Author Topic: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles  (Read 1052 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« on: December 24, 2013, 11:37:01 AM »
Hi, Gzusfreke.


I noticed that your avatar is based on 1 Peter 3:15. Did you know that most scholars agree that 1 Peter and 2 Peter were written by different individuals, and that none of these individuals was Saint Peter?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2013, 08:18:05 PM »
Hi, Gzusfreke.


I noticed that your avatar is based on 1 Peter 3:15. Did you know that most scholars agree that 1 Peter and 2 Peter were written by different individuals, and that none of these individuals was Saint Peter?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles

Really? Can you name the scholars and their published works (Wikipedia, People Magazine and National Enquirer don't count as scholarly sources) so that I can go and research?  Thanks.
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2013, 01:36:03 AM »
Please look in the references:

^ Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
^ a b Old Testament in the New, Steven Moyise, p. 116
^ 'Most scholars believe that 1 Peter is pseudonymous (written anonymously in the name of a well-known figure) and was produced during postapostolic times.' Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 352
^ 'Virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, which is believed to have been written by an anonymous churchman in Rome about 150 C.E.' Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 354.
^ Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 722

That's just from the first column.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2013, 01:38:03 AM by Antidote »
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2013, 07:46:04 AM »
Really? Can you name the scholars and their published works (Wikipedia, People Magazine and National Enquirer don't count as scholarly sources) so that I can go and research?  Thanks.
I think this displays some of your problems, doesn't it? You never do any research. You just "think" you know things.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #4 on: December 25, 2013, 10:35:12 AM »
Really? Can you name the scholars and their published works (Wikipedia, People Magazine and National Enquirer don't count as scholarly sources) so that I can go and research?  Thanks.
I think this displays some of your problems, doesn't it? You never do any research. You just "think" you know things.

I actually do research when I have time. But I don't count wikipedia as a reliable source.  I am familiar with Ehrman's works, and Bultmann's, and many others.  I really didn't need a list, I just wondered if you guys are familiar with real scholarly works that attack biblical Christianity.  Some of you at least know where to find a good bibliography but whether you've read the works or not is a different story.  How many of you have bothered to read scholars' works (like D.A. Carson and Wayne Grudem) that support the claims of biblical Christianity?

I also have surrounded myself with local scholars so that I can learn from them.  I go to conferences and debates so that I can learn more.  I can only know and test my faith by learning the attacks on it.  I'm not afraid to hear good, scholarly critiques and attacks.
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #5 on: December 25, 2013, 11:46:19 AM »
But I don't count wikipedia as a reliable source.

That's why you go to the references section of the article, it's there for a reason. It seriously peeves me that people don't know how to properly use Wikipedia, it's a starting point, visit the various links provided in the citations[1][2]
 1. seriously what the hell do you think THESE are for?
 2. To look pretty?
« Last Edit: December 25, 2013, 11:50:03 AM by Antidote »
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #6 on: December 25, 2013, 12:16:47 PM »
I actually do research when I have time. But I don't count wikipedia as a reliable source. 
Actually, Wiki is usually a good start. There's a lot of snobbery about Wiki. For a simple answer to a question, it serves the purpose. In this sort of forum, massive detail, huge explanations are rarely read - you adjust to the audience (as I see you do.) I see bias creeping into Wiki in places but, if you are aware of this, then adjustments can be made. Additionally, most statements of consequence have references linked to them. This gives the reader a further chance to detect bias.

So, at the end of the day, you could, in fact, have answered by reference to other sources? It sounded as if you were totally unaware of lotanddaughters' suggestion as to the authorship of Peter and were unwilling to do work yourself.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #7 on: December 25, 2013, 06:23:13 PM »
But I don't count wikipedia as a reliable source.

That's why you go to the references section of the article, it's there for a reason. It seriously peeves me that people don't know how to properly use Wikipedia, it's a starting point, visit the various links provided in the citations[1][2]
 1. seriously what the hell do you think THESE are for?
 2. To look pretty?

