In a culture where it seems that just about anything goes and all of it is affirmed, what kinds of ideas would we fit into Peter's category of cleverly devised myths?
It seems, strangely enough, that Holy Scripture, is seen by many as just that which Peter and the boys aimed not to follow... cleverly devised myths.
Isn't that ironic?
Rick in Va
What are we to do with the scholarly consensus that 2 Peter was not written by Peter, but rather by one who wrote what Peter would have written, were he still living. How does that affect the interpretation of the 18th verse? Shalom R.J. in ND
Hmmm...eyewitnesses who weren't there... recording the witness of others... it is worth thinking about. What does that mean? I've been thinking that this scripture reminds us that it is important to WITNESS to our experiences of Grace, but RJ in ND makes me think/pray deeper. What about witnesses we've heard...those moments of Grace that have been passed on to us by others. Do they become our moments of Grace? Do we pass that witness on? DL in ME
The scholarly consensus is not as clear cut as R.J. may be expressing. My research has uncovered that there is wide debate on authorship with many still clinging to a Petrine origin.
Some claim that the differences between the Peter's letters may be explained by Peter's use of Silas in the first letter and his own un-edited writing in the second.
Others have argued that 2nd Peter's 'connection' to Jude (2nd chapter of 2 Peter) would lead to thinking that it was written well after Peter's death, which Eusebius puts around 68 A.D., while others argue that this may be evidence for Jude's earlier date authorship.
Bottom line is that Peter's authorship is just as likely as anyone else's and I'll stick with the notion that this is either written by Peter, or someone very close to him, which means that the 18th verse ought to be read as written.
Rick in Va
I just found out about this site. Great stuff. Thanks! On a humorous note: For those of us who are wide-bodied or endowed with much body, the idea of a TRANSFIGURATION sounds great. WW in FW
2 Peter was probably the very last writing of the New Testament, written about 125 Common Era. I have yet to read a New Testament scholar whom I respect who think it was written by Peter himself. Very likely a pseudonymous author, as were many of the books included in the New Testament canon. Also the hint of gnostic concerns in the text of 2 Peter suggests this later date as gnosticism was not developed in any significant form until the early to middle second century. I find the letter, or manifesto more than a letter perhaps, to be part of the New Testament period related to the institutionalization process of the early church. Note the changes in 2 Peter from Jude with the absence of some of the author of Jude's references to non-Old Testament figures and events. Also 2 Peter is well aware of the gospel tradition as evidenced in our lectionary reading and by the reference to Paul's letters in 3:15-16, which wouldn't have been in collection from at an earlier date. Just some musings on the origen and authorship of 2 Peter. Jeffrey in Riverside
Does it really matter, in the grand scheme of spreading the gospel, if one Peter or another wrote these words? It seems to me that the Holy Scriptures were given to us by God for our edification. The fact is Christ is glorified. Pr. Tom on the "Pray"rie
I've chosen this text for my sermon on Valentine's Day. I'm dismayed by those who would argue the writer to be Peter or not. Like my personal letters, Peter identifies himself in 1:1. Hopefully, nobody will question my signature at the end of this brief ditty. God saw fit to make sure Peter put his J.Hancock on this letter. Thanks Tom on the Prairie for your simple statement. On this Transfiguration Sunday, Peter the eyewitness on that glorious mountain with a glorious Jesus says he saw it in verse 18. It backs up his claim in verse 16 that he wasn't making or preaching a gospel other than the gospel of Christ. Tack on to that verse 19 and you've got yourself a whopper of a sermon that verifies the authenticity of Scritpure. Because the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament (over 2,000 times)and the New Testament repeatedly assures us of its authenticity, "We have the word of the prophets made more certain." This amigo preacher will not question biblical authenticity. As I confirm two adults in our church this Valentine's Day, I can assure them that everything the bible teaches about God's plan of salvation through the cross of Christ is a firm foundation that will not shift with human culture, time, and opinion. "The Word of the Lord will never perish." Eat them apples, devil! The deceptive doubts you plant into people's minds about the truth of God's Word will never supplant the truth of the Almighty God. Preach them, apples!!
Dubby in Topeka
Dubby - I praise the fact that you are so certain of the inerrancy of the scripture, but I hope you also accept that many of us are not in the same place. I really felt shut out of further discussion on this text by your remarks. No intention to offend, but to let you know there are other views.
The discussion, or lack of discussion on this text is surprising. Is it so plain, or is everyone moving on to Matthew?
A final note - prophecy traditionally required interpretation as I read the First Testament - the prophets offered more than "thus saith the Lord" quotations; Joseph interpreted dreams and prophesy in Egypt. Amos, Jeremiah, Isaiah (don't even get me started on all the interpretations of Isaiah's prophesies), and more. Why would Peter want to shut down this tradition?
preachercat
preachercat, Peter wanted to shut down false teachings and teachers who were claiming, "Thus saith the Lord," but there words were not the words of God but the words of men. Chapter 2:1 begins, "There were also flase prophets among the peple, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive hereisies, ev4en deeyning the sovereign Lord who bought them." And then verse 3 goes on, "Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute." Dubby - I praise the fact that you are so certain of the inerrancy of the scripture, but I hope you also accept that many of us are not in the same place. I really felt shut out of further discussion on this text by your remarks. No intention to offend, but to let you know there are other views.
The discussion, or lack of discussion on this text is surprising. Is it so plain, or is everyone moving on to Matthew?
A final note - prophecy traditionally required interpretation as I read the First Testament - the prophets offered more than "thus saith the Lord" quotations; Joseph interpreted dreams and prophesy in Egypt. Amos, Jeremiah, Isaiah (don't even get me started on all the interpretations of Isaiah's prophesies), and more. Why would Peter want to shut down this tradition?
preachercat
Dubby in Topeka,
I loved them apples... please keep serving them.
Preachercat,
Dubby has expressed love for Scripture, why should you 'feel' shut out? This may further those feeling but it's not my intention. I think we should rely much less on our 'feelings'... feelings vary depending on the chemical balances of our body, the experiences we've just been through, our moods, and quite possibly whether or not our shoes are too tight.
Rick in Va
Preachercat, My apologies if you felt shunned by my comments. It's regrettable but unfortunately unavoidable, wouldn't you agree? There are so many views from so many different ministers and laypeople. Different theological beliefs surface and are readily apparent in our DPS comments. Scripture says that our words are to convey love and kindness and patience toward each other -- even from such diverse backgrounds. But Scripture also teaches that we must kindly, lovingly, and patiently identify that which does not agree with God's Word. Rather than accept all religious viewpoints and beliefs as equal, the bible instructs us to judge human thoughts, philophies and views to see if they are in line with the Word of God (2 Peter 2:1-2) so that "your faith might not rest on men's wisdom but in God's power" (2 Cor. 2:5). As a pastor, my duty is not just to proclaim the gospel to all people, but be a shepherd to the flock the Holy Spirit has made me overseer. I wouldn't be a good shepherd to the sheep if I let them wander off into human philosophies and beliefs that are contrary to God's Word, would I? That's not a personal judgment on anyone; simply a realization that there is one Holy Word of God that is read and interpreted by millions of sinful humans. Chances are pretty good, don't you think, that humans will err more than God will? So who determines what is right or wrong? True or false? Acceptable or unacceptable? I must judge every church teaching or "diverse views" of other by pulling out the tape measure of God's Word and checking it out for size. If Scripture proves it genuine, I embrace it. If Scripture proves it false, I have an obligation to to identify it and separate from it to preserve my bible-based faith in Christ. Thanks for your reminder, preachercat, about various views out there. What a great opportunity we have on DPS, not just to state, "I think" but to ask, "What is God directing us to think?" If I come on strong, it's only a conviction for the truth. Since the Scriptures can't be broken and the Word is truth, there can be only one truth. That's not me coming on strong, that's God himself declaring it with strength! I pray that the minds and hearts of all people may be guided by the message of God's Word and not by a desperate human preacher ... like me.
QUESTION: If you beleive God's plan of salvation through Jesus Christ and him crucified is historically true and if that gospel nugget is the only thing your faith clutches tight to on the day you are dying, will you clutch to the rest of the Bible nuggets just as tightly and accept them as truth since they all come from the same Word of God?
QUESTION: How do you determine whether its God's Word or the word of humans? A. I read other theologians B. I tell people to decide for themselves C. I let Scripture interpret Scripture
I bite the inside of my cheek in anticipation of your responses.
Dubby in Topeka
although I would more than likely agree with the average scholar that 2 Peter was written much later and by someone other than Peter the apostle, there is another thought that should not be quickly cast aside. I think many of these ancient works were edited and added to by later scribes, or followers of the original teachers. as tradition usually teaches, Mark was written as Peter's note while he preached in Rome. Maybe 2 Peter was handed down in the old oral tradition and later edited and we have both a late writer and Peter. The book of the 70's Redating the New Testament, raised an interesting point, if so much was written after the fall of Jerusalem, then why were the New Testament writers so lack on commenting about it? Thanks for the discussion, interesting..... JDL from Ohio
Dubby in Topeka
You offer a great deal to consider in a few short lines. I am getting back to the site late in the day and still finalizing things for tomorrow. I would like to visit more and to attempt to reply to your questions. I will copy and look at the first of the week. Would you mind sending your email address to preachercat@netscape.net? Then we can continue a very interesting conversation - if you are interested.
Preachercat