Second Epistle Of Peter

[VirginShallConceive]

His authorship of both epistles is argued http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles

Hi, Agape.

That is interesting. Thanks for joining the discussion. 2 epistles is a lot to cover. You can see how long the article that I posted was, and that was only one epistle and only one side of the argument. But hey, all Petrine discussions are fine with me. Bring it.

 

[Mitspa]

I dont care to look at any of these links, its like a link to a debate that is not a debate. If I did look and search the matter out I already know what is at the root of it?
"did God really say"

If someone started a thread called" is Jesus the real Son of God", and then posted links to the debate, I would not look at those either. What I would do is point out the way satan works! and ask why some who claim to be believers would even bring up such nonsense?

 

[Agape]

Hi, Agape.

That is interesting. Thanks for joining the discussion. 2 epistles is a lot to cover. You can see how long the article that I posted was, and that was only one epistle and only one side of the argument. But hey, all Petrine discussions are fine with me. Bring it.

The pleasure is all mine, this is an interesting topic, and I will read the article you posted. Since I don't know much about petrine controversies, I tried to find more resources I am sharing below.

First, we need to understand why the authorship of 2 Peter was questioned. Here is a summary:
1- There are major differences with 1 Peter.
2- This letter was acknowledged as pseudepigrapha.
3- There is literary dependence on Jude (indicates late date).
4- The reference to Paul's letters as Scripture (indicative of the second century).
5- There was difficulty in acceptance of 2 Peter to the canon.
source: http://www.theopedia.com/Second_Epistle_of_Peter


Here are more helpful resources:
The Authorship of Second Peter, by Hampton Keathley
http://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter

The Authenticity and Authorship of 2 Peter (basictheology.com)
http://basictheology.com/articles/The_Authenticity_and_Authorship_of_2_Peter/full/

Is 2 Peter Peter’s?, by Wayne Stiles
http://bible.org/article/2-peter-peter’s

2 Peter ("Early Christian Writings") - supports pseudepigraphal authorship
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

Now, I am going to read all this and jot down key points, will be back soon.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

The pleasure is all mine, this is an interesting topic, and I will read the article you posted. Since I don't know much about petrine controversies, I tried to find more resources I am sharing below.

First, we need to understand why the authorship of 2 Peter was questioned. Here is a summary:
1- There are major differences with 1 Peter.
2- This letter was acknowledged as pseudepigrapha.
3- There is literary dependence on Jude (indicates late date).
4- The reference to Paul's letters as Scripture (indicative of the second century).
5- There was difficulty in acceptance of 2 Peter to the canon.
source: http://www.theopedia.com/Second_Epistle_of_Peter


Here are more helpful resources:
The Authorship of Second Peter, by Hampton Keathley
http://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter

The Authenticity and Authorship of 2 Peter (basictheology.com)
http://basictheology.com/articles/The_Authenticity_and_Authorship_of_2_Peter/full/

Is 2 Peter Peter’s?, by Wayne Stiles
http://bible.org/article/2-peter-peter’s

2 Peter ("Early Christian Writings") - supports pseudepigraphal authorship
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

Now, I am going to read all this and jot down key points, will be back soon.

I like the easy-to-follow organization that you have provided. I will check out those links, and I can't wait for you to return.

 

[Mitspa]

Again i say that there is no debate. The epistle has been found in the oldest known manuscripts, both Latin and Greek from all over the Christian world. Satan always comes as just wanting to have a debate, "did God really say"

Peter said it right, that false teachers shall bring in damnable heresies and shall bring destruction upon themselves.
For if God did not spare the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, He will do likewise to these false teachers.

I guess if I was a false teacher, I would want to get rid of this epistle also?

It does not matter how some may attempt to discredit the scriptures, the fact that one has read it make one responsible to its truth.

All men will stand before God and give an account to Him.
I would not want to be in the number of those who have attempted to cast doubt upon His Word.

Do what you like? I have attempted to warn you. no mans blood is upon my hands.

 

[Agape]

I like the easy-to-follow organization that you have provided. I will check out those links, and I can't wait for you to return.

Thanks VSC. I suggest we deal with one argument at a time to get started and the first argument for pseudonymnity is that there are major differences with 1 Peter, and here is one example of internal evidence.

2 Peter opens with the name "Simon Peter" as the author (2 Peter 1:1) whereas "Simon" is absent in 1 Peter 1:1.

To me, this is a minor difference since both are correct. Simon is his birth name and Peter is the name the Lord gave him. In his first epistle, he introduced himself by giving his full name and in the second he dropped his birth name and used only the name Jesus gave him.

 

[P31Woman]

There is not a debate on this epistle!
"did God really say" is at the heart of all satans attacks upon Gods people.

I agree that is at the heart of many of Satan's attacks.

Now if someone who is not a believer tells you his college professor said the book of Peter is not even written by Peter what are you going to say to help them realize God's Word is a trustworthy souce of divine revelation?

Tip: reading the link VSC posted will help us greatly.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Thanks VSC. I suggest we deal with one argument at a time to get started and the first argument for pseudonymnity is that there are major differences with 1 Peter, and here is one example of internal evidence.

2 Peter opens with the name "Simon Peter" as the author (2 Peter 1:1) whereas "Simon" is absent in 1 Peter 1:1.

To me, this is a minor difference since both are correct. Simon is his birth name and Peter is the name the Lord gave him. In his first epistle, he introduced himself by giving his full name and in the second he dropped his birth name and used only the name Jesus gave him.

I agree that it seems pretty minor.

 

[P31Woman]

This was pointed out to me in class. Good reason for Satan to attack the truthfulness of this book.

2 Peter 3

just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,

2 Peter 1

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

and still in chapter 1

5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, 6 and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, 7 and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

all scripture quotes NASB