Should Paul be removed from the NT?

Marsh

Disagreeable By Nature
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Not in the Kingdom... yet.
WolfgangvonUSA said:
I see that you only have one lone objection to my essay!!

Does this mean you agree with my other points?!

No. Actually it means I didn't think it necessary to reply to anything else because the entire argument rests on the premise that Paul was preaching in his own name. Your evidence for this is shaky to say the least. Your Bible apparently renders Paul's words as "my gospel;" my Bible renders them as "the gospel I have declared." Translations aside, I would like to hear some hard evidence; not this nit-picky stuff where a phrase is taken out of context, which is the stuff propaganda is made out of.

And this matter of Paul being rebuked by Peter? Listen to what Peter says about Paul (and others...) at the closing of his second letter:

"So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position."

Is it Paul's error, or is it the reader who does not understand?
 

WolfgangvonUSA

Well-Known Member
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Marsh said:
No. Actually it means I didn't think it necessary to reply to anything else because the entire argument rests on the premise that Paul was preaching in his own name. Your evidence for this is shaky to say the least. Your Bible apparently renders Paul's words as "my gospel;" my Bible renders them as "the gospel I have declared." Translations aside, I would like to hear some hard evidence; not this nit-picky stuff where a phrase is taken out of context, which is the stuff propaganda is made out of.

And this matter of Paul being rebuked by Peter? Listen to what Peter says about Paul (and others...) at the closing of his second letter:

"So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position."

Is it Paul's error, or is it the reader who does not understand?
Marsha,

First we find not one but 3 instances of Paul using the term 'my gospel'.


Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.



Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,


2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:


Second, Paul could not produce the names of any witnesses to his alleged vision on the road to Damascus. Even Paul agrees that such witnesses would be necessary.



Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.



2Cr 13:1 This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.


1Ti 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.


Hbr 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:


Third, there are major contradictions both within Luke's account of these events as recorded in the Acts and even more glaring contradictions between Luke's account in the Acts and Paul's account in the Letter to the Galatians. I documented these contradictions in an earlier letter on this forum. If the Bible is inerrant, then it must expel books that do not rise to that level.




Thus in the absence of corroborative evidence to support Paul's claim to have witnessed a vision from Christ, his solitary testimony is insufficient and he was therefore preaching in his own name. Don't forget that Saul/Paul was a self-admitted murderer and a Pharisee, a person of ill repute and hardly a person to be trusted to tell the truth. Even after his so-called conversion, Paul even admits that he engages in lying.
Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?


And finally the recent translation of the Habakkuk Commentary of the Dead Sea scrolls strongly suggests that Paul may be The Liar therein referenced


Many prominent scholars think that 2 Peter was a pseudonymity,that is, it was written by somebody other than Peter. (And some think it may have been written by a Pauline sympathizer. One of the reasons for this view is that 2 Peter is written in the style of Paul, and his writing often includes condescending and threatening language to intimidate people.)

"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

As Pauline doctrine became the major dogma of the Catholic church, such heavy-handedness helped pave the way for centuries of oppression and Inquisitions. It must be noted that Pauline doctrine enforces its will by stressing faith instead of reason and fear of punishment on this earth and in Hell for those who dare to think on their own.

Here are some notes on the authorship of 2 Peter:

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/2_Peter.htm

The informed skeptic is aware that out of all the epistles accepted into the cannon, none has received as much difficulty as Second Peter. Rejection of Peter as the author of Second Peter is the most common opinion today, and is supported by one of Christianity’s most authoritative conservative biblical scholars, Bruce Metzger, (a scholar that I personally have high regard for). Metzger writes:


"Although the author of this letter calls himself ‘Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ’ (1:1), and makes reference to his being present at the transfiguration of Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have led nearly all modern scholars to regard it as the work of an unknown author of the early second century who wrote in Peter’s name....In light of such internal and external evidence one must conclude that 2 Peter was drawn up sometime after A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the great apostle in order to give his letter greater authority" (The New Testament, its background, growth, and content, pg. 258).



In scholarly circles, Second Peter is classified as a pseudonymity, a term referring to, as Metzger mentions, an author assuming the name of another and writing supposedly on his behalf. Gary Ferngren, author of Internal Criticism as a Criterion for Authorship in the New Testament, states the situation as to Second Peter accurately:



"...a majority of informed scholars regard 2 Peter as pseudonymous, and this view is taken by many as a proven fact...A strong case can be made for Peter’s authorship of the second epistle attributed to him. Yet such arguments are for the most part ignored in modern discussions and one may be permitted to wonder how many minds are influenced less by the evidence against Petrine authorship than by the fact that the opinio communis of modern scholarship regards the evidence against it as decisive" (Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 134 #536: 341).



