What in 2 Peter would cause someone to reject it?

[FSSL]

Well?

 

[Sola scriptural]

Well?

Because....it was second?

God only wants our Firstfruits !!!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Well, the most common arguments are that it doesn't sound anything like Peter (in fact, it sounds like it was written by the same author who wrote Jude and almost certainly depends upon Jude having been written first).  In addition, Peter died well before enough of Paul's letters were copied and circulated enough for Peter to claim that ignorant people are distorting Paul's letters, and for Peter to equate them to scripture. 

I would add that the first part of 2 Peter seems to be written like a forger would write if he were trying to convince his audience that he's Peter.  Basically, if I were to fake a letter from Peter, that's how I'd write it, although I'd try to be less obvious about it. 

It is particularly suspicious that Peter says he knows he's about to die, as the Lord made clear to him.  Maybe the Lord made the date of his death clear to him and that's not recorded anywhere, but what we know from scripture is only only the kind of death Peter would suffer, not when.  So this mention sounds like a forger trying to use the knowledge of when Peter died to establish the date of writing before that point. 

From commentary:

1. The conceptual world and the rhetorical language are so strongly influenced by Hellenism as to rule out Peter definitely, nor could it have been written by one of his helpers or pupils under instructions from Peter. Not even at some time after the death of the apostle.

The Hellenistic concepts include: the ????? of God (1:3), virtue in addition to faith (1:5); knowledge (1:2, 3, 6, 8; 2:20; 3:18); participation in the divine nature (????? ???????? ??????) "in order that one might escape corruption that is present in the world because of lust" (1:4); the term ??????? comes from the language of the mysteries (1:16); placed side by side are a quotation from Proverbs and a trite saying from the Hellenistic tradition (2:22).

This commentary is also amusing:

Besides, it is only so transparently not a letter, as the notes in the Catholic NAB state, "Except for the epistolary greetings in 1, 1-2, 2 Peter does not have the features of a genuine letter at all, but is rather a general exhortation cast in the form of a letter." As for the epistolary greeting, even it betrays that this is not actually correspondence, being sent "to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ." I certainly hope St. Peter would have provided better instructions for the courier, but perhaps he took a page from the book of the apostle Paul, who writes "to the holy ones who are faithful in Christ Jesus," which a later scribe was kind enough to explain as residing in Ephesus. Or perhaps the apostle Peter picked up this bad habit from Jude, the brother of James and a slave of Jesus Christ, who writes "to those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept safe for Jesus Christ."

The Polycarp (AD 69 ? 155) epistle to the Phillipians contains a number of references to 1 Peter, but contains no knowledge whatsoever of 2 Peter.  Perhaps that's because the courier of the 2 Peter letter was still trying to figure out where to deliver it.

There's a lot more, but gnaw on that for a while.

 

[FSSL]

As an aside... Whenever anyone uses a commentary in discussions, you do realize that your complaint will now be considered insincere and a cheap debate trick, right?!

Okay... To the "meat" of this discussion... You quoted and bought into mid1970s critical textual critics. Unbelievers with no commitment to the word as the very Words of God. They allow speculations to drive their unbelief. (Don't worry, I will address them.) Just one follow-up question...

Are you familiar with the arguments of conservative, evangelical commentators?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

As an aside... Whenever anyone uses a commentary in discussions, you do realize that your complaint will now be considered insincere and a cheap debate trick, right?!

I'm sorry, but if there was scripture that denied the authenticity of 2 Peter, I would have quoted that, instead.

Okay... To the "meat" of this discussion... You quoted and bought into mid1970s critical textual critics. Unbelievers with no commitment to the word as the very Words of God. They allow speculations to drive their unbelief. (Don't worry, I will address them.) Just one follow-up question...

Actually, I gave my own analysis, and added to that a quote from commentaries, which included notes from a Bible that even contains 2 Peter.

Are you familiar with the arguments of conservative, evangelical commentators?

Yes.  Would you like to start a thread on that?  Because you asked why someone would reject it, not why someone would accept it.

 

[Sola scriptural]

Sounds like a lot of a la carte German, Liberal school of liberal analysis of scripture.  If I don't like it, or think it sounds a little funny......I'm right, you're wrong....

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

 

[T-Bone]

Nothing...I accept it completely .

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Unbelievers with no commitment to the word as the very Words of God.

