JMAN05:

How do you say it could not have been Paul, when he identified himself as such? 2Tim. 1:1.



The writer identified himself (2Pet 1:1). He stated he had written an initial letter (2Pet 3:1).

If not Peter, who is it that witnessed Christ's magnificence? 2Pet. 1:16.

That an account was accepted latter as inspired didn't mean it became inspired that time. It only means the inspiration of it was noted later.

The book was not written when its inspiration became accepted by many.

OLAADEGBU: @Sarassin, this is another article that punches holes into your misconstrued objections.

OLAADEGBU

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18).

Here is the commentary of the Lord Jesus on the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration. Not only were the words of the Bible divinely inspired, but even the very letters!

The “jot” was the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet (jod, the tenth letter). The “tittle” was a small horn-like appendage which transformed one Hebrew letter into another. Thus, a stronger statement of absolute verbal inspiration than this could hardly be imagined.

Sarassin:

Claiming inerrancy is a slippery slope;

PastorAIO:

Ol boi, it's the slipperiest slope that anybody can choose to stand on. The Bible makes so many mistakes all the time everywhere. Even internally, it is internally inconsistent with itself.

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: "BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY; Mark 1 verse 2

If God wrote this, surely God himself would know his own inspiration and know that Isaiah the prophet said no such thing. The writer of Mark was quoting Malachi 3 vs 1. He got muddled up and attributed it to Isaiah. Now, would God make such a mistake.

And let's not forget how these people like to jump and dance if someone else should make the slightest error in quoting the bible, even spelling mistake sef. So we see, according to them, God demonstrating ignorance of his own scripture. How they most look down on God for that?

It was even on this thread that the OP was trying to start a parade, even a pageant sef, over a line about kissing the son. If that was worth the brouhaha then how much more will he dance over God not knowing one prophet from the next.

Sarassin:

In my view, the Book 2 Peter is most assuredly a forgery in the name of Peter. “Petrine Pseudepigrapha” is nothing new and there are quite a few apocryphal “Petrine” Gospels written early to late second century, try reading the Apocalypse of Peter, which narrowly missed out making the canons, it is scary!

We know that Peter was a low-classed Aramaic speaking fisherman who would have from an early age grown up on the waters. In Acts 4:13 we are left in no doubt he is “unlettered” uneducated and illiterate. On the other hand, 2 Peter is written in high-quality Greek by someone who was fluent in the language and who was thoroughly imbued with the Jewish Scriptures in their Greek translation.

Interestingly, Papias tells us that Mark was the official scribe/interpreter of Peter and it is through the eyes of Peter we have the Gospel of Mark, you can therefore draw your own conclusions.

2 Peter was not widely accepted, or even known in the early church. The first time any author makes a definitive reference to the book is around 220 CE, that is, nearly 150 years after it was allegedly written.
You could probably figure out yourself that much of the diatribe in the book is borrowed practically wholesale, from another book, the epistle of Jude. This is one of the reasons for dating the book itself to around 120 CE or so when the Epistle of Jude itself was written.

As you probably know, the author is particularly concerned about people who scoff at the Christian idea that the end of the age is coming soon, as predicted “through the commandment of the Lord and Saviour by the holy prophets and [b]your apostles”[/b] Clearly the author wasn’t one of the apostles.

Sarassin:

Yes, we see the use of that mechanism by the Prophet Isaiah, i.e referring to future events as past events, however, predictive text (that is what it is) is very clear and narrative text is also very clear and there is a huge difference. The authors of "Deutero" and possibly a "Trito" Isaiah must have been contemporary to what they wrote, the narratives and use of language which they tried very hard to place in the lifetime of Isaiah bears this out. Later priests following in the tradition of Isaiah simply copied his methods.

JMAN05
As far as you do not doubt the chapter 13, case closed.

You are just dying in assumptions. The first century christians that quoted Isaiah never identified this ur mysterious Isaiah, but you are here more knowledgeable than them.

This early apostles never stated that one Isaiah was unknown.

Secondly, the original work of the Dead Sea Scroll shows a continuity from Chapters 39 to the beginning of chapter 40, he never created a division among the two.

When the prophet prophesied about events in Jesus' life, do you also say another Isaiah in the first century CE wrote it?

this discussion isn't making sense at all.

