... [they] revered James the Just and rejected Paul of Tarsus as an apostate from the Law." (ref) Second-century theologian "Marcion was the first to propose a New Testament canon" (ref) and he elevated "Paul as the primary apostle" (ref).

As for Peter recognizing Paul as "Scripture", my first post in this thread detailed an expanded translation that suggests that Peter was actually warning us about Paul.

 

[ananda]

Ephesians explain Matthew 5 but you threw the book away.

No disrespect meant, but do you see how you are elevating Paul's words over Messiah's?

 

[ananda]

Do some people really believe that the Bible is not inspired of God? ... Or that not one word of God has ever failed?

Thank you for your response You are correct: not one word of Elohim has ever failed. However, Paul's words =/= Elohim's words.

There could be a reason in that the beloved Apostle Paul as Peter called him, says things that don't sit easy with some.

Where is your reference? To my knowledge Peter never called Paul an apostle.

 

[Hentenza]

Thank you for your response However, I do not believe that an appeal to the majority is a valid defense; as Messiah said: "Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because narrow is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Mt 7:13,14

I am not appealing to the majority but merely countering your argument that the mainstream churches disagree in the content of the canon.

"Ebionites ... [were] a Jewish Christian sect or sects that existed during the first centuries of the Christian Era ... [they] revered James the Just and rejected Paul of Tarsus as an apostate from the Law." (ref) Second-century theologian "Marcion was the first to propose a New Testament canon" (ref) and he elevated "Paul as the primary apostle" (ref).

What does this prove? There were many heretical sects throughout the first few centuries of the church and some continue to this day. There were some that discounted the deity of Christ, some that elevated themselves as having the specific knowledge needed, some that believe that the Father died on the cross, etc. etc. etc.

As for Peter recognizing Paul as "Scripture", my first post in this thread detailed an expanded translation that suggests that Peter was actually warning us about Paul.

The grammar disagrees with your interpretation.

 

[Hentenza]

No disrespect meant, but do you see how you are elevating Paul's words over Messiah's?

Nope. The whole of scripture IS the word of God. Jesus chose the apostles including Paul as prophets, in the same line as OT prophets, both for fore telling and forth telling. By rejecting Paul you are rejecting Jesus appointment and selection of Paul. Do you doubt or discount Luke's account of Jesus directly choosing Paul depicted in the book of Acts?

 

[ananda]

I am not appealing to the majority but merely countering your argument that the mainstream churches disagree in the content of the canon.

Yet, as you admitted, they do disagree. Are we basing our belief on consensus here? If so, then that is an appeal to the majority.

What does this prove? There were many heretical sects throughout ...

What I'm saying is that the beliefs of those who were close to and led by the original Apostles should be considered more closely than any succeeding generation.

The grammar disagrees with your interpretation.

Please explain? Thank you.

 

[Gareth]

To doubt one book or passage in the Bible is to doubt God.

 

[ananda]

Nope. The whole of scripture IS the word of God.

Correct, but Paul's words are not Scripture in the sense that they are not equal with Torah or Messiah's Words, or even the Prophets. Also, as I've written before, I do not believe all Scripture have the same level of authority:

I believe (as the ancient Israelites and Jews believed, to my understanding) the Torah (Law) holds the preeminent position in Scripture, as the Words of YHVH Himself. The Prophets hold the next-highest position in Scripture, as they are the words of Elohim as spoken through the prophets. The Writings were held to be edifying, but unproven. They may very well be prophetic, but were kept in this section until they were proven to be true (i.e. when prophecies in the book have come true, etc.), then moved to the Prophets section or dropped altogether. For example, the translators of The Scripture (ISR) moved Daniel from the Writings to the Prophets in their translation. It appears Messiah also upheld this distinction (Mt 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, Lk 24:44, Jn 1:45).

Jesus chose the apostles including Paul as prophets, in the same line as OT prophets, both for fore telling and forth telling. By rejecting Paul you are rejecting Jesus appointment and selection of Paul. Do you doubt or discount Luke's account of Jesus directly choosing Paul depicted in the book of Acts?

