Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-11-2013, 08:18 PM

I like using biblindex. if anything it undersamples Irenaeus.

jakejonesiv · 03-11-2013, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I like using biblindex. if anything it undersamples Irenaeus.

Why hide behind bibleindex? Cite your best examples. If I am wrong, it won't be the first time, but I need to see it, not a generated list.
Thanks

stephan huller · 03-11-2013, 08:39 PM

But I am not trying to prove your wrong. You made a statement. I thought it was odd and then I checked biblindex. Reported what was there. There's nothing more to it than that. It's not about ego. It's just fact checking.

aa5874 · 03-11-2013, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But I am not trying to prove your wrong. You made a statement. I thought it was odd and then I checked biblindex. Reported what was there. There's nothing more to it than that. It's not about ego. It's just fact checking.

You are merely posting unsubstantiated, erroneous or mis-leading information. Please show exactly where 2nd Peter is identified and show that all sources did actually mention 2nd Peter before Origen.

When did Origen actually write about 2nd Peter??

Again, Theophilus of Antioch did NOT mention 2nd Peter which is mentioned in your list.

Please, do some FACT-FINDING and see if others in the BIBLINDEX list also did NOT mention 2nd Peter.

Ken Brown · 03-12-2013, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Hi aa5874, here is a quote from wiki answers.com, which I'm not sure is a reliable source, but it at least questions some of your erroneous assertions:

KB

If you are not sure about the reliability of your source why make reference to it?? I find it extremely difficult to make an analysis of the excerpt you provided..

Hi aa5874, here's the thing. Debating about whether or not Peter wrote 2 Peter is like the debate between liberals and conservatives. If you have a liberal mindset then the conservatives are in error, and if you have a conservative mindset, the liberals are wrong in their positions. Same with the debate about Peter. The arguments can be made either way, and there is no conclusive argument on either side to sway one direction or the other, at least as far as I can tell. KB

aa5874 · 03-12-2013, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Hi aa5874, here's the thing. Debating about whether or not Peter wrote 2 Peter is like the debate between liberals and conservatives. If you have a liberal mindset then the conservatives are in error, and if you have a conservative mindset, the liberals are wrong in their positions. Same with the debate about Peter. The arguments can be made either way, and there is no conclusive argument on either side to sway one direction or the other, at least as far as I can tell. KB

There is NO debate. The Church has ADMITTED that 2nd Peter does NOT belong to the Canon.

Eusebius' Church History 3.3.

Quote:

1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon...

Ken Brown · 03-13-2013, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Hi aa5874, here's the thing. Debating about whether or not Peter wrote 2 Peter is like the debate between liberals and conservatives. If you have a liberal mindset then the conservatives are in error, and if you have a conservative mindset, the liberals are wrong in their positions. Same with the debate about Peter. The arguments can be made either way, and there is no conclusive argument on either side to sway one direction or the other, at least as far as I can tell. KB

There is NO debate. The Church has ADMITTED that 2nd Peter does NOT belong to the Canon.

Eusebius' Church History 3.3.

Quote:

1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon...

Hi aa5874, why are scholars debating IF there is no debate? And concerning Eusebius, the timeframe that he writes in is AFTER the fierce wolves came in and DESTROYED the Church. The writings from the 2nd century on should be looked upon as mainly written by the destroyers of the Church. KB

jakejonesiv · 03-13-2013, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Debating about whether or not Peter wrote 2 Peter is like the debate between liberals and conservatives. If you have a liberal mindset then the conservatives are in error, and if you have a conservative mindset, the liberals are wrong in their positions. Same with the debate about Peter. The arguments can be made either way, and there is no conclusive argument on either side to sway one direction or the other, at least as far as I can tell. KB

Hi Ken Brown,

Are you serious? There is absolutely no equivalence between the finding that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraphical work, and the fantasy that Apostle Peter wrote the thing. Only an apologist living in the insular world of faith could believe 2 Peter is authentic.

