What Did Paul Know?

[Bright Raven]

i'll tell you what i told Turbo when he showed me this passage:
Quote:
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as (1)our beloved brother Paul also (2)according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, (3)speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1) this is a pleasantry. Paul's teachings were popular and Peter was playing a game of religion and politics. salvation by faith (belief in the action of christ dying, resurrecting and redeeming) is easier than salvation by works (keeping the law, following the words of the earthly christ as opposed to believing in the supernatural redemptive work of the divine christ being) and was thus a popular alternative to the stiff necked orthodoxy of the original apostles.

2) Peter is not saying that Paul received his gospel from jesus christ.

3) Peter is saying from the get go that these things Paul teaches are difficult to understand, and oftentimes lead people astray, "unto their own destruction". that's not an endorsement, BR, that's a warning. Peter errs on the side of caution through this entire epistle, read the whole thing, it's a warning about Paul's new "gospel". he was telling his the readers, the "unlearned" and "unstable", to leave the interpretation to the apostles, the "learned" and "stable". we know that the people he was writing to were unlearned because, why would he instruct someone who needed no instruction?

no, the book says that Peter never acknowledges Paul's divine inspiration, and we can infer that he didn't trust Paul in that he was cautioning his disciples against what the new "apostle" was teaching.

let me ask you something:

if Paul's new "gospel" wasn't good enough for Peter, a man who knew Jesus personally, how is it that it's good enough for you?

Nope. What I am about to say is in no way meant as a snub. How do you expect to discern spiritual things if you are not born of the Spirit? You interpret according to your human intellect with out the benefit of the Spirit . That being said, your interpretation of the two verses quoted is improper. Let me restate them (KJV and NKJV) and give you the proper interpretation. (I hope seeing the two versions in paralell will give you a clearer understanding of the passage.) I does not involve that much explanation.

2 Peter 3:15-16 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:15-16 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)

15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter knew the Pauline letters, that is a given. The phrase "Our beloved brother" refers to a contemporary for who he had respect. It isn't just a pleasentry

In verse 16, Peter refers to those who quibble and doubt the authority of Pauls writings, not the dependability or authority of them. You give it a nice twist, an improper twist which is expected from those who don't believe or doubt the veracity of the scriptures in the first place.

Peace be with you.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Why wouldn't Paul document the history of his own sect?

That wasn't the sect I was meaning. I was saying he wouldn't necesarily document the history of the Christian 'sect'.

 

[Granite]

That wasn't the sect I was meaning. I was saying he wouldn't necesarily document the history of the Christian 'sect'.

My question remains: why on earth not? The epistles were written before the gospels. Paul was in a prime position to do what took the authors of the gospels a decade or more to get around to, namely, describe Jesus, his life, and his ministry. This seems like an oversight.

 

[allsmiles]

Nope. What I am about to say is in no way meant as a snub. How do you expect to discern spiritual things if you are not born of the Spirit?

ah, the spiritual elitism that is a trade mark of christianity finally rears it's ugly head at me...:chuckle:

You interpret according to your human intellect with out the benefit of the Spirit.

it's not a snub, BR, it's an ace in the hole, and not a very good one at that. maybe it would have fooled arabs and jews 2000 years ago, but your jedi mind tricks don't work on me :crackup:

That being said, your interpretation of the two verses quoted is improper. Let me restate them (KJV and NKJV) and give you the proper interpretation. (I hope seeing the two versions in paralell will give you a clearer understanding of the passage.) I does not involve that much explanation.

thank you for teaching the ignorant, fire worshipping pagan

listen, i was a christian my entire life up until a couple of years ago, i know this... stuff

Peter knew the Pauline letters, that is a given. The phrase "Our beloved brother" refers to a contemporary for who he had respect. It isn't just a pleasentry

i don't see the difference, i don't understand how a sign of respect is an endorsement of the new "gospel" or a verification of it's divine inspiration.

In verse 16, Peter refers to those who quibble and doubt the authority of Pauls writings, not the dependability or authority of them. You give it a nice twist, an improper twist which is expected from those who don't believe or doubt the veracity of the scriptures in the first place.

you forget that Peter refers to Paul's gospel as hard to understand in the first place, it is easily taken out of context and "twisted" by those unlearned and not yet stable, although that word twisted is from a later version, of course. what was once understood to be accidentally "misunderstood" has now become known as a deliberate misinterpretation. i understand why you would need to rely on this argument from multiple sources to come to this specifc conclusion. excellent example of man interpreting the bible according to his own subjective beliefs and theological needs :BRAVO:

 

[Mustard Seed]

My question remains: why on earth not? The epistles were written before the gospels. Paul was in a prime position to do what took the authors of the gospels a decade or more to get around to, namely, describe Jesus, his life, and his ministry. This seems like an oversight.

How many churchs are you aware of that make it a key priority to document all the disenting sects no matter how small or seamingly trivial they appear to be? my view is that the they saw the Christians, initialy, in similar light as to other breakaways.

An example (even from probably/likely the same Gamaliel that Paul was under) as to a lack of concern regarding the details of various breakaways--

34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.

36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.

