How much of scripture is fiction?

[polonius]

Vatican II in 1964 claimed “The books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures� (Dei Verbum, no. 11).:

Catholics usually aren’t told that some other things need not be true, a major difference! The trick is to recognize this difference.

The Christian writer Oregon claimed we should “also considered levels of inspiration and the possibility of error in both Testaments owing to the Origen noted the authors’ humanity�. Errors in the text, it should be said, would not contradict our present understanding that there is no error in “the truth which God . . . wished to see confided� there for the sake of our salvation.

“ Acknowledging such historical or prescientific errors is a far cry from saying the Bible is “God breathed.� Much can actually just be legend or fiction for believers to accept.

For example, I think Catholics can safely conclude that Jesus wasn't really born twice (Compare Matthew and Luke)

[JehovahsWitness]

... the picture painted by the epistles is that Paul and Peter were completely at odds and never really saw eye-to-eye.

Please offer supporting references from the epistles.


Thanks,

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[*]The Old Testament quotations in 1 Peter are predominantly direct quotations of the Septuagint rather than either matching the present Hebrew text or even being a personal translation of an alternate Hebrew text. A Galilean would be expected to know either a Hebrew or an Aramaic textual tradition, if any.

What do you mean by "the present Hebrew text" ? Why would he make a "personal translation" of any biblical source text? Do you mean a personal interpretation/explanation?

A Galilean would be expected to know either a Hebrew or an Aramaic textual tradition...

• Your point being? Simon Peter no doubt was familiar with the Hebrew texts, the question is : Is there anything that would render it impossible he later choose use the Greek Septuagint? If yes, what? His origins? Is this not like suggesting An Itallian would never be seen eating boeuf stroganoff because it is not a dish native to his country of origin.

[JehovahsWitness]

..the only point you made (albeit several times) was that [...]Peter was not only very educated during the timeframe covered by Acts, he possibly (and therefore probably?) went on to become even more educated between then and when the epistles were presumably written.

And your response is....

• Peter as described in the Gospels and Acts was unlikely to be able to generate the polished Greek (perhaps the most literary of the New Testament writings, according to one of the experts)

Which is you simply restating your conclusion. What in your opinion makes it impossible that the exfisherman of Galilean origins, who from the Acts account, already demonstrated considerable learning, was thereafter incapable of further progress? Why could he not have polished his Greek and refined his writing abilities*? What evidence do we have that such a thing would have been impossible? We all learn with time, travel and experience, it's inevitable so the onus would be on you to explain why Peter would have been the exception to this rule if, as gospels and Acts suggest he went on to have all three.

A mental handicap? He broke his back lost his hearing and was confined to a bed in the highlands cut off from human contact and fed by a friendly pack of wolves?! What?! I'm sorry to labour the point but all I see from you is circular reasoning, so perhaps if you address "the further learning point"* your rationale will have some substance.


JW



* The schools of higher learning did not hold the monopoly on knowledge, there is nothing in either letter that an mature, intelligent self taught man with access to Greek culture and scripture, could not have written.

[JehovahsWitness]

• The structure and concerns of the Church as described in 1 Peter are most consistent with a composition date sometime after Peter's death, but before Revelation was written.

Supporting evidence please.


a) Evidence that allows us to pinpoint the year of Simon Peter's death.

b) Texual indications from the epistles that indicate it was written after the above proven date (a)



Thanks,



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

• 1 Peter discusses matters that would be of interest to Gentile churches (and Pauline matters in general) rather than topics tailored to the Jewish Christians of Peter's ministry as described in the Pauline epistles.

Please provide examples supporting this point.

• The high Christology of 1 Peter and lack of focus on the life of Jesus and events of the Gospels seems inconsistent with one that traveled with Jesus and not only lived through, but participated in those events.

CHRISTOLOGY

The branch of Christian theology relating to the person, nature, and role of Christ.

So your saying if the writer travelled and lived with Christ, he would not have written a letter speaking about "the person, nature, and role of Christ"? Is that what you're saying? If so, this seems rather contradictory. Can you explain why you think a companion of Christ would not have written about the role of Christ ?

[polonius]

JW posted:

So your saying if the writer travelled and lived with Christ, he would not have written a letter speaking about "the person, nature, and role of Christ"? Is that what you're saying? If so, this seems rather contradictory. Can you explain why you think a companion of Christ would not have written about the role of Christ ?

