Will the unanswered question.....

[minionofmidas]

2Peter.

No reason to read any further.

[minionofmidas]

Why would anyone care about James42's fantasy life?  I should hope he wouldn't answer such nonsense on here.

James42, do you believe in unicorns?

Opebo. You do not exist... you're just a random interpretation of my physical brain.

He is also a unicorn.

[minionofmidas]

It is also one of the parts of the New Testaments to be surrounded by the most doubt ... in sharp contrast with 1Peter. Even Calvin believed it to date from the 2nd century AD.

[minionofmidas]

Um, Clement lived ca.150 to ca.215.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia - and that lists pretty much the Church's position - there is no reference to it that predates 180, and it calls the text's authenticity merely "probable". It was widely doubted pretty much throughout Late Roman period, up to the late 4th century in fact, and is missing from all the earliest codices.

[minionofmidas]

Um, Clement lived ca.150 to ca.215.

Your remark clearly demonstrates you to be a complete novice in this subject matter, and as such, you would be wise to not opine on this subject until you have at least spent a single hour of your life researching the subject before choosing to speak.

The Clement you're referring to is Clement of Alexandria, NOT Clement of Rome who was the third Bishop of Rome.  He wrote 1Clement (Letter from Clement to the Corinthians) in either 95AD or 96AD, during the persecution by Domitian as recorded by Eusebius.

Actually... I guessed you might be referring to another Clement, but Clement of Alexandria fit in so well because he's one of the earliest (though not THE earliest) writers to have DEFINITELY referred to it.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia - and that lists pretty much the Church's position - there is no reference to it that predates 180

Then the Catholics will have to explain how Clement of Rome quoted from 2Peter in BOTH 1Clement and 2Clement.

Also, they would have to explain how 2Pet 1:15 was quoted on manuscript 7Q10, which is dated around 70-80AD.  [/quote]Obviously I'd have to look that one up to be able to really debate it ... but it's quite possible that they're actually quotes from Jude ... seeing as 2Peter is something of an expanded and commented version of that, apparently. (And as that text is acknowledged by most, though again not all, to be genuinely ancient.)
Also notice, they don't say "it was written in the 2nd century" (though they admit it has been conjectured by others apart from your usual gang of 19th century antichristian nutjobs*), they just admit there's lots of reasons to deduce it's probably not written by or with Peter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In so far as this is possible ... which (if you know anything about translation, especially of dated texts) is not entirely. But yeah, the current translations are probably better than the Vulgata was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That high!? (Referring to the Iliad here)

*Yeah, they exist too, in quite wide abundance. They take the opposite position of the "since it's divinely inspired it can't have been corrupted, and therefore all texts in the Biblical canon are correct and ascribed to the correct author, which we will know try to prove from outside sources as well" school of thought - there's was "it's all bogus, later conjecture, and we'll try to prove that". Of course no approach that tries to prove a previously formed theory, rather than trying to find out the truth, is all that scientific

[minionofmidas]

Where in 1 Clement is there a quote of 2 Peter?

Exihibit A: In speaking of scoffers who doubt the return of Christ, Clement paraphrased the scoffers argument: "These things we have heard even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we have grown old, and none of them has happened unto us; "

Exhibit B: In speaking of scoffers who doubt the return of Christ, Peter paraphrased the scoffers argument: "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation”

Parallels between 2Peter and 1Clement:
1) The context is scoffers mocking the idea of Christ’s 2nd Coming.
2) Both sets of scoffers refer to the prophecies concerning Christ’s return
3) Both sets of scoffers refer to hearing of the prophecy of Christ’s return since their fathers were alive.
4) Both sets of scoffers refer to time carrying on as normal during their lives

Now, that is way too much agreement for it to be a coincidence.  Either 1Clement is using 2Peter as a source, or 2Peter is using 1Clement.

(This argument is pretty mute since everything in 2Peter is reproduceable in other parts of the NT.)

The reference to "the time of our fathers" refers to the time when the disciples and apostles were still alive.  People are confused about why Jesus didn't make his second coming while his followers were still alive. 

(just thinking aloud here ... as in much of the previous post ... damn maybe I should carry around a bible every day) they might be referring to the coming of the Messiah rather than specifically of Jesus, which would explain the forefathers thingy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's doubtful apparently.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually he#s not quoting at all. Sorry Jmf, but I don't find the similarities between the two passages "way too much for coincidence" at all.

[minionofmidas]

2 Peter is widely acknowledged among biblical scholars to have been writen in the second century.  It draws heavily from Jude in parts, which was written well after Peter's death.

For the sake of argument, I have already agreed to drop 2Pet from my basis.

But, the parallel between Jude and 2Peter doesn't prove that one was used as the basis of the other. 

That one is not usually denied though ... if Jude is genuine then it is from the 60s, and 2 Peter claims to be written just before the author's death (a highly suspect line if you ask me...), so it would be a couple years younger than Jude anyways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry I got back to it again ... most of your main argument either doesn't bother me in the slightest (since I don't claim to be a Christian) or I simply don't see anything wrong with ... the "how old is which text exactly" part interests me though.

Oh, and -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't offended. Peace Bro.