JMAN05
He was "unlettered" does not mean that Peter was an illiterate. Jews were taught from infancy. Peter is not an exception. He never attended one of the rabbinic school, that was why they dubbed him "unlettered".

But does not acts 4:13 even shows the power of God in his servants? though he was "unlettered" who could have thought he would be so eloquent? God can sharpen any man's ability. That verse should even teach us that it is even possible that he will write that account. Many who doubt Peter's ability forgot that this men were empowered by the holy spirit. When Peter and others were speaking in another language in pentacost, who taight them those language they were sspeaking?

Answer me:

Who helped John to write his epistle?

Peter stated that he was an apostle already. 2pet 1:1. He is however, not an apostle to the gentiles. I will do more research on that though. But he is really an apostle as the first verse nd chapter shows.

Ubenedictus: Actually all jews were actually taught to read the torah from infancy.

Jesus didn't learn under the rabbis yet when he appeared in the temple he read the torah and said "this passage is fulfilled before your eyes".

This reading of the torah was supposed to mark the transition to adulthood of a jewish man.

Sarassin:

Let us not forget that the Torah consists of the first five books of Moses.
The Jews were taught to Recite key portions of it
The vast majority of early Jews had the scriptures read to them.

Ubenedictus:

let us not forget that Jesus actually read from the prophets, not not some selected portion of the torah as you claim.

Sarassin:

Peter was Illiterate, end of story. He came from Capernaum on the shores of the sea of Gallilee, a school did not exist there. Who told you "Jews were taught from infancy" that is a nonesense. The vast majority of first century Palestinians could neither read nor write. It is a far cry from speaking in tongues (even Nigerians do it) but you don't all write high-quality Greek.

I have no interest in who helped John write his epistle.

The Muratorian fragments are dated to around 170CE

Irenaeus lived from early second century. Kindly supply chapter and verse of Irenaeus' quotation of 2 Peter.
The tradition is that 2 Peter drew from Jude, (2 Peter, Chap. 2).

Sure, anyone can state anything.

Sarassin:

Yes, I believe that if you look closely at the sayings of Jesus and Rabbi Hillel (the elder) you will find that Jesus probably had a first class education at the feet of Hillel. The same cannot be said of Peter.

Sarassin:

There is no dispute that Isaiah authored chapters 1-39 of the volume that bears his name.
First century Christians never identified deutero-Isaiah, true, how could they? they could barely identify themselves, the book was written 700 years prior.

Absolutely pointless.

Isaiah made no such prophecy. Surely if he was prophetic enough to name Cyrus, then without any doubt he would have named Jesus.

That confirmation of Isaiah 13 is enough to quell your argument, but cos you do not understand that the chapter is one of the problem scholars holding the same opinion as you hold has, you did agree. Had you read well, I know where else your copy and paste argument will lead to. But thanks for not being a "sharp photocopier".

So even Jesus do not also know? Sorry for you. sorry.

JMAN05
I hope the issue of Jude should have been cleared from that your answer. No?

PastorAIO:

Ol boi, it's the slipperiest slope that anybody can choose to stand on. The Bible makes so many mistakes all the time everywhere. Even internally, it is internally inconsistent with itself.

PastorAIO:

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: "BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY; Mark 1 verse 2

If God wrote this, surely God himself would know his own inspiration and know that Isaiah the prophet said no such thing. The writer of Mark was quoting Malachi 3 vs 1. He got muddled up and attributed it to Isaiah. Now, would God make such a mistake.

PastorAIO:

And let's not forget how these people like to jump and dance if someone else should make the slightest error in quoting the bible, even spelling mistake sef. So we see, according to them, God demonstrating ignorance of his own scripture. How they must look down on God for that?

PastorAIO:

It was even on this thread that the OP was trying to start a parade, even a pageant sef, over a line about kissing the son. If that was worth the brouhaha then how much more will he dance over God not knowing one prophet from the next.

Sarassin:

The issue of Jude is very clear.

The Muratorian canon would have been in circulation roughly around 170CE as I mentioned earlier. It contains amongst others, the Epistle of Jude. 1 and 2 Peter are not contained. Indicating, either they were not written at the time, recently written as to not be included or considered forgeries. Your problem is quite obvious and huge, you seek to place the dating of 2 Peter within the lifetime of Peter who died around 65CE, don't waste your time....or mine.

