The essay opens with a preface explaining the intent of the work. Exegesis is defined, methods of deceit described. The matter of qualifications is mentioned. The first chapter discusses the two epistles ascribed to Peter in the New Testament. The claim is that Peter did not write them because he was too ignorant, or long dead. The essay points out that Peter had decades to improve his linguistic skills (leaving Pentecost miracles aside), that ministers often let assistants write the actual sermons that are perused by them and authorized with their signature. It notes that assistants come and go. One letter might be written by another assistant, yet perfectly reflect the views of Peter during his lifetime. We note that the bulk of early readers viewed the letters as authentically written in Peter's time by Peter. Scholars writing two thousand years later need truly pressing proof to challenge people who spoke to eyewitnesses, probably had access to original source material, etc. They have no such pressing evidence. The believer is under no obligation to accept their views. The second chapter describes the unproven assertion that prophecy cannot exist as nonsense. He notes that the vocabulary of the Book of Isaiah can easily be reconciled with pertinent facts surrounding his works, Jeremiah's and Ezekiel. Their assertions that the vocabulary of Isaiah was not available to Isaiah is turning the world upside down, without any proof, most likely false. The proof, so called proofs, offered are not proofs, but what might be expected considering the turbulent nature of Judaic culture at the time, the chaos, the unpopularity of the major prophets, etc. I mention that some other matters have been brought up in previous essays on similar matters.
|Publisher:||Edward E. Rochon|
|File size:||165 KB|
About the Author
I write for my health and the health of the world. Often the cure rivals the disease in grief and aches. My writing career started at twelve when I attempted to write a sequel to Huckleberry Finn but never finished it. My writings have included poetry, plays, a novel, non-fiction and writing newsletters for here and there. Recently, I am dabbling into short stories. Apart from newsletters, nothing has been published in print. I bought an audio recording of one of my poems but threw it away in disgust due to an inappropriate reading by the narrator. 'Contra Pantheism...' was my first eBook. About a hundred eBooks have been published since including some books of verse, and my essays collected into five volumes, and one volume of collected poems. A few other types of literature are on my list of published works. My essays deal with fundamental questions of philosophy as well as natural philosophy (science.) On the whole, my works are as far above the writings of Plato and Aristotle as the material power of the United States is over that of Ancient Greece. I once asked myself if I had ever written anything memorable, but couldn't remember exactly what I had written. I started to check my manuscripts but stopped as it seemed the answer to the question was obvious. Gore Vidal mentioned in one of his memoirs that writers tend to forget what they write and are a bad source to ask about their works. Gore knew a lot of writers. I have not and may have been a bit hard on myself. Apart from self-improvement and maybe making a few bucks, my main goal is to bring about a golden age for mankind. Being a man, this sounds appealing. It is pointless to desist and all small measures are worth the effort. Albert Camus thought suicide the only serious philosophical question. He was a fool and died young. Suicide is a waste of time. The most important functional question is: How do I get what I want? The one question that trumps this is the ultimate question of intent: What should I want? As Goethe pointed out: Be careful what you wish for in your youth, you might get it in middle age.