Here’s what Paul said about Peter.
Galatians 2:8 For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me (Paul) toward the Gentiles: (KJV)
>>I bet that this was taken from a book outside the bible. I doubt this was figured alone just by scripture.<<
Galatians 2:8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. (NIV)
>>Which shows for some to believe this they have to go outside the bible. It's kind of funny when you declare only the bible. Which takes away the solo scripture.<<
Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (NASB)
>>They accuse the Catholic Church of mishandling the word but come up with this definition. Proably never heard until the last 500 years.<<
Galatians 2: 8 for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles; (ASV)
Do Catholics read ANY version of the Bible?
So you think he stayed that way. Just from that letter alone.
So lets run up another wacky repeat ping of nonsense repeats. All been written on these threads.
Have you never read ACTS and how Peter stands up at the First Council and settles the argument with Paul.
It’s right there in the Bible. The Council of Jerusalem.
So you did not read this in a outside author’s book then look it up in the bible? You read scripture first since you were a kid not looking up outside books to get ideas what a verse means? It’s only the bible? Let’s be honest. You are pure Sola Scriptura. No outside ideas? Never read an outside book to influence you?
Do the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John pertain only to the Jews?
The Greek bible and the ESV (my favorite) do not use the “apostle to/of the uncircumcised” language.
But the Greek Bible was translated from the KJV so it might not be right./sarc