All three accounts of Paul's encounter with "Messiah" disagree with one another, so yes, I doubt them. Besides, Messiah Himself stated that the next time He returns, the whole world will see Him (Mt 24:3,4,27), and not privately (cf. Mt 24:23-26 & as "Messiah" appeared to Paul?). Paul made a false prophecy (compare Acts 27:10 & Acts 27:44), and thereby condemned himself (Deu 18:20-22).

 

[ananda]

To doubt one book or passage in the Bible is to doubt God.

Which Bible?

Let me preface that to say this: Messiah defined "Scripture" when He placed His stamp of approval on the three sections of the Tanach (aka "Old Testament"): namely the Torah (Law), Ne'vim (Prophets), and the Ketu'vim (Writings/Psalms) (each with descending importance compared to the former):

• "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets" (Mt 5:17)
• " ... this is the law and the prophets." (Mt 7:12)
• "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." (Mt 11:13, cf Lk 16:16)
• "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Mt 22:40)
• " These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." (Lk 24:44)

Therefore, I believe I can safely say that we will all agree, if we all follow Messiah, that the Tanach is truly Holy Scripture. Without a doubt, Messiah, and His Apostles, and the early disciples referred to the Tanach when they spoke about "the Scriptures".

From this point onwards, who is to say what should be in the Latter Writings (aka "New Testament")? In a former thread, I wrote to suggest the following, that Torah and Messiah's Words are pre-eminent; the Prophets next in importance (including the Book of Revelation as prophecy); and, the Writings last (considered helpful commentary, includes the epistles - minus Paul).

 

[Timothew]

This translation seems to be intended to deceive:

Paulos, through the human wisdom that had been given to him, wrote to you. And even as in all epistles, inside they speak around this, using circular reasoning. Within them, that is to say, there are some things difficult to understand, and detrimental to understanding (duysnoetos), which the uneducated and ignorant, as well as those who are malleable will misinterpret and distort, also like the remaining inferior (leipo) writings (graphe), to the consequence of their own individual destruction and annihilation. You, therefore, beloved, knowing this in advance, be on your guard and keep away from this in order that you are not led astray, associating with the deception and delusion of lawlessness (being without the Torah), forsaking and falling away from one’s individual guarantee of safety and of becoming established upright.

2 Peter 3:15
καὶ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν μακροθυμίαν σωτηρίαν ἡγεῖσθε καθὼς καὶ ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος κατὰ τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ σοφίαν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν,
Notice how this translator cut off the first part of 2 Peter 3:15, the part that says "and the patience of our lord leads-us-into salvation as also the beloved brother" Paul...
Notice too, that this translator added "human" before wisdom. What Peter wrote was "as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you"
3:16
ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις ἐπιστολαῖς λαλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων, ἐν αἷς ἐστιν δυσνόητα τινα, ἃ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς γραφὰς πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν.
As also in all (the) letters speaking in them about these (things), in which are some things dificult-to-understand, which the untaught and unstable distort as also the remaining (not "inferior") scriptures, unto their own destruction.
3:17
ὑμεῖς οὖν, ἀγαπητοί, προγινώσκοντες φυλάσσεσθε, ἵνα μὴ τῇ τῶν ἀθέσμων πλάνῃ συναπαχθέντες ἐκπέσητε τοῦ ἰδίου στηριγμοῦ,
You then, beloved, knowing-in-advance be-on-guard, that not the unprincipled people lead you off with their error, falling from your own solid-place.

The false teachers Peter is warning about are not those who follow "Our beloved Brother Paul", but those who distort Paul's writings. And here he is distorting Peter's words to make them speak against Paul's words.

 

[ananda]

This translation seems to be intended to deceive

Thank you for your answer, but I respectfully disagree:

Notice how this translator cut off the first part of 2 Peter 3:15, the part that says "and the patience of our lord brings salvation as also the beloved brother" Paul...

