The Big Bang!

Originally posted by dj2becker
I think my question is very relevant. I do not think the Holy Spirit would let Peter lie about his own identity. As he clearly states in 1 Peter 1:1
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ..."

I appreciate the insight into your mental condition.

You know, with that sort of spiritual technology, the historical inconsistencies raised to refute Peter's authorship are of no consequence--the date they were written doesn't matter--the HS could just have channeled Peter's words the way he would have said them! Peter's knowledge of historical events that took place after his death is no obstacle to this viewpoint--presumably he kept up to date with the news in heaven. Thanks for completely realigning my perspective on history.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I appreciate the insight into your mental condition.

You know, with that sort of spiritual technology, the historical inconsistencies raised to refute Peter's authorship are of no consequence--the date they were written doesn't matter--the HS could just have channeled Peter's words the way he would have said them! Peter's knowledge of historic ...[text shortened]... up to date with the news in heaven. Thanks for completely realigning my perspective on history.

new perspective on ghost writers?

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm not talking about God's definition of "love" or "justice", I'm talking about dj2becker's definitions. He is the one making the claims here about what is loving and just.

I'd be interested in hearing what the germane "spiritual component" here is. Are you saying we ought to take these claims concerning punishment metaphorically. If not, then how ought we take them? If so, then please analyze the metaphor.

Ever noticed that something like anger and rage can run in the family? This might not necissarily be because of Gods curse, but being "like father, like son" could be God visiting the sins of the fathers on their children. There is also a perfectly logical psychological explanation for it, but this just confirms it.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I appreciate the insight into your mental condition.

You know, with that sort of spiritual technology, the historical inconsistencies raised to refute Peter's authorship are of no consequence--the date they were written doesn't matter--the HS could just have channeled Peter's words the way he would have said them! Peter's knowledge of historic ...[text shortened]... up to date with the news in heaven. Thanks for completely realigning my perspective on history.

the historical inconsistencies raised to refute Peter's authorship

Are we looking at archeological evidence or are you refering to some kind of oral evidence which was passed on over 2000 years by word of mouth?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]according to the "christians" the Holy Spirit also wrote that God told Joshua to kill all the canaanites and steal their land .

According to the same Bible God is also a Holy God and punishes sin.

Goats they be and goats they will remain.
They worship a god that hates mankind.

That must be your god ...[text shortened]... commandments.

As has been mentioned before you cannot separate God's love from his justice.[/b]

If you think hacking children to pieces isn't a sin , I hope you like the smell of burnt goatmeat.

Originally posted by frogstomp
If you think hacking children to pieces isn't a sin , I hope you like the smell of burnt goatmeat.

King Saul found out that disobedience was as the sin of witchcraft when he did not carry out God's command to utterly destroy the Amalakites, the enemies of God.

But on the same point most countries have legalised abortion.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]the historical inconsistencies raised to refute Peter's authorship

Are we looking at archeological evidence or are you refering to some kind of oral evidence which was passed on over 2000 years by word of mouth?[/b]

I presume you haven't read the link I posted. Anyhow here (from the article) are the main arguments against Peter being the author:

* There was no systematic persecution of Christians in Asia Minor during Peter's lifetime
* The earliest recorded recorded case of Christians in Asia Minor was AD90 or more than a quarter century after the death of Peter.
*The rhetorical question in I Peter 3:13 could not be understood if it were placed during Peter's lifetime.
* The sophisticated prose and ideas in I Peter which could not have originated from am unschooled Galilean peasant

The last point you have dealt with, I take it--the HS can presumably inspire people to write as well as speak in tongues...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I presume you haven't read the link I posted. Anyhow here (from the article) are the main arguments against Peter being the author:

* There was no systematic persecution of Christians in Asia Minor during Peter's lifetime
* The earliest recorded recorded case of Christians in Asia Minor was AD90 or more than a quarter century after the death of ...[text shortened]... lt with, I take it--the HS can presumably inspire people to write as well as speak in tongues...

Do you have any historical backup of these occurences other than the spoutings of some 'anti-bible' website?

I suggest you read the writings of Josephus. Him being a historian, I would suggest his writings might be a bit more accurate than the spoutings of some 'atheistic' website.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you have any historical backup of these occurences other than the spoutings of some 'anti-bible' website?

I suggest you read the writings of Josephus. Him being a historian, I would suggest his writings might be a bit more accurate than the spoutings of some 'atheistic' website.

Immense yawn...of course you will consider any viewpoint that contradicts the bible "anti-bible" and not worthy of rebuttal...why not argue the points on their merits? Refusing to do so suggests that you can't. I can think of a number of objections to these skeptical viewpoints--can you?

As for Josephus, I'm not sure that he mentioned Peter at all.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you have any historical backup of these occurences other than the spoutings of some 'anti-bible' website?

I suggest you read the writings of Josephus. Him being a historian, I would suggest his writings might be a bit more accurate than the spoutings of some 'atheistic' website.

is that the same Josephus tha wrote 2 books 10 years apart that made mention of Pilate and his actions in jeruslem but only the latter one mentioned Christ?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Immense yawn...of course you will consider any viewpoint that contradicts the bible "anti-bible" and not worthy of rebuttal...why not argue the points on their merits? Refusing to do so suggests that you can't. I can think of a number of objections to these skeptical viewpoints--can you?

As for Josephus, I'm not sure that he mentioned Peter at all.

I can think of a number of objections to these skeptical viewpoints--can you?

So basically you are just wasting your and my time?

Originally posted by frogstomp
according to the "christians" the Holy Spirit also wrote that God told Joshua to kill all the canaanites and steal their land .

Goats they be and goats they will remain.
They worship a god that hates mankind.

God does not steal, it all belongs to Him. He can give what He wills
to whom He wills.
Kelly

Originally posted by dj2becker
My primitive answer would be yes, I believe that Peter wrote them whilest inspired by the Holy Spirit, as was the whole of the Bible written by people inspired by the Holy Spirit, which in essence makes the Holy Spirit the author of the entire Bible.

Just out of curiosity, why isn't the 'holy spirit' causing people to
write stuff today? Instead we get Franz Kafka, Hemmingway,
tolstoy, and all those incredibly limited writers, I mean how could
they dare to write when it is only their feeble brains doing the thinking?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just out of curiosity, why isn't the 'holy spirit' causing people to
write stuff today? Instead we get Franz Kafka, Hemmingway,
tolstoy, and all those incredibly limited writers, I mean how could
they dare to write when it is only their feeble brains doing the thinking?

Just out of curiosity, why isn't the 'holy spirit' causing people to
write stuff today?

What gave you that impression?

Originally posted by KellyJay
God does not steal, it all belongs to Him. He can give what He wills
to whom He wills.
Kelly

Nice definition of God as capitalist.

What was that one about the flowers of the field...?