After Acts 15, count how many times Peter's ministry is again emphasized. The count is ‘0’. Peter, being a minister to the circumcision (Galatians 2), fades in emphasis, while the emphasis on the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, expands.
That is because Israel was diminishing after their fall (Romans ch. 11), and the office of Paul was being magnified (same chapter). Peter, having a primary position with the Jews of Jerusalem, along with the other eleven “Apostles of the Lamb” (a reference to those who were called during our Lord's earthly ministry), would not be the one to expand the churches to the European sphere. That would be the work of Paul.
When Peter gets into a Gentile situation, he messes up, and has to be rebuked by the Apostle to the Gentiles.
Peter didn't settle anything in Jerusalem in Acts 15; he gave his testimony, which clearly stated that before the events of Acts 10, he was ignorant of the transitions taking place. This is not a negative statement, particularly, as Peter had been in obedience according to the revelation that he had from the Day of Pentecost, but he was without the advanced revelation being given by God to the Apostle Paul.
None of them knew that there would be a “Church Age,” much less one that would last for 2,000 years, and all of them were really expecting the return of Jesus Christ (Acts 3:19-21) in their life time as a consequence of Israel's repentance of the sin of having murdered their Messiah/King. Even Paul preached and was bound for “the hope of Israel,” not the Body of Christ, all the way to the end of the Acts history (Read Acts 28).
It was after the close of the Acts history, when the leaders representative of the dispersed Jews rejected Christ in finality, that it was clear to them that a definite change in order was taking (or had taken)place.
Ephesians ch. 3 — Now Paul is a prisoner for Gentiles, instead of being bound for the hope of Israel.
The mistake made is reading into the Acts history what we see today, and thinking it is the same thing. It is not.
You don't have to convince me. I am not Catholic.
Peter, being a minister to the circumcision (Galatians 2), fades in emphasis, while the emphasis on the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, expands.
Well, if Matthew's Great Commission has any credibility (which it doesn't), the eleven disciples were told to go to all the "nations/tribes" which could be understood any way you wish, either as all the people of the world or just the tribes of Israel, the word ehtne is not specific.
So, there would have been no reason for anyone to only deal with the circumcision, In addition to that, Acts 13:26 clearly tells you why Paul went to the Gentiles: the Jewish rejection! But if he and Barnabas were already apostles to the Gentiles, why did it matter what the circumcision believed; it was not their concern! or it shouldn't have been.
Bottom line is, Jesus never said anything about going to the gentiles; on the contrary, he forbade it. He also specifically picked 12 disciples for each tribe of Israel. He never said anything about having more. The whole thing is a story that was ad-libed as time went on.
As for Peter and Paul receiving "messages" in different chronological order, that is just pure nonsense: the HS was supposed to teach them all things they needed to know. They sure didn't act like they did.
None of them knew that there would be a “Church Age,” much less one that would last for 2,000 years,
Oh, yeah, the HS kept that from them. That was a special surprise reserved for other times...Rather, it seems to me the HS let Paul teach that Christ was coming back soon...
I am n to sure what your point is, but thanks anyway.