Bible Study 2 Peter concerning Paul

[CarrieY]

15. Bear in mind that our Lords patience means salvation , just as our dear brother Paul wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him.

16. He writes the same way in all of his letters, speaking of them in 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.

17. Therefore, dear friends, since you already now this, be on your guard that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men, and fall from your secure position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and forever! Amen

Carrie


:smt060

 

[ChristineES]

It is well known from Acts that Peter and Paul had different philosophies. It seems the "split" in Christian Churches started up pretty early. :wink: (Sorry for my humor, it is a bit odd)

 

[Georges]

I think overwhelmingly scholars today do not accept Simon as the author of 2nd Peter.

It is believed that it was written under a Pseudoname just as some of the Pauline letters were not written by Paul.

Peter and Paul were pretty far apart in their theology. Peter was Torah observant....the Paul of the letters, apparently not. Peter would never agree to anything Paul would have preached if it concerned Torah abstinence.

 

[CarrieY]

I believe that Peters letters are written by Peter.
I believe Paul also wrote his letters either by himself or using dictation.

I believe God warns of listening to Scholars. They think they got it all figured out.

The Bible is our only knowledge of God, without it what would we know about him?
You only know of Jesus as your Savior, because of the Bible.
The Bible is your only road to life, and knowledge of Jesus Christ, your Savior.
Is Paul denying Jesus? maybe they have differences because i need to reread Acts and i'll do that soon but Peter was called to the jews, and Paul was called to the gentiles. They are people, they do have their own personalities, and assignments from God, they can't possibly agree because they are humans just as we are. We are all in the body of Christ yet our opinions vary from person to person as they do still today.

I pray to God that as you read the bible that through God's spirit you find understanding, and that you feel sincere love for the words written in all the books, and feel complete trust in all it says.

Carrie



:smt060

 

[mutzrein]

I believe that Peters letters are written by Peter.
I believe Paul also wrote his letters either by himself or using dictation.

I believe God warns of listening to Scholars. They think they got it all figured out.

The Bible is our only knowledge of God, without it what would we know about him?
You only know of Jesus as your Savior, because of the Bible.
The Bible is your only road to life, and knowledge of Jesus Christ, your Savior.
Is Paul denying Jesus? maybe they have differences because i need to reread Acts and i'll do that soon but Peter was called to the jews, and Paul was called to the gentiles. They are people, they do have their own personalities, and assignments from God, they can't possibly agree because they are humans just as we are. We are all in the body of Christ yet our opinions vary from person to person as they do still today.

I pray to God that as you read the bible that through God's spirit you find understanding, and that you feel sincere love for the words written in all the books, and feel complete trust in all it says.

Carrie

:smt060

If the bible was our only knowledge of God why do you think that the scholars and any other person or group that espouses a particular interpretation of it should not be listened to. Do you think ALL scholars are wrong? Also, do you not think that there is room for divine revelation apart from our knowledge of God in scripture?

 

[CarrieY]

Ok let me rephrase that.
The Bible was my own and only knowledge of God at 1 time.

Are all scholars wrong? no, but do you listen to that or those person(s) just because he's acknowledged as one? especially when it contradicts what the Bible says? I wouldn't. To me the bible is God's way of speaking to us in general. I can't say any person can speak as to who wrote the books Paul says he wrote. I believe it's Paul because he says he wrote them.
I know that i don't understand everything in the Bible, or i don't understand the wording of the Bible, But i've never felt the bible was untrue. I just know that someone needs to explain it to me in a simpler form.

I believe God can speak with divine intervention yes. I believe i have that.
When i read the bible things seem to make sense, and they're very real to me. At times I'm overjoyed with happiness, I know that even tho I am unpure (normal for an average person I guess growing i hope in Jesus), i have my self, I struggle with, but, I know i'm going to heaven.
And I know i'm going to live with my life eternally with God, and Jesus Christ. I know I am, I have no doubts in my mind.


Carrie


:smt060

 

[mutzrein]

Ok let me rephrase that.
The Bible was my own and only knowledge of God at 1 time.

Are all scholars wrong? no, but do you listen to that or those person(s) just because he's acknowledged as one? especially when it contradicts what the Bible says? I wouldn't. To me the bible is God's way of speaking to us in general. I can't say any person can speak as to who wrote the books Paul says he wrote. I believe it's Paul because he says he wrote them.
I know that i don't understand everything in the Bible, or i don't understand the wording of the Bible, But i've never felt the bible was untrue. I just know that someone needs to explain it to me in a simpler form.

I believe God can speak with divine intervention yes. I believe i have that.
When i read the bible things seem to make sense, and they're very real to me. At times I'm overjoyed with happiness, I know that even tho I am unpure (normal for an average person I guess growing i hope in Jesus), i have my self, I struggle with, but, I know i'm going to heaven.
And I know i'm going to live with my life eternally with God, and Jesus Christ. I know I am, I have no doubts in my mind.

Carrie

:smt060

Thanks Carrie - that is exactly what I was wanting to hear. God Bless you.

 

[JM]

I think overwhelmingly scholars today do not accept Simon as the author of 2nd Peter.

Agreed.

It is believed that it was written under a Pseudoname just as some of the Pauline letters were not written by Paul.

Proof, a link or something?

Peter and Paul were pretty far apart in their theology. Peter was Torah observant....the Paul of the letters, apparently not. Peter would never agree to anything Paul would have preached if it concerned Torah abstinence.

We know that Paul had corrected Peter Gal 2:11-14 to his face, so many it was Peter that slide back into the ways of the flesh? Peter also confirms Paul's ministry, what do you think about that G? Have you ever stopped to think of what rejecting Paul's letters means?