Sarassin: @JMAN05

You say Irenaeus quotes 2 Peter 3:8 in against heresies 5.23.2

I reproduce 5.23.2 here for you in its entirety.

"Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die. But according to the cycle and progress of the days, after which one is termed first, another second, and another third, if anybody seeks diligently to learn upon what day out of the seven it was that Adam died, he will find it by examining the dispensation of the Lord. For by summing up in Himself the whole human race from the beginning to the end, He has also summed up its death. From this it is clear that the Lord suffered death, in obedience to His Father, upon that day on which Adam died while he disobeyed God. Now he died on the same day in which he did eat. For God said, 'In that day on which ye shall eat of it, ye shall die by death.' The Lord, therefore, recapitulating in Himself this day, underwent His sufferings upon the day preceding the Sabbath, that is, the sixth day of the creation, on which day man was created; thus granting him a second creation by means of His passion, which is that [creation] out of death"

Here is 2 Peter 3:8

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Sarassin: @JMAN05



You really should reserve your apology for yourself, and perhaps should take the time to read through the posts on this thread properly before jumping in willy-nilly with a scatter gun approach.

If you cannot make a distinction between what is predictive prophecy and narrative text then this didscussion is pointless. I have stated for the umpteenth time that I have no issues with Isaiah giving predictive verses per se, my view is that all of the predictions were not Isaiah's. Your irritation at your perception of my failure to bite at your chapter 13 cherry is more at yourself and preconceived arguments than at anything else, if you cannot see that there are narrative verses that place a second Isaiah in the midst of events outside the lifespan of Isaiah Ben Amos, then we can agree to disagree and frankly, I am tired of repeating myself.

OLAADEGBU:

"Comfort Ye My People!" - Wayne Watson.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tDSuJOsGV8

"Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: . . . . The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

-- Isaiah 40:1-3

JMAN05:

No, you are mistaken cos the fragment available is not all there is to the fragment, some may have been lost according Dr. Geoffrey Mark. Again, the fragment is not a final authority to what is canonical. It could also be that the letter hasn't gotten to them at the time of writing the fragment. The internal evidence is a good prove of authenticity though. Irenaeus and Cyril also accepted it.

No, about 64 CE.

JMAN05:

"And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since a day of the Lord is as a thousand years, 2 Peter 3:8 he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103523.htm

Sarassin:

Kindly point out to me where exactly Irenaeous quotes 2 Peter 3:8 in the quotation you cited.

Sarassin:

Not quite. Yes some part of the original document is lost but we know essentially what books comprised the compilation, for instance, the author tellsus he accepts 4 gospels, even though the first two gospels are missing from the fragment. It is the earliest known compilation of the NT canons. In any event, you claim the writer of Jude copied from Peter, if that were the case, how come Peter, the earlier writer did not make the canons and Jude who, according to you wrote later.....made the list?

OLAADEGBU:

You would soon realise that you are the one on a slimy, slippery slope when I show you how you have just shot yourself in the foot, again.



What does Mark 1:2 actually say?

"As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before your face, which shall prepare your way before you" (Mark 1:2)

[b]Where did this verse quote Isaiah? It says clearly here that "as it is written in the prophets" Mark quotes Malachi 3:1 as you have said but where did you see Mark attributing it to Isaiah? [/b]If Mark quoted Isaiah at all it will be in verse 3 where he quoted Isaiah 40:3. Malachi and Isaiah both prophesied many centuries in advance, of the coming of John the Baptist as the forerunner of our Lord Jesus Christ. There's no other book ever written that contains specifically fulfilled prophecies as the Bible, yet the Bible contains hundreds of such. Divine inspiration is the only reasonable explanation.



Now that you have been shown to be the one who misquoted the Bible would you now eat your humble pie and apologise?



Now that you have been exposed for being a fraud and a would you have the courtesy to apologise and repent for accusing God for making mistakes?

JMAN05:

If you state that some parts of the bible are wrong, you are saying that God is an authur of falsehood to some extent, not so? or are you saying that God didnt guide the pening of everything written there?

The bible need not be deified. It isn't a talisman either. But the bible is infallible.

What we may view as error in the bible is not from its authur, Jehovah, but from we humans and other things I cant just itemize for now.

That the bible is infallible does not mean that other secular books are wrong in whatever they say, but none of them that contradicts God's word of truth is correct.

JesusisLord85:

Jehovah? Who is that?

JMAN05:

The Creator of the Universe.