By the way, this exposes your a-priori commitment that the 66 book Bible you own must be the Very Word of God, and that no testing or questioning must be allowed.  This is exactly like the materialist's a-priori commitment to a material explanation for everything, so they must never allow a supernatural foot in the door when trying to examine scientific evidence. 

So it is as futile to discuss this with you as it would be to discuss creation with a materialist.  Neither of you will ever argue from a perspective of analysis of the evidence. 

 

[Sola scriptural]

Unbelievers with no commitment to the word as the very Words of God.

By the way, this exposes your a-priori commitment that the 66 book Bible you own must be the Very Word of God, and that no testing or questioning must be allowed.  This is exactly like the materialist's a-priori commitment to a material explanation for everything, so they must never allow a supernatural foot in the door when trying to examine scientific evidence. 

So it is as futile to discuss this with you as it would be to discuss creation with a materialist.  Neither of you will ever argue from a perspective of analysis of the evidence.

What if he listens to the evidence, then rejects the evidence presented?  Is he wrong just because you disagree with him?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Unbelievers with no commitment to the word as the very Words of God.

By the way, this exposes your a-priori commitment that the 66 book Bible you own must be the Very Word of God, and that no testing or questioning must be allowed.  This is exactly like the materialist's a-priori commitment to a material explanation for everything, so they must never allow a supernatural foot in the door when trying to examine scientific evidence. 

So it is as futile to discuss this with you as it would be to discuss creation with a materialist.  Neither of you will ever argue from a perspective of analysis of the evidence.

What if he listens to the evidence, then rejects the evidence presented?  Is he wrong just because you disagree with him?

He already gave his reason for rejecting the evidence.  Some of it comes from "Unbelievers with no commitment to the word as the very Words of God." 

So, like I said, this is exactly like the materialist's a-priori commitment to a material explanation for everything, so they must never allow a supernatural foot in the door when trying to examine scientific evidence. 

So it is as futile to discuss this with him (and you) as it would be to discuss creation with a materialist.  Neither of you will ever argue from a perspective of analysis of the evidence.  "It's true because a believer has a commitment to it being true, and that's that."  You've said as much already. 

 

[Sola scriptural]

Unbelievers with no commitment to the word as the very Words of God.

By the way, this exposes your a-priori commitment that the 66 book Bible you own must be the Very Word of God, and that no testing or questioning must be allowed.  This is exactly like the materialist's a-priori commitment to a material explanation for everything, so they must never allow a supernatural foot in the door when trying to examine scientific evidence. 

So it is as futile to discuss this with you as it would be to discuss creation with a materialist.  Neither of you will ever argue from a perspective of analysis of the evidence.

What if he listens to the evidence, then rejects the evidence presented?  Is he wrong just because you disagree with him?

He already gave his reason for rejecting the evidence.  Some of it comes from "Unbelievers with no commitment to the word as the very Words of God." 

So, like I said, this is exactly like the materialist's a-priori commitment to a material explanation for everything, so they must never allow a supernatural foot in the door when trying to examine scientific evidence. 

So it is as futile to discuss this with him (and you) as it would be to discuss creation with a materialist.  Neither of you will ever argue from a perspective of analysis of the evidence.  "It's true because a believer has a commitment to it being true, and that's that."  You've said as much already.

Was referring to the sections of commentary above.  He read it, then rejected it.

 

[FSSL]

He already gave his reason for rejecting the evidence.  Some of it comes from "Unbelievers with no commitment to the word as the very Words of God." 

That's a good start, doncha think?

I am putting together a full response. As has been identified by others already, the assumptions and speculations are obvious.

 

[FSSL]

Unbelievers with no commitment to the word as the very Words of God.

By the way, this exposes your a-priori commitment that the 66 book Bible you own must be the Very Word of God, and that no testing or questioning must be allowed.  This is exactly like the materialist's a-priori commitment to a material explanation for everything, so they must never allow a supernatural foot in the door when trying to examine scientific evidence. 

So it is as futile to discuss this with you as it would be to discuss creation with a materialist.  Neither of you will ever argue from a perspective of analysis of the evidence.

Here is the difference...

We BOTH have presuppositions.

YOU start with unbelieving critical textual critics who base their rejections on the presupposition that God's word is just the product of humans. They are moral stories. They influenced you hook line and sinker.

