All scripture is God breathed.......

[Soma-Sight]

"All scripture is God-breathed …" (2 Tim. 3:16)

But at the time Paul wrote this, scripture did not yet include the New Testament. Because of this, people who limit divine revelation to the Bible, should throw out the entire New Testament because it was added into canon hundreds of years after the death of Christ.

 

[asb4God]

You Are Wrong

Peter writes the following: 2 Peter 3:15-16 "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Peter believed Paul's writings - not yet bound into the canon - to be Scripture, on par with "the other Scriptures," namely the O.T.

Scott 8-)

 

[ThinkerMan]

This is based on the very doubtful assumption that the Apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter.

It assumes that in the dozen or so years since his first known letter, Peter had collected and read all of Paul's letters, and that "ignorant and unstable people" had already distorted these letters. Quite a stretch.

Also, numerous internal references within the epistle make it seem quite late. There is a reference to previous generations of Christians, which is odd since Peter is in the 1st generation.

No one mentions or references the letter until the third century. Of all those who quote 1 Peter prior to this, none allude to 2 Peter, although it says it was written to the same folks, so you would assume the two letters would be together and referenced together.

It is also dependent on Jude and the Gospel of John(which was written 30-40 years after Peter is thought to have died). It's style is also almost completely different than 1 Peter, making claims of one author of both very weak.

In short, its quite a stretch to assume Peter wrote that. Early Christians similarly were quite skeptical of it's authenticity and authorship, so this is nothing new.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

 

[asb4God]

This is based on the very doubtful assumption that the Apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter.

"Very" doubtful only to "higher critical" scholars, generally non-Christians who seek to tear down the foundation of Scripture for their own purposes. It is roundly accepted without reservation by Evangelical scholarship.

It assumes that in the dozen or so years since his first known letter, Peter had collected and read all of Paul's letters, and that "ignorant and unstable people" had already distorted these letters. Quite a stretch.

It is, indeed a stretch, if you throw out the straw man of "all" of Paul's letters. Nothing in 2 Peter suggests Peter had read all of Paul's letters. Paul's letters were often circular in nature and were sent from church to church. They would have been well-known to Peter.

Also, numerous internal references within the epistle make it seem quite late. There is a reference to previous generations of Christians, which is odd since Peter is in the 1st generation.

I don't see such references. You'll have to point me to them.

No one mentions or references the letter until the third century. Of all those who quote 1 Peter prior to this, none allude to 2 Peter, although it says it was written to the same folks, so you would assume the two letters would be together and referenced together.

One might assume any number of things. But evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.

It is also dependent on Jude and the Gospel of John(which was written 30-40 years after Peter is thought to have died). It's style is also almost completely different than 1 Peter, making claims of one author of both very weak.

Or its similarities with Jude lead to a dependence in reverse order? How is it "dependent" upon John?? Its style is different, but it may be due to influence and help from another writer or growth in Peter's own writing.

In short, its quite a stretch to assume Peter wrote that. Early Christians similarly were quite skeptical of it's authenticity and authorship, so this is nothing new.

In short, it is a stretch given the weak case you have made - I mean, others have made and you have borrowed - to state he was not the author.

Scott 8-)

 

[ThinkerMan]

"Very" doubtful only to "higher critical" scholars, generally non-Christians who seek to tear down the foundation of Scripture for their own purposes. It is roundly accepted without reservation by Evangelical scholarship.

Even conservative scholars note that its authorship is highly controversial.

It is, indeed a stretch, if you throw out the straw man of "all" of Paul's letters. Nothing in 2 Peter suggests Peter had read all of Paul's letters. Paul's letters were often circular in nature and were sent from church to church. They would have been well-known to Peter.

In a sense you are right. But 2 Peter says "all his letters". If there were some that Peter hadn't read, how could he comment on their veracity? Peter and Paul had disagreed before, don't forget.

I don't see such references. You'll have to point me to them

2 Peter 3:4

It is in reference to why the second coming hasn't come yet, although some "fathers" or "ancestors" have already died.

One might assume any number of things. But evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.

True. I am not attempting to make a pure argument from silence, just noting the lack of reference.

Or its similarities with Jude lead to a dependence in reverse order?

Possible, though even conservative scholars believe it's dependent on Jude.

How is it "dependent" upon John??

Where he fortells in own death as Jesus said, in agreement with the gospel of John.

Its style is different, but it may be due to influence and help from another writer or growth in Peter's own writing.

Possible, although the greek in the second is considered worse, not better.

