Replies

I don't know if Paul calls his own writings scriptures, but Peter did: 2 Peter 3:15-16...just as our dear brother Paul also wrote...[h]is letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures [sic], to their own destruction.

And, if you want to throw out Peter's epistles because you think he didn't write them, as you have before, that is up to you. Scriptures are my highest written authority, so I'm going to quote them for anyone who wants to see what the Bible says

Suit yourself. One can always dig a hole in the sand and stick his head in it and pretend the sun doesn't shine. :)

I do dismiss it as a late addition, as most do, for obvious reasons. We know from external sources that early Christian writers (2nd century) did not speak of the entire New Testament as holy scriptures and that St. Justin Martyr, as late as 150 AD refers to NT writings as Apostolic memoirs, and not scriptures.

We also know from early Apostolic Fathers and early Church Fathers (turn of the century) that the four Gospels were unquestionably considered "sacred writings" (i.e. Scriptures), but not Pauline Epistles.

I would say it was first Marcion (died 160 AD), a heretic bishop of Gnostic leanings to whom some trace their Baptist roots (!), who accepted only Paul and his writings and rejected most of the NT as well as the OT. He considered Pauline works to be law and gospel (you should be able to relate to that Reformed concept). :)

But the most compelling reason to dismiss Petrine authorship of 2 Peter is precisely in the paragraph you quote. Peter and Paul died around the same time (64 and 67 AD respectively) and clearly Peter was not in the position to see Paul's collected works, let alone call them "scriptures."

The Gospels, which were written after Paul's Epistles, and certainly after Peter's passing, never even mention Paul, or his writings, nor does anyone call them "scriptures."

2 Peter also betrays Christian impatience with the Second Coming (2 Pet 3:8), something that was not an issue during Peter's lifetime, but a late first-century and early second-century phenomenon that began to weaken the Christian appeal.

Let us not forget also that the Church debated and had difficulty accepting 2 Peter until late 4th century, indicating that many had serious doubts with this book, and was probably included like some other disputed books, by such proven "inspired" methods like "horse trading."

I do dismiss [2nd Peter] as a late addition, as most do, for obvious reasons.

You go on to list several reasons why you don't accept it, but do you really think you are in a majority of Christians who reject Peter's epistles? How about within your own Church? Are they dismissed?

Even if I put my Apostolic hat on (which I have to borrow :) my answer would be "so what" since we're not talking about an ecumenical Council here. Isn't that the correct way to look at it? :)

Why is that clear, and why would it be necessary for him to have seen ALL of Paul's works to declare the ones he had seen scriptures?