Saturday, May 28, 2011

FacePalm of the Day #81 - Debunking Christianity: Harold Camping Step Aside, Jesus Was Wrong And Should Be Ignored Too

John Loftus pointed to the following video but he and many other often make this facepalm worthy accusations against Jesus. They claim that Jesus should be considered a false prophet because he promised his 2nd advent in the lifetime of his followers and it didn't happen. Still hasn't happened yet. Here is the video:





So why is this not a problem? Let's look at the scriptures and deal with three accounts being pointed towards.
28 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it[d] is near, right at the door. 30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. - Mark 13:28-31

32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. - Matthew 24:32-34

29 He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.
32 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. Luke 21:29-33

Many skeptics say we should try to read the Bible horizontally. Let's do that. The question is what does "generation" mean? The events Jesus is referring to can't mean his second advent given the verses that comes from directly after their proof texting.

32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. 34 It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.
   35 “Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36 If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. 37 What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’” - Mark 13:32-37

36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
   42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. - Matthew 24:36-44

34 “Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you suddenly like a trap. 35 For it will come on all those who live on the face of the whole earth. 36 Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”  - Luke 21:34-36

So why would Jesus in one breath say "I'll be back in your lifetime." And then in the next breath say "no one knows the day or hour" and to live as though it  could be at any moment." Does that make sense? That is a major contradiction and there is no reason to add it. Even if you think that the Gospels are not inspired or written according to eyewitness testimony, you have to admit that it makes no sense for a single author to conflict himself so strikingly. It makes more sense to agree that Jesus was not saying the Judgment day was promised before Jesus' hearers died. Many scholars today actually look at these passages as referring to more than just Jesus' second coming but refers to the destruction of the 2nd Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Some even think that the entire passage only refers to 70 AD. I'm not willing to go that far.

As for what Jesus meant by "generation", the word was translated from the Greek word "Genea". Genea can refer to the group of people living at the same time. However "race" or "that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family". Jesus clearly was not saying he would return before everyone who was listening him died.  He did promise that they would see their nation destroyed before that group who was listening to him all died out.

Recall what the disciples were asking Jesus. They asked him:

3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” - Matthew 24:3
 
Was Jesus wrong? No he wasn't. He answered their question. I don't think it can be shown that those who heard Jesus heard what Loftus reads into Jesus' words now. I do think the Bible bears out that they did think Jesus was going to return in their lifetimes. Jesus told them to live as if He was going to return in their lifetimes. Just as we should today. However, Jesus did not set at a date. Neither should we.

Debunking Christianity: Harold Camping Step Aside, Jesus Was Wrong And Should Be Ignored Too
Enhanced by Zemanta

52 comments:

  1. So why would Jesus in one breath say "I'll be back in your lifetime." And then in the next breath say "no one knows the day or hour" and to live as though it could be at any moment." Does that make sense?

    Of course it makes sense. How many days and hours are there in a lifetime? Saying something will happen during someones lifetime does not mean you are saying you know the day or the hour. I know you will probably retire during your lifetime. I don't know the day or hour. Make sense? This isn't a contradiction at all. The gospel authors are alleging that he said "I don't know when exactly, not the hour or day, but it'll be during your lifetime".

    Now that's not to say he was wrong, he was probably just talking about the Roman hammer falling. But that's not prophetic, that's just someone living in an occupied territory that had had the hammer dropped on it before. Many people accurately predicted, after WWI, that WWII was right around the corner. That's not magic, it's just being observant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The gospel authors are alleging that he said "I don't know when exactly, not the hour or day, but it'll be during your lifetime".

    And what verse is that? If no one knows the day or the hour that does not mean that we know it will be in our lifetime.

    Now that's not to say he was wrong, he was probably just talking about the Roman hammer falling. But that's not prophetic, that's just someone living in an occupied territory that had had the hammer dropped on it before.

