Dispensationalism, John Darby, etc.

[JohnHurt]

John, as I said elsewhere in previous discussions, not only do you throw out Paul, you must throw out Peter as well, because according to you, he was deceived by and about Paul.
Peter wrote:
1 Peter 3:14 Therefore, dear friends, while you wait for these things, make every effort to be found at peace with Him without spot or blemish. 15 Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him. 16 He speaks about these things in all his letters in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

17 Therefore, dear friends, since you know this in advance, be on your guard, so that you are not led away by the error of lawless people and fall from your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

I believe that is 2nd Peter, not 1st.

Peter is warning all of us that the unlearned that don't know any better, and the unstable that do, will twist the writings of Paul to contradict the teachings of Christ. Here is how misusing the writings of Paul will lead anyone to their own destruction, as in Matt 7:21-23:

Matt 7:(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Paul said you are saved by grace, not by by works or doing the will of the Father. Eph 2:8-9.

Matt 7:(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Paul prophesied in the Name of Christ, cast out devils, and did many wonderful works, just like the false prophet in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, which is a test from God.

(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
The word "iniquity" here is "anomos", or lawlessness. Christ said that you are saved by keeping the 10 Commandments (Matt 19:16-19). Paul said that the law has been abolished in nearly all of his epistles. Christ will exclude those that are "anomos" and say that He never knew them.

According to you, the apostles basically failed in their calling, because they fell for the deceptions of Paul, and because the majority of apostolic teaching that has been preserved is the teachings of Paul. Jesus entrusted his disciples with this great commission, and according to you, they were a failure. And these poor deceived men are whom we have to trust to have preserved the words of Jesus in the gospels, which you deem perfectly valid and authoritative, while counting their other writings as misguided.

Paul is a single witness for himself that he was accepted by the Apostles in Galatians 2. In the Clementine literature, Paul, with the name of "simon magus", was opposed by Peter, according to Clement. But the Catholic church of Constantine has elevated Paul over Peter, and over Christ for that matter. They have rewritten the history of the early church.

The books of Luke and Acts were written to "the most excellent Theophilus". This is how a Roman magistrate is to be addressed. It would be like addressing these books to the "Honorable Judge John Smith". These books were written for the trial of Paul at Rome, by Luke. The book of Luke explains to the Roman government how Christianity started, and the book of Acts explains the founding of the Church, and how Paul was not guilty of bringing Greeks into the Temple, as he was engaged in a ritual bath when this occurred. These two books are legal briefs, and should not have been placed in our Bibles by Constantine. This is why the last part of the Book of Acts is all about Paul and how he was brought to Rome for his trial, where the narrative ends. John Mauck makes a good case for these two books at legal briefs at:

Regardless, the doctrines of Paul are different from the Doctrines of Christ. Paul said a lot of good things, but on whatever topics where he opposed Christ, we should see the Doctrines of Christ as supreme.

John Mauck's thesis that Luke and Acts are legal briefs is on Amazon under this title:

Paul On Trial The Book Of Acts As A Defense Of Christianity

[gcdonner]

AMEN and Halleluiah to the above post!
BTW, I think that both B & C are true.

I appreciate your posts, George.

You will have to explain the "heaven and earth" thing to me, from your perspective. Perhaps on another thread.

John

I have already started another thread...viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6277
I will endeavor to answer this question there rather than this thread.

I believe you are mistaken in saying that there were only 12 apostles. How about the 70 that Jesus "sent" out?
The same noun used for apostles is the verb form to be "sent".

ἀποστέλλω
apostellō
Thayer Definition: Verb
1) to order (one) to go to a place appointed

ἀπόστολος
apostolos
Thayer Definition:
1) a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders
1a) specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ
1b) in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers
1b1) of Barnabas
1b2) of Timothy and Silvanus

Luk 9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
10 And the apostles, when they were returned, told him all that they had done. And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida.

Luk 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

Technically speaking, anyone who is "sent" by the Lord is an Apostle. Nowadays we call them "missionaries" even though they have been "sent" as well.


Are you aware that Jesus only used the term apostles once and it didn't specify "the apostles"?

