The "Paul" that anti-Christians invented

[Eli G]

...Your quote from Matthew is irrelevant to the thread's topic: "The Paul that anti-Christians invented".

My comment was directed to the comment immediately above.

I don't need to quote a post if there is only one person on a topic and I'm replying directly to this/her post.

I wouldn't have to explain myself to you since you didn't even participate in any post immediately preceding mine... but anyway, my comment, in addition to responding to the previous post, is very relevant to this topic... of which BTW, I am the author.

I hope you reread my comment in context so you understand why it is related to the topic.

 

[Eli G]

The apostle Peter didn't write 1st Peter or 2nd Peter. They were probably written by his followers, but the true authorship is unknown. It was a common practice in those times for a person's disciples to write in their teacher's name, expressing his philosophy.

If you're so sure, why don't you show us the evidence of that?

In the meantime, let's see how the author of the letter can easily be identified as Peter:

1) Peter identifies himself as the writer in the opening words of each letter. (1Pe 1:1; 2Pe 1:1; see 2Pe 3:1.)

2) The writer speaks of himself as an eyewitness of the transfiguration of Jesus Christ, a privilege shared only by Peter, James, and John. (2Pe 1:16-18; Mt 17:1-9)

3) Being evident from John 21:18,19, Peter alone could have said: “The putting off of my tabernacle is soon to be, just as also our Lord Jesus Christ signified to me.” (2Pe 1:14)

4) According to McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia (1981 reprint, Vol. VIII, page 15): Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian, all quote the First letter naming Peter as writer.

 

[jimb]

If you're so sure, why don't you show us the evidence of that?

In the meantime, let's see how the author of the letter can easily be identified as Peter:

1) Peter identifies himself as the writer in the opening words of each letter. (1Pe 1:1; 2Pe 1:1; see 2Pe 3:1.)

2) The writer speaks of himself as an eyewitness of the transfiguration of Jesus Christ, a privilege shared only by Peter, James, and John. (2Pe 1:16-18; Mt 17:1-9)

3) Being evident from John 21:18,19, Peter alone could have said: “The putting off of my tabernacle is soon to be, just as also our Lord Jesus Christ signified to me.” (2Pe 1:14)

4) According to McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia (1981 reprint, Vol. VIII, page 15): Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian, all quote the First letter naming Peter as writer.

Here is the beginning of the Wikipedia article about the epistles' author...

The authorship of the Petrine epistles (1 Peter and 2 Peter) is a question in biblical criticism, parallel to that of the authorship of the Pauline epistles, in which scholars have sought to determine the exact authors of the New Testament letters. The vast majority of biblical scholars think the two epistles do not share the same author, due to wide differences in Greek style and views between the two letters. Most scholars today conclude that Peter the Apostle was the author of neither of the two epistles that are attributed to him.

It continues... An issue common to both epistles of Peter, as well as various non-canonical works that claim to be written by Peter, is whether Peter even had the capability to write them. Peter is described in Acts 4:13 as "uneducated and ordinary" (NRSV). The Koine Greek agrammatoi (ἀγράμματοι) can be literally translated as "unlettered" or "illiterate". More generally, Peter is agreed to be a fisherman from Capernaum, a comparatively small and likely monolingual town. In the era of Roman Judea, literacy was rare, the ability to write rarer still, and the ability to write detailed philosophical tracts (rather than simple receipts and contracts) rarest of all. What advanced literacy training did exist was almost exclusively taught to the children of the elite in large towns such as Jerusalem, rather than fishermen in small towns. Consequently, most scholars find Acts' claim that Peter was uneducated credible."

Bible.org has further information about the author of "Peter's" epistles.

I expect that, as usual, you won't accept anything that I write, regardless of the evidence. However, others may read it and agree with me (and most Biblical scholars)

 

[Audie]

So, we already have two of the defenders of the pseudo-Paul: @Spice and @Twilight Hue ... I don't remember reading the last of them identifying as a Christian, nor does it seem to me that he is, which it's Ok. Not because someone is not a Christian it means he/she can't give his/her own opinion about Biblical issues. The real point is not what you are, but where you get your version of the pseudo-Paul you defend. Do you take it from the internet? The only book that tells us about the real Paul is the Bible. I don't think that if someone has never read the Bible, they can have any idea who Paul really was.