 
Last edited:

Marsh

Disagreeable By Nature
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Not in the Kingdom... yet.
I agree.* So let's get rid of Paul.

But after we get rid of Paul, we need to get rid of Peter because Peter endorsed Paul in his second letter. So now we don't have Peter or Paul.

Next, we need to get rid of the gospels because in them Jesus says that he will build his church upon Peter, who endorses Paul, who is false.

So now we have no gospels, no letters written by Paul, and no letters written by Peter. Oh, and of course no Acts because they endorse Paul as well.

That leaves us with Hebrews, the three letters written by John, Jude's letter, James' letter, and Revelation. Except for one thing: John is false because he wrote one of the gospels, which we've proven to be false. Therefore, the only things that we can rely on are Jude's letter and James' letters, and the letter to the Hebrews.

But hold on: James' letter is clearly influenced by the gospels. He refers to Jesus' teaching to let your yes be yes, and your no be no. He alludes to the parable of the sower. His notes on what it means to follow Mosaic law in chapter 2 are reminiscent of Jesus' sermon on the mount. So I don't think we can trust James, because he was clearly influenced by the gospels we've shown to be false. And since Jude identifies himself as a brother of James, we should exclude him too because they probably collaborated in this conspiracy.

So we're left with the letter to the Hebrews. But the writer of Hebrews identifies Timothy as a brother (friend), and Timothy was hanging out with Paul's crowd, and Paul is a false apostle.

Therefore, the entire New Testament is false.

Ironically, anyone who uses NT scripture to prove that Paul is a false apostle is using tainted evidence.



*I don't actually agree.
 

Abogado del Diablo

Ferally Decent
Messages
745
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Texas
Ben57 said:
The books attributed to Paul

Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
[size=-1][/size]
[size=-1]Romans
I Corinthians
II Corinthians
Galatians

[/size][size=-1]Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.[/size]

[size=-1]Ephesians[/size]

[size=-1]Generally accepted as a non-Pauline work; i.e. not written by Paul. Reasons for this include:
  • Absence of normal Pauline greetings at the end of the epistle
  • No discussion of eschatology in the letter
  • Style is sluggish and ponderous, unlike Paul’s volatile style
  • Anachronistic references to the existence of heretical sects
  • Use of key technical phrases differs from the genuine Pauline epistles.
[/size][size=-1]Philippians[/size]

[size=-1]Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.[/size]

[size=-1]Collosians[/size][size=-1][/size]
[size=-1][/size]
[size=-1]Authenticity disputed. The majority of scholars say that it is very probably not Pauline due to the difference in vocabulary, style and general slant. Some scholars still believe in the possibility that Collosians could be an authentic Pauline document.[/size]

[size=-1]I Thessalonians[/size]

[size=-1]Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.[/size]

[size=-1]II Thessalonians[/size]

[size=-1]Generally believed to be non-Pauline due to:
  • Tone of the letter. I Thessalonians shows a feeling of close fellowship between Paul and the readers, yet the second epistle has a formal tone.
  • A contradiction between the two Thessalonian epistles about the manner of Christ’s second coming (I Thessalonians 4:11-53 and II Thessalonian 2:1-12)
  • A large bulk of the second epistle seems to be a direct copy of the first.
[/size][size=-1]I Timothy
II Timothy
Titus

[/size][size=-1]The “pastoral” epistles are generally accepted as non-authentic. All internal evidence points to a date of composition of early second century AD:
  • The existence of a highly organized church which simply did not exist in Paul’s time (I Timothy 3:15)
  • The presupposition of the existence of definite creeds (I timothy 4:6; II Timothy 1:13) and the gospels (I Timothy 6:3,13) which appeared some decades after the death of Paul.
  • Paul insistence that he is not lying when he claims apostleship (I Timothy 2:7) is itself highly suspicious as Timothy would have been most familiar with Paul’s authority.
  • The theology of the pastorals are significantly different from the genuine Pauline epistles. The former call for acceptance of dogma is the way to salvation while the latter have always emphasized salvation by grace through faith.
[/size][size=-1]Philemon[/size]

[size=-1]Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.[/size]

Hebrews

Not regarded as Pauline.