I start with the text and take it at its word. My presupposition is that Peter said he wrote it, so I won't be easily swayed by assumptions me speculations. I will be skeptical of the skeptics before I am of the word of God.

If you think this discussion is futile, it is because you lack the desire to sharpen iron. You just want to debate for debate's sake.

It's not about winning the argument, it is about expanding one's perspective.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Unbelievers with no commitment to the word as the very Words of God.

By the way, this exposes your a-priori commitment that the 66 book Bible you own must be the Very Word of God, and that no testing or questioning must be allowed.  This is exactly like the materialist's a-priori commitment to a material explanation for everything, so they must never allow a supernatural foot in the door when trying to examine scientific evidence. 

So it is as futile to discuss this with you as it would be to discuss creation with a materialist.  Neither of you will ever argue from a perspective of analysis of the evidence.

Here is the difference...

We BOTH have presuppositions.

YOU start with unbelieving critical textual critics who base their rejections on the presupposition that God's word is just the product of humans. They are moral stories. They influenced you hook line and sinker.

Yeah, you're going to focus on that one piece of commentary and ignore everything else I said.

I have said elsewhere that I believe in the authority of books even including Paul's Romans, so it's not an either it's all true or it's all not for me, as you are falsely implying.

I included quotes from commentaries that EVEN included notes from a Catholic Bible.  Let that sink in a minute.  Catholic.  The church that reveres Peter as the first in a line of Popes has the intellectual honesty to include notes that call into question the authenticity of 2 Peter. 

What does it say when a Peter-worshiping Catholic Bible includes more intellectual honesty about 2 Peter than you do? 

Yes, it's absolutely 100% futile to debate this with you.  Not only are you unable to entertain evidence outside your a-priori assumptions, you aren't even honest about what I posted. 

Carry on, I'm done.  Your input is worthless.

 

[FSSL]

As I said, I am going to supply a full counter argument. Whether you stick around for it is not my doing.

So... Following these critics, you reject 1 Peter as well?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

As I said, I am going to supply a full counter argument. Whether you stick around for it is not my doing.

So... Following these critics, you reject 1 Peter as well?

Fine, but I'm pretty sure your counter argument will be closed-minded nonsense and I'll ignore it if so. 

But for the record, no.  I reserve the right to change my mind, but as for now, I've seen more supporting evidence for the authenticity of 1 Peter, even though many critics dismiss it. 

 

[FSSL]

Ok ... Good... So we haven't totally lost you yet

 

[FSSL]

, but I'm pretty sure your counter argument will be closed-minded nonsense and I'll ignore it if so.

Counter arguments are not closed-minded. People are closed-minded.

Those who are unwilling to counter the counter-arguments are closed-minded. They demonstrate their unwillingness to hear the other side by ignoring them and running away.

We get it. You are always prepared to be closed-minded.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

As an aside... Whenever anyone uses a commentary in discussions, you do realize that your complaint will now be considered insincere and a cheap debate trick, right?!

Okay... To the "meat" of this discussion... You quoted and bought into mid1970s critical textual critics. Unbelievers with no commitment to the word as the very Words of God. They allow speculations to drive their unbelief. (Don't worry, I will address them.) Just one follow-up question...

Are you familiar with the arguments of conservative, evangelical commentators?

Though he does maintain II Peter should still be canonical, Calvin doubted the penman was Peter as he said Jerome didn't believe so either. He believed it could possibly have been Peter's disciples who wrote it with his stamp of approval:

The doubts respecting this Epistle mentioned by Eusebius, ought not to keep us from reading it. For if the doubts rested on the authority of men, whose names he does not give, we ought to pay no more regard to it than to that of unknown men. And he afterwards adds, that it was everywhere received without any dispute. What Jerome writes influences me somewhat more, that some, induced by a difference in the style, did not think that Peter was the author. For though some affinity may be traced, yet I confess that there is that manifest difference which distinguishes different writers. There are also other probable conjectures by which we may conclude that it was written by another rather than by Peter. At the same time, according to the consent of all, it has nothing unworthy of Peter, as it shews everywhere the power and the grace of an apostolic spirit. If it be received as canonical, we must allow Peter to be the author, since it has his name inscribed, and he also testifies that he had lived with Christ: and it would have been a fiction unworthy of a minister of Christ, to have personated another individual. So then I conclude, that if the Epistle be deemed worthy of credit, it must have proceeded from Peter; not that he himself wrote it, but that some one of his disciples set forth in writing, by his command, those things which the necessity of the times required. For it is probable that he was now in extreme old age, for he says, that he was near his end. And it may have been that at the request of the godly, he allowed this testimony of his mind to be recorded shortly before his death, because it might have somewhat availed, when he was dead, to support the good, and to repress the wicked. Doubtless, as in every part of the Epistle the majesty of the Spirit of Christ appears, to repudiate it is what I dread, though I do not here recognize the language of Peter. But since it is not quite evident as to the author, I shall allow myself the liberty of using the word Peter or Apostle indiscriminately.

