In the Vulgate, 2nd Peter was marked off by a row of asterisks, like the spurious ending of the gospel of Mark. The annotation was "denied by ancient authorities" (I should not have included "flatly" which is not there).There is, however, no argument for its genuineness except that the Popes included it in the canon.
"you may have read it that way" Along with everybody else who responded to you."Troll someone else" You came here to troll and should know that your way of thinking commands no respect anymore.
Robert, for some reason several of my comment got deleted as "spam." It is difficult to carry on a conversation with over-active moderation. Let's try again:
яовэят ёскэят, in response to my statement, "There are no Gentile saints mentioned anywhere in the Bible," you wrote, Liar. See Rom. 2:15-16 for example. you wrote."
That passage says absolutely nothing about any Gentiles being chosen to be a saint, Robert, nor does any other passage in the scripture. The saints are all from Israel. Gentiles can become fellowcitizens with the saints, but they cannot be saints:
"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ . . . Now therefore ye [Gentiles] are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens WITH the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:" -- Eph 2:11-13, 19-21 KJV
яовэят ёскэят, in response to my statement, "Don't you find it ironic that Satan is the accuser of the Christian brethren, and you are my accuser?" you wrote, As you are mine?"
яовэят ёскэят, wrote, "You are trying to perform some kind of jujitsu where calling out evil is forbidden."
Okay, if you insist. You are evil, Robert.
================яовэят ёскэят, wrote, "I am telling you things you don't like to hear."
You have written mostly gibberish, Robert, when you are not raging like a lunatic with your false accusations.
================яовэят ёскэят, wrote, "Nobody cares anymore that you think"
You obviously do, or you would not be wasting my time.
================яовэят ёскэят, wrote, "you are among the chosen and have special knowledge about the word of God and all that nonsense that has been concocted over the centuries to build up the pride of the arrogant and excuse their crimes against the oppressed."
I have never met anyone like you speak of, Robert.
================яовэят ёскэят, wrote, "All those like you will be brought low אני יהוה דברתי ועשיתי
So, now you think you are the Lord? You need help, Robert.
яовэят ёскэят, you wrote, "Go back and look at how you started this. You posted that the murders were no big deal and we shouldn't be concerned about them."
You continue to slander me, yet you never quote what I said that made you believe that way. Why is that, Robert? Why not simply quote me, word-for-word, so there will be no doubt that you are not lying?
Show us what you are talking about, Robert. Quote me word-for-word.
"I trust the older manuscripts." So do I, as I indicated. You are obviously not even bothering to read what I wrote with any attempt to understand it."That is a just-so story -- a modern corruption -- with no foundation is Hebraic textual context or history." It is the plain reading of the text."Now you are claiming that Jesus then told the Pharisees they were also gods, just like him, which by no means placated them." What he said was that the scripture says "You are gods" and therefore as fundamentalists they had no right to believe otherwise. He wasn't "placating" them but rather mocking the simple-mindedness of their position (which is the same as yours)."The individual gods were identified as princes in Daniel" Daniel is a late book from the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, pretending to have been written during the Babylonian captivity but showing no knowledge of the history or customs or even language of that period. Its ideology is very late."If you are going to debate textual history, Robert, you might consider getting a better education." I have been studying this subject for half a century.
яовэят ёскэят, you wrote, "You are making some weird distinction between a "saint" and a good person when the passage you are citing is precisely trying to tell you that no such distinction is of any meaning."
The is not a single verse or passage that confirms your statement, Robert. You have been misled. Jude, who came along later in the first century, wrote of the saints in the past tense:
"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." -- Jude 1:3 KJV
The Revelation distinguished the saints from the prophets and those that fear the Lord:
"And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, AND them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." -- Rev 11:18 KJV
яовэят ёскэят, you wrote, "In the Vulgate, 2nd Peter was marked off by a row of asterisks, like the spurious ending of the gospel of Mark. The annotation was "denied by ancient authorities" (I should not have included "flatly" which is not there). There is, however, no argument for its genuineness except that the Popes included it in the canon."
