Will the unanswered question.....

[??????????]

james42,

Do you disagree with 2Pet 3:16 where the Apostle Peter placed Paul's writings on the same authority level as scripture?  If so, how do you believe Peter fell into error?

We're waiting.................

[Joe Republic]

Perhaps if the question made any sense, we might have an idea about whether it can be answered.

[Gabu]

Which unanswered question: that one, or "do I care?"?

[afleitch]

No it won't because jmfcst would just ask another one

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Perhaps if the question made any sense, we might have an idea about whether it can be answered.

Most of the New Testament's (NT) doctrine comes from the writings of the Apostle Paul.  James42, a Christian, believes Paul's teachings are not in line with what Jesus taught.

Yet in 2Pet 3:16, the Apostle Peter stamps Paul's writings as the word of God by equating them with other scriptures.

So, I pointed out 2Pet 3:16 to James42 and asked him to clarify if he indeed disagreed with Peter also.  James42 never answered the question, instead he called me hateful.

It's one thing for a Christian to accuse Paul, who arrived on the scene after Christ's death and resurrection, of corrupting the gospel.  But to also accuse  Peter, who was a disciple of Christ during Jesus’ 3 years of ministry, is wholly another matter.

So, you could throw out Paul’s contribution to the New Testament (NT) and still have half a NT left over, including all the gospels.  But to also accuse Peter, one would be left with no NT whatsoever since Peter’s ministry is backed by the entire NT.  No accusation is made in the NT that Peter ever fell off the turnip truck.  

In addition, the writer of the book of Acts, who just so happens to be the writer of the Gospel of Luke, also stands by Paul’s teachings and ministry.

Basically, in light of testimony of Peter and the writer of Luke & Acts, an accusation against Paul’s teachings is an accusation against the whole NT, which in turn accuses the entire Christian faith.

Confronted with his self-contradiction, the Christian James42 never answered the question…probably because he would have to re-register as a Republican!

[Joe Republic]

Confronted with his self-contradiction, the Christian James42 never answered the question…probably because he would have to re-register as a Republican!

Not sure if this a joke or not, but why?

[MODU]

Here is the verse in context:

2 Peter 3:14-16
14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear 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. 16He 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.

[afleitch]

How dare you question James42's Christianity jmfcst. You self righteous ass.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Confronted with his self-contradiction, the Christian James42 never answered the question…probably because he would have to re-register as a Republican!

Not sure if this a joke or not, but why?

It was largely a joke, but accepting Paul's teachings could impact one's politics, both social and economical.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How dare you question James42's Christianity jmfcst. You self righteous ass.

I didn't question his Christianity, rather I questioned the logic of his opinion of Paul.  I am simply asking him: "Are you really asking me to judge between your opinon of Paul and Peter's opinion of Paul?"

I don't really think James42 is going to claim he is a better judge of doctrine than Peter, or even the writer of Acts/Luke.

He probably, like many Christians, wasn't aware of 2Pet 3:16.

[minionofmidas]

2Peter.

No reason to read any further.

[Platypus]

nothing not written straight from the source is ever completely correct. If god didn't write it, I'd like no part in it, tyvm.

[MasterJedi]

No

[opebo]

Why would anyone care about James42's fantasy life?  I should hope he wouldn't answer such nonsense on here.

James42, do you believe in unicorns?

[KillerPollo]

Why would anyone care about James42's fantasy life?  I should hope he wouldn't answer such nonsense on here.

James42, do you believe in unicorns?

Opebo. You do not exist... you're just a random interpretation of my physical brain.

[Blue Rectangle]

Perhaps if the question made any sense, we might have an idea about whether it can be answered.

Most of the New Testament's (NT) doctrine comes from the writings of the Apostle Paul.  James42, a Christian, believes Paul's teachings are not in line with what Jesus taught.

Yet in 2Pet 3:16, the Apostle Peter stamps Paul's writings as the word of God by equating them with other scriptures.

So, I pointed out 2Pet 3:16 to James42 and asked him to clarify if he indeed disagreed with Peter also.  James42 never answered the question, instead he called me hateful.