Luk_11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

The way he is recorded as saying this, it was a quote from an OC passage, but obviously one that is no longer extant. Perhaps referring to the "sayings of the seers" mentioned in 2Chr 33:19?
But note the parallel passage taken from Matt 23:34 does not mention apostles:

Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

Is it possible that we put too much emphasis on the term? If taking it only from Jesus himself, it seems to be of less importance. It would appear that Luke made the term what we accept it to be in it's limited sense, not Jesus himself. The translators have made it to be what we think it to be now, as a result of transliterating it, instead of translating it from the Greek into English. The original 12 could simply have been said to be messengers or as Jesus himself called them in Acts 1:8, "witnesses".

Just some observations for you to consider in your further studies. I admonish you not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[JohnHurt]

AMEN and Halleluiah to the above post!
BTW, I think that both B & C are true.

I appreciate your posts, George.

You will have to explain the "heaven and earth" thing to me, from your perspective. Perhaps on another thread.

John

I have already started another thread...viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6277
I will endeavor to answer this question there rather than this thread.

I believe you are mistaken in saying that there were only 12 apostles. How about the 70 that Jesus "sent" out?
The same noun used for apostles is the verb form to be "sent".

ἀποστέλλω
apostellō
Thayer Definition: Verb
1) to order (one) to go to a place appointed

ἀπόστολος
apostolos
Thayer Definition:
1) a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders
1a) specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ
1b) in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers
1b1) of Barnabas
1b2) of Timothy and Silvanus

Luk 9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
10 And the apostles, when they were returned, told him all that they had done. And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida.

Luk 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

Technically speaking, anyone who is "sent" by the Lord is an Apostle. Nowadays we call them "missionaries" even though they have been "sent" as well.


Are you aware that Jesus only used the term apostles once and it didn't specify "the apostles"?

Luk_11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

The way he is recorded as saying this, it was a quote from an OC passage, but obviously one that is no longer extant. Perhaps referring to the "sayings of the seers" mentioned in 2Chr 33:19?
But note the parallel passage taken from Matt 23:34 does not mention apostles:

Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

Is it possible that we put too much emphasis on the term? If taking it only from Jesus himself, it seems to be of less importance. It would appear that Luke made the term what we accept it to be in it's limited sense, not Jesus himself. The translators have made it to be what we think it to be now, as a result of transliterating it, instead of translating it from the Greek into English. The original 12 could simply have been said to be messengers or as Jesus himself called them in Acts 1:8, "witnesses".

Just some observations for you to consider in your further studies. I admonish you not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Hello George.
Here is my response:

Luke 10:(1) After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

"sent" in this verse is Strongs 649: apostello - from apo - apo 575 and stellw - stello 4724; set apart, i.e. (by implication) to send out (properly, on a mission) literally or figuratively:--put in, send (away, forth, out), set (at liberty).

Rev 21:(14) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

"apostles" in this verse is Strongs 652: apostolos - from apostellw - apostello 649; a delegate; specially, an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ ("apostle") (with miraculous powers):--apostle, messenger, he that is sent.

Also notice that there are only twelve foundations of the city for the twelve Apostles that Christ chose.

You are asking that two different words be considered to be the same word to make your point.

Christ said that there can be only twelve Apostles - the 12 that He chose, and there is no room for the 13th "apostle":

Matt 19:(28) And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Paul believed that he could create an unlimited number of "apostles", as Paul thought he had the power to create apostles just like Christ did. This was embarrassing to the KJV translators, and so they rendered the word "apostle" as "messengers" in 2 Cor 8:23, and Phil 2:25

2 Cor 8:(23) Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be enquired of, they are the messengers ("apostolos") of the churches, and the glory of Christ.

Phil 2:(25) Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger ("apostolos"), and he that ministered to my wants.

Paul has imagined a church hierarchy where his own multitude of "apostles" will sit in first place:

1 Cor 12:(28) And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Paul also thinks that these "elders" that "rule well" should receive twice the working man's pay:

1 Tim 5:(17) Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Paul's church is a money making racket, with a man-made hierarchy exercising authority over everyone and calling themselves your "benefactors".

