Why Islam, Christianity and modern Judaism are all apostate religious institutions.

[Akivah]

in principale teaching is common , in some details not common .

I did not say 70 or 90 % is uncorrupted or corrupted , i am talking about TEACHING .

I meant this :
Believe in one GOD,His angels , He is the only Creator, believe in His messengers and His Books ,accept His destiny bad or good . don't obey Satan

-obey and pray God
-do good deeds to people ,avoid to bad deeds to people
-don't lie ,steal,adutery ...etc

If the text says exactly what you meant above, does that mean that you believe that portion of the text is uncorrupted?

 

[JoStories]

Is it? Paul was closer to the Jesus Event than were the gospel writers. Paul began writing about 45 C.E. The earliest gospel we have dates to post-70 C.E. How do we know that the gospel writers don't "have it wrong?"

Yes, I suppose you have a good point there. I don't know nor do most scholars who study this field. What I do know is that Paul's writings are vastly different from the gospel writers. Does that mean those who did write them wrote them collectively with an agenda? Could be. There are no clear cut answers. But if I had to choose what I believe Christ really taught, it would come from the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel of Thomas, among other rejected gospels.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, I suppose you have a good point there. I don't know nor do most scholars who study this field. What I do know is that Paul's writings are vastly different from the gospel writers. Does that mean those who did write them wrote them collectively with an agenda? Could be. There are no clear cut answers. But if I had to choose what I believe Christ really taught, it would come from the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel of Thomas, among other rejected gospels.

Paul's writings are different because Paul is writing letters stating a theological position. The gospels are a completely different genre, playing more with history. The theological positions of the gospels relate to the significant historical event of Jesus. Paul's statements relate more to the situations in which his audiences find themselves.

 

[Godobeyer]

If the text says exactly what you meant above, does that mean that you believe that portion of the text is uncorrupted?

indeed , YES

"Which is portion?" will be your next question ?
the answser :
the text (Torah/Talmud) which corresponding with Islam (Quran/Hadith ) teaching

notice i was talking about "teaching " .

 

[Godobeyer]

Can you elaborate on where you think it is corrupted?

ok , i have many let's start by this one

Torah said Adam heard the God walking, so God had physical body so Adam could heard his feet drop/steps ?

so i know it's translated sometimes Adam heard God going !!!
this the link :
Genesis - Chapter 3 (Parshah Berei****) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

8And they heard the voice of the Lord God going in the garden to the direction of the sun, and the man and his wife hid from before the Lord God in the midst of the trees of the garden.

חוַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶת קוֹל יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים מִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּגָּן לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם וַיִּתְחַבֵּא הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ מִפְּנֵי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים בְּתוֹךְ עֵץ הַגָּן:

this is the word hebrew without voyelles מתהלך

 

[Flankerl]

Torah said Adam heard the God walking

That's still not what it says, you even quoted it.

 

[kiwimac]

I profess myself a Mazda-worshipper, a Zoroastrian, having vowed it and professed it. I pledge myself to the well-thought thought, I pledge myself to the well-spoken word, I pledge myself to the well-done action.

Yasna 12:8

 

[JoStories]

Paul's writings are different because Paul is writing letters stating a theological position. The gospels are a completely different genre, playing more with history. The theological positions of the gospels relate to the significant historical event of Jesus. Paul's statements relate more to the situations in which his audiences find themselves.

Yes, true that, to some extent. However, you didn't address the part of my post about Thomas, Mary Magdalene, and other extant books that were excluded. And Paul does contain what some consider historical, albeit very very little of it. Yes, he did set down rules, if you will. But are those rules truly those of Christ or of his own making? Therein lies the crux of the issue here.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, true that, to some extent. However, you didn't address the part of my post about Thomas, Mary Magdalene, and other extant books that were excluded. And Paul does contain what some consider historical, albeit very very little of it. Yes, he did set down rules, if you will. But are those rules truly those of Christ or of his own making? Therein lies the crux of the issue here.

1) When the canon was set, Thomas was unknown. Mary Magdalene was considered inauthentic.
2) All rules are of the ones who make them. What many, if not most, don't grasp about Xy, is that it doesn't have to "come directly from Jesus" to be authentic. The nature of the church is that it is commissioned by Christ to be the Body of Christ. Therefore, Christ works through the church, who "makes the rules" subsequent to Christ's ascension.