Some people think that it's enough to read a few articles on the Internet, written by people who are very interested in giving a false idea about any biblical topic. In some social networks we already have censors that delete videos with fake information. Unfortunately, that cannot be done with much of the information disseminated on the Internet, especially false information related to biblical matters, which many talk about but few have actually verified.

The pseudo prophet gave himself away with the
absurdly phony snake story.

 

[Eli G]

Here is the beginning of the Wikipedia article about the epistles' author...

The authorship of the Petrine epistles (1 Peter and 2 Peter) is a question in biblical criticism ...

I expect that, as usual, you won't accept anything that I write, regardless of the evidence. However, others may read it and agree with me (and most Biblical scholars)

Do you even know what is "biblical criticism" and who are the people dedicated to that?

Most of the info you read online comes from them because anti-Christians and atheists own most websites and what they publish is what they consider "scholarship", which of course, has nothing to do with what a Christian should accept about biblical issues ... at least not all. I guess this is why some "Christians" lost their faith. They think everyone is an expert in biblical matters and they should accept everything they say.

I know very well that many now ex-Christians who were very well instructed in biblical matters became weak and lost their faith. In their personal research they put excessively more attention to the opinion of the supposed "learned critics" on biblical matters, and this way they were easily influenced and fell into the trap prepared precisely to make them lose their faith. Now they have even joined the non-believers in their quest to kill the Christian faith and trust in the Scriptures in others as well. It wasn't necessary to come to that.

They should have been more careful, knowing that there are spiritual enemies that rule this system of things continually undermining the faith of believers from every possible angle. One of the strongholds they use is the presumed "scholarship" and "science" of the world, that sometimes appears to have sufficient reasons to deny biblical teachings... But do they really have information that contradicts it, or do they just pretend they have enough evidence to do so? Do they really deny what the Bible says, or what some interpret from what is written in it?

The first thing to keep in mind is that the Scriptures cannot be nullified by anyone. Not even Jesus himself would have dared to deny any Scripture prior to him; he considered it sacred. At that same level, there are also inspired Christian writings. So with our attention focused on the fact that no one can contradict the written truths, any information can be evaluated in the light that it conveys. In no way would the intellectual Author of the Bible have allowed falsehoods to be recorded in a collection of writings that, in addition to being inspired by his own spirit, would be directly related to Him as responsible for their writing.

They should reconsider their positions and start reviewing what confused them to the point of losing faith, and let someone help them regain it.

 

[Ajax]

Do you even know what is "biblical criticism" and who are the people dedicated to that?

Most of the info you read online comes from them because anti-Christians and atheists own most websites and what they publish is what they consider "scholarship"......In their personal research they put excessively more attention to the opinion of the supposed "learned critics" on biblical matters, and this way they were easily influenced and fell into the trap prepared precisely to make them lose their faith.....

Don't worry about scholars; the Bible can contradict and cancel itself out without any help from 'learned critics". It's only people with blinkers who can not realize it.

 

[Spice]

In a previous post I left a link to an outstanding web page that has countless scholarly commentaries on Early Christian Writings, canoned and not, that if taken the time to explore, it would be seen to share unbiased commentaries on the authorships of the many documents.
As example, and in relation to what JW.org says concerning the authorship of 1 Peter, I share this "one" scholarly POV:

Daniel Wallace also suggests Peter's use of an anonymous scribe, indeed a companion of Paul, nominating Luke as one candidate. While it may be impossible to disprove such an idea, Eric Eve writes: "One cannot save Petrine authorship by arguing that Peter employed a secretary. If one argues that this secretary was Silvanus, the travelling companion of Paul (e.g. Selwyn 1958) or an anonymous amanuensis of the Roman church (Michaels 1988) the letter then becomes the product not of Peter, but of the secretary, since it is the latter's language that the epistle exhibits (see Beare 1970)." (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)

Dr. Wallace, a fourth-generation Californian, is a member of the Society of New Testament Studies, the Institute for Biblical Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, the American Society of Papyrologists, and the Evangelical Theological Society.
Eric is Fellow and Tutor in Theology and Secretary to the Governing Body. He teaches New Testament and is also responsible for supervising the tuition of theology students at Harris Manchester [College].

