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.
A series of rebuttals not to completely define lack of originality by Peter, but to point out the almost insurmountable number of problems such process entails. All information from:https://bible.org/seriespage/22-seco...nt-and-outline
1)The Personal Allusions. In general, the personal allusions to Peter seem forced, as if to prove that the author truly was an eyewitness to the Lord Jesus (cf. 1:16ff.). As well, the reference in 1:14 to Peter’s death as predicted by the Lord looks suspiciously as though it depended on John 21:18-19. All of this has parallels in kind in the pseudepigraphic literature of the time.
2) Historical Problems. Guthrie notes five distinct historical problems in 2 Peter. (1) The reference to Paul and his letters (3:15-16). “In all his letters” (3:16) sounds to some like a reference to the collected canonical works of Paul; and the linking of Paul’s letters to “the rest of scripture seems to elevate Paul’s epistles to a level of recognition which they did not attain until the early part of the second century.”7
(2) The reference in 3:1 in which 2 Peter is called “the second letter” that the author has written to the audience. In pseudepigraphic writings, writers would sometimes attach their documents to an earlier, authentic work in such a way. Further, if 1 Peter were not by Peter, but was written later—and if the reference is indeed to 1 Peter—then this is further evidence of the pseudepigraphical nature of this letter.
(3) The Sitz im Leben of 2 Peter seems to reflect the intense Gnostic activity of the second century, particularly in the references to the false teachers.
(4) The statement in 3:4, “ever since our fathers died,” seems to be a slip on the author’s part, for it strongly suggests that this epistle was written after the first generation of Christians had passed away.
(5) “Your apostles” in 3:2 seems to be a strange expression for an apostle to make, since it sounds too distant and detached from the apostles, as though the writer were not one of them.
3) Literary Problems. There are two distinct literary problems here. (1) The use of Jude: Why would Peter, an apostle, so heavily borrow from Jude in chapters 2–3? This is both a literary problem and a chronological problem, for if Jude was written after Peter’s lifetime (as most scholars assume), then if 2 Peter uses Jude, it cannot be by Peter.
(2) In 3:15, the author mentions that “Paul… has written to you.” The double problem here is what letter did Paul write to this audience and why does Peter now address them?
4)Stylistic Problems. This is often the straw that breaks the camel’s back for those wrestling with the authenticity issue. First and foremost, the stylistic differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter are so great (1 Peter being relatively good Greek, 2 Peter being relatively poor Greek) that to suppose that one man penned both letters—and both within perhaps a few months’ time and to the same audience (as 3:1 suggests)—stretches credibility to the breaking point. Further, the Greek of 2 Peter is stilted and, with its high proportion of hapax legomena8 it gives the impression of having been learned from books rather than from life.9 This first consideration argues against the same author for both 1 and 2 Peter; this second consideration argues specifically against Petrine authorship for 2 Peter.
5) Doctrinal Problems. There are not only thematic differences between the two Petrine epistles, but a number of Greek expressions from philosophy seem too sophisticated for a man of Peter’s educational background.
Of these five groups of problems, the historical (especially mention of Paul’s works), literary (use of Jude), and stylistic problems are the weightiest.
Generally, three dates have been proposed for 2 Peter: shortly before Peter’s death (c. 64 CE), c. 80 CE (by a disciple of Peter), or sometime in the first half of the second century. The terminus ad quem for this letter is fixed at 150 CE because of its use in the Apocalypse of Peter.
It isn't that it is entirely impossible for 2nd Peter to be by an author. It's just entirely improbable. That's the difference between scholastic and fundamentalist approach to scripture. Fundamentalists make their decisions about scripture and then search for authors agreeing with them. Scholars look at EVIDENCE and make a decision based on EVIDENCE, not the need to protect their doctrine.
Fundamentalists have an agenda to protect. Those of us with a Christological approach are neither protecting the Bible, the author of the letter, his letter itself, nor God--who doesn't need protecting anyway. We ARE protecting whatever WITNESS arises from the writing that is consistent with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. In that respect it doesn't make any difference at all whether Peter, his secretary, or some follower seeking acceptance for his own writing was the true author. All Scripture is but someone's testimony about how God's people interact with God. The Holy Spirit is the reagent which changes that writing into the Word of God in a believer.
