Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 12-06-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

Hutch

Please provide any scintilla of evidence that 2 Peter was written by someone named Peter and was written before 150 CE. Please provide any evidence that some early church father refers to the existence of 2 Peter before 150 ce. Please explain why challenges to its inclusion in the canon were raised in the 4th century.

2 Peter
1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
3:15-16 ...the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I'll go with this as my further response--

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=707

Steven Avery · 12-06-2005, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Yep. Of course, if you had the proof that would allow you to delete "probably" from your statement, I would find your comment more intriguing. Too much "probably this" or "probably that" in the field of textural criticism.

And then on the other side there are others like myself who simply affirm that 2 Peter was written by Peter in the logical internal time-frame (c. 60 AD). And are willing to defend that position against attacks, which can make for fascinating analysis and discussions.

However, I also do not claim at all to be able to "prove" that authorship and date to the satisfaction of a skeptic. Not even remotely. Simply that it is a solid and defendable and consistent New Testament position.

From the larger perspective of errancy (one of the themes of this board) that is essentially the only significant position against a variety of late-dating forgery ideas. Any view of a forged 2nd-century Peter simply falsifies the New Testament anyway, what one you choose wouldn't matter, and the rest would only be mop-up action, and carrot cake and herb tea, for the errantist warriors. (With the minor exception of a couple of eastern churches that have a 22-book canon.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

rhutchin · 12-06-2005, 09:48 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Yes. Peter’s claim is that God has everything under control. Consequently, one takes it that, if he is to be saved, it is God who will save him. The person then is obedient to God in all situations and under all circumstances confident that whatever hardship which that obedience entails is inconsequential in light of eternity. Even if that obedience is all for naught (and the person has been deceiving himself in thinking that God has saved him), the person still acknowledges that God is just no matter what He does and he continues to serve and obey God.

JPD
Even though that person might not be on the list of the elect and has no way of finding out if he/she is?

Yes. If they did not, that would, at least, be a good indication that they are not among the elect. However, if they do as I describe above, they can then leave everything in God's hands knowing that they deserve death and that God can have mercy on whom He will have mercy and that, in the end, God will do that which is right.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-06-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Because the further claim of John is that you must stand before that same Jesus one day and be judged for your actions on earth and that judgment will determine whether you are allowed entry into heaven. The account of the curing of the blind man has been provided to you to substantiate that claim. Whether you believe that Vespasian also cured a blind man is inconsequential.

What evidence do you have that Jesus ever healed anyone? Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then.

I noticed that you did not particpate in the new thread on homosexuality at the GRD forum. Why was that? I am ready to prove in that thread that you did not have any documented clinical evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is typically harmful to homosexuals and/or to society. You tried to make a fallcious attempt to link homosexuals with pedophilia, but you didn't offer any corroboration whatsoever except to cite evidence that a small percentage of homosexuals endorsed pedophilia. Tomboy Mom embarrassed you by citing documented research that among homosexuals who are pedophiles, the vast majority of them are males, so your argument flew right out the window, but you never admitted that you made a mistake. Would you like to admit it now in the latest thread on homosexuality at the GRD? You danced back and forth between trying to make a secular case against homosexuality and saying "the Bible says so." The latter approach of course did not convince anyone because you never stated any evidence at all why the Bible should be considered to be authoritative. Would you like to start a new thread at this forum and tell us why you believe that the Bible should be considered to be authoritative?

ISVfan · 12-06-2005, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Jesus is dead and will certainly never return.
Ealy Christians believed that Jesus would return within a generation.
This is reflected in numerous places in the NT.

Here is one of many ...
1 Corinthians 15:51
Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Note that in his mystery Paul says two things about the time of Jesus' return
1) the dead will the raised and
2) the living (WE) will be changed

Paul includes himself in the WE. He expected to be around when Jesus returned. "we will not all sleep" Paul is telling his audience that not all of them will die and that some including himself will be around when Jesus returned. Well, well, everyone Paul was speaking to is long dead and Jesus did not return.

If Paul were alive today he would not be a Christian. He would come to the obvious conclusion that if Jesus did not return within the generation as expected then he will not return after 2000 long years.

Simply put the time for Jesus' return has long past.

All Christians, Mat 24:44 "So you, too, must be ready, because at an hour you are not expecting him the Son of Man will come." ISV are commanded to watch for Christ's return. No where in Scripture does Christ set a date for His return. But Paul, based on the verse above did not want to be caught off gaurd. So he was expecting Christ to return. Christ will return one day. If Christ comes back in my lifetime I will be "changed" if on the other hand he doesn't then I will be among the dead "raised".

ISVfan · 12-06-2005, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

Hutch

I assume it would fall on deaf ears to point out the conclusions reached so long ago that 2 Peter was probably not written until 150 or later and was not written by someone named Peter.

The same people that make the claim that 2 Peter was written 150 A.D. are the same ones who also said Gospel of John was not written until 150-200 A.D. although we have papyri to prove that position wrong. We have a papyri of the GJohn dated 120 A.D. So unless you have proof this arguement has no weight.

Sauron · 12-06-2005, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Both of you have got parts of it right. Times were tough in the 1st century. People were being persecuted.

Well, not really. There is scant evidence for widespread or systemic persecution of christians in the 1st century.

John A. Broussard · 12-06-2005, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

That may be, but the only evidence that is available is that which is contained in the Bible. The issue for you is to determine whether it is true and then whether you will believe it. You can always take the chance that it is not true.

As you can with the Rig Veda, Science and Health and the Key to the Scriptures, the Quran, the sayings of Confucius, The Book of Mormon, and on and on and on!

Why did you settle on the bible when there are all these other sacred writings just waiting to be read and believed in?

Thank you.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-06-2005, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

That may be, but the only evidence that is available is that which is contained in the Bible.

It is to your credit that at least you got that part right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The issue for you is to determine whether it is true and then whether you will believe it.

How do you suggest that skeptics try to verify the claims of the Bible, most of all the claim that God is good? Secondly, do you or any other Christians have any extra-Biblical, non-Christian evidence that Jesus healed people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

You can always take the chance that it is not true.

Are you saying that skeptics are taking risks but Christians aren't taking risks? You might actually be much more at risk than skeptics are. Maybe an identified creator exists who does not approve of Christians' endorsement of some of the God of the Bible's questionable actions, and will one day hold Christians accountable for approving of things like God killing Ananias and Saphira even in New Testament times, and approving of God creating and diverting hurricanes to inhabited areas. The universe if old, vast, and complex, and full of possibilities. We haven't even cured the common cold, but Christians attempt to tell us what even quantum physicists cannot tell us.

12-06-2005, 03:40 PM

Greetings,

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISVfan

The same people that make the claim that 2 Peter was written 150 A.D. are the same ones who also said Gospel of John was not written until 150-200 A.D.

Pardon?
Who claims G.John was not written till 150-200?

Modern scholarship tends to the dates 90-120CE

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISVfan

We have a papyri of the GJohn dated 120 A.D. So unless you have proof this arguement has no weight.

No we don't.

We have a tiny scrap of papyrus, which might be from G.John, dated variously :
* 2nd or 3rd century
* late 2nd century
* early 2nd century

This last date is sometimes expressed 100-150CE or even c.125 (i.e. plus or minus 25 years.)

But Christian apologists have a habit of reducing this to :
"dated to 120"
which is simply false.

Iasion

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.