So your argument now is that Peter didn't at all write II Peter? Or are you asking me to Prove it was Written By Peter based on two things you suggest as dissenting views - minor dissenting views. Yep, I've read the stuff too. I've also read the assenting views which were more pointed and won the day. The claims of the dissenters were shot down. And I can debunk them pretty quickly with modern parallels. And with parallels of the day.
Nice attempt at trying once again to shift the burden of proof.
As for the quotation once again of Revelation, Revelation was written after II Peter by dating. One cannot leap forward in time to a revelation direct from God, Grab something said to another by God, then leap back in time and apply the usage. Doesn't work that way.. ok, maybe in star trek; but, not in real life. Care to give us the actual dates of the writing of the other three works in relation to I Peter and how they'd have any bearing on Peter in AD 65 - 67? I would note, that has not been proffered. How about it?
Your, excuse me for borrowing, "Jack Chick"ish tract is duplicated here. Peg, playing cut and paste: www.lumenverum.com/apologetics/rome.htm.
Babylon in the Book of Revelation can only refer to Rome as it was the only "great city" in the time of Christ and the Apostles. Babylon proper in Mesopotamia had, by 100 AD, been reduced to insignificance.
This is the portion of the quotation just before your cut and past about revelation and the three other books. I suppose you couldn't put them into the date timeline that I have referenced a number of times because there were no dates given in the cut and paste method of scholarship?
Ok, I'll do it for you. 4 Esdras is dated to around 100 AD - After the writing of Revelation. Baruch is named for a prince dating to the Babylonian Captivity era and as such deals with actual Babylon, Not Rome in Italy - Kinda miss that in cut and pasting don't ya? Standard Baruch is aimed at Jews in Captivity in Babylon (Mesopotamia). This has no bearing on your argument (0). Now for the last reference the Sibylline Oracles:
see Pseudepigrapha.
(s´´dp´grf) (KEY) [Gr.,=things falsely ascribed], a collection of early Jewish and some Jewish-Christian writings composed between c.200 B.C. and c.A.D. 200, not found in the Bible or rabbinic writings.
How interesting, this one is spread out all over the place to the point where it's a collection of works spanning a 400 year period.. The latter end of the collection dating to 130 years after the presumed death of Peter. Cut and paste scholarship sucks doesn't it Pegleg. 3 quotations one that can't be pinned down and therefore gives no support to your argument. One that has nothing to do whatever with the supposed point, and one that was definitely written AFTER revelation, the only known Biblical reference to Rome as Babylon which itself was written not only After I peter was written, Not only after II Peter was written; but, according to opinion was written in 96 AD - 30 years after you guys say Peter died.. Tell me, Can Peter like come back from the Dead and rewrite I Peter to apply a parallel that wasn't made till after he died?
No rush, I'll let you think about it a bit. I'll be laughing in the next room for a while. Just respond any old time and we'll see what else you come up with.
You are more dense that I thought. Read my response again and then try to give an adult answer.