Without Paul you miss the teachings on the First and Last Adam, the people of God as a the Bride and what that means, the wall that separated Jewish and Gentile is brought down, the teachings about the faith [1 Tim. 3:9], our union with Christ [Eph. 5; Romans 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:12], of Christ indwelling the believer [Col. 1:26-27], fellow-heirship in Christ of Jew and Gentile [Eph. 3:3, 4, 9], and the true idea of the Kingdom found in the Gospel further explained [Romans 14:17; 2 Cor. 5:17].

G, really think about it, the Gospel is the same from Gen - Rev.

JM

 

[Georges]

I think overwhelmingly scholars today do not accept Simon as the author of 2nd Peter.

Agreed.

It is believed that it was written under a Pseudoname just as some of the Pauline letters were not written by Paul.

Proof, a link or something?

Have to come up with it....more time tomorrow for that one...


[quote:9a20d]Peter and Paul were pretty far apart in their theology. Peter was Torah observant....the Paul of the letters, apparently not. Peter would never agree to anything Paul would have preached if it concerned Torah abstinence.

We know that Paul had corrected Peter Gal 2:11-14 to his face, so many it was Peter that slide back into the ways of the flesh?

JM, with all due respect I believe you have it backwards. Peter did abstain from eating with the Gentiles in Antioch...the most obvious reason is that they weren't eating kosher....even Cornelius (as a Godfearer Gentile) would have respected the dietary laws...the Gentiles in Antioch where obviously not eating kosher.

The delegation from James was sent to check up on Paul and the rumors concerning his apparent anti Torah teachings. When the delegation appeared Peter realized his mistake as did Silas.

Peter also confirms Paul's ministry, what do you think about that G?

JM, Paul claims to have slapped Peter's hands....Paul says Peter confirms it as well as James and John. What else are they to believe? They have to take Paul at his word...that is until the rumors of his anti Torah teaching begin to appear....then they had to investigate him.

Have you ever stopped to think of what rejecting Paul's letters means?

Absolutely....long and hard...without Paul's letters Christianity would have a Jewish look to it today.

Without Paul you miss the teachings on the First and Last Adam, the people of God as a the Bride and what that means (not so, that imagery is shown in the OT with God and Israel), the wall that separated Jewish and Gentile is brought down (That would be Rabbinic Traditional Law, not the Torah), the teachings about the faith [1 Tim. 3:9], our union with Christ [Eph. 5; Romans 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:12] (Gnostic), of Christ indwelling the believer (Gnostic) [Col. 1:26-27], fellow-heirship in Christ of Jew and Gentile [Eph. 3:3, 4, 9], and the true idea of the Kingdom found in the Gospel further explained (not so, Paul never mentions the Kingdom as detailed in the OT) [Romans 14:17; 2 Cor. 5:17].

G, really think about it, the Gospel is the same from Gen - Rev.

Gen - John and Rev....and as I've said before, I don't necessarily throw Paul out...I'm just very suspicious of him. :D

JM[/quote:9a20d]

 

[JM]

George, please explain how Paul's teaching are Gnostic, how he borrowed from the Gnostics, and how it isn't possible that Gnostics didn't borrow from Paul. Thanks.

[my dell keeps going down, I'm off and on the forum, sorry.]

 

[Georges]

George, please explain how Paul's teaching are Gnostic, how he borrowed from the Gnostics, and how it isn't possible that Gnostics didn't borrow from Paul. Thanks.

[my dell keeps going down, I'm off and on the forum, sorry.]

JM,

Type a search on Paul and Gnosticism and a gazillion websites will pop up....take your pick.

In a nutshell, Gnosticism and Stocism are Greek philosophy in nature. These were developed a hundred years or more before Christ. Paul was a Hellenist Jew (you really can't even call him a Jew if he was from the tribe of Benjamin) from the Hellenist city of Tarsus (an area seeped in Gnosticism, Stocism and Mystery Religion).

Obviously, the Church Fathers who built upon Paul's foundation where Gentile Hellenist Christians who were either schooled, or who were familiar with Greek philosophy. Instead of building Christianity up from Judaism, these Hellenist Church Fathers built Christianity along the lines of Judeo-neoPlatonism....and don't forget the influence of Mystery Babylon....

 

[JM]

I understand what Gnosticism is, I fail to see the link you've created between Paul and Gnosticism, and I have to add just because something is similar doesn't mean it's the same. If I google it, I'll find a ton of different views, I'm just asking for yours.

 

[Georges]

I understand what Gnosticism is, I fail to see the link you've created between Paul and Gnosticism, and I have to add just because something is similar doesn't mean it's the same. If I google it, I'll find a ton of different views, I'm just asking for yours.

The reason I suggested the sites...is that they usually provide the scripture that Paul uses and show the similarities in his terminology compared to the terminology used by Gnostics....

IMO, it's the visions...(consistent with Mystery ecstacsisms), the messages only given to him (and no one else), and the terminology (i.e. "mystery revealed to me") that is consistent with Gnositcism.

The teaching of the inherently evil, and the indwelling of goodness upon reception of the mystery knowledge is Gnostic in idea.

The logical link is this...Paul was from Tarsus. Tarsus was a Hellenist metropolis. Tarsus was both a Gnostic/Stoic and Mystery Religion metropolis. Just as I would expect someone who was brought up in Jerusalem would be exposed and influenced by Judaism, I would expect that someone bought up in Tarsus would have the influences of that city impressed on him.