Why Evolution is True

stevevw · Jul 8, 2014

I think there is a lot of presumption here about Peter and John. First of those who are saying he must be this or that dont really know and are only assuming. The only fact is we dont really know for sure. People say because Peter was a fishermen that he must be illiterate. But then jump to the next conclusion that he couldn't have written the books that are attributed to them. But we just dont know whether he could have had the ability to know a level of writing that could have allowed him to do it or that someone else did it on his behalf. This still allows him to have the input. But to say he definitely didnt have anything to do with it is wrong because we have no definite proof either way.

bhsmte · Jul 8, 2014

lost999 said:
Isn't this thread title the title to Jerry Coyne's book?

You would be correct. Interesting dude.

Jerry Coyne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DerelictJunction · Jul 8, 2014

MuchWiser said:
Facts and reality must really rip you apart, where was I being snide? you call on miracles and then have the nerve to say I'm snide, FACT...Peter (if he even existed) was an ignorant fisherman so there is no way he could ever have written a book.

Because no one has ever learned to read and write after becoming an adult and coming under the teaching of a rabbi?

Your facts, while statistically highly probable when dealing with most of the world at that time, has a distinct probability of being incorrect. Being a fisherman back then was not a lowly position. Most careers required extensive labor and Peter's father was a fisherman so it is likely Peter went into the family business. He could have easily learned the scriptures through rote memory and studying the scrolls.
Hillel, the great rabbi often credited with a version of the Golden Rule prior to Jesus, started as a woodcutter and poor, yet he was learned in the scriptures.
Don't count out Peter because of his humble beginnings.

MuchWiser · Jul 8, 2014

stevevw said:
I think there is a lot of presumption here about Peter and John. First of those who are saying he must be this or that dont really know and are only assuming. The only fact is we dont really know for sure. People say because Peter was a fishermen that he must be illiterate. But then jump to the next conclusion that he couldn't have written the books that are attributed to them. But we just dont know whether he could have had the ability to know a level of writing that could have allowed him to do it or that someone else did it on his behalf. This still allows him to have the input. But to say he definitely didnt have anything to do with it is wrong because we have no definite proof either way.

You're right they might not even have existed and we have no way of knowing if they did or not.

The odds are that if he existed and was a fisherman Peter would have been illiterate because he would not have been a fisherman had he been literate, remember, the story tells us he was a fisherman before he met Jesus, educated people did not do menial work, if Peter was literate he would have at the very least been a teacher, at that time education was for the elite.
Who knows, Jesus may have pick the fishermen because he knew they were not very bright and they would follow him.

Up until about 200 years ago only gentlemen were allowed to do certain things, if the lower classes tried to do them they were seen as trying to rise above their station in life, people were imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread, imagine what it was like 2000 years ago.

dad · Jul 8, 2014

MuchWiser said:
Facts and reality must really rip you apart, where was I being snide? you call on miracles and then have the nerve to say I'm snide, FACT...Peter (if he even existed) was an ignorant fisherman so there is no way he could ever have written a book.

You know squat about Peter, so cut the brazen bs. Jesus picked him, and the others and promised He would bring things to their remembrance so they could write it down!!!! Do not use ignorance to insult Jesus, that He did not know how to pick.

biggles53 · Jul 8, 2014

dad said:
No, the point is that Peter was not a liar and was inspired of God and had received the Holy Ghost.

God doesn't use perfect people. When He does use them after training is over, you can bet your life the truth of God is in what He inspires them to say.

Thank you....so he lied. Why couldn't you just have agreed with that at the outset...? Kinda messed up your argument, didn't it...?

dad · Jul 8, 2014

biggles53 said:
Thank you....so he lied. Why couldn't you just have agreed with that at the outset...? Kinda messed up your argument, didn't it...?

No. Jesus chose sinners. You pick out a sin from Peter's early life as a Christian. That is a common tactic of the dark side..accuser of the saints. Since God chose the apostles, and promised to help them remember for the record, you are calling God a liar.

It is one thing to be weak like Peter was at moments, and quite another to be a liar in the conniving sense you mean.

stevevw · Jul 8, 2014

MuchWiser said:
You're right they might not even have existed and we have no way of knowing if they did or not.

The odds are that if he existed and was a fisherman Peter would have been illiterate because he would not have been a fisherman had he been literate, remember, the story tells us he was a fisherman before he met Jesus, educated people did not do menial work, if Peter was literate he would have at the very least been a teacher, at that time education was for the elite.
Who knows, Jesus may have pick the fishermen because he knew they were not very bright and they would follow him.

Up until about 200 years ago only gentlemen were allowed to do certain things, if the lower classes tried to do them they were seen as trying to rise above their station in life, people were imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread, imagine what it was like 2000 years ago.

But this is still an assumption. If we take that line of thought then the writings of Abraham Lincoln would be refuted based on the fact he was the unschooled son of a frontiersmen.

Peter could have had some knowledge of basic reading and writing. You have to remember that it says Peter was a fisherman when he met Jesus. But he went on to be a disciple and to preach the gospel. He then had 30 plus years to learn as he was mixing with many people such as the Greeks. So he could have learnt a lot from others and became educated along the way. But also in 1 Peter he even states that his words were in the book and that he gives credit to Silas his good friend for help with dictation. The way it states that in Peter 1 that he is the author who is writing seems to indicate that it was dictated.
So it still could have been Peter who inspired the book but it was dictated by someone who had more education. This can account for the different styles between the two books as Peter may have used two different people for dictation or written one himself and the other with dictation. But some of the writings are very personal and refer to Paul's writings who was suppose to be close to peter. So it would be hard for a forger to be so intimate as well.

But because we are trying to look back on an event with circumstantial evidence its hard to say. But to dismiss it and say Peter didn't exist and then jump to other conclusions of forgeries is also wrong.

PsychoSarah · Jul 8, 2014

dad said:
No. Jesus chose sinners. You pick out a sin from Peter's early life as a Christian. That is a common tactic of the dark side..accuser of the saints. Since God chose the apostles, and promised to help them remember for the record, you are calling God a liar.

It is one thing to be weak like Peter was at moments, and quite another to be a liar in the conniving sense you mean.

Loving how no one has even considered Peter and others had people ghost write for them, which is thought to be a possibility for the Book of Luke. Personally I wouldn't have an issue with that possibility, if said books actually were written within a time frame which would allow for it. Most unfortunately weren't. But no, let's all assume Peter actually would have had to be literate to write or contribute to a text.

dad · Jul 8, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
Loving how no one has even considered Peter and others had people ghost write for them, which is thought to be a possibility for the Book of Luke. Personally I wouldn't have an issue with that possibility, if said books actually were written within a time frame which would allow for it. Most unfortunately weren't. But no, let's all assume Peter actually would have had to be literate to write or contribute to a text.

The thing is we don't know. WE do know Jesus knew how to pick em!

I notice that Peter ran a business. It says he had helpers, and there were other boats assisting to bring in the big catch, etc. He had a home too and a wife. He owned a boat or boats. It seems quite possible he knew how to read and write. He was familiar with the scriptures!

Paul had eye problems apparently so it is logical he would get someone to write for him. Paul was very very educated. They even claimed his much learning had made him mad at one point.

PsychoSarah · Jul 8, 2014

dad said:
The thing is we don't know. WE do know Jesus knew how to pick em!

I notice that Peter ran a business. It says he had helpers, and there were other boats assisting to bring in the big catch, etc. He had a home too and a wife. He owned a boat or boats. It seems quite possible he knew how to read and write. He was familiar with the scriptures!

Paul had eye problems apparently so it is logical he would get someone to write for him. Paul was very very educated. They even claimed his much learning had made him mad at one point.

He might have been able to read at a 2nd grade level, but it is unlikely he would have had the level of education to write at the level of the bible in the New Testament. Plus, paper and ink was pricy, they would have wanted a practiced, steady hand for said documents, and there is a good chance Peter's writing wouldn't have been particularly attractive, as is the case with most people. The big problem isn't whether or not Peter would have been physically able to write, since he could have just had someone ghost write for him anyways. The issue is the time frame in which the verses attributed to him were actually written. Even you have to admit Peter couldn't author a text written long after he died.

dad · Jul 8, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
He might have been able to read at a 2nd grade level,

Ha. Come on now, you are guessing. There were many years after Jesus ascended into heaven before Peter wrote his books also. People can learn.

Plus, paper and ink was pricy, they would have wanted a practiced, steady hand for said documents, and there is a good chance Peter's writing wouldn't have been particularly attractive, as is the case with most people.

Paul was known to have written in his own hand. Come on now how broke do you think apostles were?? They were big cheeses. Head honchos. There were rich friends and etc.

The big problem isn't whether or not Peter would have been physically able to write, since he could have just had someone ghost write for him anyways. The issue is the time frame in which the verses attributed to him were actually written. Even you have to admit Peter couldn't author a text written long after he died.

Looking at this site, it doesn't seem to be a big issue.

"
When it was written

The book claims to be written by Peter. Those claims are substantiated by the letter itself, as it shows evidence of someone who was an eyewitness to the life of Jesus. Historically, this is also substantiated by evidence from early Christian writers. Thus, I believe that the author is the Apostle Peter. This means that the book has to be written, while Peter was alive (yes, I know that is a deep statement).
Historically speaking, we are fairly confident that Peter died under the reign of Nero. The story goes that he was crucified upside down. This would be around A.D. 67, 68. Thus we know the book has to be written before then.
Secondly, the book claims to be written from Babylon (5:13). There is debate about whether this is actual Babylon or, like in the book of Revelation, it is referring to Rome. My belief is that it is referring to Rome because Babylon was a small village town at this point. If this is the case, and if we believe history, then Peter was in Rome around A.D. 64.* Thus our lower date is A.D. 64.
Therefore, the book is written somewhere between 64-68 A.D."

When and To Whom was 1 Peter written? | Study Your Bible Online

PsychoSarah · Jul 8, 2014

No, this is just someone who thinks Peter was an author and thus is stating that in order for this to be the case those writings would have had to have been made within a certain time frame, which is true. No evidence is given that they actually were written within that time frame though. Also, I have to say it, Peter isn't an uncommon name. Without a surname of the author who knows what "Peter" wrote it, could have been a relative or some random person who just called themselves Peter, we could never know for sure even if one proved that the book was written within a time frame which allowed Peter to even have possibly written it. As it stands, the mainstream historical perspective is that the only book in the bible with the potential to have contributions from someone who could have actually known Jesus is the Book of Luke.

dad · Jul 8, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
No, this is just someone who thinks Peter was an author and thus is stating that in order for this to be the case those writings would have had to have been made within a certain time frame, which is true. No evidence is given that they actually were written within that time frame though.

Barring a conspiracy and fraud, it is basic deduction.

Also, I have to say it, Peter isn't an uncommon name. Without a surname of the author who knows what "Peter" wrote it, could have been a relative or some random person who just called themselves Peter, we could never know for sure even if one proved that the book was written within a time frame which allowed Peter to even have possibly written it.

No, God put in a fail safe for possible doubters like you! The Peter of the book was a witness to Christ.

As it stands, the mainstream historical perspective is that the only book in the bible with the potential to have contributions from someone who could have actually known Jesus is the Book of Luke.

They all knew Him! Paul, the apostles, even many of the disciples, his family, brothers sisters mother, etc..

PsychoSarah · Jul 8, 2014

dad said:
Barring a conspiracy and fraud, it is basic deduction.

No, God put in a fail safe for possible doubters like you! The Peter of the book was a witness to Christ.

They all knew Him! Paul, the apostles, even many of the disciples, his family, brothers sisters mother, etc..

You act as if fraud is uncommon, when it isn't.

stevevw · Jul 9, 2014

The book of Peter itself state that what is written is inspired by God. this same message is repeated throughout the bible. We have 40 authors from different times, places and circumstances all agreeing on the same message. They all agreed because they were inspired by the holy spirit and not their own words. If you ask 40 people to write on a subject you will get many different opinions. Thats because they are writing about their own ideas and not Gods.

1 Peter 2:21 states, "No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

MuchWiser · Jul 9, 2014

dad said:
Jesus chose sinners.

dad said:
WE do know Jesus knew how to pick em!

Sinners? Jesus knew how to pick em? according to your religion everyone is a sinner so that's not saying much for his ability to 'pick em' is it?
Try thinking before you write.

biggles53 · Jul 9, 2014

dad said:
No. Jesus chose sinners. You pick out a sin from Peter's early life as a Christian. That is a common tactic of the dark side..accuser of the saints. Since God chose the apostles, and promised to help them remember for the record, you are calling God a liar.

It is one thing to be weak like Peter was at moments, and quite another to be a liar in the conniving sense you mean.

Ummm...."the sense I mean"...? I simply stated that Peter lied.

He lied. He said that he wouldn't deny Jesus ...... and then did.

That's lying.... You can find justification for his lying if you wish. You can claim that one type of lie is not as bad as another type of lie if you wish...

But a lie is a lie...

Peter lied....

That means he's a liar...

Do I need to go over it again.....?

AV1611VET · Jul 9, 2014

biggles53 said:
Peter lied....

That means he's a liar...

All liars lie; but not all lies are from liars.

MuchWiser · Jul 9, 2014

AV1611VET said:
All liars lie; but not all lies are from liars.

Yes they are, lies can only come from liars, only liars tell lies, knowingly repeating lies is still telling lies.

Why Evolution is True

inquisitive

Newbie

DerelictJunction

Guest

MuchWiser

Guest

Undefeated!

Junior Member

Undefeated!

inquisitive

Chaotic Neutral

Undefeated!

Chaotic Neutral

Undefeated!

Chaotic Neutral

Undefeated!

Chaotic Neutral

inquisitive

MuchWiser

Guest

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

MuchWiser

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency