Continuing from last post:
Exactly my point -- so please stop begging the question.
are you willing to change your view every time that modern scholarship comes across new evidence that a certain verse or a certain book isn't really Apostolic?
It's hardly modern.
I'm not sure how sticking your fingers in your ears is supposed to make anyone think you're a serious seeker of truth. If it's an interpolation, it's an interpolation.
And it's not as if you know for sure that John is Apostolic either. Are you willing to change your view every time that the modern EOC comes across new Tradition that a certain verse or a certain book isn't really Apostolic?
2 Peter was probably written between AD 130-150
1) No it wasn't.
2) How strange that you'd prefer liberal scholarship over believing. Almost as if you were back in your errantist phase, as if you were like most other EOx, a liberal.
3) If you really believed that, it speaks even less highly of your desire to know the truth, since if it were written then it wouldn't be Apostolic, but your church thinks it is. So it's just another example of authority pulling the rug over your eyes and you letting them do so.
Incidentally, it's been Protestant scholarship that has detected these things, not EO scholarship. Wonder why that is.
Because of our drastically different viewpoints? While the Orthodox uphold the Bible, the Protestants undermine it...
Who knows what this even means, or how it answers my challenge. Apparently you don't have an answer.
How about you just stay in your own position, I'll stay in mine, and we'll talk, OK?
How about giving better evidence for your position than "it's true because I believe it" which is all that your comments here have amounted to thus far?
Again, no answer to my challenge that you're acting like an atheist when it suits you.
How will YOU answer the question?
1. That Christ is risen, therefore God
2. That Christ founded a Church, which is therefore perfect and eternal3. That this Church decided the canon of Scripture
Um, atheists don't accept that Christ is risen, or that there is a God. Why wouldn't the atheist just dismiss the arguments for the resurrection as anomalous: "Weird stuff happens sometimes, but we know there's no God, so..."?
And premise 2 is, um, highly questionable.
As for premise 3, it shows me where you put your trust. Whereas my position is that God decides canon and the church recognises it, you prefer it the other way around. You start with man. Man-centered religion.
How? OK, get this - God uses sinful men to carry out His perfect plan.
Are you trying to convince me or just justify yourself? This is about the most circular argumentation I've ever seen...
You ask me how God could have used Specific Sinful Man X to carry out His plan and I remind you that all men are sinful and that God uses sinful men to carry out His plan, and that's circular? Um, OK.
And you show no recognition of that pattern throughout the entire Bible. Wow.
2) Oh, so the OT Canon wasn't known to the Jews until after Christ?
Are you not familiar with the Council of Jamnia
Familiar enough to know it wasn't a "Council" at all.
How does this answer my question?
How did He quote from it all the time then?
Did he quote from every book of your Old Testament?
Um, if there's no canon, then quoting from ANY book leaves Him open to the question of whether it's canonical. Gotta follow the thought here, man.
There are quotes in the New Testament from the deuterocanonicals and even the apocrypha
1) Prove it.
2) Have you so quickly forgotten our debate?
Does Romans 3:2 refer to the Jews before Christ's time who accepted the Septuagint with deuterocanonicals as Scriptural (as St. Paul did)? Or to the Jews after Christ's time who edited the Scriptures, excised verses and entire books, and turned to the Masoretic instead?
1) So now you're changing your argument. First it was that the Jews didn't have a Canon. Now it's that they did but it was the one with DC books. Make up your mind.
2) And their canon didn't include those books. Nice try, though.
All of history is but an illusion... Your "god" is a rather deceptive fellow
Again, no answer to the challenge.
It is important to distinguish between pre-Incarnation and post-Incarnation Jews.
Quite. Which is why I did so.
1) And how do you know who wrote the parts of Tradition that name the authors?
Is all Tradition written?
This is nothing less than an admission that you can't answer the challenge.
Remember: I, unlike you, actually believe that Christ's promise is fulfilled and the Holy Spirit guides the Church.
OOh, is it OK if I quote you from just above? "How about giving better evidence for your position than "it's true because I believe it" which is all that your comments here have amounted to thus far?"
2) And how do you know that those parts of tradition are big-T Tradition?
We've covered this already; I'm not going over it again.
Yep, I refer everyone to our debate. I laugh every time I read your "answer" to my first cross-examination question.
What if the Gospel of John really was written in the late 2nd century as some scholars have posited? Should we throw the whole thing out?
More atheist-type questions, right after whining about "atheist-dominated scholarship" too. You can't decide when you're coming and when you're going!
John 7:53-8:11 and 2 Peter were written around the same time.
1) How could you possibly know that?
2) What does time of writing have to do with it?