Nite all
No interpretation is required to understand clear commands when we're talking about the movements of people …..I would submit that if you cannot read and properly understand that, you should never have been allowed to graduate from school.
I was referring to your rant on Thread 150, #182 where you make a lot of scriptural assumptions and also your ability to interpret 1 Peter 5:13 and the book of Revelation. I would submit if you want to continue to assert your interpretations as being infallible, you should publish a catechism so we can all benefit from your theological superiority.
As regards II Peter, It was cannonized and majority opinion was that Peter wrote it. I'd suggest that if you don't like that, you should take it up with the scholars that drew the final conclusions. That group of scholars proffered it up. You are the one attacking it.
I am not attacking 2 Peter. I merely stated a fact. There is greater doubt about its authorship than any other NT book. I then cited 4 (not 2) examples of why many scholars call this work pseudonymous. You then made the arrogant comment,
" And I can debunk them pretty quickly with modern parallels. And with parallels of the day. "
And your response is "majority opinion was that Peter wrote it". That’s it? That’s your defense? How do you know the majority said this? Cite your source. Careful though, its got to be from a Catholic Council. What about my examples? I thought you were going to debunk them pretty quickly with your famous parallels? You stated you have read the stuff too and also read the assenting views. Tell us what you read.
And try something other than diversions. If you want to redeem yourself of the mess you created before, you should try providing some scholarship to support your arguments re Babylon.
I've already acknowledged the fact you don't accept any documentation a Catholic provides on this matter so I am through discussing it with you. You are the one who made the boastful claims about 2 Peter. I'm just calling you on it.