False Apostle Paul & 2 Peter 3:15-17

[ananda]

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 ashis 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 ...

The mainstream "traditional" understanding of these fragments I highlighted cannot be true, since then Peter would be claiming that the "rest of the Scriptures" are also "hard to understand". This is false as evidenced here: "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." (Psa 19:7).

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.

Exactly; we cannot have Pauline doctrine distort the message of the Scriptures - the Scriptures clearly endorsed by Messiah (Torah, Prophets, and Writings).

 

[ananda]

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

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.

Why not? Jeremiah writes that Elohim warned us thusly: "Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you" (Jer 29:8). If they are in the midst of us, then many believe that they are brethren, but really are not.

Secondly, even if Peter was calling Paul a "dear brother," then we must consider this: Yeshua Messiah prophesied that Peter would be led away by another to doctrines which Yeshua did not preach, and in this direction he (Peter) was warned that he should not go (John 21:18); this appears to be the reason why Yeshua, in the same chapter, repeatedly warned Peter that he should 1) pay attention to feeding his lambs & sheep (with true doctrine), emphasizing it by repeating it three times! and 2) follow Yeshua (not anyone else), emphasized in a twofold repetition. It appears Peter was led away by Paul to the latter's foreign doctrine ("grace only" vs. Yeshua's doctrine of "trust & faithfulness") in his possible endorsement of Paul's writings and elsewhere. In essence, Peter would fail to be a faithful witness for Messiah, whereas Messiah seems to hint that John's testimony would remain true to Him to the end (John 21:21).

 

[Hentenza]

The mainstream "traditional" understanding of these fragments I highlighted cannot be true, since then Peter would be claiming that the "rest of the Scriptures" are also "hard to understand". This is false as evidenced here: "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." (Psa 19:7).

Even if that was true, which it is not, it would still be irrelevant to your argument. Scriptures can be hard to understand but that does not mean that the scriptures are deceiving. You are assigning type where there is none.

BTW- Ps. 19:7 makes a clear distinction. Tell me, without looking it up or posting a link, what are the 613 commandments of the Law? Can you mention them from memory?

Exactly; we cannot have Pauline doctrine distort the message of the Scriptures - the Scriptures clearly endorsed by Messiah (Torah, Prophets, and Writings).

Paul is not one of the "untaught or unstable" sort. Paul enlightens the untaught and unstable. See the distinction?

 

[FirenWater]

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." (Psa 19:7)

I love that one

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Isaiah 8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

1Cr 1:6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

1Cr 9:8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?

Theres a few one can catch between the law and the testimony which I thought were kool (see contextes) but the law and the testimony between them, and how he uses them in various places

And no, Im not going to wrangle, just adding

 

[Hentenza]

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.

The are a total of 27 (not 37) books in the New Testament. All churches have a bible that contain exactly the same 27 books of the New Testaments. Churches use the same 27 books of the New Testament which contradicts your premise that churches us different bibles.
Is that clearer?

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?

If the canon is still open then we really do not have a bible but an ever changing collection of books that are subject to the whims of people or groups. The bible then has become subjective truth and consequently worthless. You are threading in very dangerous ground were your beliefs can be affected by the direction of the prevalent wind.

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

You really need to look up what the fallacy of ad populum means. I am stating fact. In the fist few centuries of the church there were groups that diverged from apostolic teaching. Examples are gnostics, Arians, Montanism, donatism, Marcionism, AND Ebonites.

Again, Paul was chosen by Jesus as an apostle. Luke tells us distinctively. Therefore, all of Paul's writings are apostolic. All sects that claim that they are not are diverging from apostolic teaching.

 

[ananda]

Tell me, without looking it up or posting a link, what are the 613 commandments of the Law? Can you mention them from memory?

If I may ask, how this is relevant in regards to this discussion?

Paul is not one of the "untaught or unstable" sort. Paul enlightens the untaught and unstable. See the distinction?

I understand the distinction, but I disagree with your conclusion.

 

[ananda]

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." (Psa 19:7)

Isaiah 8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Thank you for sharing, those are indeed good verses.

compare to Paul's "abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations" (Eph 2:15).

 

[FirenWater]

Would make a good thread, why not start one, on each point

 

[ananda]

All churches have a bible that contain exactly the same 27 books of the New Testaments. Churches use the same 27 books of the New Testament which contradicts your premise that churches us different bibles. Is that clearer?

I do not disagree with the numbering of books as used by the majority of Christians in the "New Testament". What I am focusing on is your assessment that the 27 books must be true Scripture since they are used by the majority of Christians.

If the canon is still open then we really do not have a bible but an ever changing collection of books that are subject to the whims of people or groups. The bible then has become subjective truth and consequently worthless. You are threading in very dangerous ground were your beliefs can be affected by the direction of the prevalent wind.

I believe the canon is closed (Rev 22:18,19), and nothing can or should be added since the time John wrote those words under inspiration.

