Who was 1 Peter written to?

[Ben Masada]

1 Peter was written by Peter, so you are wrong.

1 Peter 1:1-2 NASB - 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

The letters of Peter were written by Paul. You are the one wrong. Peter did not know how to read and write. According to Luke he was an unlearned and ignorant fella. Illiterate people don't write books. (Acts 4:13)

 

[Jacob]

The letters of Peter were written by Paul. You are the one wrong. Peter did not know how to read and write. According to Luke he was an unlearned and ignorant fella. Illiterate people don't write books. (Acts 4:13)

He wrote it or the person who wrote it lied that Peter wrote it. I choose to believe the first option, as he addressed it as from himself.

 

[Ben Masada]

He wrote it or the person who wrote it lied that Peter wrote it. I choose to believe the first option, as he addressed it as from himself.

What evidence do you have for your choice, your Christian preconceived notions? Such evidence means nothing.

 

[Angel4Truth]

What evidence do you have for your choice, your Christian preconceived notions? Such evidence means nothing.

You made the initial claim that he didnt write it, the onus is on you to prove your own claim.

 

[Jacob]

What evidence do you have for your choice, your Christian preconceived notions? Such evidence means nothing.

You believe Paul wrote it and I believe Peter wrote it. It is addressed as from Peter. It says it is from Peter.

 

[Jacob]

The question was who Peter wrote to. That he (Peter) wrote 1 Peter was never in question.

 

[Ben Masada]

You made the initial claim that he didnt write it, the onus is on you to prove your own claim.

And I proved it. Didn't you read the proof of my assertions? But what's the use in dealing with Christians? They are not interested in proofs which are not according to their Christian preconceived notions.

 

[Ben Masada]

You believe Paul wrote it and I believe Peter wrote it. It is addressed as from Peter. It says it is from Peter.

Peter did not write any thing. He did not know how to write. Read Luke in Acts 4:13. You believe Peter wrote it because a Catholic Bishop decided it should be his way and not your way.

 

[Jacob]

Peter did not write any thing. He did not know how to write. Read Luke in Acts 4:13. You believe Peter wrote it because a Catholic Bishop decided it should be his way and not your way.

This has nothing to do with anyone who is Catholic.

Why do you believe the letter did not come from Peter?

 

[Ben Masada]

The question was who Peter wrote to. That he (Peter) wrote 1 Peter was never in question.

It is in question now because this Jew found out what happened by reading it with a scientific mind. But, obviously it is not helping. Faith seems to be stronger than the intellect of some people.

 

[Jacob]

It is in question now because this Jew found out what happened by reading it with a scientific mind. But, obviously it is not helping. Faith is stronger than intellect in some people.

Was it written to Gentiles was the question. The answer is no. You no doubt know this from reading it.

 

[Ben Masada]

This has nothing to do with anyone who is Catholic.

Why do you believe the letter did not come from Peter?

I have told you more than several times. The letters of Peter were written by the scribe of Paul if you read I Peter 5:12 and, Paul would never allow his scribe to get dictation from an apostle of the circumcision. That's all.

 

[Jacob]

I have told you more than several times. The letters of Peter were written by the scribe of Paul if you read I Peter 5:12 and, Paul would never allow his scribe to get dictation from an apostle of the circumcision. That's all.

You are making assertions.

You are talking about Peter and Paul and a scribe, or rather Paul and a scribe. Do you believe Paul had a scribe who wrote Peter rather than Paul?

 

[Ben Masada]

Was it written to Gentiles was the question. The answer is no. You no doubt know this from reading it.

Are you doubting the mind of a Jew? If you are, let me know and I will give you the Essay about the Jews by Mark Twain.

 

[Ben Masada]

You are making assertions.

You are talking about Peter and Paul and a scribe, or rather Paul and a scribe. Do you believe Paul had a scribe who wrote Peter rather than Paul?

That's because you are not reading any thing I give you for evidences. This way we are only wasting the time of each other.

 

[Jacob]

Are you doubting the mind of a Jew? If you are, let me know and I will give you the Essay about the Jews by Mark Twain.

I am doubting that you trust the authorship (that Peter is the author) of this letter.

 

[Jacob]

That's because you are not reading any thing I give you for evidences. This way we are only wasting the time of each other.

I am reading all of your posts to me. I have only wondered if you have read everything in this thread.

 

[Angel4Truth]

And I proved it. Didn't you read the proof of my assertions? But what's the use in dealing with Christians? They are not interested in proofs which are not according to their Christian preconceived notions.

This is not "proof" :

The letters of Peter were written by Paul. You are the one wrong. Peter did not know how to read and write. According to Luke he was an unlearned and ignorant fella. Illiterate people don't write books. (Acts 4:13)

You assert he couldnt read or write, the verse you quoted also refers to paul in addition to peter, by your assertion, then john was illiterate also. Also look up the word "perceived".

You literally in that post of yours proved what a preconceived notion is, you assume they couldnt read or write, there is no evidence to suggest anything of the sort, other than your own ideas.

the verse you cited as evidence of illiteracy:

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus.

Uneducated also means illiterate in what universe?

 

[turbosixx]

Righteousness doesn't come by the Law. Is it true that a person could never be saved by observing the Law (OT)?

Peter's problem wasn't that he kept the Law, but that even in that he didn't he would imply to the Gentile either that they were not saved, could not be saved, or were not included among the people of God, in that he withdrew fearing the party of the circumcision... which did compel the Gentiles (believers or unbelievers here?) to live like Jews (which is not a requirement in Christ). The problem was not in living like the Jews, but the hypocrisy of Peter created confusion. Meaning, observing God's Law is fine... but making it appear like you have to be a Jew to be saved or be called among God's people, justified, is communicating the wrong message.

1 Corinthians 7:18 NASB - 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

So this is my perspective.

Remember what Paul said here?

1 Corinthians 9:16-23 NASB - 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. 17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. 18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. 19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

And here?

Philippians 3:3-16 NASB - 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. 7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; 16 however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained.

I would suggest your reading way to much into it. The only thing Peter did was revert back to his traditions in that Jews were superior. He was not pushing any other thing from the old law. He was not even pushing this because he didn't make a point of it, he just did it.

12For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof,

Acts 10:28 And he (Peter) said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

It was very hard for Jews to change after thousands of years of traditions.

 

[Jacob]

I would suggest your reading way to much into it. The only thing Peter did was revert back to his traditions in that Jews were superior. He was not pushing any other thing from the old law. He was not even pushing this because he didn't make a point of it, he just did it.

12For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof,

Acts 10:28 And he (Peter) said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

I am circumcised, and I do observe kosher. The question I have is if as a believer in Jesus Christ which I have been since a young age, should I or should I not call myself a Gentile? I am a believer. I am a Christian. And I do observe the Sabbath and the Jewish holy days.

Peter was a believer, but when Paul addressed him Paul was maybe addressing what some call hypocrisy. Paul himself (then?) walked orderly keeping the Law.