I've been working on a MA part-time for the last five years.  Wikipedia has not been considered a reliable reference in any class or by the institution I attend.  I have one child who is a freshman in college and another working on his masters, both are at completely different institutions.  Wikipedia as a reference, no matter how many references the wikipedia article may have, gets negative marks on the paper. 

Instead of reading what someone else says that someone else says, just go straight to the source.  If you want someone to know what Ehrman says, quote his books, not a wikipedia article.
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #8 on: December 25, 2013, 06:28:04 PM »
So, at the end of the day, you could, in fact, have answered by reference to other sources? It sounded as if you were totally unaware of lotanddaughters' suggestion as to the authorship of Peter and were unwilling to do work yourself.

I've done research in this area with real, respected sources (pro and con), and i'm satisfied the evidence points to Peter being the author of 1st and 2nd Peter.  Have you done any research on this subject, including those who argue for Peter's authorship?
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #9 on: December 25, 2013, 06:30:58 PM »
That's why you go to the references section of the article, it's there for a reason. It seriously peeves me that people don't know how to properly use Wikipedia, it's a starting point, visit the various links provided in the citations[1][2]
 1. seriously what the hell do you think THESE are for?
 2. To look pretty?

I'm pretty sure I covered that, Wikipedia is a good place to get started. If an article is properly cited you are then able to confirm the data independently from Wikipedia. You should NOT however cite wikipedia, which is NOT what we're suggesting. You're just being disingenuous by saying we're bad at looking up information when you won't even bother to properly use a resource.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #10 on: December 25, 2013, 07:04:36 PM »
That's why you go to the references section of the article, it's there for a reason. It seriously peeves me that people don't know how to properly use Wikipedia, it's a starting point, visit the various links provided in the citations[1][2]
 1. seriously what the hell do you think THESE are for?
 2. To look pretty?

I'm pretty sure I covered that, Wikipedia is a good place to get started. If an article is properly cited you are then able to confirm the data independently from Wikipedia. You should NOT however cite wikipedia, which is NOT what we're suggesting. You're just being disingenuous by saying we're bad at looking up information when you won't even bother to properly use a resource.

No, I've just been indoctrinated the past years with avoiding wikipedia.  I was even chided in years past on this forum for using it by atheists, so I am really shocked that it is now a "respected source" on the forum.
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #11 on: December 25, 2013, 07:38:12 PM »
We haven't told you to use wiki as a primary source, which is what you're implying.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12463
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #12 on: December 25, 2013, 07:46:26 PM »
We haven't told you to use wiki as a primary source, which is what you're implying.

You're talking to a wall since none of the sources at wiki are the ones that validate his position therefore you, everyone else, and wiki are all wrong.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12463
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #13 on: December 25, 2013, 07:48:32 PM »
So, at the end of the day, you could, in fact, have answered by reference to other sources? It sounded as if you were totally unaware of lotanddaughters' suggestion as to the authorship of Peter and were unwilling to do work yourself.

I've done research in this area with real, respected sources (pro and con), and i'm satisfied the evidence points to Peter being the author of 1st and 2nd Peter.  Have you done any research on this subject, including those who argue for Peter's authorship?

And yet you provide none of it here which makes your statement an opinion, and your opinion means nothing to most of the members here, in such regard.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1529
  • Darwins +101/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #14 on: December 25, 2013, 08:54:17 PM »
Just finished looking at the Introduction in my NIV Study Bible for both I Peter and II Peter.  They come down on the side of authorship by Peter or possibly dictated by Peter.  But, they are good to also point out why there is an argument to be made against Peter being the author.  Which is why I like the NIV Study Bible because even when they take a stand, they will also present the alternative idea(s). 

As with so many things in the Bible, it comes down to a matter of belief.  There is no way to prove if Peter wrote the epistles or not. 