    So which is it? Was just talking about 70 AD or not. The event that Jesus was talking about was unprecedented and would never be repeated. Israel was wiped out as a political state. The temple was destroyed. And based on the reactions from those hearing the prediction, they never really thought that the Romans would ever come down so hard on them. Think about it. The "Roman hammer" fell so hard and so definite that we are still living with the consequences of what they did after almost 2000 years. The severity paled anything that came before - from a Jewish perspective. IF you think that it's not prophetic then maybe you don't understand what Jesus said or what happened about 30-40 years after He said it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If no one knows the day or the hour that does not mean that we know it will be in our lifetime.

    Right, and not all cows are ground beef, but all ground beef is cow. You said definitely that saying "I'll be back in your lifetime." while also saying "no one knows the day or hour" is a major contradiction and clearly you were wrong, it's not a contradiction at all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you know that it's going to be in your lifetime, then you are setting a time and Jesus said no one knows that. It's a contradiction. Clearly and obviously Jesus did not say that he would return in the life time of the ones hearing the prophesy. He was referring to the destruction of the Jewish national identity - which is something I mentioned in the original post and you agreed with. Sounds like you just want to prove that you can show that I have gotten something wrong and will not be happy until I admit I am wrong about something.

    So, here goes. I am a sinner deserving of hell and there is nothing worthwhile about me apart from God's saving grace. I am no better or smarter than any other human being. I am grateful for God's unmerited grace and favor he has extended to me. Happy now?

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you know that it's going to be in your lifetime, then you are setting a time and Jesus said no one knows that.

    No, he said no one knows the hour and the day.

    Happy now?

    Can you just say you were wrong about it being a contradiction that Jesus said "no one knows the day or hour" and also said "I'll be back in your lifetime."? You over reached. It happens...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Can you just say you were wrong about it being a contradiction that Jesus said "no one knows the day or hour" and also said "I'll be back in your lifetime."? You over reached. It happens...

    That is the point. Jesus did not say he would return in the lifetime of those he was speaking to. He could not have meant that if no one knows when the second coming is. Jesus did not mean that no one knows the day or hour within a certain range of time. He meant that no one knows when the second coming is going to happen but the Father.

    And besides that you simple side-stepped the issue that you yourself agreed to that the destruction of Jerusalem was in view. There is a contradiction if you say you know when something is going to happen and then say no one knows when that event is happening. Both verses are not referring to the same events (as you have admitted).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jesus did not say he would return in the lifetime of those he was speaking to.

    Well, a plain reading of Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32 and Matthew 24:34 begs to differ. My point was 1) you were wrong about about it necessarily being a contradiction to say say "no one knows the day or hour" and also saying "I'll be back in your lifetime.". A lifetime comprises many hours and days. You need more information, which you don't have, to say it's definitely "a major contradiction". And 2) your whole apologetic is unnecessary if you accept that a) the gospel authors were referring to 70 CE or b) the gospel authors contradict themselves.

    As for it meaning "race", well Paul really seems to contradict that in 1st Corinthians 7:29-31. Of course Paul was just full of it too.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, a plain reading of Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32 and Matthew 24:34 begs to differ. My point was 1) you were wrong about about it necessarily being a contradiction to say say "no one knows the day or hour" and also saying "I'll be back in your lifetime.". A lifetime comprises many hours and days. You need more information, which you don't have, to say it's definitely "a major contradiction". And 2) your whole apologetic is unnecessary if you accept that a) the gospel authors were referring to 70 CE or b) the gospel authors contradict themselves.

    Day or hour does not refer to the period of a lifetime. The way Jesus us using the idiom, if you don't know a particular day or hour, you don't know the year or anything about the time.

    Second the gospel does not contradict itself if you Jesus was not saying that he was referring to his second coming being witnessed by those he was talking to and he was not saying that.

    As for it meaning "race", well Paul really seems to contradict that in 1st Corinthians 7:29-31. Of course Paul was just full of it too.

    When Paul wrote:

    29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

    Paul was not saying that he knew Jesus was coming back during his lifetime. He considered it a possibility so he was telling them to live as though it was imminent because it was and is now. I expect that Jesus could return any second but I don't know when I just intend to be ready for when he does. You have provided nothing to not reason that "race" is not a better translation than "generation".

    Paul said nothing to contradict himself or the other writers of the New Testament or Jesus himself. Maybe you should reconsider who's "full of it".

