tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post1608785759300320766..comments2024-02-29T23:54:20.606-08:00Comments on What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of the Day #81 - Debunking Christianity: Harold Camping Step Aside, Jesus Was Wrong And Should Be Ignored Toommcelhaneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-45452272558682989712011-06-18T09:06:58.791-07:002011-06-18T09:06:58.791-07:00Marcus,
One of the most helpful studies to do is t...Marcus,<br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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) <br /><br />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.<br /><br />R. C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus; Baker<br />Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell<br />Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness<br />Gar DeMar, End Times Fiction<br />Kenneth Gentry, Perilous Times<br />O Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God<br /><br />Rev. 2-3 - Jesus says "I am coming" in judgement, making war, removing lampstands. Same word "coming" as in 2nd coming contexts.<br /><br />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<br /><br />Jesus was right, He predicted His death and resurrection.<br />Jesus was right, He predicted 70 AD with precision.<br />Jesus was right, He will come again some day in final judgment.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-73794249546366012002011-06-11T12:54:14.214-07:002011-06-11T12:54:14.214-07:00Did you?
I don't have to, because "...mo...<b>Did you?</b><br /><br />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."<br /><br /><b>Do you know which scholars disagree with Carson and Moo and why? </b><br /><br />Yes and yes. I listed them previously and gave you their arguments. <br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br />Yeah, I also think all those events likely occurred. The resurrection is another story though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-73728797252441534192011-06-11T11:16:43.308-07:002011-06-11T11:16:43.308-07:00You should do some serious scholarship on the evid...<b>You should do some serious scholarship on the evidence that Peter did write the letters, then you can talk. </b><br /><br />Did you? Do you know which scholars disagree with Carson and Moo and why? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-48105852902524151282011-06-11T10:37:49.630-07:002011-06-11T10:37:49.630-07:00So how many is 50%?
Half.
So when 50% of "...<b>So how many is 50%?</b><br /><br />Half. <br /><br /><b>So when 50% of "Experts" came to the conclusion that all of the universe orbited the earth, that was truth?</b><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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."<br /><br />Donald Carson and Douglas Moo: "An Introduction to the New Testament" ZondervanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-83435444681820312082011-06-11T09:57:40.572-07:002011-06-11T09:57:40.572-07:00The truly hilarious thing is that you admit to not...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.mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-69706195856056150052011-06-11T09:38:12.910-07:002011-06-11T09:38:12.910-07:00So how many is 50%?
So when 50% of "Experts&...So how many is 50%?<br /><br />So when 50% of "Experts" came to the conclusion that all of the universe orbited the earth, that was truth?mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-76536647258878187502011-06-11T03:03:08.878-07:002011-06-11T03:03:08.878-07:00Most would be more than 50%. Duh. It was a simp...Most would be more than 50%. Duh. It was a simple question... Yes or no really...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-59145052078815531812011-06-10T21:37:01.004-07:002011-06-10T21:37:01.004-07:00Define "most scholars". How many does it...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.mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-46647709869417695872011-06-10T03:10:34.072-07:002011-06-10T03:10:34.072-07:00Marcus; do or do not most scholars believe the Epi...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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-87316795873224810372011-06-10T01:55:10.376-07:002011-06-10T01:55:10.376-07:00I think you need to focus on trying to show that t...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.mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-61457486834989405872011-06-09T16:25:04.826-07:002011-06-09T16:25:04.826-07:00Focus... Can you think of a scenario where a book ...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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-33950678025921787062011-06-09T15:56:16.753-07:002011-06-09T15:56:16.753-07:00Again not all scholars agree with that conclusion....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.mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-11914603528420576642011-06-09T15:39:17.843-07:002011-06-09T15:39:17.843-07:00He says 1:12-21 is the only genuine part, making t...He says 1:12-21 is the <b>only</b> genuine part, making the rest pseudepigraphical or in this case a... care to finish that sentence? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />See Witherington's “A Petrine Source in 2 Peter” from the SBLS Papers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-17467446539170122542011-06-09T03:16:27.573-07:002011-06-09T03:16:27.573-07:00Dr Witherington did not say that it was "most...