How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Guest]

Quote:

As for 2Peter's words about Paul's writings, I wouldn't take anything written here to the bank since no one knows who really wrote this book or letter.

Which is why I'm glad I don't have to look to you, to see what I can take to the bank or not.

[John317]

IF Peter did write this or had someone write it, it is clear that Peter did not agree with everything that Paul had written and what is written about "the rest of the Scriptures", is clearly referring to the Old Testament, for the word "Scriptures" is capitalized.

In the ancient Greek Codices, ALL letters are capitalized. Therefore the fact that the word "Scriptures" in 2 Peter 3: 16 is capitalized is irrelevant. It is a decision of the translators and printers. The writer himself made no such distinction. For instance, you will find that the 1611 edition of the KJV capitalized the word "Scripture" in 2 Peter 3: 16, whereas many modern editions of the KJV do not.

What is clear from the verses in 2 Peter is that the writer is saying Paul was given wisdom from God to write his letters, and they are placed on a level with other inspired Scriptures.

Quote:

The writer used the same word in 2Peter 1:20 to refer to the Old Testament only.

The word in 2 Peter 1: 20 is singular and without the definite article (because of its technical meaning), whereas the word in 3: 16 is plural and takes the definite article. Both refer to the holy writings as a whole.

This is a good argument that 2 Peter 3: 16 is placing Paul's writing on a level with the Old Testament. By this time in NT history, the early Christians were already viewing certain of the writings as inspired from God and as "Scriptures." They had to decide this in order to know what books they could surrender to persecuting authorities and which books they would hide and even defend with their lives.

[John317]

... IF Peter did write this or had someone write it, it is clear that Peter did not agree with everything that Paul had written...

What do you see that causes you to believe Peter disagreed with what Paul wrote?

[John317]

Since "the God of truth" saw fit to give the Jewish people (& the world) a purely inspired collection of writings pointing FORWARD to the coming of the Messiah, why wouldn't the same "God of truth" also provide such a collection of writings to the church & the world in order to explain the story and significance of the Messiah's coming AFTERWARDS?

It doesn't make a bit of sense to me that this "God of truth" would have the writings AFTER the Messiah's coming written and collected in such a way that every individual would have to decide subjectively for himself what parts were from Satan and what parts were from God. It seems to me that be would like God's mixing the signals and directions to Adam and Eve about the Tree, and then leaving it up to them to decide what His real commandment was. The record is that God made His commandment crystal clear and He didn't allow Satan to send messages to them that appeared to be from God.

We can apply the same principle to the Scriptures, i.e., both the Old and New Testaments.

[Guest]

Thank you John.

[Musicman1228]

John said, "What is clear from the verses in 2 Peter is that the writer is saying Paul was given wisdom from God to write his letters, and they are placed on a level with other inspired Scriptures."

You are making the assumption that because 2 Peter is in the NT that it's origins have been verified and that the author was in fact Peter. In reality there is a massive amount of evidence that Peter did not write either 1st or 2nd Peter, and no one is absolutely sure who did. So you are basing a part of your Christian identity out of books that may or may not be valid. What proof do you have that the writer of the Peters had the authority to make the claim that Paul wrote inspired Scripture in the first place? There is none. The two Peters are part of a group of seven documents called the Seven Catholic epistles which were included in the Canon by the Council of Leodicea in 363-364 CE. This group of men were all leaders in the Holy Catholic Church, charged by Constantine to come up with a way of holding his Roman empire together. The New Testament that you hold to be the inerrant, inspired, unalterable Word of God as is the OT was put together by Catholics for the purpose of holding the Catholic Roman empire together for Constantine. So you are effectively saying that God is a Catholic and that we should all subscribe to and submit to the Catholic Church view point on the use of the NT that promotes the primacy of the Catholic church.

By claiming that the NT is the very Words of God you make excuses so that you can honor the very church you view as the great Beast of Daniel 7. I don't get it.

[Guest]

I've never seen anything in the NT that supports the primacy of the Roman Catholic church. I believe Paul in 2Thess 2:3 prophetically refers to the Pope as "That man of sin". Also anyone who rightly studies the book of REV. can see the RCC identified and exposed.

