steve_bnk

To gain a perspective you only have took at Ronald Reagan. We have the factss of his administration. Yet only decades later we have widely divvergent views of who he was as a president and person, his presidency, and effects good or bad.

Chili

Totally wrong. Mary came from heaven but not Jesus. And there was no mistake in the original creation. Original sin is good, it gave us the TOK so we and look with our own eyes and know what is good and what is bad, and so also chase pretty girls because beauty became a value to seek and maintain.

Vorkosigan

Let's bring it down to earth. Carr is being sarcastic. His argument is that if Jesus had been known as a teacher in early Xian history, then people would have (1) accused each other of misinterpreting Jesus and (2) in list of actions Xians were compelled to do, among them should be remembering the words of Jesus. But we have no evidence of either. 2 Pet, Mat 7, 2 Cor, 1 Tim, 2 Tim, and 1 John all warn of false teachers or false apostles. But nobody is ever warned of individuals using Jesus' words falsely.

I hope this is clear.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

And 'Peter' is very adamant that people were misinterpreting Paul and scripture.

They were misusing arguments from authority - which means that for him, Paul and scripture were authorities.

So where did the Jesus go?

Why was there Hell to pay when Christians 'twisted' the words of Paul, and yet Peter seemed not to even know there were teachings of Jesus.

Chili

Peter would deny them . . . he moved to Rome and they still deny them them to this very day. Just tidbits here and there is enough for them, as if they were scraps from the rich man's table.
.

andrewcriddle

It is unlikely that 2 Peter was written before there was widespread knowledge of teachings attributed to Jesus.

The subtext/implication of 2 Peter on Paul is that Paul is very very easy to interpret in ways of which the author of 2 Peter disapproves. Paul is apparently regarded in 2 Peter as an unusually problematic authority.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

Andrew, we hear from scholars that there was an "oral tradition" and whole communities like Q that preserved the sayings of Jesus. We hear the claim that Paul preserves something directly from the Lord. The forger of 2 Peter knows Paul. Your claim of "no widespread knowledge" can't possibly apply to 2 Peter, and given the claimed existence of an oral tradition and communities of sayings transmitters, seems hard to sustain.

Vorkosigan

sotto voce

Said the guy wearing the blinkers.

'Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.' 2 Pe 1:1 NIV

The righteousness of Jesus the Christ, Jesus the Messiah, was what mattered; not his teaching. And are intelligent people really going to suppose that this righteousness was the guess of ordinary people who invented a mythical messiah? Or did the likes of practical people like fishermen, who voluntarily stopped being fishermen, to meet the ire of the Sanhedrin, really come up with such fond abstraction?

'I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.' 2 Pe 1:13-14 NIV

Do give over.

aa5874

According to "Church History" 2 Peter does NOT belong in the Canon. 2 Peter is an admitted forgery.

Why do we have to go over these basic and fundamental issues???

Church History 3.1.3 If we do our homework, if we do 'background checks' on ALL the Epistles we will find that they do NOT represent the 1st century at all. ALL of them have falsely attributed authors EXACTLY the same way as the Gospel authors were falsely attributed to give the impression that they were composed by actual disciples and contemporaries of Jesus.

All the Canonised Epistles are Post Marcion.

andrewcriddle

I'm sorry, I think you have misunderstood my rather clumsy way of putting things.

It is unlikely that 2 Peter was written before there was widespread knowledge of teachings attributed to Jesus. is meant to be equivalent to It is highly likely that 2 Peter was written after there was widespread knowledge of teachings attributed to Jesus. which seems to be what you are saying.

IIUC we both agree that 2 Peter (almost certainly) knew of teachings attributed to Jesus. I was arguing that the absence in 2 Peter of any criticism of alleged distortions of Jesus' teachings is most unlikely to mean that the author had never heard of any such teachings and must have another explanation. (IMO the explanation is that the author was more dubious about the reliability of using Paul as an authority than about using Jesus as an authority.)

Andrew Criddle