Summations Only

Thanks no nukes.
You are correct. I present no evidence. I do not mean it to come across, to say Jar, of ignoring forgeries. He is well aware, far, far more than I but chooses a different thought process on them based on much more knowledge than I possess.
I will present some evidence for one of the books so I am not leaving it as " many scholars say" as my weak argument.
Thanks.

After some discussion in another thread that involved a little less forthrightness, it was quite refreshing to find this acknowledgement from you. I hope you'll stick around a bit. I'm interested to see your evidence.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Okay, I maintain there are at least 8 books in the NT that are forgeries.
I define a forgery or fraud as somebody writing pretending to be somebody else. Here's one.
2Peter:
This book I maintain was written in the later first century 90-100CE? after Peter's death. The purported writer ( Peter) died around 64 CE by Christian tradition under Nero. The condensed version of this book, is the writer claims he is Peter, an apostle of Jesus. He is writing this for a couple reasons. He warns against false teachers twisting the message of the gospel. He rips into them but there is no indication of who they are exactly. Then he spends time trying to justify why Jesus has not returned because people are mocking Christians now, "scoffers", and he assures the reader " with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years are as one day" (3.8). In other words don't worry boys he's coming but maybe delayed somewhat.- We know from many passages in the Gospel that Jesus says he is going to return within the lifetime of the listeners, within this generation (40 years), before the apostles are dead. (Mark 13:30, 9:1 Luke 9:27, 21:32, Matt 16:28). While the apostles were still alive and a generation had not passed, it was possible to maintain a sense of immediacy. The world is going to end soon. Here the writer is back pedaling, the world hasn't ended and maybe it won't for a long time he says. He's trying to rebut the "scoffers" who see the generation has passed and nothing has happened. If Peter were still alive he would claim look Jesus said before the apostles die, before this generation has passed, we still have time. That is not what he says though, he doesn't use that excuse, he is using a thousands of year excuse now.-Tradition holds Paul and Peter died under Nero around 64 CE. Paul was writing letters. These letters( epistles) of Paul were just that.. letters. It was not until after his death that the letters of Paul became scripture. But in 2Peter he is already referring to these letters as scripture (3:16). So while Peter was alive these letters were letters, not scripture. After Paul/Peter died the letters became scripture. So Paul's letters became scripture after Peter's death but 2Peter shows they are now scripture. This 2Peter book comes after Peter's death.- Peter was illiterate. He was a purported fisherman from a small town. He would have spoke Aramaic. That town has archeological evidence now and it was not a booming place. The rich and highest level of society in bigger towns were the literate ones. A low level fisherman in a small place was illiterate. And in Acts 4:13, Peter is called illiterate... "unlearned and ignorant men".So, Peter was illiterate and dead before this 2Peter was written. He can not be the author. This book is a forgery or fraud or fake or whatever.

Scripture simply means a divinely inspired message. There is lots of scripture that did not make it into one or more of the different Canons (the lists of which books should be included in a Bible). A good example is the Book of Enoch which did not make it into the Western Canon even though passages from it are included in Western Canon books of the Bible.Scripture is a far broader category than is commonly known. At the time Jesus lived the only "Canonized" scripture was likely the Torah and the full Tanakh (the Torah or 5 Books of Moses; the Nevi'im or Prophets and the Ketuvim or Writings) may not have been finalized until as late as 500CE even though tradition claims it remained unchaged since about 400 or 500 BCE.Epistles, no matter who wrote then or who received attribution or whether or not they were finally canonized can still be scripture.You are certainly right about the crisis generated by the End not coming as expected. Not only did that require back pedaling it also required redefining Jesus Character with a de-emphasis of the returning war lord and increased emphasis of the long suffering servant.You also need to remember that names were often pretty common; Jesus, James, Peter, Paul and particularly John stand as examples. It's highly unlikely that the Gospel of John, the Epistles of John and Revelation were written by the same person.

This is a complete misreading of these passages. They are part of Jesus' political message in arguing against the militant revolutionaries. It is typical Jewish apocalyptic writing describing political events. He is saying that within a generation that there will be a military revolution and that that the Romans will do what they always do and they will be crushed.
This of course did happen in 70 AD.I'm also not saying that Jesus' knew this specifically supernaturally. There was a strong sentiment amongst first century Jews to drive the Romans out of the country. They were looking for a messiah sent by God to lead them in this quest and some thought that Jesus would be the one. Jesus however said that if you go this route it will be ruinous for the Jewish people - which it was. He was saying that the Romans will do what they always do - which they did.It wasn't however strictly political but also theological as He is saying that the way you deal with the Romans is through the weapons that Paul writes about in Ephesians 6.

quote:

---

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

---

It is all part of Jesus' message to love your enemy, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile etc.I agree that the early disciples believed that the end of time was imminent, but that was just human nature. They had recent memories of Jesus and so that they believed that the climax of all human history would happen soon. I don't agree though that this belief came from what we read in the Gospels.

I know what you mean. But what we have is some people who think the stories are true and some people who think they're fiction. In neither case does it make any sense to talk about forgeries. Unless somebody does think they're forgeries, it's futile to insist that anybody "must" logically conclude that they're forgeries.