So the list might only include these seven "Authentic Epistles":

Romans, 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thes., and Philemon.

While the authenticity of the "Deutero-Pauline Epistles" (Eph., Coll., 2 Thess.), which may have been authored by someone close to Paul or authored by later writers of a "Pauline School" and the "Pastoral Epistles" (I Tim., II Tim., Titus) is disputed with the consensus of scholarly opinion coming down against their authenticity. In most accounts, Hebrews doesn't even make the list of "disputed" Pauline letters.

For a brief discussion see:
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~andrew/bible/paulparts.htm
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/deutero.stm

and for a start on a list of scholarly sources:
http://home.inu.net/skeptic/epistles.html
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/doughty.html
 

WolfgangvonUSA

Well-Known Member
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Marsh said:
I agree.* So let's get rid of Paul.

But after we get rid of Paul, we need to get rid of Peter because Peter endorsed Paul in his second letter. So now we don't have Peter or Paul.

Next, we need to get rid of the gospels because in them Jesus says that he will build his church upon Peter, who endorses Paul, who is false.

So now we have no gospels, no letters written by Paul, and no letters written by Peter. Oh, and of course no Acts because they endorse Paul as well.

That leaves us with Hebrews, the three letters written by John, Jude's letter, James' letter, and Revelation. Except for one thing: John is false because he wrote one of the gospels, which we've proven to be false. Therefore, the only things that we can rely on are Jude's letter and James' letters, and the letter to the Hebrews.

But hold on: James' letter is clearly influenced by the gospels. He refers to Jesus' teaching to let your yes be yes, and your no be no. He alludes to the parable of the sower. His notes on what it means to follow Mosaic law in chapter 2 are reminiscent of Jesus' sermon on the mount. So I don't think we can trust James, because he was clearly influenced by the gospels we've shown to be false. And since Jude identifies himself as a brother of James, we should exclude him too because they probably collaborated in this conspiracy.

So we're left with the letter to the Hebrews. But the writer of Hebrews identifies Timothy as a brother (friend), and Timothy was hanging out with Paul's crowd, and Paul is a false apostle.

Therefore, the entire New Testament is false.

Ironically, anyone who uses NT scripture to prove that Paul is a false apostle is using tainted evidence.



*I don't actually agree.
That's a cute argument, Marsha.

The only problem is that Peter did not write 2 Peter, and on this point your argument collapses. Didn't you read my last post on this?:(
If you don't beleive me, just enter "authorship of 2 Peter' in your search engine and explore the results.

But on another note, try to remember that Jesus was able to accomplish His mission without once quoting Peter or Paul. He did not carry a copy of the NT but quoted extensively out of the OT. And when Joseph of Arimethea sailed to Glastonbury, England to establish Christ's church away from the influence of apostate Rome, he did not have copy of the NT either.

Hallelu YAH!!

Wolfy:)
PS please note the article on Joseph of Arimethea on this very site.
 

WolfgangvonUSA

Well-Known Member
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Abogado del Diablo said:
[size=-1]Romans
I Corinthians
II Corinthians
Galatians

[/size][size=-1]Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.[/size]

[size=-1]Ephesians[/size]

[size=-1]Generally accepted as a non-Pauline work; i.e. not written by Paul. Reasons for this include:
  • Absence of normal Pauline greetings at the end of the epistle
  • No discussion of eschatology in the letter
  • Style is sluggish and ponderous, unlike Paul’s volatile style
  • Anachronistic references to the existence of heretical sects
  • Use of key technical phrases differs from the genuine Pauline epistles.
[/size][size=-1]Philippians[/size]

[size=-1]Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.[/size]

[size=-1]Collosians[/size]

[size=-1]Authenticity disputed. The majority of scholars say that it is very probably not Pauline due to the difference in vocabulary, style and general slant. Some scholars still believe in the possibility that Collosians could be an authentic Pauline document.[/size]

[size=-1]I Thessalonians[/size]

[size=-1]Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.[/size]

[size=-1]II Thessalonians[/size]

[size=-1]Generally believed to be non-Pauline due to:
  • Tone of the letter. I Thessalonians shows a feeling of close fellowship between Paul and the readers, yet the second epistle has a formal tone.
  • A contradiction between the two Thessalonian epistles about the manner of Christ’s second coming (I Thessalonians 4:11-53 and II Thessalonian 2:1-12)
  • A large bulk of the second epistle seems to be a direct copy of the first.
[/size][size=-1]I Timothy
II Timothy
Titus