In short, it is a stretch given the weak case you have made - I mean, others have made and you have borrowed - to state he was not the author.

Yes, I did no primary research on this. I have read much about the historicity of the bible. The link I supplied has links to conservative scholars as well (check out the link to Wallace).

Comparing all the arguments, I find evidence severely lacking that Peter wrote 2 Peter. I come to that conclusion based on the total weight of these observations. While individually one or two is certainly not conclusive, the combined effect of all of them make apostolic authorship seem highly unlikley.

And it's not like it's out of the ordinary. There were numerous writings within 100 years of Paul that claimed apostolic authorship, including quite a few by Peter, that are not accepted as legitimate.

 

[DivineNames]

"Very" doubtful only to "higher critical" scholars, generally non-Christians who seek to tear down the foundation of Scripture for their own purposes. It is roundly accepted without reservation by Evangelical scholarship.

One thing that can be said, if any fakes made it in to the Bible it sure does blow apart the notion that it is the 'word of God'. (Or if it is the word of God, then God deceives us...)

 

[asb4God]

Even conservative scholars note that its authorship is highly controversial.

I stand corrected. I have never interacted with a Petrine scholar who believed Peter did not write both Epistles and I have interacted with many. But, if Wallace states that many do, I can't argue with him. I'd still like to see who is being referred to here, though. And I think we might be into degrees of intensity here. "Highly controversial" vs "controversial." I skimmed his article and it seens persuasive to me.

But 2 Peter says "all his letters". If there were some that Peter hadn't read, how could he comment on their veracity? Peter and Paul had disagreed before, don't forget.

I don't see much of a problem here in that this need not mean that all of Paul's letters are known, only that in all that are known, this is the way in which he writes. We might say "Bach composes this way in all his sonatas," and then find a sonata later that either confirms or alters this view. But from the writer's perspective, if all known letters/sonatas known have this similar feature, then it is correct to say all. To what "all" refers is the key - to all known or to all in existence.

2 Peter 3:4 It is in reference to why the second coming hasn't come yet, although some "fathers" or "ancestors" have already died.

So far, this is the weakest link. The verse says: "They will say, 'Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.'" The "fathers" clearly refers to OT ancestors, not to dad. Note the use of chronology here: (a)Where is this coming (future)...ever since our fathers died (past)...since the beginning of creation (beginning). Being drawn back into the distant past leads even more credence to the fathers of the distant past. Throughout the NT, "fathers" are spoken of in relation to the OT fathers - principally Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but including all ancestors.

True. I am not attempting to make a pure argument from silence, just noting the lack of reference.

Wallace makes some interesting comments about the lack of citation in the earliest fathers even for 1 Peter references and in the same way that references become clear for 1 Peter, they are also found for 2 Peter, though without citation.

How is it "dependent" upon John?? Where he fortells in own death as Jesus said, in agreement with the gospel of John.

Though it was immediately obvious to me that Jesus having told Peter of the manner in which he would die (John 21:18-19) is justification enough for Peter mentioning it in his own Epistle, and thus, is not dependent upon John, I give you Wallace:

In 1:14, it is rather doubtful that the author is depending on John 21:18-19. Three considerations demonstrate this: (1) If Peter actually heard Jesus prophesy his death, Peter would of course know about it whether or not he had ever read John. (2) The possibility that Peter would soon (tacinhv) die does not at all have to be a hindsight kind of statement. Peter was already old by this time and may have simply recalled that Jesus’ words needed to be fulfilled (i.e., of a violent death). If his death was not to be of natural causes, it had better be soon! (3) As Bauckham points out, kaqwV" kaiv (1:14)

Possible, although the greek in the second is considered worse, not better.

There are obvious solutions to this question, to include the way in which letters were penned (with the aid of amanuensis - first?) and Peter's desire - though not refined in his education, though educated in the normal way as his contemporaries - to write well, without the aid of amanuensis, for his final letter. It is not persuasive to say "Peter did not write this letter" for this reason, especially since in writing his own name in his own way - Symeon - we would rather expect that he did that himself, instead of a later writer, who would have simply used "Peter."

And it's not like it's out of the ordinary. There were numerous writings within 100 years of Paul that claimed apostolic authorship, including quite a few by Peter, that are not accepted as legitimate.

Yes, there were many such writings. I don't find the arguments against Petrine authorship very persuasive, primarily because the onus is on the critic and the critic's arguments are made fairly weak with ease. That is how I begin such a consideration that what has been accepted for so long is overruled by new arguments. If the arguments can be batted down without much sweat-breaking, then I am not sold.