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh sweet mother....

    if you don't know a particular day or hour, you don't know the year or anything about the time.

    If you don't know a particular day or hour, you can still know the week, month, year or any unit larger than day or hour. Stunning...

    Also please demonstrate where Paul was using speculative language in 1st Corinthians 7:29-31. Simply asserting that he was considering it a possibility does not make it so...

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you don't know a particular day or hour, you can still know the week, month, year or any unit larger than day or hour. Stunning...

    You do know what an idiom is don't you? You know the New Testament writers use them? Guess not.

    Also please demonstrate where Paul was using speculative language in 1st Corinthians 7:29-31. Simply asserting that he was considering it a possibility does not make it so...

    Paul never claimed to know when Jesus was returning. He recognized that it could be any moment. I don't see anything wrong with that. That's true even now. Can you prove that Paul was saying Jesus is coming back in his lifetime. Ever compared what Paul said in Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus? In those books, he didn't think that Jesus was returning before his own death. He was staring his own death in his face. Do you think he would have repudiated or changed anything he had written in 1st Corinthians 7:29-31? If you do, then no wonder the idioms of the Bible are lost to you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If by idiom you mean the use of ὥρας not as a literal 60 minute period but as "a time" in general, then sure. It's becoming archaic, but we still use it today with phrases like "the hour is late" or "the hour is at hand". None the less, something like "Although I do not know the hour of your death, I know it will be soon" is perfectly valid and not a contradiction, so keep trying. If that's not the idiom you are referring to (you weren't specific, I wonder why...) then please let me know and explain in detail how you know that this particular idiot encompasses all possible units of time smaller than and included "a generation".

    Ever compared what Paul said in Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus? In those books, he didn't think that Jesus was returning before his own death.

    He was having a Harold Camping moment.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Me: ...then please let me know and explain in detail how you know that this particular idiot...

    Freudian slip...

    ReplyDelete
  13. If by idiom you mean the use of ὥρας not as a literal 60 minute period but as "a time" in general, then sure. It's becoming archaic, but we still use it today with phrases like "the hour is late" or "the hour is at hand". None the less, something like "Although I do not know the hour of your death, I know it will be soon" is perfectly valid and not a contradiction, so keep trying. If that's not the idiom you are referring to (you weren't specific, I wonder why...) then please let me know and explain in detail how you know that this particular idiot encompasses all possible units of time smaller than and included "a generation".

    So define "Soon". You are obviously not using it the way the Bible does.

    8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

    10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare - 2 Peter 3:8-10

    He was having a Harold Camping moment.

    Arguing that we don't know the day or the hour but we can know that it will be in our or anyone's life time is just like Camping and the others. Some people actually argue that we can't know the day or the hour but we can know the year. That is the camp you just stepped into.

    I'd be inclined to accept your typo "idiot" for "idiom" as an honest mistake but since you prefer to think of it as a "Freudian slip" says more about you then you'd like to admit.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So define "Soon"

    Within a generation.

    'd be inclined to accept your typo "idiot" for "idiom" as an honest mistake but since you prefer to think of it as a "Freudian slip" says more about you then you'd like to admit.

    Well, you are an idiom.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So we are supposed to take your understanding of "soon" versus someone who was there, standing before Jesus and hearing him? Oh, I know you don't believe the Apostle Peter wrote 1 Peter or 2 Peter, but I also know you can't prove he didn't. Therefore you have no real good reason to discount his definition of "soon". I think he can tell us much better what Jesus intended for us to understand than you can.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The NIV uses the word "soon" at around 110 times and none of them are in 1st or 2nd Peter. So why do you think 2 Peter 3:8-10 defines "the way the bible uses" it?

    Those books are also essentially pulling a Camping. The first generation of believers had started to perish and there was a feeling that maybe Jesus wasn't coming back "soon" like he'd said so whoever wrote Peter was just reacting to that sentiment.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 2 Peter directly addresses the issue of defining the point at which the 2nd coming would happen. You can't prove that the Apostle Peter did not write 2 Peter. You, or anyone, who sets a date for the 2nd Coming is pulling a "Camping".

    ReplyDelete
  18. You, or anyone, who sets a date for the 2nd Coming is pulling a "Camping".