Christ had this to say about Paul's church hierarchy, which is in every church today:

Luke 22:(24) And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

(25) And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

(26) But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

Christ said that we should never have a church hierarchy.

Christ said no church hierarchy, but that we should all be servants, equal to each other.

Christ also said we should not have church titles:

Matt 23:(8) But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

(9) And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

(10) Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

The word "father" here is the word "pope" in Latin.

The reason we have a Pope in the Catholic church is through the writings of Paul, which have gained superiority in the minds of men over the Doctrines of Christ. The reason we think there are more than 12 apostles is also due to the writings of Paul. If we could ignore Paul and study the Doctrines of Christ, we would be the church that Christ wants us to be.

[Soloist]

The 12 Apostles sit ruling the 12 tribes. Where do the gentiles fit in and who rules them?

[mike]

Peter is warning all of us that the unlearned that don't know any better, and the unstable that do, will twist the writings of Paul to contradict the teachings of Christ.

This seems like a description of your position - twisting the writings of Paul to contradict the teachings of Christ, and of the other apostles. I would suggest that you listen to the following two lectures by David Bercot on the topic of harmonizing Paul and James, because the accusation that Paul and James were saying two different things is an old one.

Regardless, you have to twist Peter's words in order to understand him as not supporting Paul's writings in his statement.

Paul is a single witness for himself that he was accepted by the Apostles in Galatians 2. In the Clementine literature, Paul, with the name of "simon magus", was opposed by Peter, according to Clement. But the Catholic church of Constantine has elevated Paul over Peter, and over Christ for that matter. They have rewritten the history of the early church.

The books of Luke and Acts were written to "the most excellent Theophilus". This is how a Roman magistrate is to be addressed. It would be like addressing these books to the "Honorable Judge John Smith". These books were written for the trial of Paul at Rome, by Luke. The book of Luke explains to the Roman government how Christianity started, and the book of Acts explains the founding of the Church, and how Paul was not guilty of bringing Greeks into the Temple, as he was engaged in a ritual bath when this occurred. These two books are legal briefs, and should not have been placed in our Bibles by Constantine.

Thank you. I was correct then in saying that in your view, much more material must be removed from the scriptures than just the writings of Paul. Luke/Acts must go as well. So that takes out one of the four gospels. What gives you the confidence that the other three are to be understood as an accurate representation of Jesus' life and teachings? When taking your views to their logical conclusion, what are you left with in terms of reliable writings about Jesus, and on what do you base their reliability?

The argument that Simon Magus was actually Paul gets into weird territory. It is in my opinion completely made up by people who are trying to discredit Paul and is barely worth a passing thought.

And you had nothing to say in response about my point about why the apostle John, who outlived Paul and all the other apostles, failed to correct what would have been the most stunning departure from the gospel imaginable according to your view.

[JohnHurt]

So why is Christ superior to Paul, Luke, James, Peter, John, and everyone else?

1. Christ is the only authorized speaker of YHVH:

Here is what YHVH said about Christ, through Moses:

Deut 18:(17) And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.

(18) I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

(19) And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

(20) But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

This passage is about the supremacy of Christ over all others: Acts 3:22-23

YHVH said that Christ is the only one that can speak to us. If we don't hearken to Christ, YHVH will require it of us. No other person has this same authority.

2. Christ said that we are to follow only His Doctrines:

Matt 28:(20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

Christ never authorized us to teach any other doctrines than His Own. You can look throughout the Bible, but you won't find Christ saying to follow the doctrines of Peter, James, John, or Paul.

3. We are not to make man-made additions or subtractions to YHVH's commandments:

Deut 2:(2) Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

4. We are not to follow the doctrines of men:

Christ blasted the additions that the Pharisees made to God's Word in their "traditions of the elders", which is the Jewish Talmud:

Matt 15:(1) Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

(2) Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

(3) But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

(4) For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

(5) But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

(6) And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

(7) Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

(8) This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

(9) But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Our religion is vain if we hold to the doctrines of men above the Doctrines of Christ.

Christ is superior to all other New Testament writers. I cannot see that the other New Testament writers are creating new doctrines, except for the writings of Paul. Paul has introduced many new innovations to the church that are contrary to what Christ taught.