[/size][size=-1]The “pastoral” epistles are generally accepted as non-authentic. All internal evidence points to a date of composition of early second century AD:
  • The existence of a highly organized church which simply did not exist in Paul’s time (I Timothy 3:15)
  • The presupposition of the existence of definite creeds (I timothy 4:6; II Timothy 1:13) and the gospels (I Timothy 6:3,13) which appeared some decades after the death of Paul.
  • Paul insistence that he is not lying when he claims apostleship (I Timothy 2:7) is itself highly suspicious as Timothy would have been most familiar with Paul’s authority.
  • The theology of the pastorals are significantly different from the genuine Pauline epistles. The former call for acceptance of dogma is the way to salvation while the latter have always emphasized salvation by grace through faith.
[/size][size=-1]Philemon[/size]

[size=-1]Generally accepted by scholars to have been genuinely written by Paul.[/size]

Hebrews

Not regarded as Pauline.

So the list might only include these seven "Authentic Epistles":

Romans, 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thes., and Philemon.

While the authenticity of the "Deutero-Pauline Epistles" (Eph., Coll., 2 Thess.), which may have been authored by someone close to Paul or authored by later writers of a "Pauline School" and the "Pastoral Epistles" (I Tim., II Tim., Titus) is disputed with the consensus of scholarly opinion coming down against their authenticity. In most accounts, Hebrews doesn't even make the list of "disputed" Pauline letters.

For a brief discussion see:
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~andrew/bible/paulparts.htm
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/deutero.stm

and for a start on a list of scholarly sources:
http://home.inu.net/skeptic/epistles.html
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/doughty.html
Thank you, Abogado del Diablo

With your help perhaps we will yet advance to discussing the Gospel of Q, the Documentary Hypothesis, and the implications of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the alleged inerrancy of the mortally canonized bible. May the Light of Yah shine through man's confusion and Satan's lies in this End of Days.

Hallelu YAH !!

Wolfgang
 

Abogado del Diablo

Ferally Decent
Messages
745
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Texas
WolfgangvonUSA said:
Thank you, Abogado del Diablo

With your help perhaps we will yet advance to discussing the Gospel of Q, the Documentary Hypothesis, and the implications of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the alleged inerrancy of the mortally canonized bible. May the Light of Yah shine through man's confusion and Satan's lies in this End of Days.

Hallelu YAH !!

Wolfgang


Whenever you're ready. I'm interested in all of these topics. One thing I take issue with in "Pauline Conspiracy", BTW, is the rejection of the Pauline teachings on the basis of Canonical "Gospels." Paul's positions make complete sense if you understand the "inner mysteries" but to people like the author of James, who are measuring Paul by his adherence to dogma, it makes no sense. Early Christianity was an amalgamation of two "traditions." Paul emphasized one part of the amalgamation gradually to the exclusion of the other, while his early opponents did the opposite. The result is a jumbled collection of both sides of that early debate in the Canonical New Testament - full of contradictions and inconsistencies as a result.

The two ideas never belonged together in the first place. That was the problem - and still is. The Greek/Egyptian "mysteries" that were the basis of Greek philosophy could not be mixed with a True Religion. Paul seemed to understand that. Paul's followers since, unfortunately, do not. Interestingly, Paul's early opponents also understood it.
 

WolfgangvonUSA

Well-Known Member
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Abogado del Diablo said:
Whenever you're ready. I'm interested in all of these topics. One thing I take issue with in "Pauline Conspiracy", BTW, is the rejection of the Pauline teachings on the basis of Canonical "Gospels." Paul's positions make complete sense if you understand the "inner mysteries" but to people like the author of James, who are measuring Paul by his adherence to dogma, it makes no sense. Early Christianity was an amalgamation of two "traditions." Paul emphasized one part of the amalgamation gradually to the exclusion of the other, while his early opponents did the opposite. The result is a jumbled collection of both sides of that early debate in the Canonical New Testament - full of contradictions and inconsistencies as a result.