It's one thing for a Christian to accuse Paul, who arrived on the scene after Christ's death and resurrection, of corrupting the gospel.  But to also accuse  Peter, who was a disciple of Christ during Jesus’ 3 years of ministry, is wholly another matter.

So, you could throw out Paul’s contribution to the New Testament (NT) and still have half a NT left over, including all the gospels.  But to also accuse Peter, one would be left with no NT whatsoever since Peter’s ministry is backed by the entire NT.  No accusation is made in the NT that Peter ever fell off the turnip truck.  

In addition, the writer of the book of Acts, who just so happens to be the writer of the Gospel of Luke, also stands by Paul’s teachings and ministry.

Basically, in light of testimony of Peter and the writer of Luke & Acts, an accusation against Paul’s teachings is an accusation against the whole NT, which in turn accuses the entire Christian faith.

Confronted with his self-contradiction, the Christian James42 never answered the question…probably because he would have to re-register as a Republican!

And your argument is based on Peter's power to "stamp" Paul's writings as the Word of God.  Does this meen that Peter was the infallible head of the Church?  Are you going to have to convert to Catholicism?

[minionofmidas]

Why would anyone care about James42's fantasy life?  I should hope he wouldn't answer such nonsense on here.

James42, do you believe in unicorns?

Opebo. You do not exist... you're just a random interpretation of my physical brain.

He is also a unicorn.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And your argument is based on Peter's power to "stamp" Paul's writings as the Word of God.  Does this meen that Peter was the infallible head of the Church?  Are you going to have to convert to Catholicism?

No, I never claimed that Peter was infallible.  I simply said that Peter agreed with Paul's teachings.  Therefore, anyone that argues Paul didn't follow the teachings of Jesus is also in disagreement with Peter (and the writer of Acts and Luke).

I could have used (and did use) the testimony of the writer of Acts and Luke.  But Peter's testimony carries more weight because I can use the bible to prove that Peter was known to the whole church and therefore his departure from the faith would have also been known.  Yet Peter's life is upheld by the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul.

James42 may have had the willingness to take-on one of the apostles when he thought they stood alone, but he is not willing to take on multiple apostles knowing that Paul has the backing of Luke and Peter…with the additional knowledge of Peter having the backing of Matthew, Mark, & John.

Basically, James42 was taking on Paul, Luke, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John….these people account for about 90% of the New Testament.

[Speed of Sound]

Write-iin: Sandcastle with a moat plus i dont care.

[Citizen James]

Citing Peter to save Paul....

I've never met St. Peter and I doubt anyone else here has either.   Nor St. Paul.   Nor anyone else in the bible.

I'm probably just speaking to a brick wall, and I probably shouldn't encourage the fanatics by responding; but just for laughs I will anyway.

Probably the fundemental differences between fundementalist and mainstream Christianity are 1) biblical inerrancy, and 2) literalism.

The bible didn't just come flying off the heavenly presses, written in English and autographed by the Author.  Much of it started out as oral tradition, handed down from generation to generation across the years until someone actually  managed to find someone literate enough to write it down.

But the printing press wouldn't come along for a few millenia, so the Torah was hand-copied and only available to Rabbis and other highly important people.

After the life of Christ, there were more oral traditions handed down, often for several generations before they got copied down.   In the fourth century, the first counsil of Nicea got together with the fledgling Catholic Church (if you're waiting for the rise of fundementalism, you've got a long wait ahead - fundementalism didn't arrive until the late 19th-early 20th century) and determined which versions of the stories floating around were to be considered 'Canon".   Various versions of diferent gospels were considered, and the ones which were not chosen were suppressed.  Similarly gospels which were not considered Canon were also eliminated, along with the teachings of rival brands of Christianity.

From there, scriptures were hand copied for over a millenium - many of which first had to be translated from Arameic Hebrew to Latin.  in the mid 15th century the printing press (or at least, the western version therof) was invented, and various translations of bibles started popping up.  After Martin Luther came along with his 95 Thesis, things really heated up.  Translation is not an easy task - it is rare that two languages have a straightforward 1-1 corespondence between words, to say nothing of parts of speech, metaphors, and references to local customs. 

