Will the unanswered question.....

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It is also one of the parts of the New Testaments to be surrounded by the most doubt ... in sharp contrast with 1Peter. Even Calvin believed it to date from the 2nd century AD.

Are you saying 2Peter wasn't writen until the 2nd century AD?!

Well, that would be some kind of trick since Clement quoted from 2Peter around 95AD, as did many others:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/2peter1.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/2peter2.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/2peter3.html

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Nicely thought out. And I didn't know the part about the rod, that's interesting - thanks.

Thought out?  Maybe.

Correct?  No.  In fact, it is downright deceitful.

Pro 13:24 He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.

Pro 23:13-14 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. 14 Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.

Pro 29:15 The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.

Although the word used for "rod" in the above verses is also used for staff, James42's assertion that the word being used for “rod” is never used as a tool of physical punished makes a mockery out of many verses in which it is used:

Ps 2:9  Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Ps 89:32   Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.

Pr 10:13 In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding.

Pr 22:8 He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity: and the rod of his anger shall fail.

Pr 26:3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back.

Isa 10:24 O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt.

Obviously the object James42 calls a “staff” is being used in anger in these verses.  But James42 will swallow anything that sounds good to his ears, and in so doing, he as deceived himself.

And I could quote a couple of dozen other verses where the word for “rod” is used in anger, but I'll just leave you with the link so that you can explore ALL the verses in which it is used:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07626&version=kjv

[minionofmidas]

Um, Clement lived ca.150 to ca.215.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia - and that lists pretty much the Church's position - there is no reference to it that predates 180, and it calls the text's authenticity merely "probable". It was widely doubted pretty much throughout Late Roman period, up to the late 4th century in fact, and is missing from all the earliest codices.

[opebo]

Nicely thought out. And I didn't know the part about the rod, that's interesting - thanks.

Thought out?  Maybe.

Correct?  No.  In fact, it is downright deceitful.

Pro 13:24 He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.

Pro 23:13-14 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. 14 Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.

Pro 29:15 The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.

Although the word used for "rod" in the above verses is also used for staff, James42's assertion that the word being used for “rod” is never used as a tool of physical punished makes a mockery out of many verses in which it is used:

Ps 2:9  Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Ps 89:32   Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.

Pr 10:13 In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding.

Pr 22:8 He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity: and the rod of his anger shall fail.

Pr 26:3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back.

Isa 10:24 O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt.

Obviously the object James42 calls a “staff” is being used in anger in these verses.  But James42 will swallow anything that sounds good to his ears, and in so doing, he as deceived himself.

And I could quote a couple of dozen other verses where the word for “rod” is used in anger, but I'll just leave you with the link so that you can explore ALL the verses in which it is used:

Yes, jmfcst, your fantasy novel is full of phallic referrences.  But what I fine interesting is that this post implies that you beat your children!

Someone call DFS!  (though I suspect this religious makes too much money to be held accountable for child abuse).

[afleitch]

Put a sock in it jmfcst, now your calling James42 deceitful. Will you stop, for once, questioning this guys faith just because it doesn't fit in with your own thinking. Stop throwing back quotes, you could chuck the whole bible at him and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to his faith and what he believes in.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Um, Clement lived ca.150 to ca.215.

Your remark clearly demonstrates you to be a complete novice in this subject matter, and as such, you would be wise to not opine on this subject until you have at least spent a single hour of your life researching the subject before choosing to speak.

The Clement you're referring to is Clement of Alexandria, NOT Clement of Rome who was the third Bishop of Rome.  He wrote 1Clement (Letter from Clement to the Corinthians) in either 95AD or 96AD, during the persecution by Domitian as recorded by Eusebius.

---

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia - and that lists pretty much the Church's position - there is no reference to it that predates 180

Then the Catholics will have to explain how Clement of Rome quoted from 2Peter in BOTH 1Clement and 2Clement.

Also, they would have to explain how 2Pet 1:15 was quoted on manuscript 7Q10, which is dated around 70-80AD. 

---

And…now that we’re discussing the letters of the early church fathers, it is clear James42’s claim that the translations of the NT letters have been diluted over time is rubbish. 

For the letters of the early church fathers PROVE that our current (year 2000AD) translation matches the translations used as early as the late 1st Century.

They have found quotes on several manuscripts predating 80AD which quote from Mark, Acts, Romans, 1Tim, 2Peter, and James, proving 1st Century authorship of the NT.

In total, there are 24,000 historical references of the New Testament (10000 in Latin vulgates, 5300 manuscripts in Greek, plus 9300 from other sources) …and across these 24000 pieces of historical evidence, the translations are in 99.5% agreement!!!