    Well I wouldn't say I set a date for something that's make believe. I would say it's pretty clear the gospel authors were wrong, but they were still hedging their bets (which is what you all do).

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ahh...you and Camping have a lot in common. You just won't let someone who was there listening to Jesus and saw the things He did tell you what Jesus said and why Jesus said it. That sure is a lot of pride. You weren't even thought of and yet you think you know what the writers of the New Testament said and spin it so that you can wiggle your way out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You just won't let someone who was there listening to Jesus and saw the things He did tell you what Jesus said and why Jesus said it.

    It requires one to swallow a large amount of pride to admit we just don't know if those people were actually witnesses to Jesus. Even though said person really wanted to believe they were.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It requires one to swallow a large amount of pride to admit we just don't know if those people were actually witnesses to Jesus. Even though said person really wanted to believe they were.

    So because you can't prove to your satisfaction that Peter wrote the epistle 2nd Peter, you think its reasonable to throw out what it says. Have you ever considered that your criteria for deciding if 2 Peter is authentic might be the problem? Or do you have too much pride for that? I know for sure I didn't write it, so your problem isn't with me. I'm just saying what it says. What would convince you that the same man who was with Jesus throughout his earthly ministry and denied Jesus three times and then preached the resurrection is the same one who wrote 1 and 2 Peter? Would anything? Would it take a consensus most critical scholars? There was such a time when most scholars did agree that it was the same Peter. The pride is yours, not the part of those who believe the Bible is true.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So because you can't prove to your satisfaction that Peter wrote the epistle 2nd Peter, you think its reasonable to throw out what it says....

    Being pseudepigraphical in and of itself doesn't necessarily call into question the authenticity of a work, for example, the gospel of Mark never claims to be by Mark, so you can't hold what Papias (well, Irenaeus really...) said about it against the work itself. But in the case of 2nd Peter, you can and should question its factual authenticity because the author himself is making false claims. It's absolutely reasonable to "throw out" (I would say "take with a grain of salt", but same difference) what "Peter" says, after all if the actual author lied about his identity, then it's safe to assume that it's possible, even likely that he has an agenda that overrides any dedication to presenting an accurate record of events.

    What would convince you that the same man who was with Jesus throughout his earthly ministry and denied Jesus three times and then preached the resurrection is the same one who wrote 1 and 2 Peter?

    It would take a consensus of most biblical scholars.

    There was such a time when most scholars did agree that it was the same Peter.

    There was also a time that most scholars agreed that the four humors affected our health or that phlogiston was a real thing. As a layman, you are safe to assume that current scholarship, which has been built upon past scholarship, is more complete than past scholarship. That's not to say additional evidence won't come to light that will make future scholarship more complete than current scholarship or that will show current scholarship to be completely wrong, but in the absence of that potential future evidence, you cannot just assume that the potential future evidence will be exactly what you want it to be just so you can believe exactly what you want to believe (well, I guess you can since you clearly do, but you give up any claim to being reasonable).

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's absolutely reasonable to "throw out" (I would say "take with a grain of salt", but same difference) what "Peter" says, after all if the actual author lied about his identity, then it's safe to assume that it's possible, even likely that he has an agenda that overrides any dedication to presenting an accurate record of events.

    Prove the author is not the Apostle Peter. If you cannot, then you are the one believing what "you want it to be just so you can believe exactly what you want to believe (well, I guess you can since you clearly do, but you give up any claim to being reasonable)."

    But then you never claimed to be "reasonable".

    ReplyDelete
  24. Prove the author is not the Apostle Peter.

    Hit a nerve? You really are epistemologically impaired and don't understand what "prove" means. See Russell's teapot for further information on why your comment, heck, why you are absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You made a claim. You said that who ever wrote the Epistles attributed to Peter lied. And can't possibly prove that. That's not absurd. That is stupid because you can't substantiate that claim. This is an epistemological question: How do you know he was lying and how do you show that he was lying. Sounds like its your nerve that was stepped on.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The claim is backed up by a consensus of biblical scholars.

    How do you know he was lying and how do you show that he was lying.