37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Funny that Paul didn't seem to get his teachers view in that he continued to persecute the Christians despite their staying power.

 

[Granite]

How many churchs are you aware of that make it a key priority to document all the disenting sects no matter how small or seamingly trivial they appear to be? my view is that the they saw the Christians, initialy, in similar light as to other breakaways.

An example (even from probably/likely the same Gamaliel that Paul was under) as to a lack of concern regarding the details of various breakaways--

34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.

36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.

37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Funny that Paul didn't seem to get his teachers view in that he continued to persecute the Christians despite their staying power.

You seem to be saying the churches saw each other as breakaways, not as an unified movement breaking away from Judaism. Is that correct?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Followers of Jesus, how's that. Here's another hair to split. Yeeeesh.:chuckle:

Jesus didn't start a new religion. He was fulfilling the current one. Before Antioch, they were all just Israelites, but of different sects. They were called "the way" before they were called "Christians".

Another possibility is that Paul didn't mention the ministry and earthly life of Jesus because it didn't happen the way the gospels describe it, or because it didn't happen at all.

There are many things in life that are possible. What is important is how probable something is. Simply saying something is possible is of little value. What is important is to show why that possibility should be believed, or not believed.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Why wouldn't Paul document the history of his own sect?

He didn't see any need to. He expected the end of his ministry and the reigning of Christ to happen within his own lifetime. He believed it could happen at any day and that it would soon take place. Thus, he saw no need to write out and explain what so many people had experienced first hand.

It is also a matter of priority. He had his stewardship as his primary focus. Sitting down and writing an account of how things went through, was not directly related to that. It may have crossed his mind however, and so maybe that is why Luke wrote his accounts (book of Luke and book of Acts).

 

[koban]

He didn't see any need to. He expected the end of his ministry and the reigning of Christ to happen within his own lifetime. He believed it could happen at any day and that it would soon take place. Thus, he saw no need to write out and explain what so many people had experienced first hand.

Do you think he was mistaken?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Do you think he was mistaken?

No. I believe he was right to expect it.

 

[Bright Raven]

ah, the spiritual elitism that is a trade mark of christianity finally rears it's ugly head at me...:chuckle:



it's not a snub, BR, it's an ace in the hole, and not a very good one at that. maybe it would have fooled arabs and jews 2000 years ago, but your jedi mind tricks don't work on me :crackup:



thank you for teaching the ignorant, fire worshipping pagan

listen, i was a christian my entire life up until a couple of years ago, i know this... stuff



i don't see the difference, i don't understand how a sign of respect is an endorsement of the new "gospel" or a verification of it's divine inspiration.



you forget that Peter refers to Paul's gospel as hard to understand in the first place, it is easily taken out of context and "twisted" by those unlearned and not yet stable, although that word twisted is from a later version, of course. what was once understood to be accidentally "misunderstood" has now become known as a deliberate misinterpretation. i understand why you would need to rely on this argument from multiple sources to come to this specifc conclusion. excellent example of man interpreting the bible according to his own subjective beliefs and theological needs :BRAVO:[/QUOTE/]

I'm sorry you took it as a snub, poor ace in the hole whatever you care to call it. You said you know this stuff? Prove it. You say you were a Christian? And for how many years do you think you walked in truth? :think: ing

 

[Aimiel]

:blabla:

listen, i was a christian my entire life up until a couple of years ago, i know this... stuff

It is precisely because of your attitude that you weren't Christian, and never will be. It takes faith, not knowledge, to meet The Lord. When you seek and search for Him with all of your heart is when you will find Him, not seeking and searching for something to find fault with. You're not recognizing that God exists, and can be found, simply because you never found Him, and that only came about by your being half-hearted. The double-minded man can expect nothing from The Lord except judgement. I suspect that Granite has the same (or a similar) fault. Repent, before it is eternally too late.

 

[Mustard Seed]

You seem to be saying the churches saw each other as breakaways, not as an unified movement breaking away from Judaism. Is that correct?

What? I'm not following. I'm saying the Pharisaical sect Paul was a member of didn't care about the intricacies of those they considered heretical of fringe groups of Judaism. They knew basic perifirial information about them but didn't make it their prime focus to document and confront and destroy them, they let them fizzle out with the expenditure of their own hot air. My point being with such an initial laissez-faire, if you will, approach to those groups/people considered heretical, or just plain wacky, it's not a stretch to imagine them giving little press, or space in documents records etc. to such groups in any meaningful detail.

 

[Granite]

What? I'm not following. I'm saying the Pharisaical sect Paul was a member of didn't care about the intricacies of those they considered heretical of fringe groups of Judaism. They knew basic perifirial information about them but didn't make it their prime focus to document and confront and destroy them, they let them fizzle out with the expenditure of their own hot air. My point being with such an initial laissez-faire, if you will, approach to those groups/people considered heretical, or just plain wacky, it's not a stretch to imagine them giving little press, or space in documents records etc. to such groups in any meaningful detail.