That is superior to the historical copies of Homer’s Illiad (95%) and Mahabharata of Hinduism (90%).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Put a sock in it jmfcst, now your calling James42 deceitful. Will you stop, for once, questioning this guys faith just because it doesn't fit in with your own thinking. Stop throwing back quotes, you could chuck the whole bible at him and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to his faith and what he believes in.

Look at the verses I quoted for the word used for "rod" and "staff" and tell me how could any reasonable person could honestly say that the object in some of those sentences isn't being used in force.

If you can explain how someone could honestly conclude that the objects in question aren't being used in force, then please tell me and I will issue an apology.

[opebo]

...you would be wise to not opine on this subject until you have at least spent a single hour of your life researching the subject before choosing to speak.

I would advise you, Lewis Trondheim, not to waste an hour of your life in such a foolish pursuit.  After all, life is terribly brief, and this stuff jmfcst talks about is worthless.

[Blue Rectangle]

2 Peter is widely acknowledged among biblical scholars to have been writen in the second century.  It draws heavily from Jude in parts, which was written well after Peter's death.

2 Clement was not written by Clement of Rome and this is also believed by most all scholars.  It was probably written after 2 Peter, so any quotation of 2 Peter does nothing to establish that book in the first century.

Where in 1 Clement is there a quote of 2 Peter?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Where in 1 Clement is there a quote of 2 Peter?

Exihibit A: In speaking of scoffers who doubt the return of Christ, Clement paraphrased the scoffers argument: "These things we have heard even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we have grown old, and none of them has happened unto us; "

Exhibit B: In speaking of scoffers who doubt the return of Christ, Peter paraphrased the scoffers argument: "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation”

Parallels between 2Peter and 1Clement:
1) The context is scoffers mocking the idea of Christ’s 2nd Coming.
2) Both sets of scoffers refer to the prophecies concerning Christ’s return
3) Both sets of scoffers refer to hearing of the prophecy of Christ’s return since their fathers were alive.
4) Both sets of scoffers refer to time carrying on as normal during their lives

Now, that is way too much agreement for it to be a coincidence.  Either 1Clement is using 2Peter as a source, or 2Peter is using 1Clement.

(This argument is pretty mute since everything in 2Peter is reproduceable in other parts of the NT.)

[Blue Rectangle]

Where in 1 Clement is there a quote of 2 Peter?

Exihibit A: In speaking of scoffers who doubt the return of Christ, Clement paraphrased the scoffers argument: "These things we have heard even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we have grown old, and none of them has happened unto us; "

Exhibit B: In speaking of scoffers who doubt the return of Christ, Peter paraphrased the scoffers argument: "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation”

Parallels between 2Peter and 1Clement:
1) The context is scoffers mocking the idea of Christ’s 2nd Coming.
2) Both sets of scoffers refer to the prophecies concerning Christ’s return
3) Both sets of scoffers refer to hearing of the prophecy of Christ’s return since their fathers were alive.
4) Both sets of scoffers refer to time carrying on as normal during their lives

Now, that is way too much agreement for it to be a coincidence.  Either 1Clement is using 2Peter as a source, or 2Peter is using 1Clement.

(This argument is pretty mute since everything in 2Peter is reproduceable in other parts of the NT.)

The reference to "the time of our fathers" refers to the time when the disciples and apostles were still alive.  People are confused about why Jesus didn't make his second coming while his followers were still alive.  Therefore, this issue didn't become a serious question until after the deaths of Peter and Paul.  Later events, such as the destruction of the Temple and the persecution by Domitian led early Christians to wonder why Jesus was taking so long.  Both 2 Peter and 1 Clement (and 2 Clement) are addressing heresies that did not exist in meaningful quantities while Peter was still alive.  These letters are concerned with issues that only gained prominence beginning with Domitian's rule.

2 Peter is quoting 1 Clement, and not visa-versa, just as 2 Peter derives from Jude, who also wrote during or near Domitian's reign.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The reference to "the time of our fathers" refers to the time when the disciples and apostles were still alive.  People are confused about why Jesus didn't make his second coming while his followers were still alive.  Therefore, this issue didn't become a serious question until after the deaths of Peter and Paul.  Later events, such as the destruction of the Temple and the persecution by Domitian led early Christians to wonder why Jesus was taking so long.  Both 2 Peter and 1 Clement (and 2 Clement) are addressing heresies that did not exist in meaningful quantities while Peter was still alive.  These letters are concerned with issues that only gained prominence beginning with Domitian's rule.

2Peter's warning against scoffers is prophecy of FUTURE scoffing, so I don't know why you are taking pains to point out that the scoffing didn't start during Peter's time.  2Peter doesn't even claim the scoffing was occurring during the time of the writing of the letter:

2Pet 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."