 

[Muffled]

All three of these religious institutions have ONE thing in common. They all believe that the law of Moses was divinely given by God. Ironically, none of these religious institutions believe in exclusively following this law. Each one has made up clever ways to circumvent the Torah guidelines. Yet the Torah itself condemns the practicing of "adding to" or "taking away" commandments:

"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deut 4: 2

Christianity- Follow's Paul, a man who came and taught people that Jesus' death replaced the need to obey God's original commandments.

Islam- Mohammed came and taught Muslims they could follow other laws which are not found in the Law of Moses. He also negated many commands in the Law of Moses as being applicable to Muslims.

Judaism- Created a man-made concept of "oral Torah" which overrides the original Torah commands. Rabbi's believe they have the authority to nullify or add too different basic Torah commands. This is why the bulk of modern Judaism contains practices which cannot be found in the law of Moses.

All three of these institutions are apostate religions which only now serve to control human spirituality.

I believe Paul did not teach this.

I believe I haven't seen any but it seems legitimate to me. Certainly Christians also would not feel obligated to keep Jewish ceremonial laws and God is not likely to require either parties to do so.

I believe none of the three relgions mentioned has turned away from the original purpose of God to provide salvation for his people.

 

[catch22]

Did I ever say that God can't override a person's will? He most certainly can and has done it on a few occasions. This is one of them and Cyrus the great was another. There is no concept in Exodus of God predetermining the fate and will of Pharaoh though. Pharaoh had demonstrated abstinence against God and His people. His heart was already hard. God just increased it upon Pharaoh.

Here is the simple truth concerning Pharaoh that even a child can easily grasp. To the extent that Pharaoh hardened his own heart without the intervention of God will be the same extant to which he will be held accountable and judged for his actions. If God desires to be known as "righteous", which He obviously does, He cannot hold anyone accountable for actions in which they had no choice. Period.

God stated the hardness... foresaw it, predicted it, whatever you might say... As God says, He sees into the heart, He knows the unseen things; He knew ahead of time. He knows what's going to happen. Why would God need to override someone's will? Not saying He can't surely He can do anything and all things.

But He simply doesn't need to. He didn't change Pharaoh or alter Pharaoh. I think we might mostly agree on this point. However...

You mistake the concept of predestination and muddy it with the concept of free will. You should get your position straight on both topics before you try to argue about either. Knowing ahead of time the outcome of anyone's life doesn't preclude free will at all.

 

[catch22]

Before I get to Romans 9, I want to address what you just said about Paul. Paul did claim to be one of the twelve and he even titled most of his letters with the declaration "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ". Funny thing, Jesus ONLY chose twelve to be his apostles…not 13.

Still no Romans 9 comments....

No one ever claimed there were 13 Apostles/Disciples (I capitalize these because you probably mean the original 12)? Paul doesn't claim to be one of the original 12, nor a "thirteenth." He says only that he is an apostle.

Guess what? I'm an apostle! AHHHGH the logical woes that creates, eh?

Almost makes the rest of your post moot (which is pretty much is, but I'll step through it anyway).

Paul claims to greater then the apostles:

Paul's view of himself as an apostle didn't stop at only claiming to be an apostle. He also did what he could to communicate to his followers that he topped them all. He even had the nerve to belittle the very apostles that Jesus had called and trained for three and a half years to be his witnesses! Among this braggadocio's self-flattering quotes are the following.

"For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles". ...."As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia." 2 Corinthians 11:5,10

Sometimes, as though he knew he should be ashamed of challenging the stature of Jesus' 12, he would preface his boast with a statement of unworthiness. No doubt he hoped people would embrace him as the greatest of apostles because he was so humble.

"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all...". 1Corinthians 15:9,10

First of all, finish the citation.

"...but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed."

Give me a break, bro. He attributes everything to God, and makes the point it doesn't matter if he or they worked more, only that people believed.

Aside from the fact that it was a lie to suggest the ministry had been split up between Jews and Gentiles ...as though he had exclusive rights to the Gentiles and the 12 were to stay with the Jews..., Paul even had the gall to condescend specifically on Peter, James, and John when he belittled them to the Galatians.

Paul spent far more time abroad with gentiles than with Jews in Israel.

Belittle? Rebuke among brothers happens.

"But from those who seemed to be something - whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man- for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Galatians 2:6,7,9

Finish the citation: "They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do." Also, you seem to ignore 1-5.

Are you capable of reading texts and understanding them? This, if anything, is a message about agreement with the other apostles about Paul's ministry and the gospel he was preaching.

