Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You said that I tried to mislead people. That is a false accusation. Post #51 ''And I owe it all to you, Mike, for pointing him out in several of your posts trying to mislead us about his beliefs! Thanks!''
It is you who do not provide 'the rest of the story' just as you failed to do concerning 2 Peter. The two articles I provided give the arguments both for and against the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter which you failed to do. And they side with the Petrine authorship of that Book.
There is no overwhelming evidence against the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. Again these supposed problems have been addressed as shown in the two articles I posted. And again, you imply that those who don't believe as you do are not 'THINKING' persons.
The fact that the majority of scholars (liberal scholars) reject the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter simply means that the majority of scholars don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God.
And again you accuse me of not being honest.
No, I don't have a persecution complex. When you falsely accuse people, whether you know them or not, of trying to mislead people, you are making a personal attack on their integrity. You are simply trying to justify your actions with the asinine excuse of being 'a virtual personality'. You are trying to hide behind the anonymity of a computer screen.
Since you are so terrified of fundamentalist Christians I suggest that you sleep with a night light on in order to keep the boogeyfundamentalist away. He comes in the night you know. There's no need for me to waste any more time on you.
When you post a contrary article, you give it the same weight you do scripture. That is the false, fundamentalist approach--as in the post I made about how fundamentalists once supported slavery and subjugation of women---as they do now towards homosexuality.
If you want to think weak arguments by a professor with a job to protect is sacrosanct--good for you. I'm just going to keep posting ALL the truth. In the very article you posted about Dr. Wallace saying he believes Petrine authorship YOU FAILED TO POST THAT EVEN HE ADMITS HE IS IN THE MINORITY OF SCHOLARS. That is damn well a failure to tell the whole truth so you can protect your dogma.
On another thread in the same vein you posted a video of Dr. Wallace and concluded the same thing as this thread is titled. You were taken to task not only by me, but by Daniel McClellan who IS a biblical textual critic and you basically cried, "Unh-Uh" (his words, not mine) to everything he tried to enlighten you with.
Sorry, but you are a dodger. You're unable to see any point of view but your own and when ANYONE questions it, you cry foul. When you tried doing that on me with one of the mods, I tracked down numerous of your posts and pointed out you are the kettle calling the pot black and sent it to the same mod.
If you wish to engage in that again, go for it.
I don't need a mod, because I have preponderance of EVIDENCE by which to derail some of your less than artful attempts to "prove" your viewpoint about Scripture. I do not doubt your sincerity, its your tactics that I question--and will continue to question. If you simply posted, "I believe it anyway," then you would be nothing more than one of ten million other fundamentalists. But you post your thoughts as if they were "gospel." I intend to post data that will show your gospel is less than complete truth. Otherwise post the rest of the story so people seeking the truth can weigh it for themselves.
Honesty is a simple as including this in your post from YOUR source:
Quote:
Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible.
I admitted in my rebuttal that there is not 100% proof that 2nd Peter was NOT written by Peter. I claimed the preponderance of evidence by textual critics indicates it is not, and I PREFER THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. Your source admits it. You apparently do not.
Further you didn't even bother to go to MY source which is EXACTLY THE SAME AS YOURS!! I simply pointed out the data you LEFT out. Daniel Wallace didn't. He included those counterarguments in his essay---the mark of an honest man---then stated why he, personally, doesn't lend credence to the preponderance of evidence. It's basically another "it could have happened this way" story to protect fundamentalist views. But Wallace makes an appearance of integrity and I respect that from him, if not his conclusions.
Your welcome to call my virtual entity any name in the book. It doesn't hurt my feelings because my life isn't wrapped around a book. It's wrapped around the one the book points to.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 03-12-2015 at 01:21 PM..
And you have proof that all those early versions were passed among all groups of Christians? What about in the years before 60 C.E. where Paul's letters may have been around but not the gospels.
Are you stating abjectly that NOBODY became a Christian apart from the Bible you know? That Ethiopian that listened to Philip did NOT become a Christian---without a bible? Philip was carrying his KJV around on his person?
Do you even grasp how ignorant this sounds?
Finally, do you realize the very first list of possible canonized scripture wasn't developed until the heretic Marcion wrote them down in 140 C.E.? Before that they were basically floating in the wind among various villages.
