F
Foon Nerfdahl
Guest
The writer of Second Peter wrote it LONG after Peter and Paul were dead. That's a well established fact among any but the most FundaGelical of Bible Scholars.
We can call him Peter if it makes you comfortable, and what he wrote was, as I said, that Paul's many contradictions and confusing writing style had led many people astray......just as it is doing for many in this forum who feel a need to defend Paul.
We certainly COULD view it as a veiled DEFENSE of Paul because by that time a lot of people were probably complaining about Paul's "gospel" being different from that of Jesus, and the early church fathers had a vested interest in keeping people confused and pretending that THEY were the only people gifted enough to understand spiritual things and interpret what Paul really meant to say.
That's how the Second Letter of Peter came to be.......it was basically spin.
And, it certainly did not verify any of the wild stories of Paul's exploits as noted ONLY by the rather imaginative Luke, did it?
Right. As I said.
We can call him Peter if it makes you comfortable, and what he wrote was, as I said, that Paul's many contradictions and confusing writing style had led many people astray......just as it is doing for many in this forum who feel a need to defend Paul.
We certainly COULD view it as a veiled DEFENSE of Paul because by that time a lot of people were probably complaining about Paul's "gospel" being different from that of Jesus, and the early church fathers had a vested interest in keeping people confused and pretending that THEY were the only people gifted enough to understand spiritual things and interpret what Paul really meant to say.
That's how the Second Letter of Peter came to be.......it was basically spin.
And, it certainly did not verify any of the wild stories of Paul's exploits as noted ONLY by the rather imaginative Luke, did it?
Right. As I said.
Upvote
0