My 2 cents,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12463
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #15 on: December 25, 2013, 09:48:56 PM »
Just finished looking at the Introduction in my NIV Study Bible for both I Peter and II Peter.  They come down on the side of authorship by Peter or possibly dictated by Peter.  But, they are good to also point out why there is an argument to be made against Peter being the author.  Which is why I like the NIV Study Bible because even when they take a stand, they will also present the alternative idea(s). 

As with so many things in the Bible, it comes down to a matter of belief.  There is no way to prove if Peter wrote the epistles or not. 

My 2 cents,

OldChurchGuy

There's no way to show evidence for many things from so long ago. Did Plato actually write The Republic, or did someone else? What "we" can do, by consensus, is say The Republic is attributed to Plato. We can say Peter 1 & 2 is attributed to the Peter bearing its name(s) but to say definitively that either wrote either works, more efficient evidence would first have to be found.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #16 on: December 25, 2013, 09:49:01 PM »
Just finished looking at the Introduction in my NIV Study Bible for both I Peter and II Peter.  They come down on the side of authorship by Peter or possibly dictated by Peter.  But, they are good to also point out why there is an argument to be made against Peter being the author.  Which is why I like the NIV Study Bible because even when they take a stand, they will also present the alternative idea(s). 

As with so many things in the Bible, it comes down to a matter of belief.  There is no way to prove if Peter wrote the epistles or not. 

My 2 cents,

OldChurchGuy

Because D.A. Carson takes five pages to give both the reasons against  and for Petrine authorship for 1 Peter, I won't be able to give you a quick response that actually has real information and not just "opinion."

If you can get your hands on a copy of An Introduction to the New Testament by D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, published by Zondervan in 2005, look at pages 641 through 646 for a discussion of the authorship of 1 Peter and 659-663 for authorship of 2 Peter.

If you like, I'll be happy to scan these pages in the near future and send them to you via an e-mail, unless there is a way to attach files in the forum.

Carson and Moo agree that many scholars dispute Petrine authorship and gives the actual reasons why those scholars do, then provides evidence to refute their reasons.

for all you wikipedia fans:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._A._Carson
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1529
  • Darwins +101/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #17 on: December 25, 2013, 09:55:34 PM »
Just finished looking at the Introduction in my NIV Study Bible for both I Peter and II Peter.  They come down on the side of authorship by Peter or possibly dictated by Peter.  But, they are good to also point out why there is an argument to be made against Peter being the author.  Which is why I like the NIV Study Bible because even when they take a stand, they will also present the alternative idea(s). 

As with so many things in the Bible, it comes down to a matter of belief.  There is no way to prove if Peter wrote the epistles or not. 

My 2 cents,

OldChurchGuy

Because D.A. Carson takes five pages to give both the reasons against  and for Petrine authorship for 1 Peter, I won't be able to give you a quick response that actually has real information and not just "opinion."

If you can get your hands on a copy of An Introduction to the New Testament by D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, published by Zondervan in 2005, look at pages 641 through 646 for a discussion of the authorship of 1 Peter and 659-663 for authorship of 2 Peter.

If you like, I'll be happy to scan these pages in the near future and send them to you via an e-mail, unless there is a way to attach files in the forum.

Carson and Moo agree that many scholars dispute Petrine authorship and gives the actual reasons why those scholars do, then provides evidence to refute their reasons.

for all you wikipedia fans:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._A._Carson

Sounds interesting. 

It appears there is a link titled "Attachments and other options" just below the response space on the left side.  This would probably allow for the attachments you are talking about.  Thanks. 

As always,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #18 on: December 25, 2013, 10:04:07 PM »
Sounds interesting. 

It appears there is a link titled "Attachments and other options" just below the response space on the left side.  This would probably allow for the attachments you are talking about.  Thanks. 

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Ok, I see it.  I will scan within the week and post.  If I get slack due to the holidays, please remind me. 
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2013, 09:53:59 AM »
I've done research in this area with real, respected sources (pro and con), and i'm satisfied the evidence points to Peter being the author of 1st and 2nd Peter.  Have you done any research on this subject, including those who argue for Peter's authorship?
No. I was merely commenting upon your style of response.