In your attempt to talk down to 'ignorant' Bible believing Christians, you ironically overlooked a simple truth in the very scripture you referred to involving the Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-40). He was indeed reading from the teachings ('book') of Isaiah and did not understand what he was reading. Phillip came along and explained the scriptures to him.
Acts 8:26-40 - Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south[a] to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. 27 And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” 30 So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this:
“Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. 33 In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.” 34 And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.
While the full Bible had not yet been printed, the early Christians (including Jesus who repeatedly referred to scripture), were not simply 'ignorant rubes, with no knowledge of scripture.
Further reasons to study bible outside of Sunday School
The Bible is a complex plurality of writings. Early Christians did not have all the writings and they wasn't even a "list" of them until Marcion (later proclaimed a heretic by the church). Early Christians were constantly divided over what writings were considered solid.
Quote:
The first attempt at creating a canon of Christian Scriptures was made by Marcion circa 140 CE. His "New Testament" consisted of a modified Gospel of Luke (which he believed was written by Paul), Galatians, Corinthians (treated as one epistle), Romans, Thessalonians (as one epistle), Lacodiceans (his name for Ephesians), Colossians, Phillipians, and Philemon. He did not include 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus or Hebrews. One source indicates that he may have not known of their existence, or regarded them as not authentic writings of Paul, or because he disliked their theology. Circa 200 CE, the church at Rome added the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) to Marcion's collection. Also about 200 CE, another church (probably in Egypt) included Hebrews, but rejected 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Thessalonians, and Philemon as invalid.
So was Paul the author of all those letters? There is good reason to doubt that position.
Quote:
Many theologians believe that there is some material embedded in some of Paul's epistles that is actually much more recent material from other Christian sources - e.g. hymns, creedal formulas, confessions of faith. They seem to date from as late as the middle of the second century CE, some 85 years after Paul's death.
A.Q. Morton completed an analysis of these Epistles. He assumed that Galatians was written by Paul, and did a computer study of the style of the remaining letters using that epistle as a reference. His computer found that only Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Philemon matched the precise writing style of the author of Galatians. He assumed that the remaining 8 were written in the name of Paul by persons unknown.
Fr. Raymond E. Brown, is a member of the Vatican's Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and was described by Time magazine as "probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S." 6 Hehas expressed his beliefs concerning the authorship of these epistles:
In his opinion, of the thirteen epistles which say that they were written by Paul, critical scholars have reached a near consensus that seven are Paul's: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, and Romans.
same source
If you wish to know your Bible on the basis of data as opposed to tradition or circular internal evidence, then I would think a computer study that measured data analytically for style would be the PREPONDERANCE of EVIDENCE about Paul's letters.
That does not mean the other letters which Paul did not write are worthless. To consider them so is to drop 21st century morality into the first/second century. And that is as big a problem as culturally taking texts written two millennia ago and drop into them into today's culture and expect no problems. Those writings are still someone's attempt to witness to others about the Christ or about how the church in that day and age was to operate.
What it DOES mean, is that God wasn't whispering into the ears of a few heavenly guided authors in terms of each word found in the Bible. It means that some men were inspired by their own experience with God to write about Him in the way they knew how.
In your attempt to talk down to 'ignorant' Bible believing Christians, you ironically overlooked a simple truth in the very scripture you referred to involving the Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-40). He was indeed reading from the teachings ('book') of Isaiah and did not understand what he was reading. Phillip came along and explained the scriptures to him.
Acts 8:26-40 - Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south[a] to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. 27 And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” 30 So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this:
“Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. 33 In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.” 34 And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.
While the full Bible had not yet been printed, the early Christians (including Jesus who repeatedly referred to scripture), were not simply 'ignorant rubes, with no knowledge of scripture.
So you are saying that it isn't necessary to have the NT, just any book from the plurality of scripture? It wasn't important that some of them read from Hebrew and others from the Greek and that those two languages had almost (not quite) as many translation problems as from Hebrew/Greek to English?
But then if there were no ignorant rubes why did the Ethiopian need Philip? Philip had an experential revelation from Christ. It wasn't the Bible that was important. It was whom it pointed to.
You know, sorta of like the rebuke of Jesus to those famous bibliolators of His day, "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me."
I think you have the cart before the horse. The Bible doesn't define Jesus. Jesus defines the Bible.
