Theophilus!
I'm arguing that Paul got the prophecy wrong and the writer of II Peter thought so too and tries to sweep that fact under the rug.
Hello to you - I hope today finds you well?
I do know you are advancing this point, and I'm pretty certain you have not arrived at this conclusion lightly. I also do see how it is possible to think such a thing, which is why I felt it necessary to address. What these Epistles are for is to correct glaring mistakes in the Church that could not wait for an Apostle to arrive in person, and then to instruct those advancing in the Faith in the attempt to preserve capable leadership after the Apostles were dead. How I would love to hear, or see, what and how the Apostles taught in person! And yet even as I write that. I am corrected that that is what the Holy Spirit is for. Fortunately for me this is given in a light, humorous fashion; at least in this instance.
I will not posit that any Apostle or Saint was not human. Subject to humanity, we all have various thoughts and doubts run through our mind. Jesus did too! We don't need to speculate if they never gave in to error in their writings we have preserved as Canon, all we need do is take it in context. And the context you refer to is that they admonished the Church to live in the fear of the Lord. Why? Because this is how our species departs from evil; FEAR, in the sense of literal fear. This is not any pinnacle of maturity, but when you are struggling with evil the most mature thing on the horizon is to not go through with it, and the fear of the Lord is our best armament for that battle. It is interesting to compare this thought to the Eph 6 "whole armor of God" to see how this idea is represented there, but the short answer is, quite fully.
For an Apostle to exhort us to live in the fear of the Lord is, well, Apostolic. It's totally appropriate. Certainly repetitive, but safe. What you came away with from those same passages is eisegesis and I would certainly welcome a further exploration of your ideas, and for my
own personal edification.
But I think maybe we are away from the jellyfish concept of the thread? (Maybe not?) I do find it fascinating how topics morph.
I can accept an honest mistake much more easily than I can someone weaseling out of something, which is what I see in II Peter.
Part of the context can still be seen today, that Peter and Paul clashed. Paul always won, except for in the RCC. I could use a refresher in 1 vs 2 Peter anyway. Do you have opinion of authenticity of these 2 books? I mean do you have any notion that one is more likely written by Peter than the other? To coin a cliche, 1 Peter Blesses my socks off. I find it also to be well written, and well organized. It does what Paul says he always did, which is to present the whole Gospel, except Peter does it much more simply. 2 Peter starts out with what I hold to be the most concise wording of applying the Gospel evar, in vv 3-8. Not even long verses, esp when compared to Paul's.
Paul's writing IS harder to understand, and people still argue over that to this day. I don't see Peter weaseling around anything, although he very clearly did not understand even the basics by the time of Jesus' death.
That is quite different from me stating my understand of the prophecy and its fulfillment. About the only thing I've said that reveals my take on it is that, "...prophecy is necessarily difficult to get right."
Absolutely. And the Prophecy you referred (by Jesus, about "this generation shall not pass until ...") has been
incredibly worked over, with seemingly infinite variation of understanding. So I do not fault you at all.
Normally I eschew commentaries and even official Church teaching, but looking at this one item warrants it. In reverse order. It would be interesting to examine what both the Orthodox and the RCC teach on this passage. While I do think it likely that Jesus designed layers of meaning into that, I also think we could find a commentary teaching that passage means Paul is the Walrus
As for eisegesis, this is my attempt to lay aside what I have always been told this book should mean and seeing what it is actually saying.
And I value that! Our "path" can bring us all sorts of places, and by definition not all those places are our final destination. I do not share the barbaric principles of the dark ages that suggest examining an idea that turns out to be false deserves punishment, or is even harmful. It's just walking along a path ... and with all this talk of founding and Christian principle lately, it is good to appreciate the freedom we do have. Relative to human history, it is still a brief thing; and still unavailable to millions.
It is quite possible that my anger when I read II Peter, or even see it referenced as I did in this thread, may be making it difficult to convey my meaning clearly. I seem to be getting quite a bit of feedback that leads me to believe that I have failed to communicate well.
I find you to communicate quite well, and to be a joy to converse with. I have no problems encountering anger in others, understand it is part of the human experience, and do not think it diminishes the fact that you are a lovely person. So 2 Peter is a touchy subject for you? It is your decision to avoid it, or perhaps I can help you process it. I find when anger reveals itself, it points to something that needs to be resolved. It is an energy to effect necessary change. While I clearly have my own opinions, I am always in the process of gathering info to first develop understanding, and then to see that cause my Faith to grow. Sometimes that necessitates knocking down falsehoods I collected, unaware. It is liberating! And I have certainly vented some anger on CF, and then been better able to process something I was stuck on.