On the broader matter, there are some writings that can be attributed with a high degree of certainty to various authors: style and vocabulary play a large part. You will be aware of how certain paintings are designated as the work, or not, of a particular artist or "of his school" or "not by him."

A writing style[1] is unique but very clever pastiches[2] are hard to detect. In making any claim to authorship, it is wisest to assume the opposite result to that which you would like to be the case and then be even-handed. In reality, we need a disinterested expert.

A lot of pro-theist research is tainted: "experts" have a financial interest in the outcome and are chosen by sponsors for their preconceived notions. (We only have to look at idiots who think they have found Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat and listen to how convinced they are: a conviction that pleases their sponsor.)

As an example of the detection of writing styles, I recommend "The Hexateuch" by W. D. Addis (published in 1893) which analyses the first 6 books of the OT. It is available on the net but download the .pdf rather than any other version.

Edit to correct footnote
 1. given enough text
 2. in which I would include deliberate forgeries
« Last Edit: December 27, 2013, 08:30:38 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1529
  • Darwins +101/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2013, 11:15:01 PM »
While I have enjoyed this theological pissing contest as to whether Peter actually wrote these two epistles or not, a question came to mind earlier today.  That is, why does this matter who wrote these epistles?  I think the content is more important than determining who wrote it.  Put another way, if it could be proven that Peter wrote (or at least dictated) these two epistles how would that make the content of these epistles any more important?  Conversely, if it could be proven that Peter did not write (or dictate) these two epistles how would that make the content of these epistles any less important?

Before you explain where I am wrong, please consider we do not know the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, much less Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, etc.  Yet, as theists, we do not reject these writings because we don't know who wrote them.

As always,

OldChurchGuy 
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2013, 11:24:46 PM »
While I have enjoyed this theological pissing contest as to whether Peter actually wrote these two epistles or not, a question came to mind earlier today.  That is, why does this matter who wrote these epistles?

Uh, could it be because you went there?

Just finished looking at the Introduction in my NIV Study Bible for both I Peter and II Peter.  They come down on the side of authorship by Peter or possibly dictated by Peter.  But, they are good to also point out why there is an argument to be made against Peter being the author.  Which is why I like the NIV Study Bible because even when they take a stand, they will also present the alternative idea(s). 

As with so many things in the Bible, it comes down to a matter of belief.  There is no way to prove if Peter wrote the epistles or not. 

My 2 cents,

OldChurchGuy

Not to mention that's how lot started out the thread.

 
Quote
I think the content is more important than determining who wrote it.  Put another way, if it could be proven that Peter wrote (or at least dictated) these two epistles how would that make the content of these epistles any more important?  Conversely, if it could be proven that Peter did not write (or dictate) these two epistles how would that make the content of these epistles any less important?

Before you explain where I am wrong, please consider we do not know the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, much less Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, etc.  Yet, as theists, we do not reject these writings because we don't know who wrote them.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

You may not have any certainty who wrote many of these books, but there is enough evidence for many people who trained and studied a lot longer than the both of us to be reasonably certain.

If you can get people to not trust the authorship of the books, then you can get them to not trust what is in the books.  It's a tactic as old as the Garden of Eden.  It's called "introducing doubt."  satan never changes his tactics. it's always been "did God really say . . . " or "if you really are the Son of God . . ." Now its, did that person really write that book of the Bible.
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12463
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2013, 11:48:01 PM »
I've done research in this area with real, respected sources (pro and con), and i'm satisfied the evidence points to Peter being the author of 1st and 2nd Peter.  Have you done any research on this subject, including those who argue for Peter's authorship?
No. I was merely commenting upon your style of response.

On the broader matter, there are some writings that can be attributed with a high degree of certainty to various authors: style and vocabulary play a large part. You will be aware of how certain paintings are designated as the work, or not, of a particular artist or "of his school" or "not by him."