This is nothing but an arrogant lie. A couple verses later, Paul takes another cheap-shot at Peter. With Peter nowhere around to defend himself, Paul brags to the Galatians how he had determined Peter was a hypocrite, and how he had put him down before the entire church of Antioch.

...what is an arrogant lie? That they basically were in agreement?

Cheap shot? It's called public rebuke; public sin was often publically rebuked. Don't elevate the disciples to god-hood; they made mistakes. This is courage for truth, if nothing else, as Peter was caught in contradiction.

"But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews played the hypocrite with him so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straight forward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "if you being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" Galatians 2:11-14

Earlier, in Galatians 1:8,9, Paul commanded his followers to consider "accursed" anyone who preaches a different gospel than his. There is little doubt that Paul wanted the Galatians to think this way toward Peter, if not James, and John as well. It is obvious to anyone reading the book of Galatians that Paul was demanding the Galatian church follow no one but him, not even the original apostles back in Jerusalem.

Except the preface of his trip to Jerusalem was to CONFIRM WITH THE ORIGINAL 12 that he was in fact preaching the gospel of truth.... reading comprehension... helps here.

Aside from Paul's incredible arrogance, I also need to point out that Paul himself was the ultimate hypocrite for condemning Peter for accommodating Gentiles when he was around Gentiles and acting like a Jew around Jews. Here is what he claimed to do, and commanded the Corinthians to do as well.

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without the law as without law... that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1Corinthians 9:19-22

"Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." 1Corinthians 10:31-33

Wow, context. Where Paul is describing a situation of accommodation, Peter was rebuked for the opposite (withdrawing, separating). What book are you reading?

When Paul says, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" we should do as he says... because in no way did he imitate Jesus! Can anyone imagine Jesus playing chameleon and saying anything like "I have become all things to all men" or "I please all men in all things"?

Context again. Jesus mingled with sinners, quite a lot, to the point where Pharisees and other "righteous" would rebuke Him for it. The purpose for Jesus doing this was to teach them and call them to repentance. This would be imitating Christ. Paul isn't suggesting going backward and bending the gospel or pandering to sins. Further, he's talking about self sacrifice, love, and service in these passages on conducting oneself.

You're really making it to be something it isn't. But then again, you're here, doubting Paul.

Jesus affirms the authority of the twelve in Revelation!

12It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel. 13There were three gates on the east and three gates on the north and three gates on the south and three gates on the west. 14And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Rev 21: 12-12

This letter was recorded well after Paul's missionary journeys as well as his false claims of being an apostle. Looks like Jesus wasn't convinced. Ouch.

I don't get a gate either.

DANGIT.

The point is this: the Disciples (later called just Apostles) being the original 12 is a certain group of people, whereas there are apostles (Paul, Titus, Barnabbas, and now, many other Christians, etc).

You can't seem to get these concepts being distinct, but similar. Likewise, how you confuse predestination with free will (from the other post).

Here's what I'll leave you, concerning Paul... From Peter, the guy who got all them pesky cheapshots thrown his way.... 2 Peter 3:14-18


"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."



You might pay close attention to the second highlighted part there, I think Peter means you.

 

[Simplelogic]

Knowing ahead of time the outcome of anyone's life doesn't preclude free will at all.

I believe it does.

 

[Simplelogic]

God stated the hardness... foresaw it, predicted it, whatever you might say... As God says, He sees into the heart, He knows the unseen things; He knew ahead of time.

Paul is purposefully misquoting the Tanakh here. First, lets start with Romans 9: 10-13 where Paul firsts establishes this notion of God predetermining peoples fates. Here is the passage which everything else hinges off of:

And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purposeof God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger.." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." Romans 9:10-13

Is it not plainly evident that Paul wants us to believe God hated Esau before he was even born? This would naturally be the part that people would object to. No one has any difficulty with the picture of God loving someone and blessing them before they were born. Most of us don't even have a problem with the picture of God choosing to bless one person more than another. It is the hating of an individual before they have any say in the matter that screams of injustice. It is to this picture that Paul anticipates an objection and asks the obvious question, "...Is there unrighteousness with God?" Read it again if necessary so it is well established that Paul is in fact claiming God hated Esau before he was born. Take special notice of the words, "not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil".