The two ideas never belonged together in the first place. That was the problem - and still is. The Greek/Egyptian "mysteries" that were the basis of Greek philosophy could not be mixed with a True Religion. Paul seemed to understand that. Paul's followers since, unfortunately, do not. Interestingly, Paul's early opponents also understood it.
OK, you have said that "Pauline doctrine makes sense if you understand the "inner mysteries" but to people like the author of James, who are measuring Paul by his adherence to dogma, it makes no sense."

But you have not elaborated or supported this contention with any evidence. Please elaborate.

And who is the 'author of James'?
 

lunamoth

Episcopalian
Messages
3,915
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Wild, Wild West
Abogado del Diablo said:
Whenever you're ready. I'm interested in all of these topics. One thing I take issue with in "Pauline Conspiracy", BTW, is the rejection of the Pauline teachings on the basis of Canonical "Gospels." Paul's positions make complete sense if you understand the "inner mysteries" but to people like the author of James, who are measuring Paul by his adherence to dogma, it makes no sense. Early Christianity was an amalgamation of two "traditions." Paul emphasized one part of the amalgamation gradually to the exclusion of the other, while his early opponents did the opposite. The result is a jumbled collection of both sides of that early debate in the Canonical New Testament - full of contradictions and inconsistencies as a result.

The two ideas never belonged together in the first place. That was the problem - and still is. The Greek/Egyptian "mysteries" that were the basis of Greek philosophy could not be mixed with a True Religion. Paul seemed to understand that. Paul's followers since, unfortunately, do not. Interestingly, Paul's early opponents also understood it.

Hello, Hope you both will pardon my interjection into this scholarly thread with my own naive questions, but I am interested in what you said above here, AdD, and was wondering if you could clarify for me. You seem to set up a case in which "inner mysteries" (=faith?) is in opposition to True Religion (dogma? following the letter of the law?). Do you mean this is like mixing the spiritual with the practical, and that the two should never meet? I'm sure I'm missing your meaning here but would like to understand.

In all of these Paul-related threads it seems to me like the argument is which trumps which, Love or the Law. Ideally, shouldn't the two be complimentary? When the two appear to be in conflict surely we've muddled something. And which is more likely to be muddled?

I will concede ahead of time that I do not have the biblical or apocryphal knowledge to defend my case. :)
 

Abogado del Diablo

Ferally Decent
Messages
745
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Texas
WolfgangvonUSA said:
OK, you have said that "Pauline doctrine makes sense if you understand the "inner mysteries" but to people like the author of James, who are measuring Paul by his adherence to dogma, it makes no sense."

But you have not elaborated or supported this contention with any evidence. Please elaborate.

And who is the 'author of James'?
Read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy, "Beyond Belief" by Elaine Pagels and start examining the Gnostic Gospels.

As far as the author of James, I don't know who he is but he is clearly on the other side of the Law/Faith debate from Paul.
 

Abogado del Diablo

Ferally Decent
Messages
745
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Texas
lunamoth said:
but I am interested in what you said above here, AdD, and was wondering if you could clarify for me. You seem to set up a case in which "inner mysteries" (=faith?) is in opposition to True Religion (dogma? following the letter of the law?). Do you mean this is like mixing the spiritual with the practical, and that the two should never meet?
Actually the "inner mysteries" are much more akin to Greek philosophy than faith. True Religion is faith. So the conflict is not Love v. Law but whether virtue arises from reason/wisdom or faith. The "Jewish aspects of Christianity - the faith - is incompatible with the Mystery aspect, whose deeper meanings were philosophical and based on reason rather than on faith or revelation.
 

Abogado del Diablo

Ferally Decent
Messages
745
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Texas
I would also add that Greek philsophy and the mysteries permeate Christianity in places other than the writings of Paul. The Gospel of John starts with the phrase "In the beginning was the Word." "Word" is the Greek Logos, which has its roots centuries earlier in the writings and teachings of Plato - himself a disciple of the Cult of Dionysius and student of Pythagoras.

Plato taught that the world of matter was under the control of a great spiritual principle—the Nous—which principle was also called Logos, or The Divine Mind or Word of God. When this principle manifested itself in the world, it was called virtue or goodness, or chrestos, from whence we get the name Christ.

And for a likely original author of Christianity as Paul came to know it, I would propose Philo ("the Pythagorean") a Jewish philosopher at around the time attribtued to the "life of Christ". In Philo's thought, Logos is the divine "template" of which the visible world is a copy; it is the divine power of manifestation, process, and unfolding in that world; and it is the agent of creation, an intermediary or demiourgos, following Plato's Timaeus, that realizes God's plan.
 