If you need a physical object to fall down and worship, then of course, it must be protected in all of its manifestations. If you are born of spirit and truth, then you have no need to protect an idol, because God writes truth in your own heart and mind.
P.S. I do respect Wallace's work if not all his conclusions, primarily because as very conservative he still isn't afraid to take the occasional shot at his close-minded followers. And what a difficult tightrope he must walk being a professor at one of the world's most conservative seminaries, but recognizing that scholarship simply doesn't support everything fundamentalists like to wave around as truth. They may dismiss a Bart Ehrman as a backslider, but it's much more difficult to do with one of the most learned men in the conservative camp (who simply isn't a fundamentalist). 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!
Your rebuttals were already addressed in the two articles by Wallace and Hampton. No, it isn't improbable that Peter wrote 2 Peter. As I said, and as the Bible says, it is the word of truth. Since it is specifically stated in the letter that Peter wrote it, then he wrote it.
By your comments ''those of us with a Christological approach'' and ''If you need a physical object to fall down and worship, then of course, it must be protected in all of its manifestations. If you are born of spirit and truth, then you have no need to protect an idol, because God writes truth in your own heart and mind.'', you imply that those who believe the Bible is the Word of God are not Christological, and that they worship the Bible and are not born of spirit and truth. And you just, again, falsely accused me of trying to mislead people. In this case about Wallace's beliefs. You just couldn't resist attacking me and impugning my integrity.
You are a very judgmental and condemning little man who hates and is utterly terrified of fundamentalists. And your hatred and condemnation of those who don't hold to your views is evident in your many posts on this forum. You said on another thread that you don't consider fundamentalists to be Christians. I have to say that I have no respect for either you or your opinions.
Last edited by Michael Way; 03-12-2015 at 07:21 AM..
The only way prophecy can be proven is AFTER the prophesied event has happened - No wild tangental connection to the Bible is necessary; many Biblical prophecies, including over 300 Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Christ, were pretty specific. This prophetic fulfillment has repeatedly occurred throughout scripture. (I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make in your correlation between the Bible, Biblical prophecy --- and Joseph Smith and the Mormans???)
Some of the end time prophecies from Revelation, Ezekial, Daniel and others, include the very specific Ezekial 38-39 prophecies regarding Russia (Meshak, Gog, Magog), Persia/Iran and others surrounding Israel coming against Israel (with nobody standing-up for Israel) and God utterly destroying them in one day.
Others include the rise of the antiChrist and False prophet out of the midEast and numerous treaties that will be broken; The rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and re-initiation of animal sacrifice there (the abomination of desolation). Then there are a host of prophecies about God's judgment on the world and the final 7-year great Tribulation period, followed by the 1000-year millennial reign. Of course there are a number of what I call 'generic' prophecies:' Birth pains: Wars, rumors of wars, quakes, signs in the sky, etc. --- but, these have been applicable to every time and generation (I think intentionally) --- to allow every person of every generation to believe theirs could be the final generation and respond accordingly. As I pointed out, there are hundreds of these, some more specific than others.
But, my question to you is, are you really interested in scholarly proof --- or are you simply looking to ridicule the Bible?
This exists? How can prophecy only be proven after the event? Shouldn't prophecy foretell that which is to come? If not, anyone can take a "prophecy" and make it fit many different events..
Again, judgment is being passed.. Whenever "authority" is questioned. others rush to defend it by ridiculing those who ask the questions that make authority look less powerful...
So by saying I will win the lottery and get a million dollars, when it happens I have just now prophesied? Or do need to win the million dollars then call it a prophesy?
Last edited by mensaguy; 03-19-2015 at 05:03 AM..
Reason: Don't use red text.
Your rebuttals were already addressed in the two articles by Wallace and Hampton. No, it isn't improbable that Peter wrote 2 Peter. As I said, and as the Bible says, it is the word of truth. Since it is specifically stated in the letter that Peter wrote it, then he wrote it.
By your comments ''those of us with a Christological approach'' and ''If you need a physical object to fall down and worship, then of course, it must be protected in all of its manifestations. If you are born of spirit and truth, then you have no need to protect an idol, because God writes truth in your own heart and mind.'', you imply that those who believe the Bible is the Word of God are not Christological, and that they worship the Bible and are not born of spirit and truth. And you just, again, falsely accused me of trying to mislead people. In this case about Wallace's beliefs. You just couldn't resist attacking me and impugning my integrity.