---

2 Peter is quoting 1 Clement, and not visa-versa, just as 2 Peter derives from Jude, who also wrote during or near Domitian's reign.

Since I have often said that I am more that willing to use ANY basis doubters want to use, and since this 2Peter conversation is argumentative, I will discard it from the basis of my argument of the accuracy of Paul’s writings, and move on to the other evidence I cited…

Other evidence to back up the legitimacy of Paul’s teachings:

1)The writer of the book of Acts and the Gospel of Luke testifies to the accuracy of Paul’s teachings since Acts never claims that Paul was teaching heresy.  To the contrary, Acts 15 claims that Peter & James (and the church at Jerusalem) agreed with the gospel that Paul taught.
2)The accuracy of the historical details of the book of Acts has frustrated scoffers time and time again.  Archeological findings have confirmed dozens of details of the historical account of Acts, and NO evidence has ever been uncovered to counter the historical details of the book of Acts.  Even unbelievers who have compared historical records with the historical account found in Acts admit that the book had to been written in the 1st Century, for its accurate depictions of many different countries during the 1st Century could only have been written by someone living in the 1st Century who visited the various places mentioned in Acts.
3)Quotations from the early church back up the dating of the book of Acts and Luke to late 1st Century.
4)Quotations from the early church back up the dating of Paul’s writings to late 1st Century.
5)There is a total lack of warnings about Paul from the other writers of the NT (1Pet, 1John, 2John, 3John, James, Jude, Hebrews).  If Paul was corrupting the gospel, then why wasn’t such an influential corrupter mentioned by the others?
6)Peter wrote 1Peter from Rome and addressed 1Peter to the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia…yet Peter never mentioned undoing Paul’s influence to these churches.
7)None of the gentile churches spread throughout the Mediterranean record any of the other Apostles attempting to undo the teachings of Paul.
8)Peter in 1Peter claims to be in the company of Silas, who was sent after the Jerusalem Council as a companion to Paul (see Acts 15:22-18:5) and Silas co-authored with Paul the books of 1Thessalonians and 2Thessalonians (see 1Thes 1:1 and 2Thes 1:1).
9)The church at Rome never recorded Peter undoing Paul’s teachings at Rome.
10)The teaching of the other books of the NT parallel the teachings of Paul.
11) Paul’s teachings are backed-up by the Old Testament and can be taught from the Old Testament, just like the rest of the NT.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

2 Peter is widely acknowledged among biblical scholars to have been writen in the second century.  It draws heavily from Jude in parts, which was written well after Peter's death.

For the sake of argument, I have already agreed to drop 2Pet from my basis.

But, the parallel between Jude and 2Peter doesn't prove that one was used as the basis of the other.  Believers believe that the writers of scripture had their inspiration from God, so obviously God could easily have been using Jude and Peter to give the same instructions to two different groups, just as different prophets of the Old Testament gave the same testimony.

[??????????]

Keep up the good work JMF!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Lewis Trondheim,

I am sorry I snapped at you.

Peace bro.

[minionofmidas]

Um, Clement lived ca.150 to ca.215.

Your remark clearly demonstrates you to be a complete novice in this subject matter, and as such, you would be wise to not opine on this subject until you have at least spent a single hour of your life researching the subject before choosing to speak.

The Clement you're referring to is Clement of Alexandria, NOT Clement of Rome who was the third Bishop of Rome.  He wrote 1Clement (Letter from Clement to the Corinthians) in either 95AD or 96AD, during the persecution by Domitian as recorded by Eusebius.

Actually... I guessed you might be referring to another Clement, but Clement of Alexandria fit in so well because he's one of the earliest (though not THE earliest) writers to have DEFINITELY referred to it.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia - and that lists pretty much the Church's position - there is no reference to it that predates 180

Then the Catholics will have to explain how Clement of Rome quoted from 2Peter in BOTH 1Clement and 2Clement.

Also, they would have to explain how 2Pet 1:15 was quoted on manuscript 7Q10, which is dated around 70-80AD.  [/quote]Obviously I'd have to look that one up to be able to really debate it ... but it's quite possible that they're actually quotes from Jude ... seeing as 2Peter is something of an expanded and commented version of that, apparently. (And as that text is acknowledged by most, though again not all, to be genuinely ancient.)
Also notice, they don't say "it was written in the 2nd century" (though they admit it has been conjectured by others apart from your usual gang of 19th century antichristian nutjobs*), they just admit there's lots of reasons to deduce it's probably not written by or with Peter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In so far as this is possible ... which (if you know anything about translation, especially of dated texts) is not entirely. But yeah, the current translations are probably better than the Vulgata was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That high!? (Referring to the Iliad here)

*Yeah, they exist too, in quite wide abundance. They take the opposite position of the "since it's divinely inspired it can't have been corrupted, and therefore all texts in the Biblical canon are correct and ascribed to the correct author, which we will know try to prove from outside sources as well" school of thought - there's was "it's all bogus, later conjecture, and we'll try to prove that". Of course no approach that tries to prove a previously formed theory, rather than trying to find out the truth, is all that scientific

[minionofmidas]

Where in 1 Clement is there a quote of 2 Peter?

