I explain why we can't trust Apostle Peter's supposed endorsement of Paul in his second epistle.
If you believe the bible includes all of God's written word, then you must believe in the 400 silent years leading up to the birth of Christ.
It's called the silent years because God is seen as being silent during this period. For there were no prophets of God who prophecied or led Gods people at that time. So there were no new scriptures written in the 400 yrs leading up to the birth of Christ.
And because God was silent, the Jews lived in apostasy.
Given these facts, it would have been a huge, huge deal to declare someone's writings as being the inspired word of God (scripture). And to declare it while the person who wrote it was still alive would have been unprecedented.
In fact, this would have been such a huge deal, that more people would have been writing about it then just Peter. And Peter would have given it more attention then just 1 1/2 verses.
But no one else mentioned it. Meaning - there was no second witness.
Also of note is the fact that no other writing during the period of the age of the apostles was declared scripture. This doesn't make sense. For this means, that out of all the writings we have in the form of Gospels and other epistles, only Paul's were deemed to be scripture during the apostolic years.
Now the term Peter used to describe Paul is equally important. For he only refers to him as a brother, rather than refering to him by the title befitting someone who has written the first scriptures in over 400 yrs.
Other evidence that it wasn't Peter who wrote the 1 1/2 verses is seen in the fact that Peter spoke about "apostles" just 13 verses prior to mentioning Paul.
Yet when it came to Paul, he refered to him as a mere brother.
None of this computes.
So the only reasonable explanation is that Peter did NOT write the 1 1/2 verses that refer to Paul's letters as being scripture.