Johnny Skeptic

What do you care who wrote 1 Peter? Isn't the issue of the book's truthfulness a much more important issue than its contents? After all, the authors of the majority of the books of the Bible are anonymous.

As an acknowledged agnostic AKA atheist, what bothers you the most about Christianity?

gstafleu

1 Pet is short, so I just read through the whole thing. Language aside, looking at the content, isn't 1 Pet a textbook example of an epistle that only mentions Christ in the revealed sense and gives no indication at all that the author knew him as a man? Maybe I'm wrong, but can anyone point out a verse that indicates the author knew JC as a man? And no, just being a "witness" to a crucifiction isn't enough, even if the crucifiction is in the flesh (how else would you do a crucifiction), that can easily have been revelation. Any references to a human JC walking the earth anywhere in 1 Pet...?

Given that Peter, the gospel Peter that is, knew JC as a man, doesn't that make it rather unlikely that this gospel Peter is the author? Now, the Peter (or perhaps Cephas) of the Pillars, that would be a different story. Especially given 1 Pet 4:3-4:
Clearly the author is addressing the Jewish faction here (pagans=Gentiles=εθνων, the audience is advised to stop behaving like them). And we know from Paul that Paul's mission was to the Gentiles and Peter's (Peter Pillar that is) to the Jews.

So Peter Gospel: No. Peter Pillar: maybe.

hatsoff

What bothers me the most about Christianity? The misinformation spread by people like you.

hatsoff

That lessens the likelihood of Peter having written it, but I don't think it proves anything. The epistle is instructional, not historical. He does mention being a witness, but I don't think he imagined us pouring over it 2,000 years later, perplexed by the lack of personal anecdotes.

In any case, I am beginning to see why scholars doubt its authenticity. However, I remain unconvinced to this point.

Johnny Skeptic

Are you saying that the Bible doesn't have lots of misinformation? You are trying to divert attention to me and away from yourself, but it is you who started this thread, and I want to know why you started it. What do you care about the author of 1 Peter when the majority of the books in the Bible were written by anonymous authors, including the Gospels? From what I've read in your posts since you came to this forum, you have taken issue much more with skeptics, including a moderator, than with Christians, even though you are an acknowledged agnostic aka atheist. I have yet to see you criticize a Christian or the Bible, which I find to be quite suspicious. You argue much more like a Christian than like a skeptic, which suggests to me that you are a closet Christian masquerading as a skeptic, possibily so as not to attract attacks from skeptics. Your goal in this thread seems to be convincing people that Peter wrote 1 Peter, or that there is not sufficient evidence that he did not write 1 Peter. What possible motive could you have for such an approach? How does that help skepticism, or are you actually trying to help skeptcism? I doubt it.

You accuse me of spreading misinformation, so I hereby challenge you to a one on one debate about my supposed misinformation, which you conveniently did not state. I will also be willing to debate you on any other mutually agreed upon topic. How about it? You are rude and crude, but I have successfully dealt with your kind before. If you want a battle, you've go one. However, a wiser approach, if you really are a skeptic, would be for you to show flaws in the Bible.

Doug Shaver

I agree that the Jesus referred to in I Peter does not seem to have a been any man with whom the author had hung around for three years.

I would not on that account, or on any account of style, rule out its having been written by the Cephas who was known to Paul. However, I don't think we can presume to know anything about that man's occupational or educational background on the basis of what the gospels tell us about the man they call Simon Peter. The evidence for the gospels' historical undependability is, in my judgment, quite persuasive.

gstafleu

Exactly. 1 Pet is directed at the Jewish faction, and we know from Paul that that was Peter/Cephas' mission. But there is no reason to assume that Paul's Peter/Cephas equals the Peter from the Gospels, is there? If anything, it is the other way around. The Gospels were written later than Paul's epistles, so maybe the Gospel writers incorporated him in their story.

pharoah

IMO, there's really no reason to assume that Paul's Peter = Paul's Cephas either. Paul certainly doesn't make it clear that they are the same person.

hatsoff

You can think whatever you want. I'll leave the "wiser approach" to you, though.

gstafleu

That seems to be a bit of an issue. Of course Peter and Cephas both mean "rock" but that could be coincidence. Bible translators also seem confused. In my New Revised Standard Edition Gal 2:11 has the header "Paul rebukes Peter at Antioch" after which the text is "But when Cephas came to Antioch..."

But anyway, I think Paul was the only one on the Gentile mission, so even if Peter and Cephas are different people they would still be on the Jewish mission, so either of them could have written 1 Pet.