 (If you want to experement - take a paragraph, put it into  babelfish Translate it to some other language, copy the result and have it translate the result back.  The more complex your text, the more radicaly it tends to get twisted).

There were oddball translations such as the adulterers bible (thou shalt commit adultery), and so on. Which led King James of Scotland in the early 17th century to comission a group of scholars and theologians to create an official translation for the Anglican church.  Even now, there are still diferent translations used by diferent churches which vary somewhat as to what terminology they use.


Now, if you want to believe that through all that everything stayed exactly the same as it was at first; with nobody subtly changing the telling through the oral traditions, nor translation errors, nor members of the early church making some choices as being politically expedient, and the various originators not merely being very wise nor even just divinely inspired - but directly controlled by God in their writings - by all means feel free.   On that we can only agree to disagree.  Similarly, if you want to view the stories literally rather than seeing many of them as being analogy, by all means, it is your right to do so.

I prefer to look for the deeper meaning rather than quibble over the surface details.   To see the forest rather than just the trees as it were.

Some examples I consider relavant to the diference -

Jacob wrestiling with the stranger on the riverbank.  Sure you could believe that God came down and wrestled with him (in which case, God must have gone easy on him since he apparently lived to tell the tale), or it could be considered a metaphor for wrestining with the deep complexity of trying to understand the nature of God.

A quote which I found describes another example quite well:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then there's the matter of casting out demons.  Personally, I think that's what they called mental illness back then, since people didn't know better.   I consider it more likely that Jesus cured people who suffered from mental illnesses, than undoing demonic possessions.   It was simply language and beliefs that people of the time were familiar with.

Well, I've got to get back to my term paper now.   Bye.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

James42,

You have outlined two separate claims which seem to be in contradiction with one another:

1st) You claim bible is not is it’s original form and its translations can’t be trusted.

2nd) You claimed that Paul distorted the teachings of Christ in the following post:

Though I don't think that Paul directly hijacked Christianity, he did put his own (for lack of a better word) 'spin' on the teachings of Jesus, inigrating his own traditions into what he had leared from Jesus.

.
So, this is what I am wondering: 

If the evidence was tampered with (1st claim), how did you reach the conclusion that Paul distorted the teachings of Christ (2nd claim)?

[Beet]

I have a question a bit tangent. What is 2 Peter 3? It reads like a letter to someone. What's the context of the letters, and why is a letter considered holy Scripture?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I have a question a bit tangent. What is 2 Peter 3? It reads like a letter to someone. What's the context of the letters, and why is a letter considered holy Scripture?

Basically, all the books of the New Testament are letters to believers.  It’s very cool to realize the letters were written for the masses and the author assumed his readers could correctly interpret the contents.  It is as if the letters were addressed personally to you and for your consumption, which is exactly what was intended.

The context of the letter of 2Peter is to teach the church how to deal with false teachers.

[minionofmidas]

It is also one of the parts of the New Testaments to be surrounded by the most doubt ... in sharp contrast with 1Peter. Even Calvin believed it to date from the 2nd century AD.

[nlm]

Citing Peter to save Paul....

I've never met St. Peter and I doubt anyone else here has either.   Nor St. Paul.   Nor anyone else in the bible.

I'm probably just speaking to a brick wall, and I probably shouldn't encourage the fanatics by responding; but just for laughs I will anyway.

Probably the fundemental differences between fundementalist and mainstream Christianity are 1) biblical inerrancy, and 2) literalism.

The bible didn't just come flying off the heavenly presses, written in English and autographed by the Author.  Much of it started out as oral tradition, handed down from generation to generation across the years until someone actually  managed to find someone literate enough to write it down.

But the printing press wouldn't come along for a few millenia, so the Torah was hand-copied and only available to Rabbis and other highly important people.

... (edited for length reasons)

Nicely thought out. And I didn't know the part about the rod, that's interesting - thanks.