John A. Broussard

He leans toward very early dates, though the material he refers to are copies of copies of copies.

There's nothing wrong with that, since he freely admits preferring the views of scholars who favor very early writings--which are no longer extant--rather than positing an oral tradition as a basis for these much later writings.

luminous

Is it possible that the author didn't remember Jesus' words regarding this prophecy and that Matthew wasn't considered holy scripture yet?

gregor

If God was inspiring the author of 2 Peter, I'd think that ready explanation (we haven't reached the ends of the world with the good news, that's why no second coming yet) would have come in handy.

luminous

Just because Peter didn't use the "ready explanation" doesn't mean that the book wasn't inspired, does it? Peter responded differently. So what? What exactly are you trying to prove in citing 2 Peter?

gregor

First, I'll assume that you are using "Peter" as a placeholder for the real author (who is anonymous).

The gist of the OP was "now that we're bringing the good news to China, can the second coming be far behind." This appeared to supply a ready excuse for Jesus' well-publicized "no show." Excuse for the delay: It takes a while to get to all the corners of the world.

However, as was already pointed out earlier in the thread, in Corinthians Paul acknowledged that the gospel has been spread to the known world - so it couldn't have been a true condition precedent to the second coming. And my point is that in 2 Peter the author is grasping at straws to explain the no show in 150 CE. He never comes up with an excuse. He basically just says 'God's time is God's time' - pretty lame excuse if you ask me. Wouldn't this have been a perfect use of the "ends of the world" get out of prophesy free card?