You are a very judgmental and condemning little man who hates and is utterly terrified of fundamentalists. And your hatred and condemnation of those who don't hold to your views is evident in your many posts on this forum. You said on another thread that you don't consider fundamentalists to be Christians. I have to say that I have no respect for either you or your opinions.
Mike, I can go back and pull your posts up where you constantly reach conclusions about theologians and professors which I have refuted with their own writings. That's not accusing you "falsely." That's accusing you of being less than open by not providing "the rest of the story." Your failure to provide the whole picture impugns your own integrity.
Want to see the difference? Re-read my post about while the PROBLEMS associated with 2nd Peter do not necessarily make it 100% impossible for Peter to have been the author, it is the overwhelming EVIDENCE against it that makes it the more reasonable path for a thinking person. Please note that is for a THINKING person, not everyone obviously. Wallace himself, in his own defense of Peter as the author ADMITS that the preponderance of scholars REJECT Peter as the author. THAT is being honest. Try practicing it. But your post reaches the conclusion that because a FEW scholars believe 2nd Peter to have been authored by the apostle Peter, it is an absolute fact. It isn't. It's not even close--and many of the early church fathers had doubts about it---not that you bothered to point any of that out with your "integrity."
Having been a fundamentalist myself for years you bet I'm terrified of fundamentalists. I would liken it to escaping from the clutches of the Taliban. I do not believe ALL fundamentalists to not be Christian, just those who preach orthodoxy over orthopraxy, the Bible as a scientific/sociological book as opposed to a faith book, and who wish to impose it on every part and particle of society. Yes, every freedom loving person should be terrified of fundamentalism---Christian, Jewish, or Muslim---as they all desire to impose their system of beliefs on everyone else.
Again you fall back on your persecution complex. I don't know you. I know some virtual personality with whom you apparently identify as if it were the real you. More is the pity.
I'm a virtual personality. I don't give a rip what you or your virtual personality think about my opinions. I don't write in response to YOU. I write to give THINKING people an option to THINK rather than swallow garbage hook, line, and sinker.
P.S. My sister is a fundamentalist. I don't hate her. But she doesn't cram her beliefs down anyone else's throat, is willing to entertain other viewpoints, and is more concerned with orthopraxy than orthodoxy. In other words, she's not a maladjusted personality.
Keep writing, I'll keep giving THINKING people an option to consider.
Mike, I can go back and pull your posts up where you constantly reach conclusions about theologians and professors which I have refuted with their own writings. That's not accusing you "falsely." That's accusing you of being less than open by not providing "the rest of the story." Your failure to provide the whole picture impugns your own integrity.
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.
Quote:
Want to see the difference? Re-read my post about while the PROBLEMS associated with 2nd Peter do not necessarily make it 100% impossible for Peter to have been the author, it is the overwhelming EVIDENCE against it that makes it the more reasonable path for a thinking person. Please note that is for a THINKING person, not everyone obviously. Wallace himself, in his own defense of Peter as the author ADMITS that the preponderance of scholars REJECT Peter as the author. THAT is being honest. Try practicing it.
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.
Quote:
Having been a fundamentalist myself for years you bet I'm terrified of fundamentalists. I would liken it to escaping from the clutches of the Taliban. I do not believe ALL fundamentalists to not be Christian, just those who preach orthodoxy over orthopraxy, the Bible as a scientific/sociological book as opposed to a faith book, and who wish to impose it on every part and particle of society. Yes, every freedom loving person should be terrified of fundamentalism---Christian, Jewish, or Muslim---as they all desire to impose their system of beliefs on everyone else.
Again you fall back on your persecution complex. I don't know you. I know some virtual personality with whom you apparently identify as if it were the real you. More is the pity.
I'm a virtual personality. I don't give a rip what you or your virtual personality think about my opinions. I don't write in response to YOU. I write to give THINKING people an option to THINK rather than swallow garbage hook, line, and sinker.
P.S. My sister is a fundamentalist. But she doesn't cram her beliefs down anyone else's throat, is willing to entertain other viewpoints, and is more concerned with orthopraxy than orthodoxy. In other words, she's not a maladjusted personality.
Keep writing, I'll keep giving THINKING people an option to consider.
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.
Last edited by Michael Way; 03-12-2015 at 09:04 AM..