Exihibit A: In speaking of scoffers who doubt the return of Christ, Clement paraphrased the scoffers argument: "These things we have heard even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we have grown old, and none of them has happened unto us; "

Exhibit B: In speaking of scoffers who doubt the return of Christ, Peter paraphrased the scoffers argument: "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation”

Parallels between 2Peter and 1Clement:
1) The context is scoffers mocking the idea of Christ’s 2nd Coming.
2) Both sets of scoffers refer to the prophecies concerning Christ’s return
3) Both sets of scoffers refer to hearing of the prophecy of Christ’s return since their fathers were alive.
4) Both sets of scoffers refer to time carrying on as normal during their lives

Now, that is way too much agreement for it to be a coincidence.  Either 1Clement is using 2Peter as a source, or 2Peter is using 1Clement.

(This argument is pretty mute since everything in 2Peter is reproduceable in other parts of the NT.)

The reference to "the time of our fathers" refers to the time when the disciples and apostles were still alive.  People are confused about why Jesus didn't make his second coming while his followers were still alive. 

(just thinking aloud here ... as in much of the previous post ... damn maybe I should carry around a bible every day) they might be referring to the coming of the Messiah rather than specifically of Jesus, which would explain the forefathers thingy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's doubtful apparently.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually he#s not quoting at all. Sorry Jmf, but I don't find the similarities between the two passages "way too much for coincidence" at all.

[minionofmidas]

2 Peter is widely acknowledged among biblical scholars to have been writen in the second century.  It draws heavily from Jude in parts, which was written well after Peter's death.

For the sake of argument, I have already agreed to drop 2Pet from my basis.

But, the parallel between Jude and 2Peter doesn't prove that one was used as the basis of the other. 

That one is not usually denied though ... if Jude is genuine then it is from the 60s, and 2 Peter claims to be written just before the author's death (a highly suspect line if you ask me...), so it would be a couple years younger than Jude anyways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry I got back to it again ... most of your main argument either doesn't bother me in the slightest (since I don't claim to be a Christian) or I simply don't see anything wrong with ... the "how old is which text exactly" part interests me though.

Oh, and -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't offended. Peace Bro.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Also notice, they don't say "it was written in the 2nd century" (though they admit it has been conjectured by others apart from your usual gang of 19th century antichristian nutjobs*), they just admit there's lots of reasons to deduce it's probably not written by or with Peter...

*Yeah, they exist too, in quite wide abundance. They take the opposite position of the "since it's divinely inspired it can't have been corrupted, and therefore all texts in the Biblical canon are correct and ascribed to the correct author, which we will know try to prove from outside sources as well" school of thought - there's was "it's all bogus, later conjecture, and we'll try to prove that". Of course no approach that tries to prove a previously formed theory, rather than trying to find out the truth, is all that scientific

Funny you mention “antichristian nutjobs”, since I picked http://www.earlychristianwritings.com because of its unbelief in Christianity. 

And despite all the authors they quote, they still have to admit that the four major doctrinal books of Paul (Romans, 1Corinthians, Galatians, 1Thessalonians) are unquestionably and universally considered (even by critics) to be authentic and written by Paul. 

They also acknowledge the books of Acts and Revelation as being authentically written by Christian in the 1st Century.   And they throw me a bone by admitting the book of Philemon was written by Paul.

They also acknowledge the Gospel of Mark as being written by a disciple of Peter in the 1st Century, they acknowledge the Gospel of Luke as written by the author of book of Acts in the 1st Century.

That gives us the follow 1st Century NT as compiled by unbelieving critics:
Gospel of Mark (History of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus)
Gospel of Luke (History of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus)
Acts (Doctrine and History of the early church)
Romans (Various Doctrine)
1Cor (Various Doctrine)
Galatians (Various Doctrine including the right to question doctrinal authority, freedom from the Law of Moses, definition of NT sin)
1Thes (Various Doctrine including the Rapture)
Philemon (Doctrine that slave owners should free their slaves)
Revelation (Doctrine of Endtimes)

For these books, Paul’s reputation is beyond reproach in the early church.

Also, from these books, it is clear the early church had the aspects of fundamentalism:
1) Teaching only doctrine that is confirmable by scripture:
     i)Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
    ii)1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
2) Treating the historical account of the Old Testament as literal  (Too many examples within these books to cite.)