Cleverly Devised Myths --- 2 Peter 1:16

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 3308
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Cleverly Devised Myths --- 2 Peter 1:16

Post by John2 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:36 pm

robert j wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:48 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 6:00 pm
To what doctrinal camp of Christianity would you place the author of 2 Peter?
I suppose it was written by a post-70 CE Christian who was cool with Paul and Jewish Christianity ... to me it sounds like the author could have been a post-70 CE Nazarene Jewish Christian (or someone who was influenced by them) ...
The author of 2 Peter did rail against sins of sexual immorality, but so did Paul.

What doctrines in the text of 2 Peter do you find that would point to a Jewish Christian author?
Well, as I said, the fact that it appears to use Jude (which I view as being genuine and thus Jewish Christian) and purports to be Peter (who of course was a Jewish Christian, and one who rejected Paul at that) and alludes to his letter (which I view as being genuine) in 3:1, makes me think that this was someone who was at least influenced by Jewish Christians.

And then there's 3:17, which I cited above.
Therefore, beloved, since you already know these things, be on your guard so that you will not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure standing.
And 1:10-11 seems similar to James.
Therefore, brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you practice these things you will never stumble, and you will receive a lavish reception into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
The reference to "stumbling" is the same word that James uses (three times) regarding Torah observance (and 2 Peter and James account for four of the five occurrences of this word in the NT):

James 2:10:
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
James 3:1-2:
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to control his whole body.
And as I said above, the Damascus Document also uses "stumbling" language in the context of Torah observance and likewise equates it with sexual immorality (or "eyes of lust"):
Hear now, my sons, and I will uncover your eyes that you may see and understand the works of God, that you choose that which pleases Him and reject that which He hates, that you may walk perfectly in all His ways and not follow after thoughts of the guilty inclination and after eyes of lust. For through them, great men have gone astray and mighty heroes have stumbled from former times till now.
This following after "eyes of lust" in the context of Torah observance is why James 4:4 and 2 Peter 2:14 use similar "sexual" language in the context of Torah observance.
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
Their eyes are full of adultery; their desire for sin is never satisfied; they seduce the unstable.


This "sexual" language is fairly typical in the OT in the context of Torah observance, such as in Ex. 34:16:
... and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters whore after their gods and make your sons whore after their gods.
What I think is happening in the big picture is that James is trying to keep Paul in line (i.e., I view him as the "foolish man" who preaches "faith without works"), in the spirit of James 5:19-20 ("My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, consider this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins"), and 2 Peter is trying (after 70 CE) to rescue Paul from the kind of people Paul himself had had trouble keeping in line in response to his Torah-free gospel.

2 Peter 3:16:
Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort ...
Gal. 5:13-21:
For you, brothers, were called to freedom; but do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh ... The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and sorcery; hatred, discord, jealousy, and rage; rivalries, divisions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Clearly there is more than just sexual immorality going on here. Paul's cherry picking of the Torah could have given some Jewish Christians the idea that he was okay with observing at least parts of the Torah (like post 70 CE Ebionites, who rejected the laws that pertain to sacrifices), as would (if there is anything to it, and I think that there could be) Acts 21:20-26:
Then they said to Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the Law. But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs. What then should we do? They will certainly hear that you have come.

Therefore do what we advise you. There are four men with us who have taken a vow. Take these men, purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is no truth to these rumors about you, but that you also live in obedience to the Law" ...

So the next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he entered the temple to give notice of the date their purification would be complete and the offering would be made for each of them.


The problem is that Paul was disingenuous about his Torah observance.

1 Cor. 9:20-23:
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the Law I became like one under the Law (though I myself am not under the Law), to win those under the Law. To those without the Law I became like one without the Law (though I am not outside the law of God but am under the law of Christ), to win those without the Law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men, so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.


Paul's gospel was simply not the same as the Jewish Christian gospel, even according to him. He doesn't really believe in Torah observance (excepting certain parts of it). This is why he rails against Torah observant Jewish Christians in 2 Cor. 11:4-23:
For if someone comes and proclaims a Jesus other than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it way too easily.

I consider myself in no way inferior to those “super-apostles” ... Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? I am speaking like I am out of my mind, but I am so much more.


