Summations Only

It is also quite possible and even likely that he compiled a book from what had been passed down, either in written or oral form, from Peter himself so the writer simply attributed the book's authorship to Peter.

Unfortunately, I don't think I am )) I don't believe anybody makes prophetic statements. But Christians believe it. I repeat a Christian belief. I don't know if he existed, I doubt the martyr story as well. Paul was writing letters generally to individuals or churches. Giving his advise and direction on specific matters. It's implausible he thought he was writing scripture. They became "formalized" as scripture after his death. It seems you and Jar disagree with this. In that case I may very well be wrong. The Greek word is agrammatoi.. which means unlettered (illiterate)
It is possible but unlikely he dictated a letter. He would have to dictate in Aramaic and then have someone translate it to Greek and write it. According to Ehrman there is no precedent for this occurring in ancient history. That is all I have. It's certainly possible there is other evidence. Jar may know but he's of the view it doesn't matter anyway.
I may be "goosing the duck" or whatever that phrase was. Unable to make a point, that may not matter anyway.

Some Christians believe prophetic statements are like foretelling but that's again just ignorance.Prophecy is a little different than that. It is a message from God kinda like yo-momma; "touch that and you gonna walk funny for a week!" Prophecy is a short term dope slap from God; it's "If you guys don't straighten up RIGHT NOW your grounded forever!". It is a direct message to the audience present at the time with clear directions and consequences for ignoring instructions. It's not meant for some far future generation, it's for that day. Revelation is not about Tomorrow, it was about the Greek and Roman World at the turn of the first century CE.The idea that God had folk write stuff down thousands of years ago to tell folk today what they should do is just silly and makes God look stupid and pathetic; God can't even tweet or send a text message?Then there is the idea that messages are hidden in scripture so Satan won't read them (Satan get warm fuzzies or something if She touches a Bible). That's always been a knee slapper. Sheesh, how stupid.Goosing a butterfly!

Well, the writer certainly doesn't qualify himself in anyway to suggest this. He suggest he's Simon Peter in the first sentence then reinforces the statement later in 1:17. Any reader naturally believes apostle Peter is writing this. I did anyway.
But I feel I goose a butterfly! and maybe it's a fruitless and meaningless effort on my part.
Sometimes when the hole gets deep, further digging doesn't lessen the depth. ))

You speak of something different.
I think I'll bow out of this gracefully now though.))Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box (was no "/" in the closer).

Yes, but this is your argument.Quite frankly, the presented argument in totality is not very persuasive. And if you get past that obstacle, I'm just going to join jar and GDR in asking what the point is. That's not all that persuasive either.

Actually, you're the one who's speaking of something different. What the Bible writers were doing was pretty close to writing under a pseudonym, as opposed to the "forgery" that you claim. If you think there was deceit involved, why don't you address that part of my post?

ringo,
Me thinks you argue just to argue.
I have conceded the best I have heard is it doesn't matter. I have trouble wrapping my head around that. With time perhaps that will make sense.
I won't concede writing as if you are someone else is not deceitful though. A consensus from some smart guys here is it doesn't matter. I say okay.But if I write a book on discussion techniques and sign it Ringo. Everybody assumes it's THE Ringo and not some junior EVC member pretending to be Ringo. (And you'd be pissed and I'd feel greasy).

I only have two hours of Internet time a day. I don't waste it on posting, "Good answer!" I'm not asking you to concede anything. I'm asking you why you think the Bible writers were "deceitful" when today writing under a pseudonym is considered quite ethical. I'm asking for a discussion, not a final solution. You'd find that I would be the first one to argue against everything in the book. It's hard enough finding good opposition around here. It might be a nice change to argue against my "self".

Ah, beauty. Gotcha. You want a good argument! Let me know when you present one;-)))))
( You don't "know" me so I will qualify ( for now) and say I'm joking, if it wasn't obvious) If I write a book on discussion techniques and use the name Pseudo instead of Golffly, that's what your talking about. I am talking about if I write a book and use Ringo as the author. ( And Ringo is used because he's well know, respected and has a following of groupies that happen to be young ladies that every good prophet has). But the actually writer is a peon Gollfly, then Golffly is deceiving the followers of Ringo. If Ringo were alive during the deceit, he'd be pissed.
One is deceit.
The other is not using one's own name, and the readers can indeed find out the actual writer is not using his own name and indeed not pretending to be a famous person he is not.
As opposed to the deceit, where the reader has no good reason to assume, or no way to find out, the writer is not the famous person he pretends to be.

Try this.Suppose you wrote that tome and used the name of Ringo but presented valid content that made the audience think?Suppose you wrote in the style of Ringo and presented arguments that Ringo would have make.Now suppose that Ringo was dead?Have you ever read The Seven Percent Solution which is another of the reminiscences of Dr. John Watson, sometime resident of 221B Baker Street London?

If your book was good, I'd be flattered that you put my name on it. If it made any money, I'd want a cut. If it was bad, I'd be pissed at my groupies for mistaking your nonsense for my brilliance. And I'd still want a cut if it made any money.You're underestimating both the authors and the "real" people whose names they used. The real people - if indeed they existed at all - would be glad that their ideas were getting out. The authors had nothing to gain personally by using famous names. All they had was the satisfaction that somebody else's ideas were being spread.

But you have presented no evidence to show that this is the case, nor have you shown that there would be any motive for doing what you suggest in the case of 1 Peter or any of the other epistles.Luke starts off his gospel by telling that he got the material from other sources whereas the other gospel writers didn't do that, although it is obvious that their material would have to come from others through what others wrote or through what had been passed down orally.IMHO by far the most likely answer is that the writer has compiled a collection of what had been passed down from what Peter said and did and put them into one book or letter.

Okay, that was good. Real good. Busting up type good!
You assume to know what the "real, famous" person would think. You have no reason to make that assumption. It's suits your purpose to say they'd be flattered.. but you have no clue.

You seem to forget that Ringo is the real famous person in your example and while it is certainly open to question, may well know what the real famous person would think.But it's not all that hard to know how certain people think when you have either personal experience of that person or a fair size sampling of what they have said in the past.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title