He did not cut off the first part; actually, on his page, he fleshes out the first part of 3:15 quite nicely (I merely did not quote it):

"Consider (hegeomai – think about and regard, be directed and guided by, be counseled and led by) the degree which (kathos – accordingly) the Upright One (KY – Yahuweh) steadfastly forebears (makrothumai – showing restraint which consistently and patiently endures) the process of our salvation (soteria – the means to our deliverance)." (2 Peter 3:15) This affirms that salvation is a steadfast and unwavering process, neither instant nor capricious ... Makrothumia, which was translated "steadfastly forebears," is a compound of thuo, meaning "to be slain and sacrificed," and macros, "for all time." It therefore provides a telling word-picture of Yahshua’s Passover and Unleavened Bread sacrifices. Thumos speaks of "being exasperated," and of "waging a war with great passion, even showing animosity and anger." This suggests that while God is exceptionally displeased with mankind’s choices, and angry about our corruptions of His message, these things have not caused Him to abandon the battle to save us from ourselves. It also says that His solution to what we have done is eternal, lasting throughout time.

Notice too, that this translator added "human" before wisdom.

He is not incorrect. He expanded σοφίαν; in his explanation:

... while sophia can describe any form of wisdom, every lexicon identifies it first and foremost as "the wisdom of men—the synthesis of education and experience, of philosophy and science."

 

[Timothew]

You don't agree, that's OK. I didn't think that you would.

I thought that I should at least tell you what Peter wrote, since not everyone can read greek.

 

[Timothew]

Also he adds "circular reasoning", changes dusnoeta to "detrimental to understanding", and still leaves off Peter's reference to Paul as "ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς" our beloved brother.

 

[Hentenza]

Yet, as you admitted, they do disagree. Are we basing our belief on consensus here? If so, then that is an appeal to the majority.

I did no such thing. I clearly explained that the mainstream churches are not in disagreement with the 66 books of scripture. ALL of them have and use the SAME 27 books of NT scripture INCLUDING the 13 epistles of Paul.

As I stated before, the disagreement constitute the apocryphal books NOT the non apocryphal books. You claimed that churches use different bibles but you fail to understand that they do not.

What I'm saying is that the beliefs of those who were close to and led by the original Apostles should be considered more closely than any succeeding generation.

Those beliefs that are the closest to the apostles accept the 13 epistles of Paul. There were divergent sects, like the one you mentioned, that deny many truths of scripture. I gave you some examples in my last post. One can not take the beliefs of one divergent sect and develop a doctrine from it apart from scripture.

Please explain? Thank you.

Here is the verse in context.

14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Peter is exhorting us to be diligent in the things that are to come. The "therefore" in verse 14 takes you back to verse 10. What we need to be diligent about is to be prepared for the day of the Lord. Peter is telling those that that are untaught or that distort to pay attention to the wisdom of Paul's letters which was given to Him by our Lord. Paul is not the untaught or unstable one but one of the apostles that taught the hard things of salvation and the end of days which the untaught and unstable distort.

Looking at the grammar, lets examine the verses.

15 and regard (ἡγεῖσθε- verb rendered in the present middle imperative- the word means "am of opinion" "consider" "suppose") the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as (καθὼς- adverb- meaning "of same" "likewise" "according to the manner in which") also our beloved brother Paul, according (κατὰ- preposition- contextual meaning "according to" "by way of" "throughout") to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also (καὶ- conjunction- meaning 'and" "even" "namely") in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own(ἰδίαν-rendered here in accusative case- meaning "one's own" "personal" "individual") destruction. (bold and parenthesis mine)

Paul not only sent them epistles but also spoke to them personally as evidenced by verse 16. The destruction depicted at the end of verse 16 relates back to the "untaught and unstable sort" which do not understand what will happen at the time of Lord's day and consequently distort the message of the scriptures.

 

[ananda]

Also he adds "circular reasoning", changes dusnoeta to "detrimental to understanding", and still leaves off Peter's reference to Paul as "ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς" our beloved brother.