These are not experts to be scoffed.

 

[jimb]

Do you even know what is "biblical criticism" and who are the people dedicated to that?

Most of the info you read online comes from them because anti-Christians and atheists own most websites and what they publish is what they consider "scholarship", which of course, has nothing to do with what a Christian should accept about biblical issues ... at least not all. I guess this is why some "Christians" lost their faith. They think everyone is an expert in biblical matters and they should accept everything they say.

I know very well that many now ex-Christians who were very well instructed in biblical matters became weak and lost their faith. In their personal research they put excessively more attention to the opinion of the supposed "learned critics" on biblical matters, and this way they were easily influenced and fell into the trap prepared precisely to make them lose their faith. Now they have even joined the non-believers in their quest to kill the Christian faith and trust in the Scriptures in others as well. It wasn't necessary to come to that.

They should have been more careful, knowing that there are spiritual enemies that rule this system of things continually undermining the faith of believers from every possible angle. One of the strongholds they use is the presumed "scholarship" and "science" of the world, that sometimes appears to have sufficient reasons to deny biblical teachings... But do they really have information that contradicts it, or do they just pretend they have enough evidence to do so? Do they really deny what the Bible says, or what some interpret from what is written in it?

The first thing to keep in mind is that the Scriptures cannot be nullified by anyone. Not even Jesus himself would have dared to deny any Scripture prior to him; he considered it sacred. At that same level, there are also inspired Christian writings. So with our attention focused on the fact that no one can contradict the written truths, any information can be evaluated in the light that it conveys. In no way would the intellectual Author of the Bible have allowed falsehoods to be recorded in a collection of writings that, in addition to being inspired by his own spirit, would be directly related to Him as responsible for their writing.

They should reconsider their positions and start reviewing what confused them to the point of losing faith, and let someone help them regain it.

You are out of your mind, Eli! Your "great learning" is driving you insane.

I have had enough of your pride. I am putting you on "ignore" until you decide to have a reasonable dialog.

 

[Eli G]

Back to topic:

What real historical documentary evidence is there that the real Paul was different from the Paul we read about in the NT?

 

[Spice]

Back to topic:

What real historical documentary evidence is there that the real Paul was different from the Paul we read about in the NT?

Now you've changed your OP to request historical documentary evidence on Paul? Why?

In both the original OP, and again in this one, you attest the "real Paul" is the one in the NT. That has not been the conflicting argument of this thread. I think, as do others, his true character comes shining through brightly. Brighter than the light on the road to Damascus.

The argument has been whether or not this "real Paul" is trustworthy and commendable as a representative of the Good News of Jesus, and his mission, per what he states in his Epistles.

In short, the positive legacy of Paul is tgat he kept the name and life of Jesus Christ active and in mind for 2,000 years. Without him we would be missing the lesson of The Way.

The negative legacy is Paul Hellenized that lesson until it is almost unrecognizable.

Paul wrote some good advice to the leaders of his new Gentile churches. He also misrepresented Jesus by replacing much of the Jewishness in the Good News with Plilo and Greek philosophy and mythology.

IMO, Jesus's primary concern for his preaching was to tone down the Zealots' unrest of Roman occupation with solid, foundational Moses-like calm, patience, and focus, in order to prevent what ended up happening anyway. The destruction of the 2nd temple, the city of Jerusalem, and the remainder of Judaism residing in Palestine.

What Paul made out of what he heard about Jesus created two things -- the eventual Roman Catholic Church followed by all of Christiandom, and centuries of antisemitism and other dangerous prejudices towards those who connect with God differently.

 

[Eli G]

This topic is about Paul. I talked about Peter's authorship of his biblical letters because he said the following about Paul:

For those who do not know yet, the apostle Peter and Paul met personally and shared many experiences together.

... the Christian relationship between Paul and Peter was respectful. The apostle of Jesus Christ said the following about Paul (considered "apostle to the nations") in one of his letters:

2 Pet. 3:14 Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Did you notice that Peter mentions Paul's letters and attributes them to the wisdom given him? He even puts them in the same place as the rest of the Scriptures, demonstrating that Paul's letters were considered inspired by the apostle Peter and the rest of the Christians of the first century.