Do you have an example of how the NT upholds the Catholic church?

[wayfinder]

Which Pope?

[Guest]

THE Pope. The position. The papacy.

[Musicman1228]

I've never seen anything in the NT that supports the primacy of the Roman Catholic church. I believe Paul in 2Thess 2:3 prophetically refers to the Pope as "That man of sin". Also anyone who rightly studies the book of REV. can see the RCC identified and exposed.

Do you have an example of how the NT upholds the Catholic church?

You have, as usual, completely missed the point. It was the Roman Catholic church that put the New Testament together as a single volume in 363 CE. So by your accepting the New Testament in total as Holy Writ you are giving credence to those who put the NT together in the first place. And when you do this you give the Roman church greater authority than they otherwise might have, done by tacit agreement: You use their Bible therefore you acknowledge that they had the authority to put the NT together in the first place. You question everything about the Catholic church and it's place in the religious identity of the world EXCEPT for this fact. Why is that, Richard?

The 'man of sin' is Satan, not the Pope.

[Guest]

The New Testament that you hold to be the inerrant, inspired, unalterable Word of God as is the OT was put together by Catholics for the purpose of holding the Catholic Roman empire together for Constantine.

According to you, so was the OT, which you swear by. So either you are the pot calling the kettle black, or you don't have your facts straight, which would not surprise me at all. You've been proven wrong about so many other things, it would just be another notch on the wrong post.

[wayfinder]

Richard, The OT was widely accepted in Christian groups in the first, second, and third century, so to leave it out of the canon would have been absurd. The only question the committee had was what writings should be included that were written after the ministry of Christ. The volume of documents from every ideology and divergent Christian practice was overwhelming, to say the least. It was because of the plethora of Christian teaching that Constantine convened the canonical council to determine what Christian teaching would be authoritative and accepted in the new religion of the Holy Roman Empire. It was the NT that gave the Holy Roman Empire the authority to change times and "laws". Paul teaches salvation for Gentiles apart from works of the law and against circumcision.

[Guest]

They don't have the authority to change times and laws, they only think they do.

Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: ......

How do you think the NT gives them authority to do anything?

[Dr. Rich]

Yes, I agree John, if you want to believe that way, it is a choice one has to make. All I am saying is that I chose to follow the testimony of Jesus given by His eyewitnesses. And here is the problem with that: Jesus never said anything about righteousness by faith. He also never said anything about being saved by grace. He clearly told John to write that those who Satan makes war with are those that keep all of the ten commandments and the words Jesus gave us when He was here.

So John, if I chose to obey Jesus then why are you and Richard so disrespectful with me? So we don't see eye to eye on this matter at this time, but time soon will tell what is the truth. And I know that you don't believe in 'cheap grace' either and I can go along with that.

[Guest]

We're not disrespectful to you Rich. I might be but John isn't, and I don't mean anything by it. The way you talk to people, you kind of bring it on yourself.

[Musicman1228]

Richard, you are saying that if one believes the OT then one MUST believe all of the New Testament as well. And if that is the case then would it not follow that one should believe and follow the writings of EGW as an extension of the OT and NT? Where is this requirement seen in Scripture?

Questions: was Jesus a Christian when He lived on earth? Did He subscribe to the teachings of Paul as to what it means to be a Christian? What was the Scripture He used to defeat the Devil and the leaders of Israel? What was His basic premise for salvation?

These questions point to a distinct difference between what Jesus Christ taught and what most Christians believe today. So my final question for you is this: would Jesus Christ call Himself a Christian is He lived on earth today?

[phkrause]

Not wanting to answer for Richard but how can you ask, was Jesus a Christian when He lived on earth? Did He subscribe to the teachings of Paul as to what it means to be a Christian?, Jesus was already gone from the seen! Jesus was a Jew who tried to show his fellow Jews that they were not living up to there heritage. And at the same time how could he subscribe to Paul's teachings? When again he was already gone. Paul came after Jesus, did he not? Paul was actually subscribing to Jesus' teachings not the other way around. Now with this next question are you saying if Jesus lived here now, would it be as the Messiah or just another person like us, because this would change how it can be answered. If Jesus was coming for the first time, to save the world, he'd be here as a Jew. If he was just born like the rest of us, than I'd say who know's. I think this is a hard question MM.

pk

[John317]

You are making the assumption that because 2 Peter is in the NT that it's origins have been verified and that the author was in fact Peter. In reality there is a massive amount of evidence that Peter did not write either 1st or 2nd Peter, and no one is absolutely sure who did.

