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
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.
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.
QUESTION: If you believe 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
