Evidence for God from Science

On his website Grant Jeffrey uses The Apocalypse of Peter to support
the Fig Tree being the "House of Israel".

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/anc ... script.htm

Now I have read a book from Grant R. Jeffrey, and I have quoted him before.
Not really to agree with what he says, but to show what he says.

Now I am in that camp that does believe that the Fig Tree does stand for Israel and that 1948 and 1967 are important dates.

However, when I search and read up on The Apocalypse of Peter, it seem to be a Gnostic writing. Although I have read there are two version that differ quite a lot. Anyways when when I read the description of hell and punishment within this document I come to only one conclusion.

Its a false document of the worst kind. It maybe even be of Satan.
Certainly not a loving God.

So my question is of ethics. How can someone like Grant Jeffrey rightly use such a document to support his case? Especially since he doesn't seem to point out the problems of this document.

or is my take on this document of The Apocalypse of Peter all wrong?

If I am right well then I have an issue with Mr. Jeffrey. Although it doesn't then follow that my understanding of the Fig Tree is wrong.

Michael Thomas

bluesman wrote:On his website Grant Jeffrey uses The Apocalypse of Peter to support
the Fig Tree being the "House of Israel".

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/anc ... script.htm

Now I have read a book from Grant R. Jeffrey, and I have quoted him before.
Not really to agree with what he says, but to show what he says.

Now I am in that camp that does believe that the Fig Tree does stand for Israel and that 1948 and 1967 are important dates.

However, when I search and read up on The Apocalypse of Peter, it seem to be a Gnostic writing. Although I have read there are two version that differ quite a lot. Anyways when when I read the description of hell and punishment within this document I come to only one conclusion.

Its a false document of the worst kind. It maybe even be of Satan.
Certainly not a loving God.

So my question is of ethics. How can someone like Grant Jeffrey rightly use such a document to support his case? Especially since he doesn't seem to point out the problems of this document.

or is my take on this document of The Apocalypse of Peter all wrong?

If I am right well then I have an issue with Mr. Jeffrey. Although it doesn't then follow that my understanding of the Fig Tree is wrong.

Michael Thomas

The use of an apocraphyl or pseudopigraphal writing can be helpful in demonstrating some of the culture and general understanding of the time in which it was written.

It certainly raises issues as to how heavily it should be relied upon and any point drawn will be subordinate to internal evidence within the passage itself and then also to other biblical passages.

So, while I haven't taken the time to examine this specific passage, I think it would be safe to say that if you need to use such input as primary to your interpretation, then there is a lot of room for further examination and if this is the strongest source that can be used to support such an interpretation then it is relatively weak.

In general, the AofP is recognized as a gnostic document. Further it is judged to have been based in 135 ad or so and to be significantly anti-Jewish due to elements that were more pronounced by this time. In addition to focusing on Israel as the "fig tree" it also promotes the anti-Christ as being Jewish.

Something to think about perhaps?

Hope that helps.