Certain anti-Christian said Peter never wrote that about Paul, so, there you have why I talked about Peter authorship of the letters...

Paul suffered supporting Jesus Christ Messiahship which earned him the enmity of his fellow Jews to the point of being stoned by them.

He had been a Jew very well educated in Judaism by the best rabbi of his time, Gamaliel, in Jerusalem, and he had a bright future as a Jew. Becoming a Christian was a loss for him in a worldly sense.

Paul said nothing opposite to what Jesus taught, to the contrary, he helped reason Jews and Gentiles about Jesus, giving them long well prepared logical arguments that Jesus didn't have much time to dedicate to give because of his short life and big job he needed to do instructing his disciples to continue the job after he was gone.

Matt. 28:19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.

Paul was one of them, chosen after Jesus death.

 

[Ajax]

We don't need any other historical evidence for the character and the contradictions of Paul. It's all in the NT.

 

[jimb]

The pseudo prophet gave himself away with the
absurdly phony snake story.

Why is Luke, the author of "Acts", a "pseudo prophet"?

 

[Ebionite]

What Paul made out of what he heard about Jesus created two things -- the eventual Roman Catholic Church followed by all of Christiandom, and centuries of antisemitism and other dangerous prejudices towards those who connect with God differently.

It could also be argued that Paul drew attention to texts that do not support his doctrine:

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Romans 1:17

Behold, his soul [which] is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, [he is] a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and [is] as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people:
Habakkuk 2:4-5

 

[Muffled]

There is no way Peter would ever say that in light of Matthew 24:23.

It's clearly redacted and added in afterwards and if I was still a Christian I would have completely omitted Paul and all teaching from the Bible and state he was in no way an apostle.

How does one prove redaction. It sounds more like myth than anything else to me.

 

[Muffled]

2 Peter is dated between 100 and 160 AD. At a minimum of 40 years after Peter's crucifixion.

I believe that doesn't give a lot of credit to those doing the dating. I suppose it is simple preference that Peter must not be the author.

 

[Muffled]

The apostle Peter didn't write 1st Peter or 2nd Peter. They were probably written by his followers, but the true authorship is unknown. It was a common practice in those times for a person's disciples to write in their teacher's name, expressing his philosophy.

Or as may be the case with Mark, Peter had someone write for him.

 

[Spice]

I believe that doesn't give a lot of credit to those doing the dating. I suppose it is simple preference that Peter must not be the author.

That's correct. Scholars are agreed, other than Paul's letters, the books are named after the "school of thought" that the document speaks to. That also accounts for the difference between the penned voice of 1 Peter and 2 Peter. The authors were following the teachings of Peter, but are not the same author and probably not from the same time and place. The Word was spreading.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It may seem strange, but the truth is that some anti-Christians have invented a character called "Paul" to replace the real Paul we learn about in the Scriptures.

That pseudo-Paul, they say, is an enemy of Jesus Christ who invented a new religion different that the one Jesus and his apostles taught, and they say that this "Paul" dedicated himself to gaining followers of his own.

In this topic we are going to review with you the things that the Bible says about the true Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ, who worked so much for the kingdom of Christ and because of which he suffered so much.

Stay close, because those who are dedicated to pseudo-Paul's propaganda are not going to stay calm when they begin to realize that someone deceived them... or perhaps they already knew it?

First, I would not call myself anti-Christian. Most Christians I've known are very good, decent, kind individuals.

What you need to understand is that when we point out how the teachings of Paul are quite different than the teachings of Jesus, that it is not our intent to be anti-Christian. We are simply exploring certain facts, and how they shape our understanding of Christianity.

 

[Muffled]

That's correct. Scholars are agreed, other than Paul's letters, the books are named after the "school of thought" that the document speaks to. That also accounts for the difference between the penned voice of 1 Peter and 2 Peter. The authors were following the teachings of Peter, but are not the same author and probably not from the same time and place. The Word was spreading.

I doubt Peter did any of his own writing but had other people write for him. The author remains the same but perhaps each writer turns Peter's words into his own style.