Paul did perform miracles, and if it were possible, Paul has deceived the very elect through his signs and wonders, just as Christ predicted in Matt 24:24.

Paul is a test from God, to look at our hearts and to find out if we will follow men, or God. God tells us this plainly in Deut 13 that men like Paul are here as a "test". That is the reason why Paul is in your Bible, to test you.

Deut 13:(1) If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

(2) And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

(3) Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

(4) Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

Paul has told us that he can make new doctrines, just like Christ. Paul's doctrines are terrible, like not helping the widow under 60 years old (1 tim 5:9

But it is more than "just Paul". Men like Darby have "dispensed" with the Doctrines of Christ by putting them into a different "dispensation" so they can be ignored. They have us worried about the "rapture", or the "trinity", or the "144,000", or the "millennium", - with the purpose of getting us to focus on the doctrines of men and to ignore the Doctrines of Christ.

Pre-Trib, Post-Trib, Mid-Trib - who cares! Pre-mill, post-mill, a-mill - who cares! No one should. We don't need to predict or worry about the future, for sufficient to the day is the evil thereof. Mt 6:34 Christ told us directly not to worry about the future, but to "get to work" in the here and now.

We need to "Occupy till I come" Luke 19:13 and use our talents to promote His Kingdom. And here is our fate if we ignore the Doctrines of Christ about taking care of our fellow man:

Matt 25:(40) And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

(41) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

(42) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

(43) I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

(44) Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

(45) Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

(46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

I don't want to be cursed by Christ, and go into an everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. If we follow Darby, Scofield, and these other men and ignore Christ, there will be serious consequences.

[JohnHurt]

JohnHurt wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 8:42 pm
Peter is warning all of us that the unlearned that don't know any better, and the unstable that do, will twist the writings of Paul to contradict the teachings of Christ.
This seems like a description of your position - twisting the writings of Paul to contradict the teachings of Christ, and of the other apostles. I would suggest that you listen to the following two lectures by David Bercot on the topic of harmonizing Paul and James, because the accusation that Paul and James were saying two different things is an old one.

Regardless, you have to twist Peter's words in order to understand him as not supporting Paul's writings in his statement.

We need to synchronize Paul and James to Christ, not to each other. If their doctrines conflict with Christ, then do you think that Christ should be considered as superior? Do you agree that Christ is superior to all other writers?

Thank you. I was correct then in saying that in your view, much more material must be removed from the scriptures than just the writings of Paul. Luke/Acts must go as well. So that takes out one of the four gospels. What gives you the confidence that the other three are to be understood as an accurate representation of Jesus' life and teachings? When taking your views to their logical conclusion, what are you left with in terms of reliable writings about Jesus, and on what do you base their reliability?

My point is that Luke and Acts are written to a Roman magistrate, and that is the reason Acts ends with Paul going to Rome and awaiting trial there. Paul was a very high value person to the Roman government, which is why they protected him with an extreme guard:

Acts 23:(23) And he called unto him two centurions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night;

(24) And provide them beasts, that they may set Paul on, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor.

Paul is a kinsman of Herod. Rom 16:11 That is why they kept him in the judgement hall of Herod Acts 23:35 and not some dungeon. That is why Paul was allowed to speak to Agrippa as he was his relative. Paul had unlimited resources, and Luke/Acts are the legal briefs that were to be used for Paul's trial before Nero. That is the only explanation why the narrative of Acts after chapter 8 or so turns entirely over to the works of Paul. Acts is to show how Paul got into the church, and how he was not guilty of bringing Greeks into the Temple, as he was taking a ritual bath when the incident happened. You can believe what you want, but Luke was a Roman, he was not an Apostle chosen by Christ to spread the Doctrines of Christ, and Luke tells you that everything he writes is something he heard "second hand". Luke 1:1-3.

Luke also seems to have acquired the Hebrew Matthew, as there are various quotations in Luke from this source. There is nothing wrong with Luke or Acts, but you need to know the purpose of these documents. So Luke and Acts are valuable, but not superior to the Doctrines of Christ. If you read that "paul broke bread on the 1st day of the week", that does not abolish the Sabbath, as Paul and Luke do not have the authority to do so.

