Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Aractus]

It ain't necessarily so. First I will note that Ehrman, who is certainly a critical scholar, leaves the authorship of 1 Peter as an open question. He agrees that, if Peter is responsible for the content, it would have been written by a scribe, but he also considers there is a strong possibility that it is a forgery as there are a number of works falsely claiming Peter's authorship, e.g., Gospel of Peter. The argument against authenticity does not depend on denying that Peter could have used a scribe or that he was an early Christian priest. It depends on the fact that systematic persecution of Christians did not begin until 30 years after Peter's supposed death. However, Ehrman allows that there may have been local persecutions in Peter's lifetime.

That's a pretty flimsy argument. We know that there were a number of pseudepigraphical works rejected by the early church. But what we do not have are proven examples of them being accepted in the New Testament. For instance, who do you think wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews? Paul, Luke, James, Barnabas, Clement, somebody else?

The scholarly arguments made are sometimes completely misplaced. I can think of a few examples as to why it may have been written by Paul: very similar theology, it has Paul's closing greeting:

"I appeal to you, brothers, bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly. You should know that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom I shall see you if he comes soon. Greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those who come from Italy send you greetings. Grace be with all of you."

I generally don't much care who the author is, but some people do and get all worked up on it.

As for Peter's epistles, it's clear that there is not the same level of scholarly thought behind the reasoning for rejecting Petrine authorship.

Here's one example:

2 Peter 3:15: "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,"

The language used by the author (who we presume is Peter) is talking about a contemporary, and not the way a 2nd century writer would write about the 1st century church fathers/apostles. His reference makes it clear that Paul is still alive, he doesn't use any language which would suggest that Paul was deceased at the time of writing.

To reject Petrine authorship means that you have to account for these, and the other, discrepancies. In other words, if somebody wrote it in the 2nd century, then why are they talking about Paul as a contemporary, etc?

You are trying to smuggle in 2 Peter on the coattails of 1 Peter. Almost all non-fundamentalist scholars reject it because of "its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.

Yes, but what gives them an accurate gague of the writing style, etc, of Jude or 1 Peter? 1 Single short epistle from each of them? As I said, it's a weak argument, and yes plenty of well meaning scholars have fallen into the trap of believing it, primarily due to the fact that they've not accounted for the element of the "unknown". All evidence is valuable, however with unknown variables you can't take every piece of evidence as being 100% of the picture.

In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2Peter 3:15-16), his implication that the Apostolic generation has passed (2Peter 3:4), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2Peter 3:2)."

Well, again, 2 Peter 3:2 reads to me as if the apostles are contemporaries of the writer. There's nothing about it that suggests that the writer is referencing apostles from some unspecified time in the future.

I know you will not agree, but I think there is good evidence that where the gospels have Jesus speak of his sacrificial death (mainly around the Last Supper) we have later writers putting words in his mouth. Jesus teaching (Sermon on the Mount and parables) was all organized around his sincere belief that the world was going to end within the lifetime of his contemporaries, Matthew 24:36.

That makes for an interesting theory, but the world's end is not a recurring theme in the New Testament the way in which would be expected if it was a core belief.

John 21:18-19: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”'

That passage has always read to me as if Peter would die later than AD 68. It also discredits the idea that he was crucified upside down since Jesus tells hime he will be dressed and lead to his death - not stripped down and lead to his death. So all these theories that rely solely upon church history from tradition are easily discredited. And if Jesus believed that the world would end in his lifetime, then why does he tell Peter that he will die old?

In any case you are positing a false dichotomy when you claim that the doctrine must be true because early Christians would not die for a hoax. What about dying for a sincerely mistaken belief? As far as that goes many people have been willing to risk death for causes that did not promise immortal life, for example in wars to protect one's country, and this includes the atheists you will find in foxholes. Muslims have been willing to die for their faith from the time of Mohammed to the present. Does that prove that Mohammed got it right?

Was Mohammed martyred for his belief, or only his followers?