He explains "λαλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων" thus:

"And (kai) even as (hos – like and in a similar way (denoting a weak relationship between things)) in (en – with regard to) all (pas) letters (epistole – epistles), inside (en) they speak (laleo – talk) aroundperi – and remotely about; from peran, meaning to the extremity and beyond, and heteros, that which is different and opposed to) thishoutos)." (2 Peter 3:16) Considering the context, "this," the subject in this case, remains God’s unwavering and unchanging nature with regard to salvation. Therefore, the phrase suggests that the letters Paul penned speak "around" this subject. That is to say that circular reasoning is being used to convey a view which is "opposed to and different than" God’s position.

In regards to δυσνόητa, he writes:

it behooves us to contemplate the meaning of duysnoetos, which will be translated "difficult to understand," below. As a compound of dus, meaning "opposed to, difficult, and injurious to," and noeo "thinking," the word may actually mean: "opposed to understanding and injurious to thinking." And that would considerably change the tone of what follows.

​

He does not leave off "beloved brother"; he translates ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς as "dear brother" on his page.

 

[Hentenza]

He explains "λαλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων" thus:In regards to δυσνόητa, he writes:He does not leave off "beloved brother"; he translates ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς as "dear brother" on his page.

So a "dear brother" is a deceiver? I think not.

 

[Timothew]

This is from your teacher's website:

So far, Peter’s words have been practically perfect. The path to heaven has been delineated, step by step without distraction—that is until now. In the midst of the second half of the 15th verse, Peter suddenly turns his attention from our salvation to Paul—and I suppose that is because they are related (albeit not in a good way). "And (kai) accordingly (kathos – inasmuch as), our (ego) dear (ho agapetos – esteemed) brother (adelphos) Paulos (Paulos – Latin for little and small), through (kata – in accord with) the (ho) human wisdom (sophia – insights gleaned and capacity to understand derived from man’s knowledge, intelligence, experience, science, and philosophy) that had been given to (didomai – granted and assigned to and experienced by) him (autos) wrote to (grapho) you (su)." (2 Peter 3:15)
Based upon how Sha’uwl treated Shim’own, and based upon the fact that he vociferously condemned him in the very letter Peter was now referencing, it strains credulity to believe that that Yahshua’s Disciple penned the word "agapetos – dear and esteemed"—unless it was in reference to Paul’s notorious ego. It is to my mind, much more likely that second- and third-century scribes operating under Marcion’s influence augmented the text to serve their religious interests. It is the most reasonable explanation. But, more on this in a moment.
Whether or not Peter actually wrote "our dear/esteemed brother Paulos," I cannot say, but considering what Paul had written about Peter in his Galatians’ epistle, it is unlikely in the extreme that he felt this way. So we would be wise to see Shim’own’s tongue planted firmly in his cheek, and his eyebrows raised mockingly.

He says likely the word beloved was added by a later scribe (without any manuscript evidence) or maybe due to Paul's arrogance or maybe Peter was writing tongue in cheek.

All of these maybes just to advance the author's theory.

 

[ananda]

I did no such thing. I clearly explained that the mainstream churches are not in disagreement with the 66 books of scripture. ALL of them have and use the SAME 27 books of NT scripture INCLUDING the 13 epistles of Paul ...

When you state that they "ALL" use the "SAME 37 books ..." - if, by your use of the word "ALL" you do not mean "majority" of mainstream churches, then I suppose I don't know English.

You are correct in that all modern mainstream churches do use the same "New Testament". There are however, groups today that do not have the same "New Testament" as the mainstream. Who is to say that the latter is not correct, or that the former is correct, except if you appeal to the majority?

Those beliefs that are the closest to the apostles accept the 13 epistles of Paul. There were divergent sects, like the one you mentioned, that deny many truths of scripture. I gave you some examples in my last post. One can not take the beliefs of one divergent sect and develop a doctrine from it apart from scripture.

Why do you call them divergent? Divergent from what? The majority? Then, again, this is appeal to the majority.