Jar,
This writer is definitively claiming to be the apostle Peter.
He starts of as 1:1 " Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ".Then to make sure everybody gets that part, he says he was present at the "transfiguration" ( 2Peter1:17) as mentioned in the gospel. So he is making sure everybody know this is THE Peter.
So this isn't just some " other Peter" the writer is making that clear. But this guy isn't apostle Peter. He's hood winking.

I understand that what you believe is that it is forgery or hoodwinking.But that is using a meaning that would be foreign to the writers and readers of the period. As I have pointed out before you are using a definition of attribution based on a modern as opposed to contemporary meaning. It also adds nothing to the discussion and topic.There is no need to use modern concepts like forgery or hoodwinking to provide evidence that the Bibles are the words of men. There is more than ample evidence just in the fact that God never produced even a universal list of what should be included and the fact that much of the Bible deals with purely secular matters like politics and laws and contracts and dates for festivals and what can be eaten and how it should be eaten and the contradictions and factual errors included.Few folk today question the actual authorship of 2 Petey but the authorship of Mark and Matthew and John are equally suspicious and like the Book of Moses (the first five books of the old testament) attribution is more a matter of tradition than actual authorship.

You maintain? You're going to need to do better than that. An issue, yes. But not evidence of a forgery. In order to make that case, aren't you assuming that Jesus was actually able to make real prophetic statements? Is that a viable argument? Not the tradition I understand. I have no idea when Paul died. Define scripture. I don't see any issue here. There is no particular process for writings to become scripture other than a recognition that the writings speak the truth about Jesus or God. I don't interpret those words as requiring Peter to be illiterate. And even illiterate people are capable of dictating a letter.Surely there is better evidence than this.

I agree with you jar.
I think if we have a book that is 1) not written by god 2) written by men and 3) Not even written by the men that supposedly wrote it, according to the same book. That is, it was in part, deceptively written and thus not motivated by truth. Then to justify one is left with the.. honesty has improved over time and what is not honest today, was somehow honest 2000 years ago. And those that think the book is honestly written today.. well they are mistaken. The guys that are claimed to have wrote books in the bible, sometimes didn't. That is where I have a problem as the deceit seems boundless.
For you this seems mostly a moot point, and maybe it is.

That's where I would disagree with you. I don't see deceit at all. I come back to Robert Louis Stevenson whose intent was not to deceive when he wrote Treasure Island as Jim Hawkins.And what do you think of writers who do intend to deceive people about their identities by writing under a synonym? Is there less truth in what they write?

no nukes,
I'll try and go through those questions when I get time.
Basically, in a nut shell, that is the argument from scholars who dispute 2Peter authorship.
If you want you can refer to jar's comment where he himself suggests 2Peter authorship is not considered legit:
"Few folk today question the actual authorship of 2 Petey but the authorship of Mark and Matthew and John are equally suspicious......"Anyway, I'll give your questions a go later.
Thanks

But you don't agree with me. I do not think it was in part, deceptively written and thus not motivated by truth. And that is a serious error in thinking. You make the same mistake the Christian Cult of Ignorance makes in placing the value on the Source instead of the Content. Is Adam Bede less important because George Elliot did not write it? If Huck Finn less important because Mark Twain did not write it? Would the value of either novel change if they had been written by someone else? Does "Call me Ishmael" mean Ismael was the author? Does the teaching value of the work depend on who actually wrote it?It seems you are doing an exercise Father Cantrell used to cal "Goosing butterflies"; first you're unlikely to achieve your goal and even if you did it would likely effect nothing.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin I ----> It

Okay jar.
If content is only what matters and who wrote it or who the book claims wrote it ( to add credibility) doesn't matter, even if it's purposely wrong...
Then I beat my head against the wall or goose the butterfly :-)))
I'll have a hard time wrapping my head around what you say but I might understand what you say now. :-))))For me then:
The question becomes then why lie about who wrote it?
Why can't it be anonymous if a guy wants to write and not use his real name?
These questions don't seem to bother you or phase you even, and there must be an explanation. Or did you just explain that and I circled around again?

It can be anonymous but in these cases it was not.Does "Call me Ishmael" mean Ismael was the author?Attribution is very often just tradition. The Books of Moses are still The Books of Moses even when it is nearly certain Moses never wrote them.Is it a lie when the story starts "Call me Ishmael" but Ish never wrote it? Is it a lie to attribute the first five books of the Old Testament to Moses when not only did Moses not write them but like Ishmael he probably didn't even exist?You are applying definitions that simply did not matter at the time or within context.Look at Genesis 2&3. In that story the God character definitely does lie while the serpent tells the truth yet the story is taught with the exact opposite position. The Serpent is called the Great Deceiver yet everything the Serpent said is borne out as true in the story. The threat made by the God Character is shown to be totally false in the story yet is taught as though it were true.Now it does bother me when the tale is taught like that. To claim the serpent in Genesis 2&3 is a deceiver and the God Character truthful is a lie and totally misses any import to the story and is useful to the con men only as FUD material and to others as a way to create atheists. It has been the ammunition that allowed the nonsense of "The Fall" and "Original Sin" to be marketed as fact where if the story was taught as written, as a "Just So" story, we could avoid all such nonsense.So look at the content of 2 Peter and Titus and other such books. Teach folk that the attribution is almost certainly just tradition but consider the content. Point out that this was a period for major reassessment and modification of the "Christian" message, the Gospel; a period of transformation and reformation.