"El pobre es rico cuando esta feliz con lo que tiene...Y el rico es pobre cuando nada de lo que tiene lo hace feliz" Benjamin Franklin.

Relevant

A Joomla! Template for the Rest of Us

 

Search

Questions?

Please enter your questions, and we will get back to you as soon as possible. As an anti-spam measure, we ask that you re-type the code you see in the box below, prior to clicking "Send Message"






Recommendations

Only Jesus (great song by Big Daddy)

What Did Jesus Say? (2012) - 7 topics 

None above affiliated with me

JesusWordsOnS-cropsmall
JesusWordsSalv-crop2
DidCalvinMurderServetusM

What Are The Consequences If I Am Wrong About Paul?

Matthew in May 2013 asked what do I anticipate are the consequences if I am wrong about Paul. Here is his question, and here is my answer:

Matthew's Question: May 5, 2013 - Excerpt

The other question I would like you to even try to answer theoretically: what if you're wrong and Paul is inspired with the rest of the NT, that Peter is right in placing Paul's writings amongst the Scriptures?
Thanks,
Matthew

My Reply

 
Matthew
 
If I am wrong about Paul, and was wrong to teach us to follow only Jesus' words, what is the worst that will happen to me? Nothing possible.
 
I will be in the same boat as all those who knew Jesus but not Paul before Paul preached his first sermon. How long was that period? 14 years.
 
Paul explained this in his Epistle to the Galatian that he spent 14 years in the wilderness of Arabia before he embarked on ministry. This is known as the UNKNOWN period of Paul's life. It was only after that time he emerged in Acts 15. 
 
Did people get saved before Paul? Yes, Peter led 3000 people to Christ in his first sermon recorded in Acts 2.  Did Gentiles? Yes, the Antioch church Luke records had Gentiles in it.
 
Thus, I tell people, there is no risk to one's salvation to reject Paul who never quotes Jesus (except he repeats the liturgy and "the worker is worth his wages"-- both from Luke's gospel ). There is only a risk incorporating Paul when Paul's message is clearly competing against Jesus' message of repentance and obedience. 
 
What about Peter's remark? First, I wish indeed 2d Peter was written by Peter, but it appears clear it was not an epistle of Peter. Second Peter & Its Reference to Paul as "Scripture": What Does This Mean?
 
When you read that article, you will learn that Second Peter calls Paul a brother, not an apostle, who wrote with the "wisdom" God gave him, not inspiration (Jews knew the difference). Second Peter also says "Paul is difficult to understand" which is causing many to fall from their "steadfastness in Christ," adopting "lawless" practices. Please read the entire context, and not just the portion about 'scripture.'
 
Most important, the term "scripture" is not the same as "holy scripture" which is how Paul himself distinguished a mere "writing" (scripture) in Greek, from inspired scripture. In those days, the best that can be said is "scripture" could mean part 3 of the Bible -- Law, Prophets & part 3 - the "Writings" section which in Greek is "scripture." The term "scripture" was not a reference to the Law and Prophets - regarded by Jews as 100% inspired. In the Writing section were kept works that were thought not inspired, but edifying (Esther), or partially inspired but mostly not (Ecclesiastes) or those works not regarded yet as prophetic but were held onto as potentially one day perhaps being proven as inspired (the Book of Daniel). Thus, even if Peter wrote 2d Peter, saying something was a "Writing" did not imply it was inspired. We TODAY use the word "Scripture" to mean something inspired, but back then the term implied something not known to be inspired or fully inspired. 
Please let me know your comments or thoughts,
Blessings in Christ,
Doug