I'm talking about Paul's omissions AFTER his conversion, not before. As an apostle:

He didn't ever hint at the virgin birth (Galatians 4:4, in fact, could be taken the other way)

He never described, referenced, quoted, much less appealed to Jesus' miracles, ministry, parables, or teachings

He did not once articulate the trinity

He seemed ignorant of Jesus completely until after Damascus

In other words, the Pauline Jesus is not rooted in the epistles in history and certainly is not described as a fleshly, historic human being. It is inconceivable that so zealous a Pharisee who stood witness to the first Christian martyrdom was this ignorant of Jesus.

The ministry, triumphal entry, confrontation with the Pharisees, trial, execution--all of this with the exception of the crucifixion might as well have not happened according to Paul. And Saul, a student of Gamiliel himself, was based in Jerusalem and brought up there (Acts 22:3, 26:4).

What did Paul know?

From the looks of it, very, very little.

The gospel Jesus isn't described in the epistles because the legend and story of the gospels had yet to be written. Paul's complete ignorance of a historical human Jesus without tales or a ministry to draw on simply makes sense.

 

[Mustard Seed]

I'm talking about Paul's omissions AFTER his conversion, not before. As an apostle:

He didn't ever hint at the virgin birth (Galatians 4:4, in fact, could be taken the other way)

He never described, referenced, quoted, much less appealed to Jesus' miracles, ministry, parables, or teachings

He did not once articulate the trinity

He seemed ignorant of Jesus completely until after Damascus

I would argue that there are no articulations on the trinity as viewed by the creeds because the trinity, as they take it, is not biblical. On the other topics I would see omission as concession to that which was taught. The fact is that if you looked at the gospel intricacies elaborated or omitted by each one of the apostles you'd have some serious problems. I mean if you had to have a point by point repeat of every major gospel principle available in a book that was compiled, not by the authors but rather, men who lived several centuries later and were rather disconnected from the initial movement.

I don't see how you can so conclusively deduce ignorance and/or fabrication from what you see as an untenable omission. It's as if simply because I never said anything to you about my mother that you concluded that I didn't/don't know her. It's rather ridiculous. Discrepancies are glaring but omissions can't justify the derivation of conclusions as sound as those you posit.

In other words, the Pauline Jesus is not rooted in the epistles in history and certainly is not described as a fleshly, historic human being. It is inconceivable that so zealous a Pharisee who stood witness to the first Christian martyrdom was this ignorant of Jesus.

It's not "inconceivable" because your claims of ignorance on Paul's part are based solely on the lack of evidence rather than any conflicting evidence. And of an event thats a couple centuries removed from the now.

The ministry, triumphal entry, confrontation with the Pharisees, trial, execution--all of this with the exception of the crucifixion might as well have not happened according to Paul. And Saul, a student of Gamiliel himself, was based in Jerusalem and brought up there (Acts 22:3, 26:4).

Your view is terribly simplistic. You think that simply because someone was in close proximity that they must be both well versed in and highly vocal of all and any interactions they ever had through the duration of their mortal life with the contemporary in question?

What did Paul know?

From the looks of it, very, very little.

The gospel Jesus isn't described in the epistles because the legend and story of the gospels had yet to be written. Paul's complete ignorance of a historical human Jesus without tales or a ministry to draw on simply makes sense.

Here we see what you 'know'. You have the conclusion, now you are hunting for points that might support and/or validate it. It's simply an attempt at antipathetic Christian apologetics.

 

[Granite]

Accusing me of antipathetic apologetics is rich coming from a Mormon, of all people.

As prominent, zealous, and apparently well-regarded as Saul was, the idea that he simply had no clue who Jesus was is unreasonable.

 

[allsmiles]

I'm sorry you took it as a snub, poor ace in the hole whatever you care to call it. You said you know this stuff? Prove it. You say you were a Christian? And for how many years do you think you walked in truth? :think: ing

i'm glad to see that the only point you took time to touch on is my status as an ex.

how about the rest of my post?

and how is telling you how long i was a christian going to prove that the apostle paul wasn't an imposter? don't try to shift the focus to something outside the scope of the discussion. it's not my fault your book doesn't say what you need it to.

 

[Bright Raven]

i'm glad to see that the only point you took time to touch on is my status as an ex.

how about the rest of my post?

and how is telling you how long i was a christian going to prove that the apostle paul wasn't an imposter? don't try to shift the focus to something outside the scope of the discussion. it's not my fault your book doesn't say what you need it to.

The rest of your post is meaningless until you answer the question. Establish your credibilty as a ex-Christian.

 

[allsmiles]

The rest of your post is meaningless until you answer the question. Establish your credibilty as a ex-Christian.

i don't understand what you want or what you would accept.

and as for my post being meaningless... it's what the book says friend. you can read between the lines all you want and refer to your various versions, play semantic word games and call it the work of the holy spirit, but it doesn't change what the book says.

 

[Bright Raven]

i don't understand what you want or what you would accept.

and as for my post being meaningless... it's what the book says friend. you can read between the lines all you want and refer to your various versions, play semantic word games and call it the work of the holy spirit, but it doesn't change what the book says.

You still haven't established your credibility. What the book says? Hardly. As an ex-Christian, friend, you attack God's Word as
who? The intellectual skeptical philosopher au natural?