Would you pastors object to being called "brother" instead?

[The Rogue Tomato]

I cannot stress how important it is for you to find a solid, bible brainwashing church.

FIFY

Read the history of the NT canon sometime, and what most Bible scholars think about 2 Peter (and several other epistles). 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

"brother" and "apostle"

Chapter 1
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet?s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Chapter 3
I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

....just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 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.

Chapter 3 vs. 2

2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. [None of whom are named here.]

...then... allllll the way down here...

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

Not that I put any weight in anything that appears in 2 Peter, anyway, since it is fraudulently attributed to Peter. 


So, again, that leaves two people who name Paul as an apostle -- Luke and Paul.  And one person to testify how God made Paul an apostle -- Paul.  Doesn't the Bible say something about being a sole witness about yourself? 

 

[FSSL]

Yep... In the same context. Don't let 13 verses stand in your way of understanding the context.

Since you claim that Paul was not an apostle and now you want us to believe that 2 Peter is not legit AND further, since nothing can be scripture unless it is preceded by "The Lord said..."

Can you not see why we have difficulty with your position of a rejection of pastoral leadership? You reject more Scripture than you accept.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Yep... In the same context. Don't let 13 verses stand in your way of understanding the context.

Since you claim that Paul was not an apostle and now you want us to believe that 2 Peter is not legit AND further, since nothing can be scripture unless it is preceded by "The Lord said..."

Can you not see why we have difficulty with your position of a rejection of pastoral leadership? You reject more Scripture than you accept.

LOL -- you reject plenty of scripture, i.e., anything that contradicts your vision of yourself and how you think things ought to be.  And what you reject are the very words of Jesus, not some epistle that some 80% of Bible scholars have no confidence was actually authored by Peter. 

Like I said, read up on the history of the formation of the NT canon, starting with the gathering and distribution of Paul's epistles around the turn of the century, well after Peter was dead.  Read up on what was considered reliable, questionable, and rejected.  And how that changed constantly ever since. 

 

[FSSL]

80% may be a bit high... but nevertheless, the subjective opinions of scholars will never be able to rid every manuscript of... "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ..."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

Like I said, read up on the history of the formation of the NT canon, starting with the gathering and distribution of Paul's epistles around the turn of the century, well after Peter was dead.  Read up on what was considered reliable, questionable, and rejected.  And how that changed constantly ever since.

Don't worry... I know the arguments, have translated both books and taken seminary level exegetical methods on them. I think I am pretty well read on the canonicity issues.

(Unfortunately, my translation work is history since I used Chiwriter that no longer exists)

 

[Mathew Ward]

I cannot stress how important it is for you to find a solid, bible brainwashing church.

FIFY

Read the history of the NT canon sometime, and what most Bible scholars think about 2 Peter (and several other epistles).

I thought you were just appealing to only the Bible and reading that for yourself?

But if you don't believe Paul is an apostle (as he claimed) then why read or believe anything he wrote?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Peter called Paul an apostle.

Give me a scripture for that.

Paul said "All Scripture is God-breathed..."

Since Paul said it, do you reject that, too?

No, since Paul was referring to scripture, not his own letters.

I gave you 2 Peter. I know you deny that Peter wrote it. Unless you toss the book out as not being genuine, certainly the least can be said someone, other than Paul, recognized his apostolic authority.

If Paul cannot be trusted when he says he is a legitimate apostle in 1.1, then why do you trust him when he says "All Scripture"? He didn't say: "The Lord says All Scripture..."

II Peter called him a 'brother', not an apostle. There are only 12 Apostles and none are named "Paul". And it says Paul wrote from 'wisdom' and not 'inspiration'.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Yep... In the same context. Don't let 13 verses stand in your way of understanding the context.

Since you claim that Paul was not an apostle and now you want us to believe that 2 Peter is not legit AND further, since nothing can be scripture unless it is preceded by "The Lord said..."

Can you not see why we have difficulty with your position of a rejection of pastoral leadership? You reject more Scripture than you accept.

Calvin had doubts Peter wrote II Peter:

The doubts respecting this Epistle mentioned by Eusebius, ought not to keep us from reading it. For if the doubts rested on the authority of men, whose names he does not give, we ought to pay no more regard to it than to that of unknown men. And he afterwards adds, that it was everywhere received without any dispute. What Jerome writes influences me somewhat more, that some, induced by a difference in the style, did not think that Peter was the author. For though some affinity may be traced, yet I confess that there is that manifest difference which distinguishes different writers. There are also other probable conjectures by which we may conclude that it was written by another rather than by Peter. At the same time, according to the consent of all, it has nothing unworthy of Peter, as it shews everywhere the power and the grace of an apostolic spirit. If it be received as canonical, we must allow Peter to be the author, since it has his name inscribed, and he also testifies that he had lived with Christ: and it would have been a fiction unworthy of a minister of Christ, to have personated another individual. So then I conclude, that if the Epistle be deemed worthy of credit, it must have proceeded from Peter; not that he himself wrote it, but that some one of his disciples set forth in writing, by his command, those things which the necessity of the times required. For it is probable that he was now in extreme old age, for he says, that he was near his end. And it may have been that at the request of the godly, he allowed this testimony of his mind to be recorded shortly before his death, because it might have somewhat availed, when he was dead, to support the good, and to repress the wicked. Doubtless, as in every part of the Epistle the majesty of the Spirit of Christ appears, to repudiate it is what I dread, though I do not here recognize the language of Peter. But since it is not quite evident as to the author, I shall allow myself the liberty of using the word Peter or Apostle indiscriminately.

http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol45/htm/vii.htm

 

[Smellin Coffee]

But if you don't believe Paul is an apostle (as he claimed) then why read or believe anything he wrote?