Why would the presumed Peter have to invent excuses for the delay of the Parousia (2 Peter 3:3-9) when he was one of them "who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power." Mark 9:1. If he were still alive at the writing, there would be no problem!

It is not even a good forgery. The forger often gives himself away. Would not the presumed author (the alleged historical Peter) be one of those fathers (3:4) who had fallen asleep? Would not the presumed author (the alleged Apostle Peter) be one of those long ago apostles (3:2) the readers are urged to remember?

There was no collection of all Paul's letters in the alleged lifetime of the historical Peter. But the forger states that not only were they collected but had attained the status of Scripture. Afterwards, wily heretics had crept in, wresting them to their own destruction. This describes the situation way way past the alleged times of Peter and Paul.

Jake

Ken Brown · 03-13-2013, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Debating about whether or not Peter wrote 2 Peter is like the debate between liberals and conservatives. If you have a liberal mindset then the conservatives are in error, and if you have a conservative mindset, the liberals are wrong in their positions. Same with the debate about Peter. The arguments can be made either way, and there is no conclusive argument on either side to sway one direction or the other, at least as far as I can tell. KB

Hi Ken Brown,

Are you serious? There is absolutely no equivalence between the finding that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraphical work, and the fantasy that Apostle Peter wrote the thing. Only an apologist living in the insular world of faith could believe 2 Peter is authentic.

Why would the presumed Peter have to invent excuses for the delay of the Parousia (2 Peter 3:3-9) when he was one of them "who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power." Mark 9:1. If he were still alive at the writing, there would be no problem!

It is not even a good forgery. The forger often gives himself away. Would not the presumed author (the alleged historical Peter) be one of those fathers (3:4) who had fallen asleep? Would not the presumed author (the alleged Apostle Peter) be one of those long ago apostles (3:2) the readers are urged to remember?

There was no collection of all Paul's letters in the alleged lifetime of the historical Peter. But the forger states that not only were they collected but had attained the status of Scripture. Afterwards, wily heretics had crept in, wresting them to their own destruction. This describes the situation way way past the alleged times of Peter and Paul.

Jake

Hi Jake, go ahead and believe that Peter did not write 2 Peter. I'm just not in agreement with you, and it's a waste of time to debate it. KB

jakejonesiv · 03-13-2013, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi Ken Brown,

Are you serious? There is absolutely no equivalence between the finding that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraphical work, and the fantasy that Apostle Peter wrote the thing. Only an apologist living in the insular world of faith could believe 2 Peter is authentic.

Why would the presumed Peter have to invent excuses for the delay of the Parousia (2 Peter 3:3-9) when he was one of them "who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power." Mark 9:1. If he were still alive at the writing, there would be no problem!

It is not even a good forgery. The forger often gives himself away. Would not the presumed author (the alleged historical Peter) be one of those fathers (3:4) who had fallen asleep? Would not the presumed author (the alleged Apostle Peter) be one of those long ago apostles (3:2) the readers are urged to remember?

There was no collection of all Paul's letters in the alleged lifetime of the historical Peter. But the forger states that not only were they collected but had attained the status of Scripture. Afterwards, wily heretics had crept in, wresting them to their own destruction. This describes the situation way way past the alleged times of Peter and Paul.

Jake

Hi Jake, go ahead and believe that Peter did not write 2 Peter. I'm just not in agreement with you, and it's a waste of time to debate it. KB

Hi Ken,

I am fine with you living inside your beliefs.

If you ever want to examine some of your cherished assumptions, we can talk then.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

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

03-11-2013, 08:18 PM	#21
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I like using biblindex. if anything it undersamples Irenaeus.

03-11-2013, 08:39 PM	#23
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But I am not trying to prove your wrong. You made a statement. I thought it was odd and then I checked biblindex. Reported what was there. There's nothing more to it than that. It's not about ego. It's just fact checking.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.