Marsh

Disagreeable By Nature
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Not in the Kingdom... yet.
WolfgangvonUSA said:
The only problem is that Peter did not write 2 Peter, and on this point your argument collapses. Didn't you read my last post on this?:(
If you don't beleive me, just enter "authorship of 2 Peter' in your search engine and explore the results.

I could equally validate it by getting rid of 2 Peter from the start and using Acts to discredit the gospels, since Acts was written by Luke. But this is beside the point. You still haven't proven that there is even one fundamental difference between the teachings of Jesus and preachings of Paul.

So I'll make it easy for you. Show me where Paul subverts Jesus on the most critical of all teachings: Love. If you can prove that Paul's preachings on love contradict Jesus' teachings, then in my opinion Paul is completely discredited because love is the foundation of Jesus' message. But the kind of contradiction I'm asking for is a fundamental one; not a nit-picky one, based on an isolated clause taken out of context.
 

WolfgangvonUSA

Well-Known Member
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Marsh said:
I could equally validate it by getting rid of 2 Peter from the start and using Acts to discredit the gospels, since Acts was written by Luke. But this is beside the point. You still haven't proven that there is even one fundamental difference between the teachings of Jesus and preachings of Paul.

So I'll make it easy for you. Show me where Paul subverts Jesus on the most critical of all teachings: Love. If you can prove that Paul's preachings on love contradict Jesus' teachings, then in my opinion Paul is completely discredited because love is the foundation of Jesus' message. But the kind of contradiction I'm asking for is a fundamental one; not a nit-picky one, based on an isolated clause taken out of context.
Marsha,
You will find the answers you are looking for in Victor's thesis: 'the pauline conspiracy' which is availble in the articles section of this website.:)

I agree with Brian when he said Victor's argument against Paul is difficult to refute. If you're up the challenge, dare to read Victor's article and refute him, point by point.;)
 

WolfgangvonUSA

Well-Known Member
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Marsh said:
Why are you so unwilling to make any arguments of your own? I'm only asking for one.
Critics of Paul share the same argument that he is not a true apostle.

But we each submit some evidence in common and some evidence that is original, so some of my material is duplicated by Victor and some is not.

But most is parallel. Read Victor's thesis and see for yourself.

Go ahead and refute Victor, point by point.

But remember, the burden of proof is not to refute Paul's claim to apostleship, but to prove it in the affirmative.

The ball is in your court. From the works of the original apostles, please prove that another apostle would arrive to rule over them all.

But remember that Jesus never foretold of any new apostles; He only foretold of the arrival of false apostles!
 

Abogado del Diablo

Ferally Decent
Messages
745
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Texas
WolfgangvonUSA said:
The ball is in your court. From the works of the original apostles, please prove that another apostle would arrive to rule over them all.
Which works would those be?
 

WolfgangvonUSA

Well-Known Member
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Abogado del Diablo said:
Which works would those be?
From the gospels of Matthew, Mark or John (although Mark was actually a disciple of Peter, still he was at least recollecting the thoughts of a true apostle among The Twelve).
 

Abogado del Diablo

Ferally Decent
Messages
745
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Texas
WolfgangvonUSA said:
From the gospels of Matthew, Mark or John (although Mark was actually a disciple of Peter, still he was at least recollecting the thoughts of a true apostle among The Twelve).
How do you know that any of those were written by apostles? How do you know that Mark was written by a disciple of Peter?
 

WolfgangvonUSA

Well-Known Member
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Abogado del Diablo said:
How do you know that any of those were written by apostles? How do you know that Mark was written by a disciple of Peter?
Actually we don't know for sure. Most bible scholars agree these works were inspired by their namesakes but the final text was written by several layers of redactors (including the gospel of Q). Still these books are accepted as gospels originating from the alleged authors, and these books never make any mention of Paul or Luke.

And Jesus was able to accomplish His teaching without quoting Paul or Luke, so if He didn't need Paul or Luke, then it is quite possible to maintain a Christian doctrine without including the books of Paul or Luke.

I still do not understand why Christians are so dependent on Pauline doctrine.
Thw Words of Jesus should be sufficient.

Have you heard of the Jefferson Bible? It is solely a compilation of the Words of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson said that "Paul was the first corrupter of the gospels".
 
Top