Posted on 03/08/2014 10:06:40 PM PST by NKP_Vet
The following outline shows that Jesus intended to create a holy, visible Church; complete with a prime minister, a hierarchy, binding authority, and perpetuity—the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
It is important for Protestants to understand some basic facts. Contrary to the modern belief that the Bible is a “blueprint” or “textbook” which explains how a church should be structured, it is a product of the Catholic Church—a compilation of writings that reflect a structure that was already present. As such, the “Bible alone” has no reason to provide fine details of proper ecclesiology; however, proper ecclesiology is detectable. Shortly after Jesus’ resurrection, the Catholic Church wrote lots of letters. The Catholic Church discerned which of those letters were inspired. By the end of the fourth century (Councils of Hippo A.D. 393 and Carthage A.D. 397) the Catholic Church finalized the “table of contents” of the Scriptures and called the entire body of writing “the Bible”. In other words, the Bible would not even exist if the popes and the hierarchy did not exist.
(Excerpt) Read more at thechurchofchristiscatholic.com ...
You don’t need to prove the Trinity to me. Like you, I already believe it, even though the word “Trinity” is not found in Scripture. I only point this out because I don’t understand why you would use a loser argument like that. You don’t believe in the principle of it yourself. Else you would necessarily reject the Trinity along with Sola Scriptura. So if your reason for rejecting Sola Scriptura really has nothing to do with whether it is explicitly named in the Biblical text, why would you raise an argument with us you don’t in principle accept yourself? It makes no sense.
Are you purposely sounding insolent or ignorant?
Where do you see the gospel belonging to anyone in Scripture except Christ and Paul? Man given titles do not count.
What mortal ever refers to "my gospel?" (Rm. 2:16; 16:25; 2Tim. 2:8)?
Who received the gospel message by direct revelation of God? (Gal. 1:11-12)
Who mentions and theologically defines "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24) the most?
What writer says you are accursed for contradicting his gospel? (Gal. 1:6-9)
Who sums of the heart of the gospel? (1Cor. 15:1-4)
One again your polemic (there was not Paul’s Gospel) is refuted. Waiting for the next one.
It was of no consequence, since it was simply not about her or anything she said, but that the other FReeper thought i was countering him as the one pinged secondarily, for i had pinged her to the post at issue. Did she complain?
The Orthodox are so not in agreement with Roman Catholic traditions that they have not and will not heal the rift even after many attempts to coax them over to Rome's side. The main problem, though there certainly are many others, is that Rome will not relent in her novel dogma of Papal infallibility and supremacy. That's a big deal. Add to that the additional novel dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory and priestly celibacy and a few others and you can understand why the split happened and why it won't be mended. Rome will never admit she made any errors and blames the split on the Orthodox, who she claims are the true "schismatics" and heretics. Humility is not her strong suit so, no matter how many sweet nothings she whispers in the ears of the Patriarchs, they won't back down nor should they. Many of these same disagreements they have with RC, the "Protestants/non-Catholic" Christians do as well. In fact, the Reformers disputed the exact same issues as the Orthodox did and they agreed that the so-called traditions were NOT held by the early church and were, in fact, new developments in doctrine unheard of in the earliest centuries of the church.
Perhaps, if Roman Catholicism changed and/or disallowed these many novel traditions and reverted back to the way the first Christians did believe, there could be a chance of unity among Christians. It would take a truckload of humility at the Vatican, as well as an admission that there is no such thing as Papal infallibility - that the RCC has made errors and mistakes. I don't see that ever happening until Jesus Christ returns and then these differences will not matter because we will know as we are known and he will rule and reign in perfect righteousness - something earthly men could never pull off.
I think I'll have to disagree there, and pretty much leave it at that after adding a few thoughts here. I've pinged you metmom because I think my response to Daniel here will address what you said to me.
First of all, let me make things as clear as possible and here, I may not only surprise you but other Catholics. Again, I don't trust the Church just because the Church is historical, and or because She claims authority for herself. As I tried (and obviously failed) to explain before I place my trust in the Church because I have encountered Christ through her (members) and thus, based on this experience, I know I can trust Her in other areas. It matters not to me whether you think I "must" base my trust on Her claims of authority, that's simply not the truth. I don't know how else to say that.
