[W:493]I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

[Omega Man]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

lol...1st and 2nd Peter are not forgeries...besides you brought it up 1st so you must put some stock in his words...:roll:

"Most scholars believe that 1 Peter is pseudonymous (written anonymously in the name of a well-known figure) and was produced during postapostolic times." -Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 352

"Virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, which is believed to have been written by an anonymous churchman in Rome about 150 C.E." -Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 354.

"Pseudonymity does not lessen the importance of this writing as a witness to Peter, If anything, it enhances its importance since it implies that some 20 or 30 years after his death Peter's name could still be thought to carry weight and be invoked to instruct Christian churches, especially in the area of Asia Minor (...) addressed is not Petrine Territory." -Anchor Bible Dictionary (David Noel Freedman, ed) vol 5, ("O-Sh"), p. 262.

"...most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author." -Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament, second edition. HarperCollins Canada; Zondervan: 2005. ISBN 0-310-23859-5, ISBN 978-0-310-23859-1. p. 659.

“…the author of 2 Peter is a strongly Hellenized Jewish Christian, from an urban setting, highly literate in Greek, and skilled in Greco-Roman rhetoric. …the author may belong to a Roman Petrine “circle”, consisting of close associates and disciples of Peter.” - What are they saying about the Catholic Epistles?, Philip B. Harner, p. 49

“For a number of reasons, most scholars think that 2 Peter was written by a different author to that of 1 Peter and their use of scripture would support such a conclusion. Scripture in 1 Peter is essentially traditional, drawing on key psalms (34; 40; 118), key chapters of Isaiah (8; 40; 53) and wisdom sayings, some of which are found elsewhere in the New Testament (Prov 3.34). …it lacks the profundity of Paul but it appears to be of the same general type. Jude and 2 Peter, however, are quite different, favouring a more allusive style and dependent on more obscure sources. They seem to have a fascination with traditions about angels and demons and thus have more in common with the book of Revelation than the rest of the New Testament. It is no coincidence that Jude, 2 Peter and Revelation all experienced some opposition before being accepted into the canon.” -Old Testament in the New, Steven Moyise, p. 116


The undetermined author also gives himself away by using Septuagint translations, instead of directly from the Tanakh as a true unlettered Galilean would have used. The evidence is clear and overwhelming... the Petrine epistles are pseudographical. In other words... forgeries.


OM

 

[Daisy]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

"Most scholars believe that 1 Peter is pseudonymous (written anonymously in the name of a well-known figure) and was produced during postapostolic times." -Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 352

"Virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, which is believed to have been written by an anonymous churchman in Rome about 150 C.E." -Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 354.

"Pseudonymity does not lessen the importance of this writing as a witness to Peter, If anything, it enhances its importance since it implies that some 20 or 30 years after his death Peter's name could still be thought to carry weight and be invoked to instruct Christian churches, especially in the area of Asia Minor (...) addressed is not Petrine Territory." -Anchor Bible Dictionary (David Noel Freedman, ed) vol 5, ("O-Sh"), p. 262.

"...most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author." -Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament, second edition. HarperCollins Canada; Zondervan: 2005. ISBN 0-310-23859-5, ISBN 978-0-310-23859-1. p. 659.

“…the author of 2 Peter is a strongly Hellenized Jewish Christian, from an urban setting, highly literate in Greek, and skilled in Greco-Roman rhetoric. …the author may belong to a Roman Petrine “circle”, consisting of close associates and disciples of Peter.” - What are they saying about the Catholic Epistles?, Philip B. Harner, p. 49

“For a number of reasons, most scholars think that 2 Peter was written by a different author to that of 1 Peter and their use of scripture would support such a conclusion. Scripture in 1 Peter is essentially traditional, drawing on key psalms (34; 40; 118), key chapters of Isaiah (8; 40; 53) and wisdom sayings, some of which are found elsewhere in the New Testament (Prov 3.34). …it lacks the profundity of Paul but it appears to be of the same general type. Jude and 2 Peter, however, are quite different, favouring a more allusive style and dependent on more obscure sources. They seem to have a fascination with traditions about angels and demons and thus have more in common with the book of Revelation than the rest of the New Testament. It is no coincidence that Jude, 2 Peter and Revelation all experienced some opposition before being accepted into the canon.” -Old Testament in the New, Steven Moyise, p. 116


The undetermined author also gives himself away by using Septuagint translations, instead of directly from the Tanakh as a true unlettered Galilean would have used. The evidence is clear and overwhelming... the Petrine epistles are pseudographical. In other words... forgeries.


OM

I am not most scholars...I am a Christian who believes the Bible...ALL of it...

 

[beancounter]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

He may not have been a Socialist, but he certainly wasn't the Free market capitalist some of you want to believe he was.