If you do patently dishonest things and are called on it, who is to blame?
anybody that teaches the bible as literal is misleading people. That is dishonest. I would hold them accountable, but with liberals running around mucking things up nobody is accountable for anything.
This exists? How can prophecy only be proven after the event? Shouldn't prophecy foretell that which is to come? If not, anyone can take a "prophecy" and make it fit many different events..
Again, judgment is being passed.. Whenever "authority" is questioned. others rush to defend it by ridiculing those who ask the questions that make authority look less powerful...
So by saying I will win the lottery and get a million dollars, when it happens I have just now prophesied? Or do need to win the million dollars then call it a prophesy?
Of course prophecy foretells what is to come, but, the fulfillment is what demonstrates to people that it is true. (?? I'm curious how you can conclude otherwise?).
Your questions and points seem more focused on tearing down beliefs about the Bible (with no substantive support); -- than on actually seeking or providing truth. This is such a common practice out here on CD, perhaps I am mis-reading your posts. I't's not my place to pass judgment. I am only asking about your real motives here.
Saying you will win the lottery and get a million dollars AHEAD of the fact, is only making a hopeful claim. If you subsequently do not win the lottery, etc., you wind-up looking foolish. But, 'accurate guessing' is not really the substance or point of Bible prophecy anyway.
God inspired the ancients to tell (often warn) people and nations about what He was about to do, to affirm their faith, and to establish the inerrancy and infallibility of His Word. God did this hundreds and even thousands of times, and the prophesied events accurately transpired every time! (The exception is about 500 (?) prophesied End Time events (clearly identified as such), that are in process of being fulfilled). Prophecy is one of the many "God proofs" that sets scripture/the Bible apart from any other 'self-proclaimed holy book' (the majority of which entirely avoid prophecy, for this very reason). ---
Yes they see it through a different lens, one of their own making. Just like the Fundamentalists, they pick what they want. There is no true objective interpretation because it is not up to man to ... interpret. God does that, man has to learn from it. It really isn't hard, just throw out 90% of what is taught based on man's interpretation.
Yes it is ego, as they put their view above others and with no real support except their own claims.
Now many say they love God, but which God, The Trinitarian one, The Unitarian one, The Oneness one, etc., only one is correct, thus claiming to love a God who does not exist means you do not love the real God.
How do you know your lens is not also of your own making?
I contend that everyone's lens is of their own making. There are no exceptions. The difference is whether or not you admit to this or claim it was handed down from on high. "Here, expat, is a lens for you to look through".
Who decides which 90% to throw out and what 10% to keep? You do. Claiming the Holy Spirit as a fig leaf doesn't get you off the hook. Especially when others making the same claim arrive at different conclusions.
I don't know anyone who has anything but their own claims.
As for which god, if you can even think to ask that question, you are ahead of the game relative to most.
You mention the unitarian god and universalist god. There's a joke about the Unitarian / Universalist denomination which was created from the merger of those two separate denominations in the early 1960s. The unitarians were mostly working class and believed god was too good to condemn man. The universalists were mostly upper class and believed man was too good for god to condemn.
Today, the UU church has no doctrine / dogma and has as many agnostics and atheists in their membership as they do theists. Sometimes more. I suppose that this validates the slippery-slope concerns of fundamentalists about liberals, but only in the same sense that I could claim that, taken to its "logical" conclusion, fundamentalism results in inquisitions and fatwahs and other forms of theistic fascism. Fortunately for everyone concerned, most people (unless, for instance, they are fairly poor, thus generally uneducated and desperate) shrink from the extremes.
Did you have a relationship with Christ? Did you love Him?
I was no different from any other devout fundamentalist / evangelical Christian ... except that I spent a year at one of their Bible institutes, which is one year more than most laypersons.
Yes, I accepted Jesus at the tender age of five. Unless you want to accuse a five year old of ulterior motives, I believed, loved, prayed, studied, fellowshipped, tithed and and most importantly had faith, with the best of them for over three decades. I was dragged out of belief kicking and screaming by circumstances. I had no desire to be disabused of my faith.
Nevertheless I suspect you will shortly trot out the No True Scotsman fallacy in the form of the You Were Never One Of Us circular argument, thus attempting to invalidate thirty years of faithful Christian living. That is, at least, my usual experience.
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.
