Is 2 Peter clearly a forgery?

Page 3 of 5 [ 65 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

01 Mar 2011, 7:27 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

fathers could mean "ancestors" and "scriptures" could mean as understood by the Apostles.
there I fixed it.

it is probably not written by peter.
but it is possible that it is.

because you stacked the deck with the word "clearly"
then possible wins the day.
because I fear you will not see it clearly
as long as there is a tiny ledge of possibility
to build a defense of the received view on.

"the orthodox view could be true hence the orthodox view must be true"
seems to me to be your mode of analysis.
this is how the minds of the faithful work and there is nothing wrong with that.
-Jake

Jakob, it's ok to be humble. Just admit that you were wrong for interpreting "fathers" as "Apostles". Or at least admit your interpretation is unlikely to be correct.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

01 Mar 2011, 7:31 pm

91 wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

Did Bart Ehrman take note of that?

No. Ehrman and his mates are more interested in slinging mud than taking note of things.

I think the flaw here is that some people who have an axe to grind against their previous faith tend to look for counterarguments to almost every Christian claim instead of looking for the most probable and objective explanation (whether it's Christian in origin or not).

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Mar 2011, 7:39 pm

The problem is that you are in disagreement with what is widely considered a fact at this point.

http://www.religion-online.org/showchap ... 116&C=1234

Just go down to the part on 2 Peter. Now, this is a textbook for crying out loud... as well as New Testament, and it is the New Testament element that is the greatest concern.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

01 Mar 2011, 7:48 pm

MCalavera wrote:

91 wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

Did Bart Ehrman take note of that?

No. Ehrman and his mates are more interested in slinging mud than taking note of things.

Bart Ehrman was religous for most of his career.
and was a theist when he wrote Orthodox corruption of scripture.
so axe-grinding does not solve explain everything.

-Jake

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

01 Mar 2011, 7:50 pm

MCalavera wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

Jakob, it's ok to be humble. Just admit that you were wrong for interpreting "fathers" as "Apostles". Or at least admit your interpretation is unlikely to be correct.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

01 Mar 2011, 7:56 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Note: I just read the 2 Peter section.

1. 2 Peter was not the only Scripture questioned by the Church fathers. That scholar is being selective with his words here.

2. He fails to address the Amanuensis argument (a valid one).

3. The immediate "canonization" theory is not taken into consideration. His argument about "the other scriptures" ignores this.

4. He fails to address the letter circulation argument.

And so on.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

01 Mar 2011, 7:59 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

:roll:

I am being serious here.

If you still think it's likely that "fathers" within that context meant "Apostles" then there's a problem.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

01 Mar 2011, 8:05 pm

MCalavera wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

:roll:

I am being serious here.

If you still think it's likely that "fathers" within that context meant "Apostles" then there's a problem.

no you have proved it to me :roll:

you are a genius :roll:

2 peter is so fake that line coulda meant the desert fathers.
but you and the theists proved me wrong by saying tradition trumps reason.
so you are so right
:roll:

Paul is a modern evengelical christian.
and peter agreed with him completly.
:lol:

Last edited by JakobVirgil on 01 Mar 2011, 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Mar 2011, 8:05 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

Bart Ehrman was religous for most of his career.
and was a theist when he wrote Orthodox corruption of scripture.
so axe-grinding does not solve explain everything.

-Jake

Well, right, and given that a number of Biblical scholars without this heavy axe basically agree with Ehrman, and given how much Ehrman really appeals to "mainstream scholarship", it is hard to really say that Ehrman is just this crazy man out there. He's not. He makes his arguments often explicitly stating "This is what scholars believe" and he gets away with it.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Mar 2011, 8:24 pm

MCalavera wrote:

1. 2 Peter was not the only Scripture questioned by the Church fathers. That scholar is being selective with his words here.

He was only writing about 2 Peter. He isn't writing about other books.

Quote:

2. He fails to address the Amanuensis argument (a valid one).

It doesn't address anything he stated though.

Quote:

3. The immediate "canonization" theory is not taken into consideration. His argument about "the other scriptures" ignores this.

That's because it isn't reasonable or believable. The early church fathers doubted the validity of this scripture, how could they hold it to have already been canonized? Even further, all of your arguments that it works have been ad hoc efforts to make claims about the psychology of the early Church, a psychology that you have no access to.

Quote:

4. He fails to address the letter circulation argument.

You'll have to restate this one, but I don't see the relevance.

