Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Pseudepigraphical seems to be the word I find most about 2 Peter. Probably was written after his death and attributed to Peter as much of the writting of the time was attributed to someone important so as to have their authority. Some say it was written about 150 C.E., if so then the false teachers would most likely be the Gnostics. In that this was a era of multiple branches of the concept of "Christian" before it got wrapped up into a half dozen different orthodox packages it could be just about anybody other than the guy/gal writting the book.

As for "today", orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder. Got that web out again? Prosperity Preachers go against my grain but the power of positive thinking is a proven attribute of success.
 

I take that back about the Prosperity Gospel preachers. I don't like 'em, I think it's a gross misunderstanding of God's blessings, and that it flies in the face of Jesus's messages. But I don't guess, except in the extreme cases, that they're "false." Just mistaken.

Minor epihany that. As I was ironing a shirt just now, it occurred to me that I could probably find examples of Southern slaveholding Christians accusing abolitionist Christians of being "false teachers" for promoting something that runs counter to what the Bible appears to say about slavery, which was basically, "Buck up, y'all slaves. Jesus loves you, and he loves you even more when you suffer in slience." Yeesh.

In other words, "false teachers," in the greater scheme of things, can't have anything to do with temporal economics and social customs and mores, like the perceived social value of personal wealth, or capital held in the forms of human beings held in bondage -- or WHETHER THE STATE SHOULD ALLOW HOMOSEXUALS TO MARRY OR NOT -- because all of those circumstances that include sin in the extremes but include sincere believers who are in disagreement.

"False teachers," then, have to be real charletans, I think. Outright deceivers. Not brothers who disagree.
 

The "vomit" they return to, then, rather than "sin," is "self." Those who misused Grace as Paul preached it probably wallowed in themselves for the sake of themselves, not because they "interpreted" Paul's teachings a certain way. The whole "liberty" versus "license" thing in a nutshell.

Like those who Baptists accuse of carrying "fire insurance" -- "get saved," walk the aisle, get baptized, "go through the motions" -- get "salvation" and, like an insurance policy, tuck it in a pockrt somewhere and give no more thought to it -- until you need it. That's a benign form of falseness, unless one is actually promoting that as a legitimate response to the Gospel. But false nonetheless. I think.
 

Oh, I just saw your comment Drlobo. My trusyt "liberal" Bible, the one I list at the endof WHAT I'M READING in the sidebar, says most "scholars" -- hat tip to Neil! -- think it was written very shrtly after Peter's martydom, in the lates 60s, specifically to preserve Peter's thinking, as well as to defend against the pseudoPauline hedonists.

Man. I gotta get some clothes on and go to work. These Internets are an addiction! Meant to mow the yard this morning.
 

CORRECTION: I looked again. It says I Peter was written between 70 and 90. I was misremembering the lates 60, which it says is when Paul had been in that area preaching -- so, a generation later, in the face of persecution from neighbors who thought the Christians were too strict in their morality, some were taking Grace to extremes -- that is, using it as fire insurance, then returning to their own "vomit." I make a distinction between that, by the way, and sinning after, and while, "believing" -- for there is none with sin.

Oh, hey, I desrcibed Sophia as being part of the Godhead Bodily over at Neil's place awhallago. I wonder if any heads will explode?? :-)
 

Sigh. Strike "there is none with sin." Replace; "there is none without sin."
 

Dadgum it. That IS 2 Peter I linked to, not 1 Peter. I don't know *when* my "liberal" Bible says it was penned. It's home and I'm at work now until way late.
 

I sure wish my old buddy Nip Tuckerson would weigh in!
 

I swear, ER, you post comments on your own site to boost the readability and interest!