Actually, there is an argument for its genuineness by textual critic Daniel Wallace. First, he writes:
"Although Origen mentions doubts about its authenticity, he does not evaluate these doubts himself. . . recently, Robert E. Picirilli has written an illuminating essay, 'AIIusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,' in which he challenges such opinion." [quoting Picirilli]
"The possibility clearly exists that 2 Peter is reflected in several passages in the Apostolic Fathers. …real possibility obtains in at least twenty-two places, the level of likelihood ranging from merely possible to highly probable."
Wallace added:
"Positively, Eusebius states that most regarded it as authentic, though he himself grouped it with the Antilegomena (significantly, he did not throw it in with the spurious books). Others who cite it are Firmillian of Caesarea, Hippolytus, and Jerome. Since Jerome regarded 2 Peter as authentic, no further doubts were expressed about it until modern times."
One point that wasn't mentioned in Wallace's article was the author of 2nd Peter had to have had intimate knowledge of the Jewish Temple, the laws of Moses in regards to the Temple, and traditional Jewish metaphors for the temple structure. The following is prophecy using temple doctrine, not end of the world prophecy:
"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Pet 3:10 KJV
яовэят ёскэят, you wrote in regards to John 10:34, "What he said was that the scripture says "You are gods" and therefore as fundamentalists they had no right to believe otherwise. He wasn't "placating" them but rather mocking the simple-mindedness of their position (which is the same as yours)."
First, I am an evangelical, not a fundamentalist. Second, my understanding of John 10:34 and Psalm 82 comes from scholars in ancient near-East (ANE) semitic languages.
===================яовэят ёскэят, you wrote, "Daniel is a late book from the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, pretending to have been written during the Babylonian captivity but showing no knowledge of the history or customs or even language of that period. Its ideology is very late."
That is another secular myth.
===================яовэят ёскэят, you wrote, "I have been studying this subject for half a century."
I recommend you seek different teachers and sources. Try this scholar:
"Although [Michael] Heiser presents his case and offers his conclusions in an accessible manner, his points are backed up by a mountain of textual, historical, anthropological, and linguistic research. Indeed, one of Heiser’s great strengths is taking findings from esoteric, highly academic papers and helping ordinary, non-specialist readers understand their relevance for interpreting the Bible and seeing the overall shape of God’s work in human history."
"I am an evangelical, not a fundamentalist." I don't know what distinction you have in mind ("evangelical" seems to be a very elastic term) but someone who thinks the Bible is the infallible word of God, rather than the product of humans trying to figure out the world, is what the word "fundamentalist" means to speakers of the English language."my understanding of John 10:34 and Psalm 82 comes from scholars in ancient near-East (ANE) semitic languages." Presumably only from scholars who take the fundamentalist point of view for granted. People who understand the cultural contexts in which those books were written would give you a different outlook."That is another secular myth." No, it's a very plain fact. The author of Daniel knows nothing about the period he is supposedly living in."I recommend you seek different teachers and sources." I look at many kinds of source. Your preferred source looks like a religious version of Immanuel Velikovsky or Zachariah Sitchin, crazily devoted to a superstition of his own concoction.
You cite arguments that some authors thought it was genuine (although Jerome marked it as dubious not as genuine) which is not a good argument that it actually is genuine unless you have a chain of provenance going back."The following is prophecy using temple doctrine, not end of the world prophecy" I have no idea what you mean by "temple doctrine" here (some concoction of Heiser's?) since the passage you cite is not related to the temple.
"The is not a single verse or passage that confirms your statement" The very passage you are citing is telling you not to make such distinctions. The very root of the moral sense is that others are people just like yourself. You are able to cite that principle, but not, apparently, to understand it."Jude, who came along later in the first century" The epistle of "Jude" is a second-century pseudepigraph by the same author as 2nd Peter.
"Why not simply quote me, word-for-word" Because your post is right up there for anyone who wants to look, while I am responding to my notifications and do not have any need or desire to go back to your post. If you do not understand what an ugly impression you made on everyone who read your post (I am not the only one to respond to you) then you are the one who needs to re-read until you develop some self-awareness.
яовэят ёскэят, in response to my statement, "my understanding of John 10:34 and Psalm 82 comes from scholars in ancient near-East (ANE) semitic languages," you wrote, "Presumably only from scholars who take the fundamentalist point of view for granted. People who understand the cultural contexts in which those books were written would give you a different outlook."