Most conservative Christians believe that all 13 epistles were actually written by Paul; they would answer this question with a "no."
Liberal Christians generally believe that many of the epistles which say that they are written by Paul were actually written up to 85 years after his death by anonymous authors. By today's standards, they would be considered as forgeries -- much as would a modern day writer composing a letter in the style of George Washington, forging Washington's name, and promoting the letter as having been written in the 18th century.
But that is judging 1st century CE traditions by today's ethical standards. As stated in the New Jerusalem Bible 1:
"The best explanation may be that the Pastoral Epistles are letters written by a follower of Paul, conscious of inheriting his mantle and seeking to give advice and instruction for the administration of local churches. This adoption of a revered name in such circumstances was a literary convention of the times."
The authorship of the epistles is of particular importance when studying what the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) have to say about the role and status of women. One might assume that Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus and 1 Peter were not written by Paul and Peter. One of the main criteria used by the early Church to consider books for inclusion in the Bible, was whether they were written by Jesus' disciples and the apostles. Under this standard, it could be argued that those four books should not form part of the Bible. Then, the only references left in the New Testament that negatively affect feminine roles and status would be found in Paul's 1 Corinthians. If one considers that some of the 1 Corinthians anti-equality passages in may have contained later forged insertions, then one might argue that the valid Christian Scriptures promote gender equality.
References:
S.M. Gilmour, "The Letters of Paul," essay in C.M. Laymon: "The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible," Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN (1991)
J.D. Douglas, Gen. Ed., "New Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Testament Volume," Tyndale, Wheaton IL, (1990)
H.R. Willmington, "Bible Handbook", Tyndale, Wheaton IL, (1997)
P.N. Benware, "Survey of the New Testament," Moody Press, Chicago IL (1990)
C.M. Laymon: "The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible," Abingdon Press, Nashville
Thank you for the first link, Warden. I have often stated that the downplay of the role of women looked to me like the work of the early Neo-Platonists who had such influence on the developing clergy and theology, but never saw confirmation of that perception.
When you post a contrary article, you give it the same weight you do scripture. That is the false, fundamentalist approach--as in the post I made about how fundamentalists once supported slavery and subjugation of women---as they do now towards homosexuality.
If you want to think weak arguments by a professor with a job to protect is sacrosanct--good for you. I'm just going to keep posting ALL the truth. In the very article you posted about Dr. Wallace saying he believes Petrine authorship YOU FAILED TO POST THAT EVEN HE ADMITS HE IS IN THE MINORITY OF SCHOLARS. That is damn well a failure to tell the whole truth so you can protect your dogma.
On another thread in the same vein you posted a video of Dr. Wallace and concluded the same thing as this thread is titled. You were taken to task not only by me, but by Daniel McClellan who IS a biblical textual critic and you basically cried, "Unh-Uh" (his words, not mine) to everything he tried to enlighten you with.
Sorry, but you are a dodger. You're unable to see any point of view but your own and when ANYONE questions it, you cry foul. When you tried doing that on me with one of the mods, I tracked down numerous of your posts and pointed out you are the kettle calling the pot black and sent it to the same mod.
If you wish to engage in that again, go for it.
I don't need a mod, because I have preponderance of EVIDENCE by which to derail some of your less than artful attempts to "prove" your viewpoint about Scripture. I do not doubt your sincerity, its your tactics that I question--and will continue to question. If you simply posted, "I believe it anyway," then you would be nothing more than one of ten million other fundamentalists. But you post your thoughts as if they were "gospel." I intend to post data that will show your gospel is less than complete truth. Otherwise post the rest of the story so people seeking the truth can weigh it for themselves.
Honesty is a simple as including this in your post from YOUR source:
I admitted in my rebuttal that there is not 100% proof that 2nd Peter was NOT written by Peter. I claimed the preponderance of evidence by textual critics indicates it is not, and I PREFER THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. Your source admits it. You apparently do not.
Further you didn't even bother to go to MY source which is EXACTLY THE SAME AS YOURS!! I simply pointed out the data you LEFT out. Daniel Wallace didn't. He included those counterarguments in his essay---the mark of an honest man---then stated why he, personally, doesn't lend credence to the preponderance of evidence. It's basically another "it could have happened this way" story to protect fundamentalist views. But Wallace makes an appearance of integrity and I respect that from him, if not his conclusions.