2 Peter is one of those books I have not studied a whole lot. The passage you link to, however, is very interesting, and I think your general understanding of those to whom it was directed is spot on, especially in light of discussions in Roman circles towards the end of the first, beginning of the second, century, of Christians as those who worship a donkey and engage in infanticide and orgiastic behavior (apparently the whole "love feast" thing was a tad too obscure for the Roman mind). It is entirely possible those reports, which the Romans generalized, were actual practices encouraged by "false teachers" who saw the freedom about which Paul wrote as "license".
 

Re, "you post comments on your own site to boost the readability and interest!"

W'll, yeah! Puppies, kitty cats, redneckery and Eternal Questions! :-)
 

Oh, you said "comments." Well, sometimes I don't think and blog. Sometimes, I think AS I blog. :-)
 

Wait for a link and some thoughts of my own over at my place . . .
 

I think you can be a false teacher without knowing that you are:
Jim Bakker conceded that before going to jail, he had never sat down and read the whole bible, so it was in jail that he saw that he had been taking the prosperity verses completely out of the context of the whole.
He would have had to have known however that you need to read the whole thing to get a balanced picture, so he isn't guiltless...
Those who know what their doing, are , in my opinion, the most dangerous.
 

A good pick/chooser can find enough lines in Shakesphere's plays to prove he new about UFOs.

Anyone that uses three or more different bible verses in the same paragraph to prove his point is a cut and paste pick.chooser.
 

Speaking of Grace: I saw this week's "Saving Grace" tonight. Best one yet, I think. Which is good, since I thought last week's was the worst one. Only one more!
 

That's a great show. I've missed too many episodes despite how many times they run 'em. Though the gratuitous stuff is unnecessary in my opinion, I simply like the notion of someone working through the question of belief. They do a good job. And Holly Hunter's character is just so well drawn, it's hard NOT to like.

I think I know what a "prosperity preacher" is. Isn't it sorta like they preach that we're SUPPOSED to be filthy rich, or something like that?

As to false preachers, aside from Jim Jones types, are there really that many who purposely deceive? Wouldn't you agree that MOST are of the "simply mistaken" variety? There's also the "GOOD GOSH You have no idea just how mistaken you are" variety, like Fred Phelps. I think this dude believes what he says, which is sad for his followers, all thirteen of them.
 

I think there are more purposeful deceivers than most of us would like to think. Not just on TV, either. In churches high and low. But I agree that most are just on their own ranfents -- I wouldn't necesarrily even say "mistaken," I guess, when my blood pressure's down. There are lots of ways to skin the Jesus cat.

In my first job in the media, at a Southern Gospel radio station, we had preachers come in and go live on the air, to preach, some brought singers, choirs, etc. It was an old-fashioned place - a large studio big enough to have a small church service. One of them was golden, the very example of humiluty, grace and Jesusy goodness. One was a shamelsss snake. The rest would just come in and do their thing, in their corner of the holiness-pentecostal-independent-fundamentalist-bunheaded faith. It might have been a microcosm.
 

David Koresh
Warren Jeffs
 

Jim Jones. The entire Aryan Nation thing. The Klan. There's plenty.
 

One of our local pastors: but my, he can fill a church (and he makes sure the music's good too)!
 

LOL. 2 or 3 comments above: "ranfents" = tangents.
 

I mentioned Jones, and I'm only going by the made-for-TVer with Powers Booth. But the others mentioned, like Koresh, how do we know they are purposely deceiving rather than just being totally loopy? I guess I can concede the Klan, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear they believe what they say. Some sort of evidence would be in order (tape, journal, numerous hearsay testimonials)otherwise its speculative.
 

Well, I have a theory that the closer one actually gets to being totally open to God, the closer one gets to insanity, since the power of God would fry your wires. I thought that from the beginning with Koresh, for some reason.
 

ER, I am not being snarky but does that last statement of yours go against your previous stated beliefs about God? I don't believe that we can get too close to God and as we draw closer to Him, I cannot see Him
"frying" our wires. I believe in a God of love and justice, but I can not believe that He would wish to harm us for closeness to Him. Our danger comes from getting too far away from Him as His child.
 

Hi mom.

