Can you point out to me where I ever said Paul was the Apostle to the uncircumcised?
By the EXACT SAME LOGIC then, Peter's mission to the Circumcised was also NOT an exclusive domain (and by extension, neither were the other Apostles so limited).
Then.....my good Freeper FRiend....you are in denial of Holy Scripture. Paul was not a member of the original "Twelve" told by Our Lord to stay away from the Gentiles. Paul was selected by Our Lord for that exact purpose....to evangelize the Gentiles.....and others [Acts 9:15]. On the other hand....Peter and the original eleven other Apostles were give very specific instructions [Matthew 10:5-6] to stay away from these folks.
I understand your frustration in coming to grips with these very clear scriptures. In doing so....and admitting their truthfulness.... you must toss your theology "under the bus". It must be very difficult for you....now that I've shown you the obvious truth.
"Sent to the Uncircumcised", "Apostle to the Unircumcised"--it amounts to the same thing. The key idea is "...to the Uncircumcised..." as an exclusive domain of evangelization. It is either exclusive or it is not exclusive. Since Paul evangelized to both Jews and Gentiles, it is NOT exclusive.
Since the Bible uses PRECISELY THE SAME verbal construction, "...to the Circumcised..." for Peter, then it is obvious that his evangelization mission was to both Jews and Gentiles as well.
The above is simple logic based on the actual words and actions in Scripture. I don't know how else to state it. You appear to debate according to no rules of logic or consistency. Meanings change to whatever you happen to think supports your position at the moment.
"It must be very difficult for you....now that I've shown you the obvious truth."
Not. Nice ego you have, though.
Reading the mind of another Freeper is "making it personal."