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.mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-71997628325352931632011-06-09T03:13:30.357-07:002011-06-09T03:13:30.357-07:00....you are making a bold assertion without proof....<b>....you are making a bold assertion without proof.</b><br /><br />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".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-30920739713336686112011-06-08T20:50:23.411-07:002011-06-08T20:50:23.411-07:00That is a cop-out and you know it. When I say you ...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.mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-40560014395759013182011-06-08T16:20:37.257-07:002011-06-08T16:20:37.257-07:00You misuse the word "prove" when conveni...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. <br /><br />i.e. you can't <i>prove</i> 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 <i>prove</i> that didn't happen. <br /><br />Again, see Russell's teapot for more information.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-91477595340704894582011-06-08T15:04:56.403-07:002011-06-08T15:04:56.403-07:00I didn't ignore your comment. i just think you...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.mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-50862101869537570562011-06-08T14:58:17.034-07:002011-06-08T14:58:17.034-07:00You are the one who seemed to ignore my entire las...You are the one who seemed to ignore my entire last comment (June 7, 2011 9:44 PM), so...<br /><br />But I'm done with this line of discussion so don't bother responding. You have no interesting in looking at things objectively.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-21506738376919595402011-06-08T08:57:05.861-07:002011-06-08T08:57:05.861-07:00I agree. A great way to articulate "apostasy&...I agree. A great way to articulate "apostasy"! Great Job!!!mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-56077036617152326762011-06-08T03:16:55.398-07:002011-06-08T03:16:55.398-07:00None are blinder than those who do not want to see...None are blinder than those who do not want to see.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-72936206947317425102011-06-07T18:58:33.565-07:002011-06-07T18:58:33.565-07:00Oh sweet mother. Maybe this is a false dilemma (yo...<b>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.</b><br /><br />Still waiting for you to prove Peter didn't write it. You can only say you don't think he did. <br /><br /><b>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. </b><br /><br />The fact that I made a typo doesn't mean that I'm right that Dr Witherington does not agree with what you said. <br /><br /><i>What year did Peter die?</i><br /><br /><b>64 CE</b><br /><br /><i>When was Jude Written?</i><br /><br /><b>66 CE</b><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-22910989349444265942011-06-07T18:44:21.735-07:002011-06-07T18:44:21.735-07:00You said that the author of 2 Peter was lying. You...<b>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.</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>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?</b><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><b>What year did Peter die?</b><br /><br />64 CE<br /><br /><b>When was Jude Written?</b><br /><br />66 CE<br /><br /><b>Why does it follow the the Peter Epistles have material from Jude?</b><br /><br />See Major's "The Epistle of St Jude and the Second Epistle of St Peter"<br /><br />Also, read 2nd Peter and Jude horizontally in the following order...<br /><br />Peter 1:5 with Jude 3<br />Peter 1:12 with Jude 5<br />Peter 2:1 with Jude 4<br />Peter 2:4 with Jude 6<br />Peter 2:6 with Jude 7<br />Peter 2:10-11 with Jude 8-9<br />Peter 2:13-17 with Jude 11-13<br />Peter 3:2 with Jude 17<br />Peter 3:14 with Jude 24 <br />Peter 3:18 with Jude 25<br /><br />The passages in Peter build on Jude implying Jude is the source.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-65424056161216648612011-06-07T18:26:21.298-07:002011-06-07T18:26:21.298-07:00No, I really don't. In all seriousness, why wo...<b>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?</b><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />For example,<br /><br />What year did Peter die?<br />When was Jude Written?<br />Why does it follow the the Peter Epistles have material from Jude?<br /><br />Have you ever really considered what you are saying?mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-464896948695792202011-06-07T15:55:56.655-07:002011-06-07T15:55:56.655-07:00You still have to demonstrate that Peter didn'...<b>You still have to demonstrate that Peter didn't write the letter.</b><br /><br />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?<br /><br /><b>You're just appealing to authority.</b><br /><br />Of course I am. That's what laymen do. I've never seen you do differently... <br /><br /><b>you are unable to provide any real proof of what you say.</b><br /><br />I believe the argument is that 2nd Peter builds on some of the content of Jude, which was written after Peter's death, ergo... <br /><br />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). <br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com