Doesn't mean we can't learn from him as God can use any instrument with which to teach us. Run Paul's teachings through those of Jesus to weed out the dross.

 

[praise_yeshua]

So, you are going to ignore Peter's declaration?

Paul was certainly aware he was writing the very words of God.

?If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord?s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized? (1 Cor 14:37)

You mean 2 Peter?  Absolutely.  Peter was dead before Paul's letters were collected, reproduced and published.  2 Peter couldn't have been written by Peter.  It has no apostolic authority.  Either way, that doesn't change the fact that Paul was talking about scripture, not his own letters.

I've argued with FSSL over this before. He is very lacking in canonical studies. He'd know that 2 Peter is probably the most disputed book in the NT apr from the book of Revelation.

It is very unlikely that 2 Peter was written by Peter.

Paul would not have considered his words to be Scripture. Authoritative. Yes. Scripture. No.

Either way, Paul was right. He didn't write something that contradicted the words of Jesus.

 

[praise_yeshua]

But if you don't believe Paul is an apostle (as he claimed) then why read or believe anything he wrote?

Doesn't mean we can't learn from him as God can use any instrument with which to teach us. Run Paul's teachings through those of Jesus to weed out the dross.

There's isn't any dross. Just pure silver.

You come so far yet not far enough. Stop throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

II Peter called him a 'brother', not an apostle. There are only 12 Apostles and none are named "Paul". And it says Paul wrote from 'wisdom' and not 'inspiration'.

Excellent points, all of them. 

 

[FSSL]

I am just taking the text (and every mss) at its word.

Just because we disagree on the canon does not mean I am not aware of the issues.

Once you lay doubt on 1 Timothy 1.1, you have zero ability to make any claims about the rest of the book.

 

[FSSL]

Paul would not have considered his words to be Scripture. Authoritative. Yes. Scripture. No.

Except that he did consider his writings to be the very words of God. This was covered above. Read 1 Cor 14

 

[Smellin Coffee]

A very fascinating and extremely telling thread indeed.

Ya think? 
The beauty of Mater and Smellin's belief system is that they decide what parts of scripture are actually scripture.
In their system, THEY play the role of holy spirit as to inspiration.

Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me. ?I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

Funny how Jesus didn't say the Spirit would inspire new doctrines, provided through the dreams of various prophets nor did He say there was any 'inspiration' to any canon, much less stuff that hadn't been written after His lifetime.

Now please show me from the Scriptures as to which books are to be included within it's canon. If you cannot, then your position in accepting the 'inspiration of the 66-book canon' is just as relative position as mine is. You just rely on a select historical line of thinking as your basis.

Your position is just as selective and relative as mine and Mater's.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

But if you don't believe Paul is an apostle (as he claimed) then why read or believe anything he wrote?

Doesn't mean we can't learn from him as God can use any instrument with which to teach us. Run Paul's teachings through those of Jesus to weed out the dross.

There's isn't any dross. Just pure silver.

You come so far yet not far enough. Stop throwing out the baby with the bath water.

On this, we will disagree. For me, there are too many red flags for Paul to be acceptable. Once his arrest was made in Jerusalem for the Trophimus incident, the church in Jerusalem abandoned him and later on, all churches in Asia Minor, even the church at Ephesus (the church commended in the Revelation for identifying 'false apostles') abandoned him.

Then when you compare his teachings with those of Jesus, some pieces overlay and some... not really...

 

[FSSL]

Well then...

You cannot ignore what Scripture says, set up some idea that Jesus and Paul conflicted because the Holy Spirit reveled something contrary to His word and think that you still believe the Bible.

The Holy Spirit is against it, not for it.

Paul warned against rejecting his words. They are the very words God penned through the human agency of Paul.

Now we have history placed over scripture.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Once you lay doubt on 1 Timothy 1.1, you have zero ability to make any claims about the rest of the book.

You are correct. Jesus clearly had 12 Apostles (Matthew 10:2-4, Acts 1:21-22) who will 'sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel' (Matthew 19:28, Luke 22:30) and the wall of the the future heavenly city will have written in them 'the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb' (Revelation 21:14).

To attest (as Paul did about himself AND even James, and Luke did about Paul and Barnabas) that there are more than 12 is erroneous. If Paul were to say he was an apostle of the church of Antioch, that would be an acceptable description but to claim a position which had been given to ONLY twelve, is nothing more than a power play.

 

[FSSL]

So, what books in the NT should we get rid of because of these power plays?