Marsh said:
No. Actually it means I didn't think it necessary to reply to anything else because the entire argument rests on the premise that Paul was preaching in his own name. Your evidence for this is shaky to say the least. Your Bible apparently renders Paul's words as "my gospel;" my Bible renders them as "the gospel I have declared." Translations aside, I would like to hear some hard evidence; not this nit-picky stuff where a phrase is taken out of context, which is the stuff propaganda is made out of.
And this matter of Paul being rebuked by Peter? Listen to what Peter says about Paul (and others...) at the closing of his second letter:
"So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. 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. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position."
Is it Paul's error, or is it the reader who does not understand?
Marsha,
First we find not one but 3 instances of Paul using the term 'my gospel'.
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to
my gospel.
Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to
my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to
my gospel:
Second, Paul could not produce the names of any witnesses to his alleged vision on the road to Damascus. Even Paul agrees that such witnesses would be necessary.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one
or two more, that in the mouth of
two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2Cr 13:1 This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of
two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
1Ti 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before
two or three witnesses.
Hbr 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under
two or three witnesses:
Third, there are major contradictions both within Luke's account of these events as recorded in the Acts and even more glaring contradictions between Luke's account in the Acts and Paul's account in the Letter to the Galatians. I documented these contradictions in an earlier letter on this forum. If the Bible is inerrant, then it must expel books that do not rise to that level.
Thus in the absence of corroborative evidence to support Paul's claim to have witnessed a vision from Christ, his solitary testimony is insufficient and he was therefore preaching in his own name. Don't forget that Saul/Paul was a self-admitted murderer and a Pharisee, a person of ill repute and hardly a person to be trusted to tell the truth. Even after his so-called conversion, Paul even admits that he engages in lying.
Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through
my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
And finally the recent translation of the Habakkuk Commentary of the Dead Sea scrolls strongly suggests that Paul may be The Liar therein referenced
Many prominent scholars think that 2 Peter was a
pseudonymity,that is, it was written by somebody other than Peter. (And some think it may have been written by a Pauline sympathizer. One of the reasons for this view is that 2 Peter is written in the style of Paul, and his writing often includes condescending and threatening language to intimidate people.)
"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."
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you,
let him be accursed.
As Pauline doctrine became the major dogma of the Catholic church, such heavy-handedness helped pave the way for centuries of oppression and Inquisitions. It must be noted that Pauline doctrine enforces its will by stressing faith instead of reason and fear of punishment on this earth and in Hell for those who dare to think on their own.
Here are some notes on the authorship of 2 Peter:
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/2_Peter.htm
The informed skeptic is aware that out of all the epistles accepted into the cannon, none has received as much difficulty as Second Peter. Rejection of Peter as the author of Second Peter is the most common opinion today, and is supported by one of Christianity’s most authoritative conservative biblical scholars, Bruce Metzger, (a scholar that I personally have high regard for). Metzger writes:
"Although the author of this letter calls himself ‘Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ’ (1:1), and makes reference to his being present at the transfiguration of Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have led nearly all modern scholars to regard it as the work of an unknown author of the early second century who wrote in Peter’s name....In light of such internal and external evidence one must conclude that 2 Peter was drawn up sometime after A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the great apostle in order to give his letter greater authority" (The New Testament, its background, growth, and content, pg. 258).
In scholarly circles, Second Peter is classified as a
pseudonymity, a term referring to, as Metzger mentions, an author assuming the name of another and writing supposedly on his behalf. Gary Ferngren, author of
Internal Criticism as a Criterion for Authorship in the New Testament, states the situation as to Second Peter accurately:
"...a majority of informed scholars regard 2 Peter as pseudonymous, and this view is taken by many as a proven fact...A strong case can be made for Peter’s authorship of the second epistle attributed to him. Yet such arguments are for the most part ignored in modern discussions and one may be permitted to wonder how many minds are influenced less by the evidence against Petrine authorship than by the fact that the opinio communis of modern scholarship regards the evidence against it as decisive" (Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 134 #536: 341).