    Maybe this is a false dilemma (you'll need to demonstrate how it is though, that's on you), but if a text purports to be written by someone, but it's actually written by someone else, then whoever wrote it is lying about who wrote it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You still have to demonstrate that Peter didn't write the letter. I'm not posing any dilemma. I'm asking you to prove what you say. Appealing to a "consensus of scholars" without surveying every single textual critic on earth carries no reasonable weight. How do you know that is the majority opinion? You're just appealing to authority. But I understand why, you are unable to provide any real proof of what you say.

    ReplyDelete
  28. You still have to demonstrate that Peter didn't write the letter.

    No, I really don't. In all seriousness, why would I have to do that when it's the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars?

    You're just appealing to authority.

    Of course I am. That's what laymen do. I've never seen you do differently...

    you are unable to provide any real proof of what you say.

    I believe the argument is that 2nd Peter builds on some of the content of Jude, which was written after Peter's death, ergo...

    There are also arguments concerning language, the theology of the second coming and the fact that it's not directly mentioned by early church fathers until Origen (late 2nd c. early 3rd c.) and even he apparently thought it was pseudepigraphical (as did Eusebius).

    But, no, I don't have to demonstrate any of that when I can just refer to Harris, Brown, Ehrman, Eve, Elliot, Witherington and Barrett.

    ReplyDelete
  29. No, I really don't. In all seriousness, why would I have to do that when it's the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars?

    You said that the author of 2 Peter was lying. You have to give an account for that. Back that up or repent. You could back off of it admitting that you over-reached yourself.

    As for the list of Scholars you gave who agree with you....Not so fast. I have some familiarity with the work of Dr. Ben Worthington III and he doesn't agree with you. If you want to maintain that he does, in which of his books did he write the fairy tale you have commented here? By the way, I'm not discounting that there are scholars who think exactly what you said, only that they are wrong and you are decieved enough to follow them.

    For example,

    What year did Peter die?
    When was Jude Written?
    Why does it follow the the Peter Epistles have material from Jude?

    Have you ever really considered what you are saying?

    ReplyDelete
  30. You said that the author of 2 Peter was lying. You have to give an account for that. Back that up or repent. You could back off of it admitting that you over-reached yourself.

    Oh sweet mother. Maybe this is a false dilemma (you'll need to demonstrate how it is though, that's on you), but if a text purports to be written by someone, but it's actually written by someone else, then whoever wrote it is lying about who wrote it.

    Not so fast. I have some familiarity with the work of Dr. Ben Worthington [sic] III and he doesn't agree with you. If you want to maintain that he does, in which of his books did he write the fairy tale you have commented here?

    You mean Witherington. He believes only a small part of 2nd Peter was written by Peter. This can be found in the paper “A Petrine Source in 2 Peter” from in the SBLS.

    What year did Peter die?

    64 CE

    When was Jude Written?

    66 CE

    Why does it follow the the Peter Epistles have material from Jude?

    See Major's "The Epistle of St Jude and the Second Epistle of St Peter"

    Also, read 2nd Peter and Jude horizontally in the following order...

    Peter 1:5 with Jude 3
    Peter 1:12 with Jude 5
    Peter 2:1 with Jude 4
    Peter 2:4 with Jude 6
    Peter 2:6 with Jude 7
    Peter 2:10-11 with Jude 8-9
    Peter 2:13-17 with Jude 11-13
    Peter 3:2 with Jude 17
    Peter 3:14 with Jude 24
    Peter 3:18 with Jude 25

    The passages in Peter build on Jude implying Jude is the source.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Oh sweet mother. Maybe this is a false dilemma (you'll need to demonstrate how it is though, that's on you), but if a text purports to be written by someone, but it's actually written by someone else, then whoever wrote it is lying about who wrote it.

    Still waiting for you to prove Peter didn't write it. You can only say you don't think he did.

    You mean Witherington. He believes only a small part of 2nd Peter was written by Peter. This can be found in the paper “A Petrine Source in 2 Peter” from in the SBLS.

    The fact that I made a typo doesn't mean that I'm right that Dr Witherington does not agree with what you said.

    What year did Peter die?