As has been said before, there are other books of the Bible for which there is no certain proof of the author. There is debate over the author of a number of Bible books, both in the Old and in the New Testaments. There is even substantial debate over the Apocalypse, to say nothing of the Gospel of John. So if you are going to go by the beliefs of liberal scholars who use "higher criticism," you would be in a position of also possibly rejecting John's authorship of Revelation and the Gospel. I believe those critics are wrong regarding Revelation and the Gospel, and I believe they are also wrong about First and Second Peter.

It seems to me that you are neglecting to tell the full story of the evidence either pro or con as regards 2 Peter. There are many good, conservative Bible scholars who accept the book as from the apostle Peter, and they give persuasive reasons for their acceptance. Even some so-called liberal scholars accept it. Among those scholars was John A.T. Robinson, one of the most respected textual scholars of the twentieth century.

He dated 2 Peter to A.D. 61-62.

Other NT scholars who have written on the topic and given their reasons for accepting 2nd Peter as canonical--

Kruger, MJ, (1999) “The Authenticity of 2 Peter,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.4, p.645-671

S. T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament II p. 250

F. Spitta, Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas (1885)

C. Bigg, ‘The Epistles of St Peter and St Jude’, in International Critical Commentary

ROBINSON'S Dating of the NEW TESTAMENT --

James

c. 47-8

1 Thessalonians

early 50

2 Thessalonians

50-1

1 Corinthians

spring 55

1 Timothy

autumn 55

2 Corinthians

early 56

Galatians

later 56

Romans

early 57

Titus

late spring 57

Philippians

spring 58

Philemon

summer 58

Colossians

summer 58

Ephesians

late summer 58

2 Timothy

autumn 58

Mark

c. 45-60

Matthew

c. 40-60+

Luke

-57-60+

Jude

61-2

2 Peter

61-2

Acts

-57-62+

1 John

c. 60-65

2 John

c. 60-65

3 John

c. 60-65

1 Peter

spring 65

John

c. -40-65+

Hebrews

c. 67

Revelation

late 68 (-70)

Here's what the wikipedia says about Robinson's views on NT dating:

Quote:

Although Robinson was firmly within the camp of liberal theology, he did challenge the work of colleagues in the field of exegetical criticism. Specifically, Robinson examined the New Testament's reliability, because he believed that very little original research had been completed in the field during the period between 1900 and the mid-1970s. Concluding his research, he wrote in his work, Redating the New Testament that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost willful blindness".

Robinson concluded that much of the New Testament was written before AD 64, partly based on his judgement that there is little textual evidence that the New Testament reflects knowledge of the Temple's AD 70 destruction. In relation to the four gospels' dates of authorship, Robinson placed Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65. Robinson also argued that the letter of James was penned by a brother of Jesus Christ within twenty years of Jesus’ death, that Paul authored all the books that bear his name, and that the apostle John wrote the fourth Gospel. Robinson also opined that due to his investigations, a rewriting of many theologies of the New Testament was in order.

C. H. Dodd, in a frank letter to Robinson wrote: "I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton, the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic's prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud."Robinson's call for redating the New Testament was echoed by subsequent scholarship such as John Wenham's work Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Other subsequent works calling for redating of some or all of the gospels were written by such scholars as Claude Tresmontant, Gunther Zuntz, Carsten Peter Thiede, Eta Linnemann, Harold Riley, Bernard Orchard.

Quote:

MUSICMAN-- By claiming that the NT is the very Words of God you make excuses so that you can honor the very church you view as the great Beast of Daniel 7. I don't get it.

Accepting the NT does not mean supporting or honoring the Roman Catholic Church. The books of the NT were accepted by the ancient Christian congregations long before the Council of Laodicea. The view that makes the Council responsible for deciding which books were inspired would have you believe that the Council compelled people to accept certain books, but this is not what happened. The Councils verified what the churches had already been doing.