Your welcome to call my virtual entity any name in the book. It doesn't hurt my feelings because my life isn't wrapped around a book. It's wrapped around the one the book points to.
Both articles were posted with the expectation that people actually read the articles and see for themselves what the authors said. I provided their summary conclusions in the excerpts including this statement - ''Although a very strong case has been made against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, we believe it is deficient.'' Post #45.
There is no difference between you and your so called 'virtual entity.' It is YOU who make the accusations, do the slandering, speak the lies, and do the condemning. You simply do it hiding behind the computer.
As for engaging you further, you went and made this personal. That is the only way you know how to defend your arguments. But I have better things to do then argue with people such as yourself. You just aren't worth it.
The Word of God would not make sense to an unbeliever. In truth, most self-professed Christians are not really Christians at all. Only a True Believer can understand what is written. Even the Apostles had a difficult time understanding the Word as Jesus broke it down into parables and stories. On one account, Peter, on behalf of the disciples, asked Jesus what He meant by the discourse of that which defiles and the parable of the plants in Matthew 15. Jesus responded "Are you still so dull?" Peter and the rest of the disciples did not come to be able to understand the scriptures and quote them verbatim until Jesus sent the Comforter (Holy Spirit). So, without the aid of the Holy Spirit you won't understand it or believe it. Even if Jesus Himself showed up to your doorstep with a hand delivered copy.
Jesus is the Word. The very Intellectual manifestation of God Almighty. To deny the Word of God is no different than denying Jesus Christ. The Biblical Cannon has stood the test of time and been deemed to be Divinely inspired by every sect of the Christian faith. (You will know a tree by its fruit) There is no dispute by them about its authenticity. Anyone who takes away or adds to will suffer a terrible curse or plagues as promised in the last chapter of the book of Revelation.
Not that any of this will matter to you TroutDude. I post it for others so they're not deceived by someone who has no idea what they're talking about. I mean that respectfully because you do not know the Lord well enough to speak on spiritual matters of faith. If you knew Him you would believe His Word because the life, peace, joy, comfort and wisdom that it brings would convince you of its authenticity. As the song says "The Word is alive." If you truly want to know Him you must seek Him. If you seek Him you will find Him and your eyes will be opened as were Saul's on the road to Damascus. Until then, you'll be forever walking in darkness.
Catholicism translated all trinity bibles--all the originals were gone by the time anyone else translated--alls they had was Catholicism writings--- that is why it is a house divided( trinity religions)-Mark 3:24-26--- there are many errors that contradict Jesus' teachings in trinity translations.
Jesus started one single religion, one truth, one faith, one God. trinity religions are a divided house--they all can be thrown out of the picture, it narrows the choice down--Jesus' teachings point all down the correct path--they are not taught in churches. Some very wise advice from God---This is my son, the beloved in whom I am well pleased---LISTEN TO HIM. Unfortunately, Few do.
Both articles were posted with the expectation that people actually read the articles and see for themselves what the authors said. I provided their summary conclusions in the excerpts including this statement - ''Although a very strong case has been made against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, we believe it is deficient.'' Post #45.
There is no difference between you and your so called 'virtual entity.' It is YOU who make the accusations, do the slandering, speak the lies, and do the condemning. You simply do it hiding behind the computer.
As for engaging you further, you went and made this personal. That is the only way you know how to defend your arguments. But I have better things to do then argue with people such as yourself. You just aren't worth it.
Thank you. I have no desire to be thought worth anything by people with close minded positions. I don't want to be mixed up with such individuals.
Thank you for the first link, Warden. I have often stated that the downplay of the role of women looked to me like the work of the early Neo-Platonists who had such influence on the developing clergy and theology, but never saw confirmation of that perception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
There is no difference between you and your so called 'virtual entity.' It is YOU who make the accusations, do the slandering, speak the lies, and do the condemning. You simply do it hiding behind the computer.
As for engaging you further, you went and made this personal. That is the only way you know how to defend your arguments. But I have better things to do then argue with people such as yourself. You just aren't worth it.
Warden is an honest, open-minded Christian who follows Christ . . . NOT Bible idolatry and the "precepts and doctrines of men." These accusations of the brethren are unbecoming. It is your position that is counter to the prevailing wisdom in bible scholarship.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Further reasons to study bible outside of Sunday School