Now let's look at the two passages Paul quotes, where they are found, and the context in which they were originally spoken. If a person never looked them up, one is compelled to believe these two statements were probably spoken in the same scene if not the same breath. But that is about as far from the truth as it can be. The first statement is found in the first book of the Bible, and the last statement is found in the very last book of the Hebrew Bible. As you read them, please notice here that both passages speak in terms of nations as opposed to the individuals Jacob and Esau.

"Two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger." Genesis 25:23

The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi. "I have loved you," says the Lord. "Yet you say, 'In what way have You loved us?' "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" Says the Lord. "Yet Jacob I have loved; but Esau I have hated, and laid waste his mountains and his heritage for the jackals of the wilderness." Even though Edom has said, "We have been impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places." Thus says the Lord of hosts; "They may build, but I will throw down They shall be called the Territory of Wickedness, and the people against whom the Lord will have indignation forever." Malachi 1:1-4

Even in the Genesis passage, when God is speaking to pregnant Rebecca, neither Jacob nor Esau as individuals are called by name but are referred to as "nations" and "peoples". Also, please notice that the older one who was also to be the father of a nation is blessed and not cursed in that he would still be the father of an entire nation! In the Malachi passage, God is again referring to nations, and it was spoken over a thousand years after the individuals Jacob and Esau had lived and died! The nation of Edom, which are the descendants of Esau, was despised by God after the fact of their own evil behavior and rebellion against Him. But before this all happened, God loved, blessed, and cared for Esau and his descendants for several hundred years. At a period of time between the recording of these two passages, when Israel was in the wilderness heading toward the promised land, God told Moses...

"You have skirted this mountain long enough; turn northward, and command the people saying, 'You are about to pass through the territory of your brethren, the descendants of Esau,who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. Therefore watch yourselves carefully. Do not meddle with them for I will not give you any of their land, no, not so much as one footstep, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession." Deuteronomy 2:4,5


Back to Pharaoh

One other point of interest is Paul's usage of the phrase, "raised you up". In Paul's context of God hating Esau before he was born, and predestining some to evil, he is obviously trying to convey that God brought Pharaoh into existence for evil and destruction as well. In Paul's world, it was all planned out before Pharaoh was even born. But even here it appears that Paul is stretching his translation of the Hebrew text by saying "raised you up". The Hebrew words literally mean, "I have held you up" or "I have preserved you" or, "kept you alive". In the context of the preceding sentence, Pharaoh being preserved from an earlier destruction is the only possible interpretation of this verse. (see Exodus 9:15&16) Pharaoh had long before passed the point of deserving God's judgment. The picture of Pharaoh having his evil fate determined before his birth the way Esau supposedly did, is one which Paul desires to drive home and takes great liberties when quoting Scripture to support it. The fact is, the picture of God hating someone before they are born just isn't in Scripture! Paul has again been less than honest in his usage of Scripture to promote his doctrines.

 

[Simplelogic]

Still no Romans 9 comments....

No one ever claimed there were 13 Apostles/Disciples (I capitalize these because you probably mean the original 12)? Paul doesn't claim to be one of the original 12, nor a "thirteenth." He says only that he is an apostle.

Guess what? I'm an apostle! AHHHGH the logical woes that creates, eh?

Almost makes the rest of your post moot (which is pretty much is, but I'll step through it anyway).



First of all, finish the citation.

"...but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed."

Give me a break, bro. He attributes everything to God, and makes the point it doesn't matter if he or they worked more, only that people believed.




Paul spent far more time abroad with gentiles than with Jews in Israel.

Belittle? Rebuke among brothers happens.



Finish the citation: "They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do." Also, you seem to ignore 1-5.

Are you capable of reading texts and understanding them? This, if anything, is a message about agreement with the other apostles about Paul's ministry and the gospel he was preaching.



...what is an arrogant lie? That they basically were in agreement?

Cheap shot? It's called public rebuke; public sin was often publically rebuked. Don't elevate the disciples to god-hood; they made mistakes. This is courage for truth, if nothing else, as Peter was caught in contradiction.



Except the preface of his trip to Jerusalem was to CONFIRM WITH THE ORIGINAL 12 that he was in fact preaching the gospel of truth.... reading comprehension... helps here.



Wow, context. Where Paul is describing a situation of accommodation, Peter was rebuked for the opposite (withdrawing, separating). What book are you reading?



Context again. Jesus mingled with sinners, quite a lot, to the point where Pharisees and other "righteous" would rebuke Him for it. The purpose for Jesus doing this was to teach them and call them to repentance. This would be imitating Christ. Paul isn't suggesting going backward and bending the gospel or pandering to sins. Further, he's talking about self sacrifice, love, and service in these passages on conducting oneself.