Luke, like James, was deceived by Paul. Luke never records what Paul teaches in his epistles about the Law being abolished, like James apparently found out when he confronted Paul:

Acts 21:(21) And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

(22) What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

If Paul could fool James on this matter, then he could fool Luke as well.

The argument that Simon Magus was actually Paul gets into weird territory. It is in my opinion completely made up by people who are trying to discredit Paul and is barely worth a passing thought.

You will have to read the Clementine literature before we can have a discussion about this.

And you had nothing to say in response about my point about why the apostle John, who outlived Paul and all the other apostles, failed to correct what would have been the most stunning departure from the gospel imaginable according to your view.

Here is what John said about Paul:

1 John 4:(2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

(3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:(7) For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

The people in the 1st century believed that the "gods" could only come down as a "likeness" of flesh, or as an "avatar", as all flesh was sinful:

Acts 14:(11) And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.

(12) And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.

Paul said that Christ was had not come in the flesh, but only as a "likeness of men":

Phil 2:(7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Romans 8:(3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Paul is a Gnostic, and believes that all flesh is sinful:

Romans 7:(25) I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

So the Apostle John at the end of his life did know what Paul had taught, and condemned Paul as the antichrist for denying that Christ came in the flesh.



If you are going to use 2nd Peter 3:16-17 to support Paul, then you need to evaluate 2nd Peter to find its place in history. Read the article on Wikipedia to see that most Bible scholars have doubts that 2nd Peter was written by Peter, or even in the 1st Century:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

2nd Peter 3:16 states that Paul's writings are like "the other scriptures", thus elevating Paul's epistles to the level of the rest of the Bible.

Yet, Peter died in 60 AD, and Paul was still writing his epistles at that time. So there was not enough time for the writings of Paul to be elevated by the early church to the status of "other scriptures" before Peter died. It is pretty obvious to me that the Apostle Peter did not write 2nd Peter. It was written in the 2nd century, or later.

Regardless, Peter in 2nd Peter 3:16 does not have the authority to lift Paul above Christ. Both Peter and Paul are inferior to Christ. So it does not matter what Peter said or did not say, or what Paul said that someone gave him "the right hand of fellowship". They are all inferior to Christ. And if their doctrines conflict with Christ, then their doctrines are to be ignored.

Thanks,
John

[silentreader]

Possibly of interest or maybe even of relevance is that there seems to have been a high priest by the name of Theophilus from about AD37 to about AD42.

[mike]

John, so your way of dealing with Peter's statement about Paul in 2 Peter is to throw the letter out as not having been written by Peter anyway, as you do with all writings you think contradict Christ.

These are fundamental questions that I asked, and you did not answer.

Thank you. I was correct then in saying that in your view, much more material must be removed from the scriptures than just the writings of Paul. Luke/Acts must go as well. So that takes out one of the four gospels. What gives you the confidence that the other three are to be understood as an accurate representation of Jesus' life and teachings? When taking your views to their logical conclusion, what are you left with in terms of reliable writings about Jesus, and on what do you base their reliability?

[mike]

JohnHurt wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 8:42 pm
Peter is warning all of us that the unlearned that don't know any better, and the unstable that do, will twist the writings of Paul to contradict the teachings of Christ.
This seems like a description of your position - twisting the writings of Paul to contradict the teachings of Christ, and of the other apostles. I would suggest that you listen to the following two lectures by David Bercot on the topic of harmonizing Paul and James, because the accusation that Paul and James were saying two different things is an old one.

Regardless, you have to twist Peter's words in order to understand him as not supporting Paul's writings in his statement.

We need to synchronize Paul and James to Christ, not to each other. If their doctrines conflict with Christ, then do you think that Christ should be considered as superior? Do you agree that Christ is superior to all other writers?

Christ is superior. But Christ did not write, the apostles wrote. What Christ did is send out apostles to teach the world all the things that he commanded them, which they did. You don't accept the fact that the apostles carried out the great commission faithfully and left us an accurate historical record.

What you would find if you listened to those lectures would perhaps inform you on not only how James and Paul do not contradict each other, but how neither one of them contradicts Jesus.