    64 CE

    When was Jude Written?

    66 CE

    I almost agree, more or less with this dating, but when were 1st and 2nd Peter written? Where did you get your year for Peter's martyrdom> I've seen other dates like 66 AD. And a dating for 2 Peter in the early 60's AD. Of course you reject this, but you have no real reason for doing so.

    Also just because Jude and 2 Peter share similarities does not lead to the conclusions you are drawing any more than Matthew and Luke copied Mark.

    ReplyDelete
  32. None are blinder than those who do not want to see.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I agree. A great way to articulate "apostasy"! Great Job!!!

    ReplyDelete
  34. You are the one who seemed to ignore my entire last comment (June 7, 2011 9:44 PM), so...

    But I'm done with this line of discussion so don't bother responding. You have no interesting in looking at things objectively.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I didn't ignore your comment. i just think your conclusions are wrong. You are refusing to be objective if you think 2 Peter is a lie and can't prove that someone else wrote it. Not all scholars agree with your conclusion. You are going to have to do better than that.

    ReplyDelete
  36. You misuse the word "prove" when convenient for you. You seem smart enough, so I have to imagine that you realize what holding the standard you do for me would (should) do to your belief system.

    i.e. you can't prove the last few surviving giant slug overlords that Noah defeated didn't remove Jesus' body and replace it with a shape shifter. You literally cannot prove that didn't happen.

    Again, see Russell's teapot for more information.

    ReplyDelete
  37. That is a cop-out and you know it. When I say you need to "prove" that 2 Peter is lie, I'm saying that you need to show that it is wrong because you are making a bold assertion without proof. I'm not talking an alien slug or some teapot whistling in orbit. As far as I'm concerned I'm agnostic concerning them because I can't show that they don't exist any more than I can show that they do. As for 2 Peter, I've checked it out and I have seen that the instructions it gives are practical. I don't think you even begin to understand what the letter is saying.

    ReplyDelete
  38. ....you are making a bold assertion without proof.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Talk to the majority of biblical scholars. I've told you the arguments they use to conclude that 2nd Peter is pseudepigraphical, complete with examples. Even your Witherington believes it's mostly "a lie".

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dr Witherington did not say that it was "mostly a lie". You did. And can't back that up. In fact, you failed to correctly represent what Witherington has said on the subject. Sad for you.

    ReplyDelete
  40. He says 1:12-21 is the only genuine part, making the rest pseudepigraphical or in this case a... care to finish that sentence?

    Can you think of a scenario where a book claims to be written by someone, but was actually written by someone else, where the actual author is not lying about his identity? I'm all ears, but like I said previously, it's all on you.

    See Witherington's “A Petrine Source in 2 Peter” from the SBLS Papers.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Again not all scholars agree with that conclusion. If you choose to think it's a lie then that is on you. I doubt the Dr Ben Wirthington III would say as you do, that we should chuck the whole letter under the bus and consider it a lie or agree with your [and some of his collegues'] fantasy about how how and why the book was written. Witherington is a Christian and you are not. You should be careful.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Focus... Can you think of a scenario where a book claims to be written by someone, but was actually written by someone else, where the actual author is not lying about his identity?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I think you need to focus on trying to show that the Apostle Peter didn't write 1 and 2 Peter because you haven't.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Marcus; do or do not most scholars believe the Epistles of Peter to be pseudepigraphical for the reasons I state on June 7, 2011 9:44pm?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Define "most scholars". How many does it take to assume that their consensus is correct and that you should discount scholars who come to different conclusions? I am well aware of all the "evidence" you presented to count 2 Peter a forgery. Are you aware of why scholars who disagree think that there are good reasons to think that the Apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter? Do you know how they explain the evidence? Maybe you should look into it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Most would be more than 50%. Duh. It was a simple question... Yes or no really...

    ReplyDelete
  47. So how many is 50%?

    So when 50% of "Experts" came to the conclusion that all of the universe orbited the earth, that was truth?

    ReplyDelete
  48. The truly hilarious thing is that you admit to not being an expert on the Bible and yet claim to be open-minded. Yup...you definitely need your mind reformatted by God. Trust Jesus...He is your only hope.

