What if Paul and James don't agree?

[LUKE2447]

Many have taught how about how Paul seems to contradict himself let alone Jesus, James, John etc... Is the reason we MUST have Paul agree due a possible error of inerrant view of what many believe is the "canon" of scripture. Many scholars point out that the early church(patristic) really did not teach what many would consider Paulinist doctrine. Faith "alone" was clearly not a normal teaching and clearly lacked the emphasis that many have today. Marcion who was a strict Paulinist clearly was an outsider. I am not saying Paul has not value or anything but the possible overuling "all must agree" to make things fit when they don't.

Yet many get confused on "works" "law" "endurance salvation" which are clearly taught by Jesus, James, John etc... While limited in part in Pauls' teaching which many would point to his inconsistency. What if Paul has been compromised by Marcion followers who elevated Pauls writings? What if they simply don't agree nor did in many areas.

We see Paul being cast out in Asia
2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

yet and Jesus confims in Rev 2 the Ephesus did the right thing in get rid of those whom called themselves apostles. Yet we see Paul doing the very thing defending himself in his letter that he is an apostle. Just some thoughts on why we see such disagreement or contradictions yet many throw a possible blind eye to some areas of possible doctrinal inconsistency for the sake of "unity of scripture". Just some food for thought!

[Sam]

The Apostles and leaders in the early church were human and did not always agree among themselves on everything.

Peter was used in Acts 10 (approximately AD 38) to bring the Word to Gentiles.
He was condemned by the Apostle James and other elders for "eating with Gentiles" (an oral law, not a written law).
Later Peter fellowshipped with Gentiles at Antioch but withdrew his fellowship because of his fear of some from the Jerusalem church. This is referenced in Galatians 2:11-13. Paul probably wrote Galatians in th summer of AD 53 and the incident with Peter was some time before the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15 which happened in AD 49/50. Barnabas also got carried away in withdrawing from Gentiles. Later Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). I don't know when Peter wrote his second epistle but it had to be some time before his death which is thought to be in AD 68. When Paul went to Jerusalem in Acts chapter 21 (which would have been in the spring of AD 57) he participated in sacrifices in the Jewish temple per the Apostle James' advice. We are told that there were many Jewish Christians (the Greek word is muriades or ten thousands) who were zealous of the law.

From what I understand, there was diversity among the churches and preachers in that first century just like there is now. They agreed on basics like the Messiahship of Jesus and His resurrection but each local church and each preacher would be affected by his surroundings and background.

[LUKE2447]

Sam the problem with 2 Peter is most scholars don't believe Peter wrote it and would not consider it canon. Not saying it is worthless but def not with the other books of the canon. Also the comments at the end you refer to for Paul are at the end of the text which many wonder if it is a interpolation by Marcionists to give Paul further validity.
I personal don't think 2 Peter is canonical but that is my view.

[Arphaxad]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Sam the problem with 2 Peter is most scholars don't believe Peter wrote it and would not consider it canon. Not saying it is worthless but def not with the other books of the canon. Also the comments at the end you refer to for Paul are at the end of the text which many wonder if it is a interpolation by Marcionists to give Paul further validity.
I personal don't think 2 Peter is canonical but that is my view.

What does "most scholars" mean? 99%?, 50.001%?, out of 100 asked, 51 say so?, in the 20th cent.?, 500 years ago.? every scholar that ever lived, or those that just wrote papers?

ARPH

[Scott Hutchinson]

Since God allowed 2 Peter to be placed in the scriptures,I accept it is a God inspired book.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Sam the problem with 2 Peter is most scholars don't believe Peter wrote it and would not consider it canon. Not saying it is worthless but def not with the other books of the canon. Also the comments at the end you refer to for Paul are at the end of the text which many wonder if it is a interpolation by Marcionists to give Paul further validity.
I personal don't think 2 Peter is canonical but that is my view.

crazy. based on what.

2 peter is every bit as aunthentic as 1 peter. You question 2 peter, the writings of paul, do you also question Esther since the word "God" is not in it. Why not also question Genesis, obviously Moses wasn't there when Creation took place. Perhaps, also cut out all of the things you don't believe Jesus did, ala, Thomas Jefferson.

When you begin to rationalize scripture asway, eventually you will have it whittled down to nothing.

Furthermore, the Bbile has poven to withstand the utmost scrutiny over time, if you could be torn apart, it would have long ago, yet all of the promises continue to be yea and amen.