A reminder: sometimes I blog as I think and think as I blog, which means some comments are half-basked, not not through, etc.

But, to answer yer question: I think that if any of us were to lay eyes, or ears, on God before we're transformed* we might very well have our wires fried, especially is we seek, one hand, to be open to God, yet, on the other, have a quiet or hidden selfish motive.

Even the honestly faithful come back injured from direct encounters with God:

Jacob got his hip broken.

Moses got his hair whitened and his countenance transformed (burned?)

Paul came away temporarily blinded, and permanently rattled, from the road to Damascus.
 

ER, This is quite a "coincidence" that right after I made that post and then read your reply to me that I checked my incoming email and this Charles Spurgeon devotional was in my mail box. It is about the nearness of God.

Psalm 148:14
A people near unto him.

The dispensation of the old covenant was that of distance. When God appeared even to His servant Moses, He said, "Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet"; and when He manifested Himself upon Mount Sinai, to His own chosen and separated people, one of the first commands was, "Thou shalt set bounds about the mount." Both in the sacred worship of the tabernacle and the temple, the thought of distance was always prominent. The mass of the people did not even enter the outer court. Into the inner court none but the priests might dare to intrude; while into the innermost place, or the holy of holies, the high priest entered but once in the year. It was as if the Lord in those early ages would teach man that sin was so utterly loathsome to Him, that He must treat men as lepers put without the camp; and when He came nearest to them, He yet made them feel the width of the separation between a holy God and an impure sinner. When the gospel came, we were placed on quite another footing. The word "Go" was exchanged for "Come"; distance was made to give place to nearness, and we who aforetime were afar off, were made nigh by the blood of Jesus Christ. Incarnate Deity has no wall of fire about it. "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest," is the joyful proclamation of God as He appears in human flesh. Not now does He teach the leper his leprosy by setting him at a distance, but by Himself suffering the penalty of His defilement. What a state of safety and privilege is this nearness to God through Jesus! Do you know it by experience? If you know it, are you living in the power of it? Marvellous is this nearness, yet it is to be followed by a dispensation of greater nearness still, when it shall be said, "The tabernacle of God is with men, and He doth dwell among them." Hasten it, O Lord.

Wow, how exciting!
 

I think that the difference can be seen in what a pastor of mine once said about false teachers and the biblical reality of seeing God face to face:

he said to be beware of people who said they had had a vision of God, and then described Him as filling them with peace, looking like the old pics of Jesus, everything being warm and cuddly - because those who met God, or even one of His angels face to face, felt overwhelmed, dropped to the ground as if dead - Moses' face was altered, in general, it was a scary experience.

He also liked to remind us of the desription of what Jesus looks like now in Rev. 1 and Rev. 19: I'd be pretty overwhelmed if I met Him looking like that in my very earthly state -I'd fall down as dead like John says he did.

I believe that what we experience as coming closer to Him is buffered mercifully by the Holy Spirit and by the fact that we see in a mirror dimly (1 Cor. 13,12), because our human state just isn't at that level.
 

Why wouldn't the false prophets "believe" what they are saying is true? Jim Jones was as sincere as Billy Graham. David Koresh was as convince of his holiness as any prophet in the Old Testament was. Sincerity should never be confused with truth or reality. It is a rare prophet who is an out and out con-man.
 

Karen said: "He also liked to remind us of the desription of what Jesus looks like now in Rev. 1 and Rev. 19: I'd be pretty overwhelmed if I met Him looking like that in my very earthly state -I'd fall down as dead like John says he did."

And yet in the gospels after the resurection Jesus was not such an overwhelming site. Mary Magdalene at one point did not even recognize him.
 

No but He was on earth again and had not yet ascended, He had been to Gehenna, and so "risen from the dead" physically - and was not yet transformed, yet I'm guessing changed from being among the dead, as I expect anyone in a human body would be...I can't see a contradiction, sorry.
 

Good stuff to think about, Mom. Thanks.