 

[Daisy]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

PETER, LETTERS OF

Two inspired letters of the Christian Greek Scriptures composed by the apostle Peter, who identifies himself as the writer in the opening words of each letter. (1Pe 1:1; 2Pe 1:1; compare 2Pe 3:1.) Additional internal evidence unmistakably points to Peter as the writer. He speaks of himself as an eyewitness of the transfiguration of Jesus Christ, a privilege shared only by Peter, James, and John. (2Pe 1:16-18; Mt 17:1-9) And, as is evident from John 21:18, 19, Peter alone could have said: “The putting off of my tabernacle is soon to be, just as also our Lord Jesus Christ signified to me.” (2Pe 1:14) The difference in style between the two letters may be attributed to the fact that Peter used Silvanus (Silas) for writing the first letter but apparently did not do so when writing his second letter. (1Pe 5:12) Both were general letters, evidently directed to Jewish and non-Jewish Christians. The first letter is specifically addressed to those in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia​—regions of Asia Minor.​—1Pe 1:1; 2:10; 2Pe 1:1; 3:1; compare Ac 2:5, 9, 10.

The letters of Peter agree fully with other Bible books in stressing right conduct and its rewards and also in quoting from them as the authoritative Word of God. Quotations are made from Genesis (18:12; 1Pe 3:6), Exodus (19:5, 6; 1Pe 2:9), Leviticus (11:44; 1Pe 1:16), Psalms (34:12-16; 118:22; 1Pe 3:10-12; 2:7), Proverbs (11:31 [LXX]; 26:11; 1Pe 4:18; 2Pe 2:22), and Isaiah (8:14; 28:16; 40:6-8; 53:5; 1Pe 2:8; 2:6; 1:24, 25; 2:24). Scriptural prophecy is shown to be the product of God’s spirit. (2Pe 1:20, 21; compare 2Ti 3:16.) God’s promise concerning new heavens and a new earth is repeated. (2Pe 3:13; Isa 65:17; 66:22; Re 21:1) The parallels between 2 Peter (2:4-18; 3:3) and Jude (5-13, 17, 18) evidently indicate that the disciple Jude accepted Peter’s second letter as inspired. Noteworthy, too, is the fact that the letters of the apostle Paul are classified by Peter with “the rest of the Scriptures.”​—2Pe 3:15, 16.

Time of Writing. From the tone of the letters, it appears that they were written prior to the outbreak of Nero’s persecution in 64 C.E. The fact that Mark was with Peter would seem to place the time of composition of the first letter between 62 and 64 C.E. (1Pe 5:13) Earlier, during the apostle Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome (c. 59-61 C.E.), Mark was there, and when Paul was imprisoned for a second time at Rome (c. 65 C.E.), he requested that Timothy and Mark join him. (Col 4:10; 2Ti 4:11) Likely Peter wrote his second letter not long after his first, or about 64 C.E.

Written From Babylon. According to Peter’s own testimony, he composed his first letter while at Babylon. (1Pe 5:13) Possibly also from there he wrote his second letter. Available evidence clearly shows that “Babylon” refers to the city on the Euphrates and not to Rome, as some have claimed. Having been entrusted with ‘the good news for those who are circumcised,’ Peter could be expected to serve in a center of Judaism, such as Babylon. (Ga 2:7-9) There was a large Jewish population in and around the ancient city of Babylon. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 15, col. 755), when discussing production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers to Judaism’s “great academies of Babylon” during the Common Era. Since Peter wrote to “the temporary residents scattered about in [literal] Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1Pe 1:1), it logically follows that the source of the letter, “Babylon,” was the literal place by that name. Never does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome, nor does it state that Peter was ever in Rome.

The first to claim that Peter was martyred at Rome is Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in the latter half of the second century. Earlier, Clement of Rome, though mentioning Paul and Peter together, makes Paul’s preaching in both the E and the W a distinguishing feature of that apostle, implying that Peter was never in the W. As the vicious persecution of Christians by the Roman government (under Nero) had seemingly not yet begun, there would have been no reason for Peter to veil the identity of Rome by the use of another name. When Paul wrote to the Romans, sending greetings by name to many in Rome, he omitted Peter. Had Peter been a leading overseer there, this would have been an unlikely omission. Also, Peter’s name is not included among those sending greetings in Paul’s letters written from Rome​—Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Philemon, Hebrews.

Peter, Letters of — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[Omega Man]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

I am not most scholars...I am a Christian who believes the Bible...ALL of it...

Correct, you are an adherent; an ideological subscriber.


OM

 

[Omega Man]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

The Petrine epistles are forgeries, and no amount of ideological gymnastics can ever undermine that.


OM

 

[it's just me]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

Doesn't "follower of Christ" work?

"Someone who tells me what I want to hear and never disagrees with me" is what I think he was going for.

 

[kitsune]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

John 10:10

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I
am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

The thief grabs all your abundance. And kills you. Jesus died so that we can have abundant stuff and live to enjoy it. The vehicle God created for acquiring abundance, and buying protection and good medical care for yourself, is money. Could the lesson be any clearer?

 

[it's just me]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

The thief grabs all your abundance. And kills you. Jesus died so that we can have abundant stuff and live to enjoy it. The vehicle God created for acquiring abundance, and buying protection and good medical care for yourself, is money. Could the lesson be any clearer?