No. I am referring to scholars who have focused on ANE languages for decades, and who rely on peer-reviewed source material.
===================яовэят ёскэят, you wrote, "The author of Daniel knows nothing about the period he is supposedly living in."
Daniel knew exactly where he was living, as well as his circumstances. Anti-Biblical ideologues invented the Antiochus IV myth. How do you interpret this passage?
"And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations." -- Dan 9:26 LXX
===================яовэят ёскэят, you wrote, "I look at many kinds of source. Your preferred source looks like a religious version of Immanuel Velikovsky or Zachariah Sitchin, crazily devoted to a superstition of his own concoction."
Velikovsky scared the hell out of the establishment -- still does! From what I have read, Sitchin has a poor reputation as a translator, in that he tended to make stuff up. Every ANE scholar I am familiar with rejects his work outright.
"I am referring to scholars who have focused on ANE languages for decades" but take the fundamentalist attitude as a given and will not look at cultural contexts."Daniel knew exactly where he was living, as well as his circumstances" The author of Daniel does not know that the Medes were overthrown by the Persians a generation before the Persians captured Babylon, or that the name Darius is a Persian name which was not used by any Medes, and he does not know that Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadrezzar, but was instead the son of the usurper who murdered all the sons of Nebuchadrezzar, and although he claims to have worked for Nebuchadrezzar for years, he does not know how to spell the man's name, replicating a nun-for-resh copying error which crept into some of the texts in the postexilic period."Velikovsky scared the hell out of the establishment" Jesus freaking Christ, no he didn't "scare" anybody, he gave them all a good laugh."From what I have read, Sitchin has a poor reputation as a translator" His reputation, like that of Velikovsky, is as a crank. There is a certain kind of writer who goes paranoid with conspiracy theories about hidden forces that run everything, and it is pointless to try to reason them out of their private hobby-horses. Your Michael Heiser comes across as exactly that kind of person.
In the Vulgate, 2nd Peter was marked off by a row of asterisks, like the spurious ending of the gospel of Mark. The annotation was "denied by ancient authorities" (I should not have included "flatly" which is not there).There is, however, no argument for its genuineness except that the Popes included it in the canon.
"you may have read it that way" Along with everybody else who responded to you."Troll someone else" You came here to troll and should know that your way of thinking commands no respect anymore.
Robert, for some reason several of my comment got deleted as "spam." It is difficult to carry on a conversation with over-active moderation. Let's try again:
яовэят ёскэят, in response to my statement, "There are no Gentile saints mentioned anywhere in the Bible," you wrote, Liar. See Rom. 2:15-16 for example. you wrote."
That passage says absolutely nothing about any Gentiles being chosen to be a saint, Robert, nor does any other passage in the scripture. The saints are all from Israel. Gentiles can become fellowcitizens with the saints, but they cannot be saints:
"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ . . . Now therefore ye [Gentiles] are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens WITH the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:" -- Eph 2:11-13, 19-21 KJV
Dan
яовэят ёскэят, in response to my statement, "Don't you find it ironic that Satan is the accuser of the Christian brethren, and you are my accuser?" you wrote, As you are mine?"
Your own words accuse you, Robert.
Dan
яовэят ёскэят, wrote, "You are trying to perform some kind of jujitsu where calling out evil is forbidden."
Okay, if you insist. You are evil, Robert.
================яовэят ёскэят, wrote, "I am telling you things you don't like to hear."
You have written mostly gibberish, Robert, when you are not raging like a lunatic with your false accusations.
================яовэят ёскэят, wrote, "Nobody cares anymore that you think"
You obviously do, or you would not be wasting my time.
================яовэят ёскэят, wrote, "you are among the chosen and have special knowledge about the word of God and all that nonsense that has been concocted over the centuries to build up the pride of the arrogant and excuse their crimes against the oppressed."
I have never met anyone like you speak of, Robert.
================яовэят ёскэят, wrote, "All those like you will be brought low אני יהוה דברתי ועשיתי
So, now you think you are the Lord? You need help, Robert.
Dan
яовэят ёскэят, you wrote, "Go back and look at how you started this. You posted that the murders were no big deal and we shouldn't be concerned about them."
You continue to slander me, yet you never quote what I said that made you believe that way. Why is that, Robert? Why not simply quote me, word-for-word, so there will be no doubt that you are not lying?
Show us what you are talking about, Robert. Quote me word-for-word.
Dan
"I trust the older manuscripts." So do I, as I indicated. You are obviously not even bothering to read what I wrote with any attempt to understand it."That is a just-so story -- a modern corruption -- with no foundation is Hebraic textual context or history." It is the plain reading of the text."Now you are claiming that Jesus then told the Pharisees they were also gods, just like him, which by no means placated them." What he said was that the scripture says "You are gods" and therefore as fundamentalists they had no right to believe otherwise. He wasn't "placating" them but rather mocking the simple-mindedness of their position (which is the same as yours)."The individual gods were identified as princes in Daniel" Daniel is a late book from the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, pretending to have been written during the Babylonian captivity but showing no knowledge of the history or customs or even language of that period. Its ideology is very late."If you are going to debate textual history, Robert, you might consider getting a better education." I have been studying this subject for half a century.
яовэят ёскэят, you wrote, "You are making some weird distinction between a "saint" and a good person when the passage you are citing is precisely trying to tell you that no such distinction is of any meaning."
The is not a single verse or passage that confirms your statement, Robert. You have been misled. Jude, who came along later in the first century, wrote of the saints in the past tense:
"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." -- Jude 1:3 KJV
The Revelation distinguished the saints from the prophets and those that fear the Lord:
"And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, AND them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." -- Rev 11:18 KJV
You have been misled, Robert.
Dan
яовэят ёскэят, you wrote, "In the Vulgate, 2nd Peter was marked off by a row of asterisks, like the spurious ending of the gospel of Mark. The annotation was "denied by ancient authorities" (I should not have included "flatly" which is not there). There is, however, no argument for its genuineness except that the Popes included it in the canon."
Actually, there is an argument for its genuineness by textual critic Daniel Wallace. First, he writes:
"Although Origen mentions doubts about its authenticity, he does not evaluate these doubts himself. . . recently, Robert E. Picirilli has written an illuminating essay, 'AIIusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,' in which he challenges such opinion." [quoting Picirilli]
"The possibility clearly exists that 2 Peter is reflected in several passages in the Apostolic Fathers. …real possibility obtains in at least twenty-two places, the level of likelihood ranging from merely possible to highly probable."
Wallace added:
"Positively, Eusebius states that most regarded it as authentic, though he himself grouped it with the Antilegomena (significantly, he did not throw it in with the spurious books). Others who cite it are Firmillian of Caesarea, Hippolytus, and Jerome. Since Jerome regarded 2 Peter as authentic, no further doubts were expressed about it until modern times."
Link:https://bible.org/seriespag...
One point that wasn't mentioned in Wallace's article was the author of 2nd Peter had to have had intimate knowledge of the Jewish Temple, the laws of Moses in regards to the Temple, and traditional Jewish metaphors for the temple structure. The following is prophecy using temple doctrine, not end of the world prophecy:
"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Pet 3:10 KJV
Dan
яовэят ёскэят, you wrote in regards to John 10:34, "What he said was that the scripture says "You are gods" and therefore as fundamentalists they had no right to believe otherwise. He wasn't "placating" them but rather mocking the simple-mindedness of their position (which is the same as yours)."
First, I am an evangelical, not a fundamentalist. Second, my understanding of John 10:34 and Psalm 82 comes from scholars in ancient near-East (ANE) semitic languages.
===================яовэят ёскэят, you wrote, "Daniel is a late book from the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, pretending to have been written during the Babylonian captivity but showing no knowledge of the history or customs or even language of that period. Its ideology is very late."
That is another secular myth.
===================яовэят ёскэят, you wrote, "I have been studying this subject for half a century."
I recommend you seek different teachers and sources. Try this scholar:
https://drmsh.com/
This is from recent review of one of his books:
"Although [Michael] Heiser presents his case and offers his conclusions in an accessible manner, his points are backed up by a mountain of textual, historical, anthropological, and linguistic research. Indeed, one of Heiser’s great strengths is taking findings from esoteric, highly academic papers and helping ordinary, non-specialist readers understand their relevance for interpreting the Bible and seeing the overall shape of God’s work in human history."
https://www.christianitytod...
