(Ron) Confidence in 2 Peter (was Day as 1000 years)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>> NANCY

>> I know I'm wasting my breath, but what the hell. Here's what the NAB 

- an

>> official, authorized RC translation of the bible - has to say about 

the

>> authorship of 2 Peter:

>>

>> ". . . [A]cceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon met with 

great

>> resistance in the early church. The oldest certain reference to it 

comes

>> from Origen in the early third century. While he himself accepted 

both

>> Petrine letters as canonical, he testifies that other rejected 2 

Peter. As

>> late as the fifth century some local churches still excluded it from 

the

>> canon, but eventurally it was universally adopted, The prinbcipal 

reason for

>> the long delay was the persistent doubt that the letter stemmed from 

the

>> apostle Peter.

>>         The principal reasons for this view are the following. The 

author

>> refers to the apostles and 'our ancestors' as belonging to a previous

>> generation, now dead (3, 2-4). A collection of Paul's letters exists 

and

>> appears to be well known, but disputes have arisen about the 

interpretation

>> of them (3, 14-16). The passage about flase teachers (2, 1-18) 

contains a

>> number of literary contacts with Jude 4-16, and it is generally 

agreed that

>> 2 Peter depends upon Jude, noit vice versa. Finally, the principal 

problem

>> exercising the author is the false teachinbg of ;'scoffers;' who have

>> concluded from the delay of the parousia that the Lord is not going 

to

>> regturn. This could scarcely have been an issue during the lifetime 

of Simon

>> Peter."

>>

>> "Jude and 2 Peter were both written to combat errors that emerged in 

the

>> last part of the first century."

>>

>> Ron's church recognizes the pseudepigraphical nature of 2 Peter, but 

denies

>> the authority of the RCC. I guess his church's scholars based the 

above on

>> idle speculation.

>>

>> Back to lurking mode . . .

>>

>> Nancy Todd

>> todds@pa.net

>

>

RON
  It is a well-known fact that there are many dissenters within the 
Catholic Church in america. Just because you read something in a 
Catholic publication, even introductory notes in a Bible, doesn't mean 
it represents the position of the Church's teaching authority. There 
have been many cases where even the bishops were told to revise an 
encyclical letter or to not publish. The whole educational establishment 
was recently reprimanded for its failure to represent Catholic teaching.
  The reasons given above for not accepting Petrine authorship are 
mainly speculation.  For example, why couldn't some people complain 
about the delay of the second coming even after months. We have no 
reason to believe people were any more patient then than they are now.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

• Previous message: (Ron) Confidence in 2 Peter (was Day as 1000 years)
• Next message: (Ron) Confidence in 2 Peter (was Day as 1000 years)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]