With that said, and as I said before, I believe the whole of the Tanach is Scripture, as witnessed to by Messiah Himself, with varying degrees of authority among its three sections. Since Messiah is the Word Himself, His Words is equal to Elohim's Words, and are thus equivalent to Torah and has its authority. The Book of Revelation has fulfilled prophecies, and I thus consider it among the Prophets. And, the rest of the epistles (minus Paul) I place among the Writings.

I believe I am treading on solid ground when I recommend returning to and obeying YHVH's (Deu 13, 18, etc.) and Messiah's commandments (Mt 24, etc), and hearing John's advice (1John4) to test all prophets and spirits, and not merely accept "this or that" based on blind faith or on the pronouncement of men who says "believe this, because I (or the church) saith so!" Those who blindly follow others are walking on shaky ground, and would well heed Scripture: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (Prov 14:15) & "Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established." (Prov 4:26).

In the fist few centuries of the church there were groups that diverged from apostolic teaching. Examples are gnostics, Arians, Montanism, donatism, Marcionism, AND Ebonites.

I believe many of the Ebionites and Nazarenes kept the true doctrines of Yeshua Messiah, whereas Pauline doctrine grew as a cancer in the Body. Now, I suspect that most Christians can't see that it is the cancer that they are following, and not what is good.

As I mentioned before, and as points to consider, to all in general who would read this post - have you let Paul's words trump Messiah's and Elohim's Words? Do you quote Paul more than you quote Messiah, or Torah, or the Prophets?

Again, Paul was chosen by Jesus as an apostle. Luke tells us distinctively.

Not so. You have not addressed my point that all of the accounts of "Messiah's" supposed encounter with Paul differ from one another. Paul doesn't even have first-hand witnesses testifying to us about his encounter; the accounts of his second-hand witness (Luke) disagree, and fails Elohim's requirements for legitimate witnesses.

 

[FirenWater]

I believe many of the Ebionites and Nazarenes kept the true doctrines of Yeshua Messiah, whereas Pauline doctrine grew as a cancer in the Body. Now, I suspect that most Christians can't see that it is the cancer that they are following, and not what is good.

I do have a question, not to wrangle, but I am curious, why Paul would even be accused of the following? In light of what you are saying

Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

Whats your thoughts on this?

Thanks

 

[Hentenza]

If I may ask, how this is relevant in regards to this discussion?

You brought up Ps. 19:7.

I understand the distinction, but I disagree with your conclusion.

Then you disagree with the grammar.

 

[Hentenza]

I do not disagree with the numbering of books as used by the majority of Christians in the "New Testament". What I am focusing on is your assessment that the 27 books must be true Scripture since they are used by the majority of Christians.

You do disagree with the numbering of the books because you remove 13 of them.

I believe the canon is closed (Rev 22:18,19), and nothing can or should be added since the time John wrote those words under inspiration.

Yes, and it included the 13 epistles of Paul.

With that said, and as I said before, I believe the whole of the Tanach is Scripture, as witnessed to by Messiah Himself, with varying degrees of authority among its three sections. Since Messiah is the Word Himself, His Words is equal to Elohim's Words, and are thus equivalent to Torah and has its authority. The Book of Revelation has fulfilled prophecies, and I thus consider it among the Prophets. And, the rest of the epistles (minus Paul) I place among the Writings.

That is not the way that the NT books are distributed.

I believe I am treading on solid ground when I recommend returning to and obeying YHVH's (Deu 13, 18, etc.) and Messiah's commandments (Mt 24, etc), and hearing John's advice (1John4) to test all prophets and spirits, and not merely accept "this or that" based on blind faith or on the pronouncement of men who says "believe this, because I (or the church) saith so!" Those who blindly follow others are walking on shaky ground, and would well heed Scripture: "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (Prov 14:15) & "Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established." (Prov 4:26).

You are not on solid ground but on marsh. Apostolic teaching includes Paul. You don't like him because he tells the truth about the function of the law for the Christian. You prefer to attempt to follow the 613 commandments of the Torah but I bet that you can't even name 1/3 of them from memory.

I believe many of the Ebionites and Nazarenes kept the true doctrines of Yeshua Messiah, whereas Pauline doctrine grew as a cancer in the Body. Now, I suspect that most Christians can't see that it is the cancer that they are following, and not what is good.

They did not. The Ebonites and the Nazarenes are heretical, divergent sects. They are judaizers. Acts 15 is clear on that point.

As I mentioned before, and as points to consider, to all in general who would read this post - have you let Paul's words trump Messiah's and Elohim's Words? Do you quote Paul more than you quote Messiah, or Torah, or the Prophets?

Nice strawman.

Not so. You have not addressed my point that all of the accounts of "Messiah's" supposed encounter with Paul differ from one another. Paul doesn't even have first-hand witnesses testifying to us about his encounter; the accounts of his second-hand witness (Luke) disagree, and fails Elohim's requirements for legitimate witnesses.

Post them and we can discuss them. Your argument, your burden of proof.

BTW- The accounts of the resurrection morning differ, do you not believe that Jesus raised from the dead just as scripture teaches?

 

[Hentenza]

Why not? Jeremiah writes that Elohim warned us thusly: "Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you" (Jer 29:8). If they are in the midst of us, then many believe that they are brethren, but really are not.