Source

What's interesting is in his commentary on Chapter 2 Verse 15, Calvin then says,

We may easily gather from the Epistle to the Galatians, as well as from other places, that unprincipled men, who went about everywhere to disturb the churches, in order to discredit Paul, made use of this pretense, that he did not well agree with the other Apostles. It is then probable that Peter referred to Paul in order to shew their consent; for it was very necessary to take away the occasion for such a calumny. And yet, when I examine all things more narrowly, it seems to me more probable that this Epistle was composed by another according to what Peter communicated, than that it was written by himself, for Peter himself would have never spoken thus. But it is enough for me that we have a witness of his doctrine and of his goodwill, who brought forward nothing contrary to what he would have himself said.

Source

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

As an aside... Whenever anyone uses a commentary in discussions, you do realize that your complaint will now be considered insincere and a cheap debate trick, right?!

Okay... To the "meat" of this discussion... You quoted and bought into mid1970s critical textual critics. Unbelievers with no commitment to the word as the very Words of God. They allow speculations to drive their unbelief. (Don't worry, I will address them.) Just one follow-up question...

Are you familiar with the arguments of conservative, evangelical commentators?

Though he does maintain II Peter should still be canonical, Calvin doubted the penman was Peter as he said Jerome didn't believe so either. He believed it could possibly have been Peter's disciples who wrote it with his stamp of approval:

The doubts respecting this Epistle mentioned by Eusebius, ought not to keep us from reading it. For if the doubts rested on the authority of men, whose names he does not give, we ought to pay no more regard to it than to that of unknown men. And he afterwards adds, that it was everywhere received without any dispute. What Jerome writes influences me somewhat more, that some, induced by a difference in the style, did not think that Peter was the author. For though some affinity may be traced, yet I confess that there is that manifest difference which distinguishes different writers. There are also other probable conjectures by which we may conclude that it was written by another rather than by Peter. At the same time, according to the consent of all, it has nothing unworthy of Peter, as it shews everywhere the power and the grace of an apostolic spirit. If it be received as canonical, we must allow Peter to be the author, since it has his name inscribed, and he also testifies that he had lived with Christ: and it would have been a fiction unworthy of a minister of Christ, to have personated another individual. So then I conclude, that if the Epistle be deemed worthy of credit, it must have proceeded from Peter; not that he himself wrote it, but that some one of his disciples set forth in writing, by his command, those things which the necessity of the times required. For it is probable that he was now in extreme old age, for he says, that he was near his end. And it may have been that at the request of the godly, he allowed this testimony of his mind to be recorded shortly before his death, because it might have somewhat availed, when he was dead, to support the good, and to repress the wicked. Doubtless, as in every part of the Epistle the majesty of the Spirit of Christ appears, to repudiate it is what I dread, though I do not here recognize the language of Peter. But since it is not quite evident as to the author, I shall allow myself the liberty of using the word Peter or Apostle indiscriminately.

Source

What's interesting is in his commentary on Chapter 2 Verse 15, Calvin then says,

We may easily gather from the Epistle to the Galatians, as well as from other places, that unprincipled men, who went about everywhere to disturb the churches, in order to discredit Paul, made use of this pretense, that he did not well agree with the other Apostles. It is then probable that Peter referred to Paul in order to shew their consent; for it was very necessary to take away the occasion for such a calumny. And yet, when I examine all things more narrowly, it seems to me more probable that this Epistle was composed by another according to what Peter communicated, than that it was written by himself, for Peter himself would have never spoken thus. But it is enough for me that we have a witness of his doctrine and of his goodwill, who brought forward nothing contrary to what he would have himself said.

Source

Interesting.  "If it be received as canonical, we must allow Peter to be the author" -- in other words, evidence be damned.  If it's going to be in the Bible, then we have to say Peter wrote it.