jakejonesiv

Maybe you get that sense. I get the sense of a forger cribbing most of Jude and throwing in references to works (such as John ch 20) that did not exist at the time of Peter's alleged death.

The is nothing weak about the evidence that II Peter is a pseudepigraph. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

That makes 2 Peter 3:15-16 a lie. To quote a noteable apologist, "One cannot sensibly argue that God inspired certain books of the Bible and then allowed us to mix in books with it that were not inspired. It was either all inspired at its origination, or none of it at all..."

That leaves none of it at all.

Jake Jones

jakejonesiv

Hi Steven,

Hmmm, maybe. An interesting possibility that I have not seen before. GMark does contain many latinisms. :huh:
For sake of argument, let's say that the earliest version of Mark was written in Latin, in Rome. Is that a scenerio you could feel comfortable with?

The only people I ever see reference Herman Hoskier are part of the "King James Only" crowd. Are you symapthetic to the KJV only view?

If not, what recommends Hoskier's 19th century work to you? (Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of stuff written in the 19th century!).

Jake Jones

Steven Avery

Hi Jake,
I've gone through these evidences on a thread with Peter and others.
Especially on a thread in 2003 at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Xianity/message/9990

A resource list of sorts was in the following post
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Xianity/message/10067

Placing a URL to a website makes a book a lie? You truly have a very low threshold of discernment of truth and falsehood..

Very well said. On that textual point I would agree with J. P. Holding.

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

jakejonesiv

"St. Peter" and "St. Paul" working together to found the church of Rome, that is a myth.

Steven, that is probably a lot for you to assimilate in one sentence. So let's start slow: Peter was never mentioned in the Pauline epistles.

THE NON-PAULINE ORIGIN OF THE PARALLELISM
OF THE APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL.
GALATIANS 2:7-8 *
Ernst Barnikol
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Barnikol.pdf

In all likelyhood, the entire Pauline Canon pseudonimous.
Hermann Detering: The Falsified Paul - Early Christianity in the Twilight
An online version of this work in English is avaible here.
http://www.radikalkritik.de/

Nope, no Jesus, no Peter, no Paul. ymmv.

Jake Jones IV

Steven Avery

Hi Jake.. Sure. There is lots we dunno about the autographa. If Matthew or Hebrews had some type of semitic authorship, thats kewl too (although the internal translations in Matthew make that unlikely).

Most assuredly.

David Baron and Adoph Saphir are great, folks then really understood exegesis and the art of writing. Also folks like Burgon and Hoskier really did the leg-work on theories, in a way that is rarely done today, with its cookie-cutter seminarians and computer-lexicon translators. However, I really only use Hoskier for two items, his comparison of Aleph and B, and the Latin Mark question. On other issues, his analysis and quotes are often a good backup to Dean John Burgon, but I am far less familiar.

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

Johnny Skeptic

Message to praxeus: The New Testament canon has no authority unless it is confirmed by signs and wonders. The texts basically say that the disciples went about confirming the message of his grace, or in this case, the New Testament canon, by performing signs and wonders. The texts do not say that the message of his grace was confirmed with accurate geography and who went where. In the NIV, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me UNLESS [emphasis mine] I do what my Father does [or unless I perform miracles], But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, BELIEVE THE MIRACLES [emphasis mine], that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Would you care to defend the authority of the New Testament canon without mentioning miracles? If so, then you need to provide credible evidence (how many supposed eyewitnesses, and whether testimonies were first hand, second hand, etc.) that the disciples went about confirming the message of his grace with signs and wonders, AND that Jesus actually healed people. Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that is was any different back then? Please do not use "the Bible says so" as evidence. The Bible depends lock, stock and barrel upon authenticating miracles, and that includes the New Testament canon. If we discount miracles, all that we have left is a secular history book of mainly Middle Eastern ancient history. So, a debate about miracles is a necessary prerequisite to debating the New Testament canon. I should have thought of this in the first place.

jakejonesiv

I don’t belong to the group Xianity. I can't see your links without joining, which shouldn't be necessary for this discussion. So why don’t you answer here?

Since you have already answered these questions there, you can just cut and paste!

So here are are two easy questions.

1. When is 2 Peter first identified? (Note: I am not asking for vague alleged allusions, but a clear identification of the epistle by name). Please supply who and when.

2. When is 2 Peter first consider canonical? Please supply who and when.

Thanks,
Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Johnny,

What you say makes sense. But I am not sure there is enough common ground with praxeus to make any meaningful exchange of ideas possible.

I just saw that in a reply to me that praxeus is most assuredly sympathetic to the "King James Onlyism" movement. Adherents to this view not only consider the KJV to be the "best" English translation of the Bible, but in fact the KJV is inspired, and is more authoritative than any other English translation, or the original Greek!

Hey, that's an idea! :love: No more learning that pesky Greek and Hebrew, just learn to parse a few archaic English words, and you are in like Flint!

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Thanks for the reply,
Jake Jones IV

Johnny Skeptic

Hi Jake,

Praxeus wants the KJV? No problem. In the KJV, John 10:37-38 say "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." Acts 14:3 says "Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony [confirmation] unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands." As I said previously, the Bible, including the New Testament canon, depends lock stock and barrel upon claims of miracles, and miracles in any Bible translation still means miracles, and authenticating miracles is a necessary prerequisite to discussing the New Testament canon. Logically, deeds (miracles) authenticate God's power, most certainly not his words.

None of praxeus' criteria for evaluating what writings should have been included in the New Testament are anywhere near being valid.

Revelation chapter 22 indicates that tampering with the original texts is possible, and we have proof that this has happened since Roman Catholic Bibles and Protestant Bibles are different. Additional proof is the fact that it has never been difficult to revise the Bible and convince some people who live in remote jungle regions that the revised version is a copy of the original. So, we don't even know if the version of the original New Testament canon is the same version as the versions that we have today. So much for the New Testament canon, and so much for Biblical inerrancy.