You're really making it to be something it isn't. But then again, you're here, doubting Paul.




I don't get a gate either.

DANGIT.

The point is this: the Disciples (later called just Apostles) being the original 12 is a certain group of people, whereas there are apostles (Paul, Titus, Barnabbas, and now, many other Christians, etc).

You can't seem to get these concepts being distinct, but similar. Likewise, how you confuse predestination with free will (from the other post).

Here's what I'll leave you, concerning Paul... From Peter, the guy who got all them pesky cheapshots thrown his way.... 2 Peter 3:14-18


"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."



You might pay close attention to the second highlighted part there, I think Peter means you.

Peter didn't write 2nd Peter:

Second Peter: Reference to Paul

Your personal opinions are not "context" either.

 

[Simplelogic]

Comprehensive list of Paul's contradictions of Jesus:

Paul's Contradictions of Jesus

 

[Simplelogic]

His apostleship was unrecognized by others.

"Of the 22 times in the Bible where Paul is referred to as an "apostle", only twice is he referred to as an apostle by someone other than himself! These two instances came from the same person. Not from Yeshua, or any of the original apostles, but from Paul's close traveling companion and personal press secretary Luke. Both accounts are found in Luke's record of the Acts of the Apostles, (chapter 14:4,14). Here Paul is referred to as an apostle along with Barnabas. By this time in the story, Luke would have been very accustomed to Paul calling himself an apostle, and he would no doubt have been in agreement with Paul's assessment of himself. By these statistics alone, it is evident that Paul is by far his own biggest fan... and his side kick Luke was his number two fan. This leaves no one else anywhere in the Bible going on record recognizing his apostleship!"

His claim of apostleship stands alone.

Other than the twelve apostles who spent three and a half years with Yeshua, no one other than Paul can be identified as having claimed for themselves the title of "apostle". Barnabas was referred to as an apostle along with Paul by Luke in Acts 14:14, but there is no record of Barnabas claiming the title for himself."
Paul the false apostle

 

[JoStories]

1) When the canon was set, Thomas was unknown. Mary Magdalene was considered inauthentic.
2) All rules are of the ones who make them. What many, if not most, don't grasp about Xy, is that it doesn't have to "come directly from Jesus" to be authentic. The nature of the church is that it is commissioned by Christ to be the Body of Christ. Therefore, Christ works through the church, who "makes the rules" subsequent to Christ's ascension.

I think we are discussing, at least I think we are, two different things here. Of course you are correct in both assertions here but what I had been talking about was the historicity of the book and the faith, not its authenticity. These rules and other books I had been considering were more about whether they were accurate in what, if we assume that Jesus actually lived at all, accurate in what the message was, including these rules. IOW, did Christ teach these rules or did Paul just pull them out of the air.

 

[metis]

If Paul was so far out of touch with Jesus' teachings, then why in world did the apostles give him even the time of day, especially with his past record?

 

[catch22]

Peter didn't write 2nd Peter:

Second Peter: Reference to Paul

Your personal opinions are not "context" either.

Inconclusive. But the fact it's canonized as Peter is evidence enough for most. Though, you're right, there's people who think Peter wasn't the author (for example, it's quite possible a scribe was used in 1 and Peter himself wrote 2, thus the discrepancy). The truth is, like your anti-Paul stance, you follow conjecture as a means of validation, even in 2 Peter, when it's simply conjecture. In other words, black helicopters, bro.

Is 2 Peter Peter’s? | Bible.org

"The more difficult position to defend is for the adherents of pseudonymity, not for the traditional authorship view. At the time of 2 Peter’s canonization, the practice of pseudonymity was scorned and had not one example of New Testament usage, while the canonical books were only admitted after careful scrutiny of genuineness. That 2 Peter was admitted validates both its authenticity and its non-pseudonymity."

ad nauseum.

I can post sources that say it's Peter all day long, or that the theory it isn't Peter is simply inconclusive, and nothing more than theory and conjecture. Just as you can post sources that say it isn't Peter. There's a Queer James Version of the Bible, maybe we should use that instead of the real bible, huh? You tell me how long this kind of circular confirmation bias of each's position must go on.

The kicker is this: it's canonized as Peter, there's no conclusive evidence to say it isn't, and so it becomes an issue of faith. Again, your position, like with Paul, relies on conjecture and conspiracy theory, which is a slippery slope to stand on.