Clear as mud the way you explain it.

 

[kitsune]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

Clear as mud the way you explain it.

Then I have succeeded in employing the approach Christians take in explaining what their holy book means. Let me simplify it for you. Jesus wants us to be rich.

 

[it's just me]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

Then I have succeeded in employing the approach Christians take in explaining what their holy book means. Let me simplify it for you. Jesus wants us to be rich.

I accept your surrender.

 

[kitsune]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

I accept your surrender.

So Jesus does want us to be rich. I knew it!

 

[it's just me]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

So Jesus does want us to be rich. I knew it!

You're really Creflo Dollar, aren't you?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

Jesus wants us to be rich.

What is the accepted explanation of how this reconciles with the eye of the needle parable and the sell-all-your-stuff instructions?

 

[Daisy]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

What is the accepted explanation of how this reconciles with the eye of the needle parable and the sell-all-your-stuff instructions?

Easily...Jesus is referring to spiritual riches, rather than the physical...

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

Easily...Jesus is referring to spiritual riches, rather than the physical...

Yeah, but that's not the message of prosperity gospel as I understand it.

 

[Daisy]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

Yeah, but that's not the message of prosperity gospel as I understand it.

Well, imo their message is flawed...

 

[kitsune]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

What is the accepted explanation of how this reconciles with the eye of the needle parable and the sell-all-your-stuff instructions?

You would have to ask a Christian. And if you want a different answer, ask a different Christian.

 

[kitsune]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

Easily...Jesus is referring to spiritual riches, rather than the physical...

Then what's with the thief? How can a thief steal spiritual riches?

 

[Daisy]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

Then what's with the thief? How can a thief steal spiritual riches?

False prophets would be the thieves...the cross reference for John 10:10 is Matthew 7:15...ravenous wolves is used in the Bible as a metaphor describing those who are extremely covetous and who exploit others for personal gain...

“Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves."

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

Doesn't "follower of Christ" work?

In theory, but then you get into arguments about what that means, and then there will be groups that claim that are followers of Christ that other people will claim aren't Christian. For example, there are many Christians that claim Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not Christian, others will claim Catholics aren't, and there are some Catholics that will say a number of Protestants aren't.

Yet, they will all claim they are 'followers of Christ'.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

I am not most scholars...I am a Christian who believes the Bible...ALL of it...

When it comes to understanding the origins of the writings, belief is no substitute for actual scholarship and knowledge.

 

[calamity]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

I am not most scholars...I am a Christian who believes the Bible...ALL of it...

If true, then why do you not believe that Numbers 5:11-31 is describing an abortifacient given by priests to women so that they miscarry if they were unfaithful? :roll:


I know. "It doesn't say what it says; it says what I want it to say."

 

[kitsune]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

False prophets would be the thieves...the cross reference for John 10:10 is Matthew 7:15...ravenous wolves is used in the Bible as a metaphor describing those who are extremely covetous and who exploit others for personal gain...

“Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves."

Elvira, your version of Christianity is certainly one of the more attractive ones.

 

[Daisy]

Re: I had yet another person tell me that Jesus was a socialist

What Does the Passage Imply?
The entire purpose of the ceremony as presented in the passage is to reveal whether or not adultery has occurred. The scenario presented is not that of a man who finds his wife pregnant, but rather a man who suspects his wife of unfaithfulness and is "overcome with a spirit of jealousy," (Numbers 5:14). No concerns about children or offspring are ever mentioned. That's not at all the point. What happens if the woman is guilty is a direct punishment from God on her for her sin. But is that punishment a miscarriage? This seems highly unlikely. The two aspects of the curse literally translate that her innards will swell and that her thigh will fall. There is, of course, room for debate as to exactly what physical symptoms are being described here, but a miscarriage hardly seems the obvious choice. It appears to be a highly unlikely option! Note the blessing that is contrasted with the curse:

"But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children," (Numbers 5:28).

The NIV renders the last clause as "she will be able to have children," but the implication is the same. The assumption behind this entire scenario is that she has not presently conceived and is not plainly able to have children. If she is innocent, she will be blessed with the ability to conceive and bear children, something she has not yet done. According to the ancient Jewish tradition recorded in the Mishnah, a woman who was pregnant or was nursing a child was not to undergo the ordeal at all!1 Thus, while one could perhaps read the passage to imply the curse of a barren womb, a miscarriage or abortion seems out of the question. It is also worth noting how the passage was read by the earliest ancient interpreters. The translators of the Septuagint (a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures) rendered the passage as:

"And this water that brings the curse shall enter your belly, to swell the belly and make your thigh fall to pieces," (Numbers 5:22, LXX)2

Quite similar to how most translations render it today, with no reference to the womb or to miscarriage. The ancient Jewish readers certainly did not understand the passage to imply an abortion.

Does Numbers 5:11-31 proscribe abortion drugs in cases of adultery? | CARM.org