Dan
"I am an evangelical, not a fundamentalist." I don't know what distinction you have in mind ("evangelical" seems to be a very elastic term) but someone who thinks the Bible is the infallible word of God, rather than the product of humans trying to figure out the world, is what the word "fundamentalist" means to speakers of the English language."my understanding of John 10:34 and Psalm 82 comes from scholars in ancient near-East (ANE) semitic languages." Presumably only from scholars who take the fundamentalist point of view for granted. People who understand the cultural contexts in which those books were written would give you a different outlook."That is another secular myth." No, it's a very plain fact. The author of Daniel knows nothing about the period he is supposedly living in."I recommend you seek different teachers and sources." I look at many kinds of source. Your preferred source looks like a religious version of Immanuel Velikovsky or Zachariah Sitchin, crazily devoted to a superstition of his own concoction.
You cite arguments that some authors thought it was genuine (although Jerome marked it as dubious not as genuine) which is not a good argument that it actually is genuine unless you have a chain of provenance going back."The following is prophecy using temple doctrine, not end of the world prophecy" I have no idea what you mean by "temple doctrine" here (some concoction of Heiser's?) since the passage you cite is not related to the temple.
"The is not a single verse or passage that confirms your statement" The very passage you are citing is telling you not to make such distinctions. The very root of the moral sense is that others are people just like yourself. You are able to cite that principle, but not, apparently, to understand it."Jude, who came along later in the first century" The epistle of "Jude" is a second-century pseudepigraph by the same author as 2nd Peter.
"Why not simply quote me, word-for-word" Because your post is right up there for anyone who wants to look, while I am responding to my notifications and do not have any need or desire to go back to your post. If you do not understand what an ugly impression you made on everyone who read your post (I am not the only one to respond to you) then you are the one who needs to re-read until you develop some self-awareness.
яовэят ёскэят, in response to my statement, "my understanding of John 10:34 and Psalm 82 comes from scholars in ancient near-East (ANE) semitic languages," you wrote, "Presumably only from scholars who take the fundamentalist point of view for granted. People who understand the cultural contexts in which those books were written would give you a different outlook."
No. I am referring to scholars who have focused on ANE languages for decades, and who rely on peer-reviewed source material.
===================яовэят ёскэят, you wrote, "The author of Daniel knows nothing about the period he is supposedly living in."
Daniel knew exactly where he was living, as well as his circumstances. Anti-Biblical ideologues invented the Antiochus IV myth. How do you interpret this passage?
"And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations." -- Dan 9:26 LXX
===================яовэят ёскэят, you wrote, "I look at many kinds of source. Your preferred source looks like a religious version of Immanuel Velikovsky or Zachariah Sitchin, crazily devoted to a superstition of his own concoction."
Velikovsky scared the hell out of the establishment -- still does! From what I have read, Sitchin has a poor reputation as a translator, in that he tended to make stuff up. Every ANE scholar I am familiar with rejects his work outright.
Dan
"I am referring to scholars who have focused on ANE languages for decades" but take the fundamentalist attitude as a given and will not look at cultural contexts."Daniel knew exactly where he was living, as well as his circumstances" The author of Daniel does not know that the Medes were overthrown by the Persians a generation before the Persians captured Babylon, or that the name Darius is a Persian name which was not used by any Medes, and he does not know that Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadrezzar, but was instead the son of the usurper who murdered all the sons of Nebuchadrezzar, and although he claims to have worked for Nebuchadrezzar for years, he does not know how to spell the man's name, replicating a nun-for-resh copying error which crept into some of the texts in the postexilic period."Velikovsky scared the hell out of the establishment" Jesus freaking Christ, no he didn't "scare" anybody, he gave them all a good laugh."From what I have read, Sitchin has a poor reputation as a translator" His reputation, like that of Velikovsky, is as a crank. There is a certain kind of writer who goes paranoid with conspiracy theories about hidden forces that run everything, and it is pointless to try to reason them out of their private hobby-horses. Your Michael Heiser comes across as exactly that kind of person.