The wikipedia gives this information on the canonical acceptance of Second Peter--

Quote:

Acceptance of the letter into the canon did not occur without some difficulty; however, "nowhere did doubts about the letter's authorship take the form of definitive rejection." The earliest record of doubts concerning the authorship of the letter were recorded by Origen (c. 185 – 254), though Origen mentioned no explanation for the doubts, nor did he give any indication concerning the extent or location. As D. Guthrie put it, “It is fair to assume, therefore, that he saw no reason to treat these doubts as serious, and this would mean to imply that in his time the epistle was widely regarded as canonical.” Origen, in another passage, has been interpreted as considering the letter to be Petrine in authorship.

Before Origen's time, the evidence is inconclusive; there is a lack of definite early quotations from the letter in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, though possible use or influence has been located in the works of Clement (d. c. 211), Theophilius (d. c. 183), Aristides (d. c. 134), Polycarp (d. 155), and Justin (d. 165). Eusebius (c. 275 – 339) professed his own doubts, see also Antilegomena, and is the earliest direct testimony of such, though he stated that the majority supported the text, and by the time of Jerome (c. 346-420) it had been mostly accepted as canonical.

Don't you agree, MM, that it's an oversimplification to say that the Council of Laodicea is the reason we have the book of Second Peter? Clearly, to draw this conclusion would be ignoring a great deal of important history.

[Guest]

Proven wrong again MM. Will it ever end?

I guess the better question would be: Is there anything you are right about?

[wayfinder]

Richard, do your research. First of all, Origen is one of the most questionable theological authorities. He even believed that the devil could receive salvation in the future, if he were penitent and that Jesus Christ is subordinate to God the Father.

The internet and written material are weighted on the side of pseudonymous authorship of 2 Peter, do your own research if you won't accept mine or MM's.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/2peter_kruger.pdf

Michael J. Kruger, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.4 (1999):

645-671.

The Authenticity of 2 Peter

—

Michael J. Kruger j

J. N. D. Kelly in his commentary on 2 Peter confesses that “scarcely anyone nowadays

doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous.”1 Indeed, from the very start this epistle has had a

difficult journey. It was received into the New Testament canon with hesitation, considered

second-class Scripture by Luther, reluctantly accepted by Calvin, rejected by Erasmus, and

now is repudiated as pseudonymous by modern scholarship. Joseph B. Mayor agrees with the

current consensus when he declares that 2 Peter “was not written by the author of 1 Peter,

whom we have every reason to believe to have been the Apostle St. Peter himself …. We

conclude, therefore, that the second Epistle is not authentic.”2

Why all the difficulty? The argument against the authenticity of 2 Peter turns on three

main problems: (1) problem of external attestation in the early church; (2) stylistic and literary

problems with 1 Peter and Jude; and (3) historical and doctrinal problems that seem to

indicate internal inconsistency and a late date. Undoubtedly, 2 Peter has a plethora of

problems. Most scholars believe its path towards canonical status was littered with pitfalls and

detours for good reason. If so, then why reopen a discussion which apparently deserves to stay

closed? It is not because I presume to have solved all the conundrums that have so vexed

capable scholars throughout church history, but because, in the case of 2 Peter, the other side

of the argument seems mainly untold. It is untold because scholars have reached a conclusion

about its authorship upon which they agree (a novel event in a field where there is little

agreement on anything). Therefore, it would be most beneficial for us to reconsider the “other

side”—indeed, scholarly progress is ensured by a willingness to rethink what has already been

thought—and to question what has already been decided.

[Guest]

Internet?

[Guest]

He even believed that the devil could receive salvation in the future, if he were penitent

How is that any worse than you believing the Holy Spirit is a woman, or that the second coming is going to be a secret?

[shadow]

Thank you, Wayfinder. That is very enlightening. I wish more folks would take the time to read the book that you and Musicman wrote so that they would better understand how the new testament evolved.

[Guest]

One of your students wayfinder, or is that your alter ego?

Hmmmmmm............

[wayfinder]

Is it demeaning for the Holy Spirit to be a woman or is being a woman somehow sinful in and of itself?

The answer to your other question, I have no idea who shadow is, but obviously they do their own research.