[Havoc]

This is what your position really boils down to because all you have for documentation 1 Pet. 5:13. And yes, Peter would have a darn good reason to speak in code since the Christians were being persecuted in Rome. And we also know that Babylon is a code-word for Rome.

Sorry, almost missed this. Can't let you get by with mistating the facts. I did not "hang my hat" on a single verse. I hang my hat on the entire texts of the complete works of Paul - Primarily I Timothy & II Timothy, I & II Peter and the Book of Revelation. Not just content; but, where they are placed in history and their authority as accepted cannon.

I Timothy provides the groundwork needed to show where Timothy's responsibilities lay. II Timothy in dating against I Peter provides a timeframe for actions taking place. The entirety of Paul's collection is necessary for establishing the whereabouts of many others in motion. It is necessary to show that in fact, by the time of the writing of I Peter, Sylvanus hadn't been with Paul for 10 years. Much ado is made about Sylvanus being a companion of Paul. But Mark was too. And yet both were then companions of Peter at the writing of I Peter. And Paul had to send to get Mark from Peter.

Knowing the Bible gives us a lot more context than just what was taught. And it's context that you can't ignore if you want truth. But you aren't attacking my position because I based it on a single verse. You're saying I'm basing it on a single verse to detract from the weight of the argument. How about some scholarship instead of mischaracterizations and hollow citations.

[vmatt]

"And it's context that you can't ignore if you want truth."

My dad used to say "if" was the biggest word in the dictionary. He proves right in this case. Catholics already have thet truth and they know it. From there it's just a matter of attacking anything that deviates, and all their false prophets have armed them well.

[pegleg]

Questioning my scholarship and sources again Havoc? The post I made to you that caused your rant was this. "Since you don't accept our documentation and I can't get anything from you other that 1 Peter 5:13 it looks like we have reached a stalemate. Unless you want to provide proof that Peter actually did write II Peter. That could prove to be interesting. "

After I had posted another link with Catholic documentation I then acknowledged the fact you don't accept or believe it. I then brought up 2 Peter because you had mentioned it a previous post claiming it was lacking many things regarding Peter. It is a well known fact that this is the one book of the NT that has serious questions about who the author is. So what kind of response do I get from you?

Whoa, boy. Let's examine what has lately transpired and see who's being dense here. I put forth a construct based upon what is known from the Bible, the one source I do fully trust.

You claim the bible for your documentation so the only thing you have put forth is the Havoc interpretation of the NT. That’s pretty easy because you don't have to cite sources or provide documentation. All you have to do is give us your infallible interpretations and then assert everything we put forth is bogus. No scholarship involved on your part, just your opinion. Sorry, your claims are bogus without supporting documentation and to date you haven't supplied anything.

, 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.

Really. Do you even know what you are saying here? Are you saying you know without a shadow of doubt that Peter wrote 2 Peter? That you can quickly and easily prove it? What a vain and arrogant claim. Go for it. This should be fun. Maybe you could even cite some sources.

To quote from the book of Havoc "How about some scholarship instead of mischaracterizations and hollow citations."