"some" is more of a rarity than actually being based on anything more. I used to, quite extensively for years, figure out who wrote anonymous works and many of the varying works sounded exactly the same. Only certain phrases and uses of particular words stood out from one to the other but even then it didn't amount to much. That's the problem with, not only works from back then, but works today: editors go in and edit the works to sound more "contemporary" of the time.

"some" seems even to be a stretch; and, that's the overall problem with things like the Bible: editors.  However, one can tell the difference in vernacular between the Old Testament, and New, same with the Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon. They all sound different, and if they all were the "Word of God" one would think they'd sound the same.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2013, 01:16:51 AM »
While I have enjoyed this theological pissing contest as to whether Peter actually wrote these two epistles or not,

You and me both.





a question came to mind earlier today.  That is, why does this matter who wrote these epistles?  I think the content is more important than determining who wrote it.  Put another way, if it could be proven that Peter wrote (or at least dictated) these two epistles how would that make the content of these epistles any more important?  Conversely, if it could be proven that Peter did not write (or dictate) these two epistles how would that make the content of these epistles any less important?

If the Pythagorean Theorem was proposed by someone other than Pythagoras, it wouldn't matter as much . . .

A2 + B2 = C2

 . . . because of the applicationabilityTM of this extraordinary idea.


Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, is there a passage found in the Bible that is quoted in as high regard as "A2 + B2 = C2" in intellectual circles. And rightfully so.


The Bible is claimed to be the word of God. Anyone in their right mind can see that it is not.


Bold is mine. No. I disagree. The content, as a whole, is bullshit. Who wrote it, as a whole, is bullshit. Don't believe me? Watch Christianity die out in this modern age. Wait and see. Witness church attendance drop. Watch the Republican Party of the United States whither away as every four years you get a new batch of 18-21 year olds, who didn't vote in the last presidential election, who now get to vote. This new batch of voters is ever-increasingly more homosexual-friendly, more abortion-friendly, and less religious.

My advice to you:

Jump on the "Bandwagon of Truth", or be outdated fool.



Before you explain where I am wrong,


I liked this. This shows that you are familiar with our residents here at WWGHA. Even as an atheist, I've had my "solid" arguments torn apart by our good friends.  >:(


please consider we do not know the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, much less Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, etc.  Yet, as theists, we do not reject these writings because we don't know who wrote them.

Come on. You know that you have to bring better than that here at WWGHA, lol.


As always,

OldChurchGuy

I respect you. I respect your desire to return to this site . . . time and time again . . . and I hope that you know if you met me in person, I'm a good guy. Somehow, I think you do.  :)

An incautious comment removed GB Mod
« Last Edit: December 27, 2013, 10:08:19 AM by Graybeard »
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #24 on: December 27, 2013, 10:01:06 AM »
While I have enjoyed this theological pissing contest as to whether Peter actually wrote these two epistles or not, a question came to mind earlier today.  That is, why does this matter who wrote these epistles?  I think the content is more important than determining who wrote it.

Put another way, if it could be proven that Peter wrote (or at least dictated) these two epistles how would that make the content of these epistles any more important?  Conversely, if it could be proven that Peter did not write (or dictate) these two epistles how would that make the content of these epistles any less important?

I will admit to being torn here. There is a part of human nature that looks to authority and accepts it without much thought[1]. And the misuse of authority is to be frowned upon.

If I use the name and image of a well-respected and famous person without their authority to sell my product, I am in trouble.
If I use the name and image of a well-respected and famous person as an approved endorsement to sell my product, I will expect sales to go well.
If I am a well-respected and famous person and make a statement, it is likely that I will be believed.

The Petrine Epistles are basically "trading on a name[2]."  His authority should be great, far greater than of Paul who never knew Jesus yet reinvented and rebranded Christianity.

If there is deception here, what does it say of all the associated writings? Yet, as you say, if a person finds help in it, does it matter if Peter wrote it?

