Toto

Paul did not write 1 Peter. 1 Peter is not similar to Rom 9:30, which says that the gentiles have achieved righteousness without pursuing it. 1 Peter says what you think Paul should have said - but he didn't, which is why you had to quote that other epistle attributed to Paul's rival.

Is 1 Peter at all compatible with Romans 13? In Rom 13, the authorities are no danger to those who behave themselves. In 1 Peter, they are an annoyance whether or not you behave.

Diogenes the Cynic

1 Peter was written a lot later than Romans. A lot of stuff had happened in between. Like 70 CE.

stephan huller

I know of at least a few Marcionite scholars who have noticed that 1 Peter is Pauline and likely Marcionite (at least in parts). Clement of Alexandria seems to think it was Pauline in some references (not distinguishing the writer from Paul after back to back citations and implying they were written by one and the same author)

aa5874

You have nothing but your imagination to support your claims. There is not one date in any Pauline letters and no source in the NT confirm Paul wrote any letters before the Fall of the Temple.

Not even the author of Acts claimed Paul wrote any letters to churches. In Acts 15, it was the Jerusalem church that gave Paul and his group letters to hand deliver.

GakuseiDon

Yes, but authority is bestowed by God. If Paul meant in Romans 13:1-4 that all authorities are appointed by God and never do anything wrong, then it is not compatible with 1 Peter. But I strongly doubt Paul believed that. Is that your reading of Romans 13:1-4?

Anyway, if you read Paul for Paul, "Israel" rejected Jesus. Case closed, AFAICS. Without bringing the Gospels into this, and reading Paul for Paul, what exactly is the problem with Romans 13?

Toto

That is the plain reading of Romans 13. All governmental authority comes from god, and if you obey the law, you won't have any trouble.

Acts seems to have Paul saying that the Jews were hopeless, but I don't recall the letters taking the same point of view consistently.

What is the problem with Rom 13? Just that anyone can think of counter examples from any point in history when the rulers were stupid, corrupt, or just plain wrong. You think that the gospels make Pilate out to be blameless, but he still had Jesus scourged and crucified. The Roman state did that, according to the gospels.

Steven Carr

Romans 10 - Not all the Israelites accepted the good news.

Israel rejected the Gospel.

I have asked you once already where Paul claims Israel rejected Jesus. Did you respond?



Do you mean 'How can they believe in the one of whom they have never heard?'

What could have been the stumbling block for Jews that led them to reject Jesus?

1 Corinthians 1 '22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles....',

Paul claims the crucifixion was a stumbling block for Jews.

Do you mean that once Jews heard that Jesus had been crucified, they at once rejected claims about Jesus being the Messiah? They would , wouldn't they? Paul says telling Jews about the crucifixion was a huge stumbling block to them accepting Jesus as the Messiah.

If only Paul had not preached that Jesus had been crucified, he might have got more converts among the Jews.

GakuseiDon

Okay.

I agree. Even, from Paul's perspective, those governments with governmental authority from God where the rulers were stupid, corrupt, or just plain wrong.

Toto

And from this you conclude - what? That Paul was a hypocritical liar? that someone else interpolated this into the text to be sure the authorities didn't get too upset? that there is some deeper meaning? :huh:

Grog

No. It is not compatible with either Roman or Jewish authorities being involved. Paul makes no such distinction. "Authorities" here refers to human civil authorities.

You are relying on a Gospel story that simply didn't exist at the time of Paul's writing. The idea that Pilate was compelled by masses of Jews to execute an innocent victim is rather absurd in light of what we know of Pilate (see Josephus, Ant., Book 18, chapter 3). Also, that he would care whether some Jewish would-be messiah was innocent or not. The Gospel portrayal of Pilate is fiction entirely.

What I see here is an apologetic agenda working into your analysis. You are attempting to fit this evidence into your a priori conclusion that 1 cor 2:8 must include human agents despite the fact that Paul makes no mention of them. You do realize that Romans 13 also works against that interpretation. So to make things fit you are trying to find a way to wedge in authorities that will be excepted from Romans 13.

The simplest explanation of these 2 pieces of evidence is that Paul does not know the Gospel story of Jesus's crucifixion. For whatever reason...it did not happen, he wasn't told, whatever. Paul does not think Jesus was crucified by either Roman or Jewish authorities.

Nowhere in Paul (1 thess 2:13-17 being an interpolation) can corroborate the position that Paul believes Roman or Jewish authorities were involved in the crucifixion of Jesus.