Quote:

And so on.

You mean that you have given up on all pretenses of finding the truth. You have fastened onto your fundamentalist brainwashing. And that you won't change your mind because you are too inflexible? I understand that this may be the case, but nothing you have ever presented is really half as compelling as you think it is. You're standing against the general agreement of the people who know a LOT MORE than you do, on grounds that are flimsy and where you can't even recognize their flimsiness.

There isn't much use reasoning with you on this, because you think it is true on a basic level what most people would have to express incredulity towards.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

01 Mar 2011, 9:10 pm

Quote:

You're standing against the general agreement of the people who know a LOT MORE than you do, on grounds that are flimsy and where you can't even recognize their flimsiness.

Good point. I will let go of this argument for now and figure out why the general agreement.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

02 Mar 2011, 12:03 am

JakobVirgil wrote:

91 wrote:

^^^^

The interaction of Christian particularism with cultures of doubt goes back at least to when St. Paul got off the boat in Greece. Though it most likely started the moment Christ met Pilate.

There it is again this untenable projection of a modern evangelical mode of thought on the past. I do not claim to know what Paul thought be can be sure that he was not a Calvinist, a Baptist, a normative Rabbi or a Proponent of New Covenent Theology.
-Jake

Well I would say that Christian particularism, though certainly a new term, is a new term for a very old idea.

AG wrote:

That's because it isn't reasonable or believable. The early church fathers doubted the validity of this scripture, how could they hold it to have already been canonized?

The only senior church father to doubt it was Eusebius and he still considered it valid despite these doubts. Origin considered it valid, though he acknowledged that others had doubts. Others like Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory, Rufinus, Cyril and Epiphianius and Augustine all considered it completely legitimate. The early Christian councils also considered it valid. The canonized statement is a bit misleading. Peter and Paul both claimed such a status for their legitimate works so to accept it's validity is to accept its status as scripture.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Mar 2011, 12:17 am

91 wrote:

MCalavera's idea is that canonization is immediate. This is what is being rejected, as the existence of doubts suggests that this is not as clean and clear as an immediate canonization.

Even further, I don't see much evidence that these authors believed their own writings were scriptures, or even that they had the authority to claim their writings were a scripture. They can claim that their teachings are correct, but that is an entirely different issue than saying that my letter to a group of people in Wisconsin is actually an inspired text by God valid for everybody. Paul wrote to specific individuals. Paul also did at times explicitly speak ideas that were only his ideas. It is hard to say that these ideas were by nature a scripture. Even further, if there are lost Pauline epistles, which many think there are due to references to other writings that we lack in Paul's existing letters, then the very loss of this information is strong evidence against an instant canonization view, as the NT writings have generally not only been maintained, but also maintained very well, so the discrepancy is very odd.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

02 Mar 2011, 2:45 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Even further, I don't see much evidence that these authors believed their own writings were scriptures.

'If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.'
1Corinthinains 14:37

Both Peter and Paul claimed canonical status within their writings (2 Thess 3:14; 1 Cor 2:16, 7:17, 14:37–39, 2 Pet 1:19).

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

02 Mar 2011, 3:51 am

91 wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Even further, I don't see much evidence that these authors believed their own writings were scriptures.

People like you and I are inclined to believe that such words imply scripture status, but for some reason, some see it differently.

There's a reason Paul made it clear in his intros that he was the Apostle of Christ sent by God and set aside by him to preach the Gospel to the nations.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

02 Mar 2011, 4:43 am

MCalavera wrote:

91 wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Even further, I don't see much evidence that these authors believed their own writings were scriptures.

St. Augustine and St. Thomas, who were leaders of the early Church clearly held the same view of these claims. St. Jerome, in particular, upon whom a good deal of the literature relating to Second Peter comes from, held the view of divine inspiration almost to the point of divination. Your idea about immediate canonization is correct; at least from the point of view of those who were discussing the works claims. The idea of a steady adoption of Second Peter's place within the canonized works related solely to the book's origin. Once the decision of its origin was made, it was accepted as inspired. AG's claims relating to how Second Peter's content was approached (that its scriptural status was a separate issue) is not something that is supported in the history; rather it is the imposition of an outside view, since we have a good deal of access to this process and the way the Church Fathers thought about these issues.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Page 3 of 5 [ 65 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

Is 2 Peter clearly a forgery? Post Reply New Topic

Is 2 Peter clearly a forgery?