Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 12-28-2005, 11:09 AM

In another thread, I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

You said that there is misinformation about the New Testament canon. That is plausible, but I am more interested in the criteria that were used to choose which writings were chosen for the canon than the details about voting. For instance, what about the book of Galatians would have indicated to anyone that it should have been included in the canon as opposed to some of Paul's other letters that were not included?

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

This becomes a very conjectural type of question, since we have either little or no idea about non-included Pauline epistles. We do know that Peter referred to Paul's letters as scripture at an early date, an indiction of an early collection, which would fit well with the reality that there was little opposition to any of Paul's letters as scripture in early church times. There were controversies on 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation and some others, but virtually zilch on letters with internal Pauline authorship. And the modern critical scholarship attempt to make some of the letters as later forgeries is simply a side herring.

That is simply ridiculous. By what reliable means was Peter or anyone else able to identify specific letters that were written by Paul as being Scripture? How did Peter know that he was right? Surely there were a substantial number of writings that were rejected that were similar in form and substance to writings that were accepted.

Regarding "There were controversies on 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation and some others, but virtually zilch on letters with internal Pauline authorship," ok, let's discuss 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation. The other thread was about all of the New Testament, not just the letters of Paul.

Praxeus has made a failed attempt to disguise faith as apologetics.

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-28-2005, 11:13 AM

For the record, Peter didn't write the epistles of that name.

judge · 12-28-2005, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

For the record, Peter didn't write the epistles of that name.

How do you know?

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-28-2005, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

How do you know?

They're too late.

judge · 12-29-2005, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

They're too late.

Hmm..according to early christian writings 1 Peter is estimated to have been written as early as 80 A.D.

But this is just an estimate. There is no reason it could not have been written in 40 A.D.
There is no evidence it was but there is no evidence it was not either.

IOW to assert that

Quote:

For the record, Peter didn't write the epistles of that name.

is not too differtent from religious dogma IMHO

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-29-2005, 03:47 PM

Peter was dead in 80 CE. If you read the rest of the commentary at ECW, you'll also see that practically every commentator says that the letter evinces an educated Greek style and familiarity with the LXX which would indicate an author who is a born and bred Greek, not a Galilean fisherman.

mata leao · 12-29-2005, 05:29 PM

If it is inspired by God it doesnt make a damn bit of difference. who,when, etc. Stay "on message"...is the key....the gospels were written for a purpose, So was the rest of the new test. That purpose is being accomplished.

judge · 12-29-2005, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Peter was dead in 80 CE. .

Really? Is there any evidence for this?

RUmike · 12-29-2005, 06:22 PM

Isn't it church tradition that Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome about 62 C.E.?

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-29-2005, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Really? Is there any evidence for this?

By every Church tradition he was martyred by Nero in 64 CE. Yes, it is only Church tradition, but so is the attribution of authorship to 1 and 2 Peter and so is his alleged mission in Rome. Whatever is known about him is known only from those traditions and from the NT. There are certainly no traditions nor any other evidence that he lived past Nero's reign. Positing that Peter lived past 80 and wrote 1 Peter is arguing an awful lot from absence. What would be your evidence that Peter did write either Epistle attributed to him other than the very same traditions which state that he died in 64?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-28-2005, 11:13 AM	#2
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	For the record, Peter didn't write the epistles of that name.

12-29-2005, 03:47 PM	#6
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Peter was dead in 80 CE. If you read the rest of the commentary at ECW, you'll also see that practically every commentator says that the letter evinces an educated Greek style and familiarity with the LXX which would indicate an author who is a born and bred Greek, not a Galilean fisherman.

12-29-2005, 05:29 PM	#7
mata leao Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: tampa,florida Posts: 342	If it is inspired by God it doesnt make a damn bit of difference. who,when, etc. Stay "on message"...is the key....the gospels were written for a purpose, So was the rest of the new test. That purpose is being accomplished.

12-29-2005, 06:22 PM	#9
RUmike Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 491	Isn't it church tradition that Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome about 62 C.E.?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.