I see 2 Peter as being like modern Messianic Jews, at least the ones I've talked with and read about. They observe the Torah and defend Paul. Or like the Jewish Christians who glorified God because of Paul after his conversion in Gal. 1:22-24:
I was personally unknown, however, to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the account: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me.
In my view though, I think modern Messianic Jews (and ancient Nazarene Jewish Christians) are the ones who "distort" Paul when they defend him regarding Torah observance. Perhaps the Nazarenes did not have the benefit of 1 Cor. 9:20-23 or they and modern Messianic Jews for whatever reasons were/are willing to put the best spin on Paul. One thing seems sure though, that Peter (Gal. 2:11-13) and James (James 2:14-24) did not approve of his Torah-free gospel, and I think Jesus would not have approved of it either, e.g., Mt. 5:19:
So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Last edited by John2 on Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:43 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Look at the sky, look at the river, isn't it good? Winding, finding places to go.

John2
Posts: 3308
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Cleverly Devised Myths --- 2 Peter 1:16

Post by John2 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:09 pm

The ironic thing is that the Ebionites, who rejected parts of the Torah, were the ones who rejected Paul entirely.

I would say that Peter and James were proto-Ebionites in the sense that they did not approve of Paul's Torah-free gospel (if not Paul entirely), and were proto-Nazarenes in the sense that they believed that all of the Torah is still valid. But the Ebionite faction (according to Epiphanius) did not arise until after 70 CE. Before 70 CE, it appears that Jewish Christian leaders were trying to "bring him back ... from the error of his way" (as per James 5:19-20), and after 70 CE the Ebionite faction decided to reject him (and sacrifices) entirely.
Look at the sky, look at the river, isn't it good? Winding, finding places to go.

Nathan
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:30 pm

Re: Cleverly Devised Myths --- 2 Peter 1:16

Post by Nathan » Sat Dec 22, 2018 11:16 am

John2 wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:36 pm
robert j wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:48 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 6:00 pm
To what doctrinal camp of Christianity would you place the author of 2 Peter?
I suppose it was written by a post-70 CE Christian who was cool with Paul and Jewish Christianity ... to me it sounds like the author could have been a post-70 CE Nazarene Jewish Christian (or someone who was influenced by them) ...
The author of 2 Peter did rail against sins of sexual immorality, but so did Paul.

What doctrines in the text of 2 Peter do you find that would point to a Jewish Christian author?
Well, as I said, the fact that it appears to use Jude (which I view as being genuine and thus Jewish Christian) and purports to be Peter (who of course was a Jewish Christian, and one who rejected Paul at that) and alludes to his letter (which I view as being genuine) in 3:1, makes me think that this was someone who was at least influenced by Jewish Christians.

And then there's ...
If I may, I would just add to John2's comments that the connection between the holy spirit and prophecy in 2 Peter 1:21 is typical of Jewish thought.

2 Peter 1:21: ... no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the holy spirit spoke from God.

You find the same already in the DSS:

1QS 8.16: ... what the prophets have revealed by His holy spirit.

And it's a commonplace in rabbinic literature:

Targum Qohelet 1:1, 4: When Solomon King of Israel saw through the holy spirit ... King Solomon said through the spirit of prophecy ...

Targum Isaiah 40:13: Who established the holy spirit in the mouth of all the prophets, is it not the LORD?

Pesiqta Rabbati 30:1: ... Jeremiah was inspired by the holy spirit to say ...

Bavli Sanhedrin 11a: When the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi died, the holy spirit was withdrawn from Israel.

Last edited by Nathan on Sat Dec 22, 2018 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

robert j
Posts: 743
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Cleverly Devised Myths --- 2 Peter 1:16

Post by robert j » Sat Dec 22, 2018 11:22 am

robert j wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:48 pm

What doctrines in the text of 2 Peter do you find that would point to a Jewish Christian author?