    ReplyDelete
  49. So how many is 50%?

    Half.

    So when 50% of "Experts" came to the conclusion that all of the universe orbited the earth, that was truth?

    It wasn't the truth, but if you were not an expert and didn't have access to additional information, you wouldn't be rational to doubt them. This is why your epistemology is flawed, you rightly recognize that we can't know certain things, but then you take that as license to believe what you want to believe. You should do some serious scholarship on the evidence that Peter did write the letters, then you can talk.

    I'll leave you with a quote from two evangelical scholars. "...most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author."

    Donald Carson and Douglas Moo: "An Introduction to the New Testament" Zondervan

    ReplyDelete
  50. You should do some serious scholarship on the evidence that Peter did write the letters, then you can talk.

    Did you? Do you know which scholars disagree with Carson and Moo and why?

    When I asked you for a number for the number of scholars who say Peter did not write the epistles attributed to him, I want a number. If you don't know the number of scholars who agree with you out of the total number of Biblical scholars, you haven't studied enough to make such a bold assertion that 1 and 2 Peter contain lies.

    Additionally, you are quick to accept consensus when it is what you want but real quick to dismiss it otherwise. There is a consensus of scholars who agree that Jesus was crucified, buried in a tomb, and people claimed he was resurrected. Yet you deny this because it does fit with your presuppositions.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Did you?

    I don't have to, because "...most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author."

    Do you know which scholars disagree with Carson and Moo and why?

    Yes and yes. I listed them previously and gave you their arguments.

    There is a consensus of scholars who agree that Jesus was crucified, buried in a tomb, and people claimed he was resurrected. Yet you deny this because it does fit with your presuppositions.

    Yeah, I also think all those events likely occurred. The resurrection is another story though.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Marcus,
    One of the most helpful studies to do is to read books that help us distinquish between Jesus' coming in judgment on Israel and the temple in 70 AD vs. Jesus' literal second coming.

    The Disciples mixed 3 issues together in Matthew 24:3 by their question, but Jesus was only talking about 70 AD in verses 23:36-24:2 (by bringing the Romans to come in judgment on them - Mattthew 23:36 to 24:35) Matthew 24:36 changes to "of THAT Day" (meaning His physcial second coming at the end of time - so Matthew 24:36 to chapter 25 is all about the second coming at the end of time (as in Acts 1:11; 2 Peter 3:8-15; I Thess. 4:13-18; I Cor. 15:23-28 and 15:50-55; Titus 2:13; John 14:1-3; Heb. 9:28)

    But Jesus mixes them both in verses 4-34 - 70 AD events and descriptions in with the 2nd coming descriptions because of their question in verse 3.

    But Jesus clearly was right in that all the buildings of the temple were destroyed about 40 years later (this generation) after He spoke His prophesy - Matthew 23:36-24:15 especially. The temple was destroyed, wars happened (66 AD-73 - 7 year war; 70 AD in the middle; 73 AD was Masada when 400 Jews committed suicide, etc.

    Josephus describes the events of the Jewish Wars against the Romans - famine, cannibalism, destruction of the temple, pagan abominations in the temple, etc. (see Gentry, Sproul, and DeMar for quotes from Josephus)

    Good books on this are: (though I don't always agree with their conclusions and some of their points, overall, they supply the answer to the atheists and skeptics who make the video like the "Jesus was wrong" video.

    R. C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus; Baker
    Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell
    Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness
    Gar DeMar, End Times Fiction
    Kenneth Gentry, Perilous Times
    O Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God

    Rev. 2-3 - Jesus says "I am coming" in judgement, making war, removing lampstands. Same word "coming" as in 2nd coming contexts.

    Jesus did come in judgment by allowing the Romans, the Goths, the Vandals, and the Vikings, and then Islam to invade the Roman Empire and conquer the east and N. Africa. Ephesus fell and most areas of NT Christianity were conquered by Islam. Rev. 2:4-5

    Jesus was right, He predicted His death and resurrection.
    Jesus was right, He predicted 70 AD with precision.
    Jesus was right, He will come again some day in final judgment.

    ReplyDelete