Does it matter if a painting is a Da Vinci or a forgery if you like the painting? Well, if you have paid a fortune to own it or even merely see it, then "Yes, it does." That aside, to an extent the forgery is a deception and speaks to the character of the forger, not to that of Da Vinci.

If the Pauline Epistles were the work of someone else yet claiming to be original and authentic, would those words be "inspired by God", as opposed to being "helpful"? Would God approve a forger? Why would God not simply ensure the words of whoever wrote it were broadcast?

Much is helpful, even if it isn't true. (Conversely, if it is true, it need not be helpful.) But I suppose you are thinking: "Does it matter? Helpful is enough in itself.” Yet if this be so, then let us rid the Bible of the supernatural entirely because that way, it transcends religious affiliations.

Looking at the Petrine Epistles, it basically says, "Be reasonable" but takes 4 chapters to do this and it pads it all out by adding a lot about a reward in another life.

This is no different from anybody saying "Be reasonable." so at that level: no, it doesn't matter. What does matter is all that padding requires you to accept the macguffin[3] of a series of rituals and impossibilities in order to achieve this reasonableness. Does the greater good justify deception?

Quote
Before you explain where I am wrong, please consider we do not know the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, much less Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, etc.  Yet, as theists, we do not reject these writings because we don't know who wrote them.

Of the Gospels, it would help if they were reduced to one as the writers fail to be consistent on major points.

Of the first six of the OT books, it is now generally accepted there are four competing writers and an editor. Like all knowledge, the knowledge of the writers is valuable, it sets the whole in perspective and no longer demands that what we know conflicts with what is written - thus faith is aided by not having to believe the impossible[4].

The final three need cleaning up in order to present a proper history[5].

However, I can do nothing but bow to your trump card: Faith. In a recent post, I gave this by Ambrose Bierce, who always makes me laugh:
Quote
FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
If that is so, then, indeed, anyone could have written anything as long as it is believed that the words are God inspired.

I’m not sure I’ve answered the question, so I’ll say, “To the faithful, probably not but it is interesting.” I find the more I know and understand of the Bible, and its history, the more it recedes into mythology.

I honestly believe we should know as much as is possible that we can come to informed conclusions. Relying on any deception, no matter how well-meaning, is building castles on sand.
 1. as opposed to the rambling of me and others.
 2. And was not Peter the only known writer who actually said he was one of the Disciples?
 3. In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist pursues, often with little or no narrative explanation as to why it is considered so important.
 4. I seriously think it would help the cause of Christianity if someone had the balls to work them into one coherent narrative and clearly mark it as apocryphal/symbolic. It would certainly deprive us atheists of more ammunition than we can carry at one go.
 5. I see no hope at all of reform. I think you would agree that when it comes to any sort of religion or dogma, the adherents are a most conservative lot.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2013, 10:03:59 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #25 on: December 27, 2013, 10:55:20 AM »
I honestly believe we should know as much as is possible that we can come to informed conclusions. Relying on any deception, no matter how well-meaning, is building castles on sand.

Funny you should use the terms "honesty" and "deception", but I do agree with your sentiment expressed above.

I hope to get to a good scanner next week and provide you with some information that both explains why some people do not think Peter wrote 1 & 2 Peter and also the other view of why he did.
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #26 on: December 27, 2013, 11:19:39 AM »
Funny you should use the terms "honesty" and "deception",
I see no humour in it. :shrug:
Quote
I hope to get to a good scanner next week and provide you with some information that both explains why some people do not think Peter wrote 1 & 2 Peter and also the other view of why he did.
In the meantime, what do you think of OCG's hypothesis?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Gzusfreke And The Petrine Epistles
« Reply #27 on: December 27, 2013, 04:45:40 PM »

In the meantime, what do you think of OCG's hypothesis?

I thought I had responded to OCG, but if not, what specifically do you want me to respond to?
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin