When I say Matthew 24:4-34, you can go ahead and assume that includes the parallel accounts.
Did you not read what I actually said? I'm saying that you need to include Matthew 24:35-25:46 and ALL of the Mark 13 and Luke 21 accounts into your framework. Not just the parts of Mark 13 and Luke 21 that parallel Matthew 24:4-34, but all of what is written in them.
My original argument did - 2 Peter’s parousia expectancy changed from 1 Peter, and also contradicts Matthew 24:4-34.
Are you just not willing to address my questions or are you somehow missing them? I said "You seem to not accept 2 Peter as legitimate at least partly because we don't know for sure if Peter was the author. Is that not the case? If not, then why even bring that up in a discussion about whether it is legitimate scripture or not?". Can you please answer my question? Is the question of whether or not Peter is the author of 2 Peter a factor in you not seeing it as legitimate scripture at all or not?
You created multiple sub arguments, which can often create confusion as to what’s being addressed and what’s not, or why I’m addressing certain things and not others.
What sub arguments are you talking about?
My argument - 2 peter was historically disputed. Modern scholarly consensus agrees it was likely not written by Peter and was written 80-120AD. 2 Peter changed his expectancy compared to 1 Peter, from “at hand” to “delayed”. 2 Peter, if written 80-120ad, contradicts 1 Peter’s at hand expectancy AND contradicts the expectancy that it would occur soon after the temple desolation, within Jesus’ generation.
What I'm asking (pay attention to what I'm saying here) is simply whether or not you think the authorship of 2 Peter has any bearing on you believing that 2 Peter is not legitimate scripture or not? Yes or no?
Hebrews, having an unknown author doesn’t address my points. 2 Peter 3 having similarities to Matthew 24, doesn’t address my points.
Why do you always want to dictate what can or can't be included in these discussions? I don't play that game. If you want to determine if 2 Peter 3 is legitimate or not, why should Matthew 24:35-39 not be taken into consideration?
Sure, all the references refer to that.
To be clear then, what you're saying is that all the references to the coming of the Son of Man refer to the same coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:30? Is that correct? If so, then why do you cut things off at verse 34 in you framework? Do you believe that Matthew 24:35-25:46 is about what happened in 70 AD or about the future second coming of Christ? Based on you saying that the references to the coming of the Son of Man in those verses are the same as in verse 30, I would think you would conclude that those verses relate to 70 AD as well. So, please clarify your understanding of Matthew 24:35-Matthew 25:46 in terms of the timing of it.
And I think it’s a poor approach to cherry pick definitions from lexicons and concordances,
LOL. That's not what I'm doing. I'm looking at all of scripture and trying to reconcile all of it together. You are the one doing the cherry picking, as evidenced by the fact that your framework only includes Matthew 24:4-34 and not Matthew 24:35-25:46.
to insert multi thousand year gaps where there are none, grammatically or contextually, and to apply modern understandings over ANE understandings, all in order to prop up a framework.
LOL. You are hilarious. My framework aims to not allow any contradictions in scripture and include all of scripture. Yours does not.
i disagree, because as already stated, I think it’s valuable to learn what the early church thought, even if a letter was pseudonymous.
How do you know that 2 Peter accurately reflects what the early church thought or not? You don't think it's author was inspired by God, so whoever it was could have not only been wrong about 2 Peter 3, as you believe, but, in that case, he could have been wrong about everything he wrote in 2 Peter 1 and 2 as well.