John2 wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:36 pm

Well, as I said, the fact that it appears to use Jude (which I view as being genuine and thus Jewish Christian) and purports to be Peter (who of course was a Jewish Christian ... makes me think that this was someone who was at least influenced by Jewish Christians.
I don’t think the church traditions associated with the names of the authors provide a valid basis for interpreting the internal evidence in these epistles. YMMV

I asked for evidence “in the text” of 2 Peter. You provided two pertinent arguments ---

John2 wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:36 pm

And then there's [2 Peter] 3:17, which I cited above.
Therefore, beloved, since you already know these things, be on your guard so that you will not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure standing.
In 2 Peter, the term ἀθέσμων (translated as “lawless” here) is used twice and these are the only occurrences in the NT. In 2 Peter 3:17, the term is variously translated into English in bibles as "lawless", "wicked people", "unprincipled men", "the wicked", "evil people", etc. The term was used in ancient Greek in a secular sense of breaking laws and customs. The other use in 2 Peter in verse 2:7 was about Lot, generations before Moses and the Mosaic laws.

John2 wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:36 pm


And [2 Peter] 1:10-11 seems similar to James.
Therefore, brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you practice these things you will never stumble, and you will receive a lavish reception into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
The reference to "stumbling" is the same word that James uses (three times) regarding Torah observance (and 2 Peter and James account for four of the five occurrences of this word in the NT):

James 2:10:
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
Yes, this is an interesting observation, but the use of a single, common word --- to stumble --- in religious texts is not so much after all.

The use in James 2:10 is clearly associated with the Mosaic laws (Paul wrote very much the same in Galatians 3:10 and 5:3). However, in 2 Peter 1:10, the passage is all about faith supplemented by virtue, knowledge, self-control and brotherly love ---

For this very reason, make every effort to supply into your faith virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control … and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these … they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But whoever lacks these traits is nearsighted to the point of blindness, having forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, brothers, be diligent, rather, to make your calling and election sure. For practicing these things, never at any time shall you stumble. (2 Peter 1:5-10)

Thanks for your input John. We have quite different starting points in our respective interpretations of these issues. With this, I will now take my leave from these side issues that I have been discussing with you, in favor of giving more thought to the central issues of the OP and other projects.

robert j
Posts: 743
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Cleverly Devised Myths --- 2 Peter 1:16

Post by robert j » Sat Dec 22, 2018 11:33 am

Nathan wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 11:16 am
John2 wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:36 pm
robert j wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:48 pm

What doctrines in the text of 2 Peter do you find that would point to a Jewish Christian author?[/highlight]
Well, as I said, the fact that it appears to use Jude (which I view as being genuine and thus Jewish Christian) and purports to be Peter (who of course was a Jewish Christian, and one who rejected Paul at that) and alludes to his letter (which I view as being genuine) in 3:1, makes me think that this was someone who was at least influenced by Jewish Christians.

And then there's ...
If I may, I would just add to John2's comments that the connection between the holy spirit and prophecy in 2 Peter 1:21 is typical of Jewish thought.

2 Peter 1:21: ... no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the holy spirit spoke from God.

You find the same already in the DSS:

1QS 8.16: ... what the prophets have revealed by His holy spirit.

And it's a commonplace in rabbinic literature:

Targum Qohelet 1:1, 4: When Solomon King of Israel saw through the holy spirit ... King Solomon said through the spirit of prophecy ...

Targum Isaiah 40:13: Who established the holy spirit in the mouth of all the prophets, is it not the LORD?

Pesiqta Rabbati 30:1: ... Jeremiah was inspired by the holy spirit to say ...

Yes, the NT is rife with Jewish influence. And of course if one sees Christianity arising from Judaism --- and Christian writers from the earliest extant texts and through-it all using the Jewish scriptures as source material and proof-texts --- such Jewish influence is just what would be expected.

I think the issue that could benefit from greater clarification and investigation --- for another thread, please --- what is meant by the designation "Jewish Christian"?

John2
Posts: 3308
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Cleverly Devised Myths --- 2 Peter 1:16

Post by John2 » Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:48 pm

Nathan wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 11:16 am
John2 wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:36 pm
robert j wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:48 pm
John2 wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 6:00 pm
To what doctrinal camp of Christianity would you place the author of 2 Peter?
I suppose it was written by a post-70 CE Christian who was cool with Paul and Jewish Christianity ... to me it sounds like the author could have been a post-70 CE Nazarene Jewish Christian (or someone who was influenced by them) ...
The author of 2 Peter did rail against sins of sexual immorality, but so did Paul.

What doctrines in the text of 2 Peter do you find that would point to a Jewish Christian author?
Well, as I said, the fact that it appears to use Jude (which I view as being genuine and thus Jewish Christian) and purports to be Peter (who of course was a Jewish Christian, and one who rejected Paul at that) and alludes to his letter (which I view as being genuine) in 3:1, makes me think that this was someone who was at least influenced by Jewish Christians.

And then there's ...
If I may, I would just add to John2's comments that the connection between the holy spirit and prophecy in 2 Peter 1:21 is typical of Jewish thought.

2 Peter 1:21: ... no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the holy spirit spoke from God.

You find the same already in the DSS:

1QS 8.16: ... what the prophets have revealed by His holy spirit.

And it's a commonplace in rabbinic literature:

Targum Qohelet 1:1, 4: When Solomon King of Israel saw through the holy spirit ... King Solomon said through the spirit of prophecy ...

Targum Isaiah 40:13: Who established the holy spirit in the mouth of all the prophets, is it not the LORD?

Pesiqta Rabbati 30:1: ... Jeremiah was inspired by the holy spirit to say ...

Bavli Sanhedrin 11a: When the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi died, the holy spirit was withdrawn from Israel.

Thank you for pointing this out, Nathan. Parallels like this make sense to me in the big picture since I view the situation this way:

1. Since the majority of the DSS are dated to the Herodian era and are more or less messianic, revolutionary and anti-Pharisaic, I view them as being written by Fourth Philosophers (along with older writings and copies of the OT that people brought with them when they joined the Fourth Philosophy).

2. At the same, despite being anti-Pharisaic, the DSS exhibit what Josephus calls Pharisaic "notions," such as belief in the resurrection of the dead and other similarities (like the one you point out above), which also makes me think the DSS were written and collected by Fourth Philosophers.

3. Since (Jewish) Christianity exhibits the same traits as the DSS and the Fourth Philosophy (opposition to the Pharisees' oral Torah, messianism, a strong interest in Daniel, the use of the same kind of terminology and concepts, like the new covenant, the way, Damascus, resurrection of the dead, stumbling, blindness, walking perfectly, etc., etc.) and existed during the same time period, I view (Jewish) Christianity as being a Fourth Philosophic faction.

4. This is why I think these kinds of things are "already in the DSS" and "commonplace in rabbinic literature" (as you wrote). They're all tied together, in my view, by the DSS being written and collected by people who stemmed from the Pharisees (and who thus maintained some Pharisaic "notions") and rejected the oral Torah, similar to the way that later Karaite Judaism emerged from Rabbinic Judaism and rejected the oral Torah while maintaining certain rabbinic "notions." And I think this is the reason why Christianity resembles the DSS, the Fourth Philosophy and Rabbinic Judaism; it's a faction of the Fourth Philosophy.
Last edited by John2 on Sat Dec 22, 2018 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Look at the sky, look at the river, isn't it good? Winding, finding places to go.

John2
Posts: 3308
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Cleverly Devised Myths --- 2 Peter 1:16

Post by John2 » Sat Dec 22, 2018 3:54 pm

robert j wrote:
The use in James 2:10 is clearly associated with the Mosaic laws (Paul wrote very much the same in Galatians 3:10 and 5:3). However, in 2 Peter 1:10, the passage is all about faith supplemented by virtue, knowledge, self-control and brotherly love ---

For this very reason, make every effort to supply into your faith virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control … and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these … they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But whoever lacks these traits is nearsighted to the point of blindness, having forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, brothers, be diligent, rather, to make your calling and election sure. For practicing these things, never at any time shall you stumble. (2 Peter 1:5-10)
Right, faith supplemented by "virtue, knowledge, self-control and brotherly love." And where do you suppose the awareness of these things came from? Aren't these kinds of things in the Torah?

robert j also wrote:
In 2 Peter, the term ἀθέσμων (translated as “lawless” here) is used twice and these are the only occurrences in the NT. In 2 Peter 3:17, the term is variously translated into English in bibles as "lawless", "wicked people", "unprincipled men", "the wicked", "evil people", etc. The term was used in ancient Greek in a secular sense of breaking laws and customs. The other use in 2 Peter in verse 2:7 was about Lot, generations before Moses and the Mosaic laws.
However you wish to define it, again, where do you suppose the author of 2 Peter got the idea that some people are
"wicked," "evil," or "unprincipled"? How do you suppose that was determined if not by the Torah?

And regarding Lot, the idea that he and the Patriarchs observed the Torah is common in Rabbinic Judaism (and is also exhibited in the DSS Genesis Apocryphon, which in my view is yet another "notion" the DSS have in common with the Pharisees). As noted here, for example:
... he [Lot] never blatantly transgressed any Torah mitzvot. He actively observed Pesach and welcoming guests because he knew that was required of him. However, his goal in life was NOT to achieve closeness to God and to develop himself spiritually. Instead he was driven by a desire for pleasures, epitomized by money and lust. What happens when a person is faced with this dichotomy - he knows that he must keep the Torah because it is true but he is driven by goals that conflict with it.

http://www.aish.com/tp/i/gl/Understanding-Lot.html
And here:
... let us look at an oft-quoted rabbinic tradition:

Our father Abraham observed the entire Torah before it was given to Israel, as it is written (Genesis 26:5):

“Because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws.” (Mishnah, end of Kiddushin).

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... ee-faiths/

And here: ("Did the Patriarchs and Matriarchs Keep the Entire Torah?") https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/47942?lang=bi
Look at the sky, look at the river, isn't it good? Winding, finding places to go.

robert j
Posts: 743
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Cleverly Devised Myths --- 2 Peter 1:16

Post by robert j » Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:34 pm

:wtf:
Last edited by robert j on Sat Dec 22, 2018 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

John2
Posts: 3308
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Cleverly Devised Myths --- 2 Peter 1:16

Post by John2 » Sat Dec 22, 2018 5:00 pm

I think this is exactly what the issue in early Christianity boils down to: faith with or without "works of the Law." I notice that when Paul discusses his reception by Jewish Christians after his conversion, he uses the word "faith":

Gal. 1:22-24:
I was personally unknown, however, to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the account: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me.
And sure, Paul had the same "faith" as Jewish Christians; he believed that Jesus died for sins and was resurrected on the third day and became "a life-giving spirit" and would come on the clouds of heaven and that it was all prophesized in the OT. As he puts it in 1 Cor. 15:3-11:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve. After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles ... Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
So there is really no issue here. The problem (for him and for Jewish Christians like James and Peter) was faith with or without "works of the Law." As Paul complains in Gal. 2:11-14:
When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, because he stood to be condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself, for fear of those in the circumcision group. The other Jews joined in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not walking in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Note that he says that Jewish Christians were trying to "compel the Gentiles to live like Jews."

For Paul, of course, faith is without "works of the Law." As he puts it in Gal. 3:23-25 and 2:15-16:
Before this faith came, we were held in custody under the Law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the Law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
We who are Jews by birth and not Gentile ‘sinners’ know that a man is not justified by works of the Law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law, because by works of the Law no one will be justified.
And, of course, in Paul's view, Peter and the other Torah-keeping Jews) were "led astray." And James, of course, taught that "faith without works is dead." And what is the faith in 2 Peter 1:5-9 supplemented by if not "works of the Law"?
.. make every effort to add to your faith virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities and continue to grow in them, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But whoever lacks these traits is nearsighted to the point of blindness ...
In other words, I think 2 Peter, like James, is saying don't just believe, but add to your faith.
Last edited by John2 on Sat Dec 22, 2018 7:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Look at the sky, look at the river, isn't it good? Winding, finding places to go.

John2
Posts: 3308
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Cleverly Devised Myths --- 2 Peter 1:16

Post by John2 » Sat Dec 22, 2018 5:08 pm

robert j wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:34 pm
John,

These issues are dancing around the edges of the question:
--- What constitutes a Jewish Christian?

I’m not interested in following-up with you any further on these side-issues that are well-beyond the focus of the OP on the heresies in 2 Peter --- I plan on expanding on that topic here very soon.

Our basic assumptions and approach to the source material is very different to the point that --- beyond "recreational posting" --- little progress is likely.

If you would like to further elaborate on your interest in these other topics, perhaps you could take it to another thread. Thanks.
I'm just showing how I think 2 Peter fits into the larger context of Judaism and with the position of Jewish Christians like James and Peter on the issue of faith with or without works, and that the opponents in it are thus people who did not believe in "works" and were using Paul (understandably so, I think, but incorrectly so according to 2 Peter) to justify it.
Look at the sky, look at the river, isn't it good? Winding, finding places to go.

Post Reply