I don't think sincerity has anything to do "false teaching," which seems to have to do intent -- although I'd have to break out the Concordance and do some contextual thinking to think on that further. But if being WRONG, without malice, is enough to get someone kicked off the team, then we're all screwed -- since none of us can possibly have it all right, because of that dark glass thing -- then, again, we;'re all screwed.

No, I think malice aforethought, as in criminal libel, even if it's driven just by rank selfishness, has to be an element of "false teaching." ...

Keith Green, after two years of spreading the Gospel through his music, and agonizing over God's will for his life, decided that he hadn't actually been "saved." God bless Keith Green; he was a prophet; but for all his ministry and his legacy, he hadn't really come very far in his walk when it comes to Grace. Was he a false teacher before his decision that he hadn't actually been saved? Hardly.
 

ER said:
"No, I think malice aforethought, as in criminal libel, even if it's driven just by rank selfishness, has to be an element of "false teaching."

Under that criteria none of the "false prophets"
mentioned so far actually qualify as such.

So, who are the false prophets under the malice aforethought criteria? Who has intentionally with malice given false prophecy?
Specific examples?
 

I stumbled across this site while trying to find more stuff about CK Chesterton. I don't think they discuss him on this site, but they were under Christian apolgetics. I think you'll enjoy this, ER. I thought of you when I started reading it. :)
Crystal


http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/09/10/theology-unplugged-what-is-the-true-church-5/
 

If a man preaches a doctrine that is false, he is preachinbg a false doctrine, regardless of whether he sincerely believes it or not.

As any judge would tell you, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Here's some questions:

Do you think God will go easaier on those who are "mistaken" than those who intentionally mislead? And, what about Satan? Do you think the devil plays a part in this? Or do the false preachers come up with their false doctrine on their own?

Prosperity preachers? I had a pastor once (now deceased) who called them "name it and claim it" preachers. They tell their listeners to send them $1,000.00 and God will bless them with 10,000. When they complain that they never received their "Blessing", The preacher simply accuses them of not having enough faith. It's an old con. It's been going on for decades.

Yes, These so-called "preachers are extremely dangerous. By their greed, they turn many thousands of people away from the truth. I truly believe there is a special place in Hell for these charlatans.

By the way, what evidence does any of these scholars have that Peter didn't write 2 Peter? Do they have a statement, certified authentic, from Peter himself to the effect that he didn't write it? Why does anyone feel the need to doubt it? What would be the purpose of lying about the author? And most importantly, What would be the point?
 

I said "false teachers," not "false prophets."

Malice: Jim Jones. Murdered his flock. The Aryan Nations, driven by racial hatred and pride. The Klan, same deal.

Thanks, Crystal, I'll check it out.

Mark, just do some research if you want to know more about textual criticism, biblical studies and hypotheses surrounding the authorship of various Scriptures.

The only "why" question that is germane is "Why do the research at all?" And the answer is: To use the minds God gave us to get at the truth, and to get away from making an idol out of the Bible.
 

I totally agree: we have a huge responsibility of stewardship when it comes to the mind and its use - and the idolatry to be discarded extends to other christian favorites: marriage, traditional family, "values and morals" (how I just hate that phrase, and I hear Christians say it all the time in the context of "I believe in values and morals" - what on earth does that even mean?!!), the unforgivable sin of the day: be it smoking, drinking, premarital sex, abortion, same sex relationships etc.
Idolatry rears its ugly head when we focus on the issue, idolize the ideal we carry in our minds, force others to comply and forget that human being(s), (all created through Christ, John 1) are involved.
 

False prophets-teachers-preachers.....all equal false doctrine.

ER said: "Malice: Jim Jones. Murdered his flock."

Not in Jim Jones' eyes he didn't, he saved them.

Do you believe that the Klan does not believe that they are part of a divine plan?

For Mark:
Here is the most consise pro/con on the subject. I contains specific sources if you want to look further.

