rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message news:<6e14bcdc.0401091032.2db4c52@posting.google.com>...

rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message news:<6e14bcdc.0401071125.5f8886b6@posting.google.com>...

JERRY
You have never yet responded to my posts which show that (1) Eusebius
knew in 300 AD that II Peter wasn't canon

ROGER
Are those his words?

Eusebius THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS. Book III. Chapter III. The
Epistles of the Apostles.

1 One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as
genuine.16 And this the ancient elders17 used freely in their own
writings as an undisputed work.18 But we have learned that his extant
second Epistle does not belong to the canon;19 yet, as it has appeared
profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.20

ROGER
Thank you for that (I have not yet reached the stage of memorising
Eusebius!).

But Eusebius cites differing documents at differing places, and is
plainly aware that many do think it canon. From the same book:

"Chapter XXV. The Divine Scriptures that are Accept and Those that are
Not.216

1 Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the
writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First
then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels;217 following them
the Acts of the Apostles.218

2 After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul;219 next in order
the extant former epistle of John,220 and likewise the epistle of
Peter,221 must be maintained.222 After them is to be placed, if it
really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John,223 concerning which we
shall give the different opinions at the proper time.224 These then
belong among the accepted writings.225

3 Among the disputed writings,226 which are nevertheless recognized227
by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James228 and that of
Jude,229 also the second epistle of Peter,230 and those that are
called the second and third of John,231 whether they belong to the
evangelist or to another person of the same name.

4 Among the rejected writings232 must be reckoned also the Acts of
Paul,233 and the so-called Shepherd,234 and the Apocalypse of
Peter,235 and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas,236
and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles;237 and besides, as I
said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I
said, reject,238 but which others class with the accepted books.239 "

In other words, there was no harmonisation on the fringe books during
the first few centuries. Unless the NT fell out of the sky
fully-formed, this was inevitable until legalisation made
communication over a wide area feasible.

ROGER
So I am not sure that citing Eusebius tells us anything except that
this harmony did not exist, which I think we knew.

JERRY
and that (2) Biblical
scholars basically admit that II Peter was not written by the same
writer as I Peter and was added long after the fact to quell the
unhappy cultists who were impatiently waiting for the promised Second
Coming that Jesus said would happen during the lifetimes of the
disciples.

ROGER
Appeals to authority on matters of religious controversy are
worthless, surely? Biblical scholars always agree on whatever the
establishment wants to be believed.

JERRY
Define "establishment."

ROGER
Use it the normal way: the people who have real power and all know one
another. The people who stay in power, whatever the ballot box says.
The permananent unelected political establishment of the country.
(There are probably better definitions).

In a country like the US where polls show
that 95% of the population believes in a god (though not necessarily
the SAME god) the establishment are theists, Roger.

ROGER
I do not think so, to judge from your television programmes (which we
see).

ROGER
In the UK, the vast majority of the population objects to (e.g.)
immigration. Nevertheless discussion is almost banned, and 250,000
immigrants a year are coming in. So I think we should ask who has
*real* power? Who makes appointments?

Isn't it quite easy to see that those in power, and the majority of
the population, are not the same thing? All democracy means is a veto
every so often, always presuming that the major parties do not
manufacture a consensus between them so that you don't even get that
choice.

If YM1 wishes to use II Peter as literal and factual (to try to debunk
global warming), the combination of Eusebius's statement as well as
the appeal to authority is good to cast doubt on the authenticity of
the text to a reasonable person though, don't you think?

ROGER
I'm afraid that actually I think it is playing with words. The text
is part of the canon -- a religious decision. That the canon was not
harmonised at the date he wrote we know.

ROGER
The opinion of modern
scholars on matters of religion is of no weight, surely?

ROGER
One must never confuse rhetoric with reality, and that is what's
happening.

JERRY
(Well, not to those inclined to disbelieve anything that doesn't fit
into their personal superstitions and the beliefs they were taught
in childhood.)

ROGER
Or acquired after puberty while watching 'Baywatch'.

ROGER
I have never seen anyone sensibly maintain that the value-idea system
of our age is adopted as a rational decision. Conformity to the
values of the age is done for other reasons, I'd have thought.

ROGER
Disbelief of the inconvenient appears to be a major force in much
online posting.

Hi,

Sorry, but perhaps I do not understand. Are you seriously saying that

passage has anything to do with global warming? Or are you replacing

currently scientifically accepted idea with an apocalyptic expression?

From my experience, every second you use to think about the truth or
fallacy of I-know-SHITs claims is wasted. He's a typical fundie liar.
He would tell any ludicrous falsehood in the name of his sick "faith".
Consider that among the masterpieces I read coming from him was:

1. a list of famous scientists who believed in creationism, presented
by him as "proof" that creationism has to be true. What he did NOT post
along with the names were their dates of death - everyone of them died
before Darwin conceived evolutionary theory!

2. some weeks ago, a posting about the meaning of christmas where he
postulated that christians should not forget that the conception of
Jesus also should be a reason to celebrate (or something like that). He
elaborated that this of course took place nine months before christmas,
at (I am just quoting him here!) "SEPTEMBER 25th".
(The nominal length of pregnancy was also incorrect - it's really 280
days, ten "moon months" - but this I won't hold against him as most
people who never had medical training will think nine months is correct)

Please answer to yourself:
Do YOU see any reason to trust someone who feels qualified to critizise
science while being unable to calculate 12 - 9?