Peter is dating proly
Peter is dating proly Chat lve sex usa
The fact that 2 Peter was accepted into the canon in spite of these suspicions argues favorably towards its authenticity.
The first criticism is of the personal references to Peter as the author. Freed reveals the typical attitude towards these references: “That the author wants to be identified with the apostle Peter and as the writer also of 1 Peter is clear from his allusion to 1 Peter in 3:1, his claiming to be present at the transfiguration (-18), his reference to Paul as ‘our beloved brother’ (), his pretending to be about ready to die (-15) as Jesus predicted (John -19), and his professing to be an eyewitness to Jesus ().” His rejection of the internal evidence is obvious by the choice of words (italicized), and most critics see these references as the author’s attempt to gain authority and acceptance by his readers.
There has been much debate over the authorship of 2 Peter.
Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible.
Origen himself mentions that there were some doubts as to its authenticity, but he himself did not deal with the problem which seems to imply that he didn’t take the doubts seriously. 35 Farkasfalvy, “The Ecclesial Setting of Pseudepigraphy,” p.