"Although 2 Peter internally proports to be a work of the Apostle, a number of liberal biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle pseudepigraphical. Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to second-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[2] In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2Peter 3:15-16), his implication that the Apostlic generation has passed (2Peter 3:4), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2Peter 3:2).

A number of scholars, however, have disagreed with this position and forwarded reasons in support of genuine Petrine authorship. The text’s claim to have been written by “Simeon Peter” is unique. “Simeon” is an archaic Hebrew form of the standard "Simon", and appears only in Acts 15:14, and then just as “Simeon” (not “Simeon Peter”). “Simeon” is not used in any other place in the New Testament, in any of the Apostolic Fathers, or in any pseudepigraphic literature.[3] 1 Peter uses simply “Peter”, and it has been argued that it would be unlikely for a later writer attempting to feign an original letter to use a different name than one used in the genuine text, especially an archaic and obscure naming convention like "Simeon Peter." Concerning the relation between 2 Peter and Jude, three observations have been made. First, it could be that, conversely, Jude used 2 Peter, extracting information from it and adding a doxology, perhaps motivated by the prophetic statements of 2 Peter having been fulfilled.[4] Second, even if 2 Peter used Jude, that does not exclude Petrine authorship.[5] D. Guthrie stated simply that it was “a fallacious supposition” to assume that an apostle would not have made use of an earlier source, and that, though it might be unexpected, it would be equally or more unexpected for a forger to do so.[6] Third, Ben Witherington III argued that the text we have today is a composite, including points taken from the Epistle of Jude, but that it containing a genuine “Petrine fragment”, which he identified as 2Peter 1:12-21.[7]

If the letter were pseudepigraphy, in many respects it would be unparalleled with other such literature, and it has been remarked that, if the text is pseudepigraphical, then it is “of its own class”.[8] The common convention in pseudepigraphy, when attempting to further the verisimilitude of their claims to authorship, was to adopt a first-person narrative style; however, 2 Peter’s claims do not do so, even in the passage concerning the Transfiguration, where it would be most expected.[9] Furthermore, the account of the Transfiguration differs in certain details from the accounts in the synoptic gospels, unexpected of a forger, and the passage shows a complete lack of embellishment that sets it apart from the trend in apocryphal books.[10] Also unusual is the description of Paul, “our beloved brother” (2Peter 3:15). Later literature referred to Paul as “the blessed Paul”, “the blessed and glorious Paul”, and “the sanctified Paul right blessed”, and thus the subdued usage in the letter is more fitting of genuine Petrine use than of a later forgery.[11] Lastly, the statement that the author finds Paul’s letters difficult to understand (2Peter 3:15-16) runs counter to the tendency in pseudoepigraphy, which is to enhance the heroic alleged author.[12]

On remaining points, differences in style could be explained by Peter having employed different amanuenses (secretaries) for each epistle, or if Peter wrote the second letter himself, while using Silvanus (Silas) as an amanuensis for the first. The use of amanuenses was widespread in antiquity. The reference to the collection of Pauline letters does not in any sense imply the existence of a complete or authorized corpus of Paul’s letters.[13] With tradition placing Paul and Peter in Rome at nearly the same time, he might have had opportunity to read material copied from originals in the possession of Paul or his companions. The reference to “the fathers” (οι πατέρες) is not used anywhere else in the New Testament or in the Apostolic Fathers to refer to Christian “patriarchs”, or the first generation of Christian leaders, and instead would more naturally (given the context) be interpreted as referring to the Jewish patriarchs.[14]

Despite these arguments, the great majority of scholarship agrees that Peter could not have written this letter.[citation needed] For example, textual critic Daniel Wallace writes that, for most experts, "the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter" and that "the vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this...perspective."[15] Werner Kummel exemplefies this position, stating, "It is certain, therefore, that II Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged."[16], as does Stephen L Harris, who states that "[v]irtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter."[17] Evangelical historians D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo wrote that "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."[18]

full text:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter
 

Karen said: "No but He was on earth again and had not yet ascended, He had been to Gehenna, and so "risen from the dead" physically - and was not yet transformed, yet I'm guessing changed from being among the dead..."

Jesus changes?
 

Hmmm. He changed as he grew from a baby to a boy to a man. The Bible says he was Transfigured. And, he developed the ability to fly.

So, yes, Jesus changed.

His clothes, too, surely.

The Bible also says he is "the same yesterday, today and forever," seems like.

So, there ya go. :-)
 

First, I wasn't being argumentative. I was just asking.

So, OK. You've answered the question about what evidence these scholars have that lead them to believe Peter didn't write it. I'm afraid I am unconvinced. Once more folks (who I suspect are really really wanting some proof to discredit God) are relying on no real evidence, just what one might call educated guessing. It wouldn't fly in an impartial court of law. But you've answered the question that I asked.

Now, I ask again, What would be the point of saying Peter wrote it if, in fact he hadn't? What purpose would that serve God, or any of the apostles?

Not looking to argue, but the only reason I can think of that someone would claim Peter didn't write the letter that bears his name would be to deny that the inspiration came from God.
 

Markus, I apologize. My "argument" remark had more to do with my desire to avoid a debate over the worth of finding the truth as to who wrote II Peter than it did with your intent to argue. My answer is/will be in the next post.
 

Pseudopigraphia literally means written with a false name.

It was not uncommon for a document to be written in the "spirit of" a certain person of eminence during this period of history. It was not consider forgery or counterfeit like it would be today.

"What purpose would that serve God." Well the writer may very well have believed he was serving God by writting it. In fact, I would think that was a certainty.
Are you really asking why a psuedopigraphic book would be in God's bible? I've been working on that question and several like it for decades. I don't know.
 

Not willing to read through ALL the comments, forgive me if this is something that's already been hashed and rehashed...

Paul, as you should know, was not considered at first to be an Apostle. The Eleven chose someone else among Jesus' disciples to take Judas' place. Even when Paul was finally accepted as an Apostle it should have dawned on them that just as they had been personally chosen by Jesus, so too was Paul. I mention all that to say this...

The Eleven chose to stay primarily in Jerusalem and the surrounding Jewish communities, disregarding their Lord's command to 'go into all the world.' When Paul took up that command they began to see their error, but decided to let things stand for the time being as Jesus had set in motion through Paul. But there were certain 'Judaizers' who went behind Paul to the churches he had established to tell these Gentile converts that "Yes, you are saved by grace through Jesus Christ, but now you have to be circumcised and obey the Law, and observe the feast days, etc."

This is why in Galatians [just to pick one of many examples], Paul spends much of his time defending his Apostleship, his mission to the Gentiles, and the Gospel given to him by Jesus Himself: Salvation through faith, PLUS nothing, MINUS nothing... dead to the Law, alive in Christ.

This is who the false teachers are. Peter, no doubt, had a very similar view of just who was and who was not a false teacher. As did Jude. But I'd say the names you offered up hit the mark pretty squarely as well. I would add that many of whom preach on TBN and INSP are ALSO false teachers. Benny Hinn himself is also a false Prophet, but that's a story for another time.

As to the text you initially linked to, I have often wondered which came first in terms of actual penmanship... 2 Peter chapter two? or Jude? They are so similar in content they could very well have been written by the same hand.... Ahhh! But then they were!!!! For all scripture is given by inspiration of God! The Holy Spirit! Who, according to Jesus, is is sent to guide all believers into ALL TRUTH! Hallelujah!

I thought I would have trouble with your initial assumption, that 'Whether Peter wrote it or not it's an authentic apostolic view. Judging strictly from Adolf Schlatter's The Theology of the Apostles, I'd have to agree that it doesn't matter who wrote it, the view that there is 'something wrong with this picture' is still authentic.
 

Thanks for the rare visit, EL!