RESPONSE: The answer to your question is self-evident. Jesus is said to have had 12 apostles. There are only 4 gospels. Obviously 8 of his followers didn't write anything.

[Difflugia]

What do you mean by "the present Hebrew text"?

The Masoretic Text.

So your saying if the writer travelled and lived with Christ, he would not have written a letter speaking about "the person, nature, and role of Christ"?

No.

Wikipedia: Development of "low Christology" and "high Christology"

[JehovahsWitness]

So your saying if the writer travelled and lived with Christ, he would not have written a letter speaking about "the person, nature, and role of Christ"?

No.

Wikipedia: Development of "low Christology" and "high Christology"

CHRISTOLOGY

The "low Christology" ... the earliest Christians believing that Jesus was a human who was exalted, c.q. adopted as God's Son, when he was resurrected. Later beliefs shifted the exaltation to his baptism, birth, and subsequently to the idea of his eternal existence, as witnessed in the Gospel of John.

The other early Christology is "high Christology," which is "the view that Jesus was a pre-existent divine being who became a human, did the Father’s will on earth, and then was taken back up into heaven whence he had originally come," and from where he appeared on earth.

So basically you are suggesting that the teaching that Jesus had a prehuman existence, was born a human, did his Fathers will and returned to heaven are ideas that cannot be found in the synoptic gospels (or from earlier writings in the Hebrew bible) and must therefore have originated with a Paul that Simon Peter the ex- fisherman could not have possibly had interacted with presumably (as you are going to prove), because was dead by the time the Epistles were written.

You are going to prove when the Epistles was written.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 840#972840

If you can offer proof for all that without circullar reasoning, supposition and suspension of disbelief I'll give you the keys to my car and the garage it's parked in.


Over to you,

JW

[Difflugia]

So basically you are suggesting that the teaching that Jesus had a prehuman existence, was born a human, did his Fathers will and returned to heaven are ideas that cannot be found in the synoptic gospels (or from earlier writings in the Hebrew bible) and must therefore have originated with a Paul that Simon Peter the ex- fisherman could not have possibly had interacted with presumably, because was dead by the time the Epistles were written.

If you're not going to engage with the scholarship on its terms, we're not speaking the same language and I'm done debating with you. If you have further questions that aren't just axe grinding, I'll try to answer them. I'm going to treat the statement that I quoted above as such.

No, none of that is what I'm suggesting.

Secular scholars don't treat the Gospels as history, but as history as seen through the lenses of theologies evolved through subsequent decades. Scholars think that they can glean enough details to more-or-less accurately reconstruct the shared theology of Jesus and the Disciples.

What I'm suggesting is that the relatively low Christology of Mark (which can be read as adoptionistic and I think was meant to be; note that most texts of Mark 1:10 read that the Spirit descended into ("εἰς") Jesus rather than upon ("�π") Him, as the other Synoptics and Textus Receptus have it) is likely to be much closer to the theology of the original disciples than the later Christologies of the other Gospels, Acts and the Paulines. Peter, someone who presumably traveled and talked with Jesus Himself, is unlikely to have changed his own theology so much in the intervening years to have written 1 Peter 1.

To get an idea of Mark's Christology without the influence of the other Gospels, I recommend pages 9-14 of Reading Mark by Sharyn Echols Dowd.

[JehovahsWitness]

So basically you are suggesting that the teaching that Jesus had a prehuman existence, was born a human, did his Fathers will and returned to heaven are ideas that cannot be found in the synoptic gospels (or from earlier writings in the Hebrew bible) and must therefore have originated with a Paul that Simon Peter the ex- fisherman could not have possibly had interacted with presumably, because was dead by the time the Epistles were written.

No, none of that is what I'm suggesting... What I'm suggesting is that the relatively low Christology of Mark... is likely to be much closer to the theology of the original disciples ... Peter, someone who presumably traveled and talked with Jesus Himself, is unlikely to have changed his own theology so much in the intervening years to have written 1 Peter 1.

I cannot respond unless it is clear what you are suggesting, thus my questions.


So you are suggesting that the the Simon Peter of the gospels could not possibly have been the writer of the Epistles bearing the same name because the latter represents a radical change in theology from that found in the gospel of Mark. Is that an accurate summary of your point?

If so please offer supporting texts from the epistle of Peter to prove this point.



JW