Secondly, even if Peter was calling Paul a "dear brother," then we must consider this: Yeshua Messiah prophesied that Peter would be led away by another to doctrines which Yeshua did not preach, and in this direction he (Peter) was warned that he should not go (John 21:18); this appears to be the reason why Yeshua, in the same chapter, repeatedly warned Peter that he should 1) pay attention to feeding his lambs & sheep (with true doctrine), emphasizing it by repeating it three times! and 2) follow Yeshua (not anyone else), emphasized in a twofold repetition. It appears Peter was led away by Paul to the latter's foreign doctrine ("grace only" vs. Yeshua's doctrine of "trust & faithfulness") in his possible endorsement of Paul's writings and elsewhere. In essence, Peter would fail to be a faithful witness for Messiah, whereas Messiah seems to hint that John's testimony would remain true to Him to the end (John 21:21).

Good grief. It just amazes me how some can fall for the unscriptural teachings of cults. Jesus asked Peter 3 times if he loved Him. He asked Peter 3 times to feed His sheep. The reason why Jesus did this 3 times is because Peter denied Christ 3 times. It is not hard to understand.

The doctrines of grace appear in ALL of the NT not just in Paul's epistles. We are not under the law but under grace, otherwise Christ died for nothing and we are still in our sins. Faith is what saved not the law. Read Hebrews 11.

 

[ananda]

I do have a question, not to wrangle, but I am curious, why Paul would even be accused of the following? In light of what you are saying ... Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: ... Whats your thoughts on this? Thanks

The speaker of that statement was Tertullus - we do not know much about him except that he was a lawyer. The fact that he called Paul a Nazarene does not have much significance, he may very well have confused the different sects. Just like how an uninformed atheist might see a Protestant and a Mormon and call both "Christians".

 

[Hentenza]

I do have a question, not to wrangle, but I am curious, why Paul would even be accused of the following? In light of what you are saying

Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

Whats your thoughts on this?

Thanks

Jesus was said to be a Nazarene. The Jews believed that nothing good came out of Nazareth so they called the Christian leaders nazarenes. It was a term of derision but an effective one given the context of the passage. Not only was Tertullus accusing Paul of sedition, which Felix would have placed closed attention to, but also played the negativity of the title for the benefit of the audience present.

 

[ananda]

Then you disagree with the grammar.

Paul used pretty bad grammar, quite beneath the dignity of "Holy Scripture".

 

[Hentenza]

Paul used pretty bad grammar, quite beneath the dignity of "Holy Scripture".

The verse is not from Paul but from Peter. I guess Peter had pretty bad grammar too.

 

[ananda]

You do disagree with the numbering of the books because you remove 13 of them.

(I had a typo earlier - I agree that mainstream Christianity includes 27 books in the NT, not 37). And yes, I do remove 13 from the 27 in my personal canon. Now, to clarify my original point: all I am saying is that the fact that the majority of Christians today, in recognizing 27 books of the NT, does not make that number correct.

You are not on solid ground but on marsh. Apostolic teaching includes Paul. You don't like him because he tells the truth about the function of the law for the Christian. You prefer to attempt to follow the 613 commandments of the Torah but I bet that you can't even name 1/3 of them from memory.

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) Here is the patience (ὑπομονὴ = endurance, perseverance, preservation) of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. (Rev 14:12).

Post them and we can discuss them. Your argument, your burden of proof.

• And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Act 9:7)
• And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.(Acts 22:9)
• At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth ... (Acts 26:13,14)

BTW- The accounts of the resurrection morning differ, do you not believe that Jesus raised from the dead just as scripture teaches?

In my understanding, they are all reconcilable. Are you saying that they are not?

 

[ananda]

The verse is not from Paul but from Peter. I guess Peter had pretty bad grammar too.

No - I was referring to Paul's epistles in general.

 

[FirenWater]

The speaker of that statement was Tertullus - we do not know much about him except that he was a lawyer. The fact that he called Paul a Nazarene does not have much significance, he may very well have confused the different sects. Just like how an uninformed atheist might see a Protestant and a Mormon and call both "Christians".

Thank you, I just wanted to know how you reasoned with that one in your defense of the Nazarenes (while Paul was accused of being a ringleader of that sect).

Though, if you were in agreement with Hen (strangely) you might have a better argument (even siding with Tertullus) against Paul on that charge.

Not that I'd promote that, but its a little commendable you didnt jump on that one, just to have a case against Paul

Thats why I was so curious. "Paul? accused of being a ringleader of a sect I approve of"?

Tertullus would definately have to be confused then

However, you didnt throw the sect of the Nazarenes (you approve of) under the bus to get at Paul, I would have expected that much, but you surprised me there actually.

Following the conversation (a little). You both seem to disagree with Tertullus charge of Paul ( You..."no way Paul could not be of that which I approve") and Hen (no way, "Paul is not of what is heretical"). So you both appear to be holding a common disagreement on the charge of Tertullus charge (there) but no common agreement on the sect of Nazarenes.

I cant tell this will be one longgggggggg conversation

Anyway, gotta look up these Nazarenes, to see what the scoop is, I actually never did, so I am curious