Scott 8-)

 

[ThinkerMan]

I don't find the arguments against Petrine authorship very persuasive, primarily because the onus is on the critic

On the contrary, I think the onus is on Christians to demonstrate apostolic authorship if they claim it.

and the critic's arguments are made fairly weak with ease.

And such is the opinion you are entitled to, although to me it looks like mental gymnastics. Combined with other authorship issues of other NT epistles and books, I find it resembles a whole eastern european Olympic squad.

Regardless, I haven't had the opportunity to chat with you prior to this, so welcome to the forum. In case you haven't figured it out otherwise, I am an atheist (so as to not misunderstand my position). While I disagree with your ultimate conclusion, I appreciate your approach to the question and your willingness to address the specifics of my post. Unfortunately, such courtesy and honest exchange of ideas among threads here is the exception rather than the rule.

Have a good one....

TM

 

[asb4God]

Thanks

Thanks,

I have enjoyed chatting with you as well. But you won't be an atheist for long. It is a curable malady. :wink:

By the way, if you are interested in a wonderful study designed for atheists and other non-Christian types of various stripes, I suggest Alpha (http://www.alphausa.org/). It is a 10 week course that either meets in a church - or more likely a home - that covers a great deal of the Christian faith. As a more academic type myself, and one who has viewed this entire program, I recommend it highly as not a simpleton's view, but a very comprehensive and, at times, exhaustive look at the faith. No questions are considered too trivial or too agressive.

You can find a course near you at the website above. If you live in the Sacramento area, one happens to be starting in my home next Wednesday night. PM for details.

Blessings,
Scott 8-)

 

[xxangelzkiss]

i agree

 

[John the Baptist]

"All scripture is God-breathed …" (2 Tim. 3:16)

But at the time Paul wrote this, scripture did not yet include the New Testament. Because of this, people who limit divine revelation to the Bible, should throw out the entire New Testament because it was added into canon hundreds of years after the death of Christ.

****
Boy young fellow, you sure are 'striving' for hell in quick fashion! See Genesis 6:3 & Genesis 4:7 :

Read John 1:1-3 and John 1:8-14
and your verse of 2 Timothy 3:16
finds NO BEGINNING for the "All of Scripture" "given by the Inspiration of God". Was it written yet? What does that matter??? Even Romans 2:14-15 finds that there was enough of Christ to have souls Eternally Saved!! :fadein: (so that kind of destroys your smarts too, huh! 2 Corinthians 4:2)

Anyway: See Psalms 77:13. But yes, I know, it takes another not penned as yet verse of John, to see where you are coming from, huh?
1 John 4:6 says: "We are of God: he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the Spirit of Truth, and the spirit of error."

It seems that you have the problem! When God had before decreed that Christ's time had come, He was then sent. See Isaiah 42:21

---John

 

[Soma-Sight]

Boy young fellow, you sure are 'striving' for hell in quick fashion! See Genesis 6:3 & Genesis 4:7

Please look up the dates on the gospels versus Pauls writings.

Paul quoted from the Q Gospel as John didnt even exist until 40 years later.

I DIDNT KNOW INTELLECTUAL QUESTIONING WAS FOR THE HELLBOUND! I GUESS GALLILEO MARTIN LUTHER FOUND THAT OUT THE HARD WAY!

 

[John the Baptist]

Boy young fellow, you sure are 'striving' for hell in quick fashion! See Genesis 6:3 & Genesis 4:7

Please look up the dates on the gospels versus Pauls writings.

Paul quoted from the Q Gospel as John didnt even exist until 40 years later.

I DIDNT KNOW INTELLECTUAL QUESTIONING WAS FOR THE HELLBOUND! I GUESS GALLILEO MARTIN LUTHER FOUND THAT OUT THE HARD WAY!

***
John here:

Questioning's??? You are stating satanic fact! With no if or and's about it!
And you call that intellectual??????? (you :wink: :roll

And M.L. would be a lost soul today with the knowledge that you have access to, if he still was a Revelation 17:5 one!

Then you question Romans 4:17's last part of the verse also, huh? OR Proverbs 8:25-31 with that of Christ as a child even before He was born!

But bottom line young'in, is that all dates are added by uninspired man, along with some more of what is termed 'intellectual' stuff! And the WORD of God is DATELESS!

PS: Try more 'inspiration' from 1 Corinthians 14:32 for when Paul was not even on the scene yet! And best still is THE Christ of Mathew 4:4, to prove the 2 Tim. 3:16 verse.