Paul was the first Humanist

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Like I said, you might want to contemplate the entire chapter that Peter has written, and carefully consider the message contained therein.

I have reread that chapter and the only reference to Paul is the verse that says he is just a brother (rather than an apostle), and that his writing is hard to understand (in contrast to the clear words of Jesus, I might add). When a person's writing is hard to understand, this gives rise to divisions that scatter the flock and many different denominations, eh? (You might want to read about the shepherds that scatter the flock in Jeremiah 23:1)

Too bad "Peter" did not elaborate further on Paul's "hard to understand" doctrine and proceed to clarify it for us all, but then again, what could Peter say after Paul had put him down as a Judaizer in Galatians 2? According to Paul, Peter may have been too confused to be of much use to anybody. And most Christians do rely on Paul for the final word in the event of any possible conflict between Paul and the TWELVE (who are often summarily dismissed as Judaizers).

On top of this, most scholars think that the book of 2 Peter was a pseudograph. (And the second chapter of 2 Peter appears to be a paraphrase of the book of Jude.)

Can you find any other quotes from any of original apostles in which they speak of Paul? In a book written by one of them? Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't find any other instance of John, Matthew, Mark, James, Peter or Jude mentioning Paul or his disciple, Luke, in any of the books they had written. Why the silence? Why doesn't Peter have the chance to defend himself from Paul's criticism in Galatians 2? Many questions to ponder.

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Like I said, you might want to contemplate the entire chapter that Peter has written, and carefully consider the message contained therein.

Perhaps you can explain how the entire chapter speaks of Peter's view of Paul's doctrine. Paul is the topic in just one verse of that chapter.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

Perhaps you can explain how the entire chapter speaks of Peter's view of Paul's doctrine. Paul is the topic in just one verse of that chapter.

Indeed, the entire chapter is a warning about how scoffers will arise and who will twist the scriptures according to their own desires, and another warning not to be lead astray by them...

Originally Posted by 2 Peter 3

1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,
<snip>
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 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.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

[Excaliburton]

Yes, scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, because they think they are no longer under the law, as Paul had taught, contrary to the words of Jesus who said not one jot or tittle of the Law will be abolished until heaven and earth pass away and all the prophecies of the books of the Law/ Torah and the Prophets are fulfilled.

The note about Paul at the very end of 2 Peter is in the style of a postscript, an add-on or an afterthought, that does not have any real continuity with the verses preceding it. And Peter does not identify Paul as an apostle but merely as a brother.

In any case, as I said before,

When Peter announces that Paul's writing is hard to understand, this gives rise to divisions that scatter the flock and many different denominations, eh? (You might want to read about the shepherds that scatter the flock in Jeremiah 23:1)

Too bad "Peter" did not elaborate further on Paul's "hard to understand" doctrine and proceed to clarify it for us all, but then again, what could Peter say after Paul had put him down as a Judaizer in Galatians 2? According to Paul, Peter may have been too confused to be of much use to anybody. And most Christians do rely on Paul for the final word in the event of any possible conflict between Paul and the TWELVE (who are often summarily dismissed as Judaizers).

On top of this, most scholars think that the book of 2 Peter was a pseudograph. (And the second chapter of 2 Peter appears to be a paraphrase of the book of Jude.)

Can you find any other quotes from any of original apostles in which they speak of Paul? In a book written by one of them? Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't find any other instance of John, Matthew, Mark, James, Peter or Jude mentioning Paul or his disciple, Luke, in any of the books they had written. Why the silence? Why doesn't Peter have the chance to defend himself from Paul's criticism in Galatians 2? Many questions to ponder.

And these are questions you have not answered, but I welcome your response and the responses of others on this forum.

[mee]

just before Paul was baptized and commissioned for his work, the Lord Jesus said to Ananias: "This man [Paul] is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel." (Acts 9:15;

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by mee

just before Paul was baptized and commissioned for his work, the Lord Jesus said to Ananias: "This man [Paul] is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel." (Acts 9:15;

In other words, Paul was a disciple, and slated for great things for God's glory. But he was never an apostle. More like a staunch advocate, or charismatic lawyer/arbiter for the cause of God before the people.

v/r

Q

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by mee

just before Paul was baptized and commissioned for his work, the Lord Jesus said to Ananias: "This man [Paul] is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel." (Acts 9:15;

Didn't Peter say he was the one who would take the gospel to the gentiles?

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

In other words, Paul was a disciple, and slated for great things for God's glory. But he was never an apostle. More like a staunch advocate, or charismatic lawyer/arbiter for the cause of God before the people.

v/r

Q

I agree he was not an apostle, but he claimed to be an apostle of no less value than the "Super-apostles" of Jerusalem, and he had the hubris to correct Peter!

As a liar, he could not be a legitimate oracle of God.

[Dr Mallard]

I don't see Paul as the first humanist, I feel that he hyjacked the faith and put in place many principles that would have appeared alien to many of the apostles. He persecuted them and then went on to be the most ardent propagandist.

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by Dr Mallard

I don't see Paul as the first humanist, I feel that he hyjacked the faith and put in place many principles that would have appeared alien to many of the apostles. He persecuted them and then went on to be the most ardent propagandist.

Alright, now you're quackin', Doc !!!

To be sure, Paul was not a humanist in any positive sense of the word.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Dr Mallard

I don't see Paul as the first humanist, I feel that he hyjacked the faith and put in place many principles that would have appeared alien to many of the apostles. He persecuted them and then went on to be the most ardent propagandist.

yes he certainly was a former persecuter, he was very zealous for the ways of his former religion, what a big change happened to him.
Paul approved of the murder of Stephen and, because of misdirected zeal for tradition, began a campaign of vicious persecution against Christ’s followers. yes Jehovah can use whomever he wants to accomplish his purpose . and i think that today many are now doing the will of God that were former persecuters of christians. and they have left the traditions of men , and the misdirected zeal of persecution.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by mee

yes he certainly was a former persecuter, he was very zealous for the ways of his former religion, what a big change happened to him.
Paul approved of the murder of Stephen and, because of misdirected zeal for tradition, began a campaign of vicious persecution against Christ’s followers. yes Jehovah can use whomever he wants to accomplish his purpose . and i think that today many are now doing the will of God that were former persecuters of christians. and they have left the traditions of men , and the misdirected zeal of persecution.

There really is something to that "turning the other cheek" stuff, isn't there?

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by mee

yes he certainly was a former persecuter, he was very zealous for the ways of his former religion, what a big change happened to him.
Paul approved of the murder of Stephen and, because of misdirected zeal for tradition, began a campaign of vicious persecution against Christ’s followers. yes Jehovah can use whomever he wants to accomplish his purpose . and i think that today many are now doing the will of God that were former persecuters of christians. and they have left the traditions of men , and the misdirected zeal of persecution.

But Paul pretended to convert to Christianity in order to subvert it from within. Paul pretends to be a Benjamite but most of the evidence suggests he was actually an Herodian Edomite. Recall his greeting to kinsman, Herodion, the "littlest Herod" in Rom 16:11 as just one example of his Herodian connections after his so-called conversion.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

But Paul pretended to convert to Christianity in order to subvert it from within. Paul pretends to be a Benjamite but most of the evidence suggests he was actually an Herodian Edomite. Recall his greeting to kinsman, Herodion, the "littlest Herod" in Rom 16:11 as just one example of his Herodian connections after his so-called conversion.

i think his relatives would still have been in his former religion , and just because he became a christian does not mean that he would not greet his relatives.

[Quahom1]

As this is an exercised in "Comparative Studies", that is where this thread is being moved to.

v/r

Q