Now, as for the portion in bold: I must have missed that point when you made it before so sorry. But I do not agree that's how the Church started, if what you are saying there is people went around with copies of (OT) Scripture and showed the truth of Jesus in them.
Certainly we read about the Bereans, and how St Paul showed them Christ in the Scriptures. But two points there: 1. St Paul showed them. He didn't give them a copy of the Torah and say, "Read it yourselves and you'll see Jesus there". He sat down with them, and through fellowship showed them Jesus in the OT. So there we have an example of the key component I described in my previous post: the human element. The human need for help (and to give help). It is in this context that the Church was founded and continues to operate. See point 2 for more.
2. Even if you are claiming that St Paul and others went around with copies of Scripture and used only that to "prove" Jesus and the Gospel, that line of reasoning only works for the Jewish converts. Only they would have responded to "...Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, with Scripture being supreme as the assured word of God,". The Gentile converts would not.
I submit that the way the Church even began, much less continues today, was by the effective power of the witness. Sharing his testimony with others, a testimony based on personal experience, not on a Scriptural study. This testimony shared with those who are seeking for answers for whatever reason, not forced on others. And certainly doesn't begin with Scripture; again; it begins with a personal encounter with those who are not only willing to listen, but know they need something more in their life. Of course later, study of Scripture would be an important thing to do, but it's not how Christianity is spread not then not now. Because really, there's nothing more stupid than an answer to a question not asked. So to go to someone, Bible in hand and expect them to convert just by reading it to them, well that's just not anything really. And any "conversion" based on that alone is hardly a conversion that will last for long. Why? Because a man must be CONVINCED he needs Christ in his life, to be truly converted, and just reading the Bible, as an unbeliever with no help at all is not convincing.
This is the method that Christianity must have spread back then, so there's no reason to believe it has to change now. This is the method God the Holy Spirit uses. He uses us to spread His Word. He doesn't come to people (usually) in dreams or visions and suddenly "bam" another soul is saved. No, He uses US, chooses US to be His instrument on earth. So this really leads into my point from the beginning. That in our own human need, we can see the need for another, a helper, and not some ethereal, non-corporal spirit that we point to whenever challenged to prove God, to give a reason for our faith. We have a corporal God (Jesus) who meets us in our need by giving us a corporal, visible Church, a Church guided by the Comforter. Because that's what we need as human beings. We need something tangible (as I said before) to point to in our lives so we can say with confidence "I have MET Christ, come and see" to those who are not yet part of His Body.
We need that because that's all we are: human.
Raven, The new covenant to some is less ‘law’ and commands..
But just because it doesn’t have thou shalt nots, there are lots of commands...
and ‘come out of her my people’ at the end of the scripture you referenced isn’t a suggestion.. it’s a command.
And if we claim to be ‘His people’ and also believe we are in the last of the last days based on the world today, who can ignore or just not wonder what that all means? Foolish virgins will...
So many commandments in the new testament... sermon on the mount by itself is one commandment after the other...
He just gave them to us in the way our loving Savior would..like The Lamb of God..
But in Revelation He is speaking as the Lion of Judah..and I don’t think enough people wonder if He was speaking to ‘them’ or some other ‘people’...
It does not say anywhere in Scripture that Paul sat down with the Bereans and guided them through their search of Scripture.
Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
So that verse does not support your contention that Paul guided them in their search.
2. Even if you are claiming that St Paul and others went around with copies of Scripture and used only that to "prove" Jesus and the Gospel, that line of reasoning only works for the Jewish converts.
Who said anything about Paul carrying around or handing out copies of Scripture?
Additionally, what else are you going to use to prove that Jesus is the Messiah?
The only proof is the fulfilled Messianic prophecies and the only place to find them is in the OT. the whole purpose of the Law was to lead us to Christ, to show us our need for Him and to show us how to recognize Him instead of an imposter.
So what else would you think Paul would use to show that Jesus is the Messiah?
Testimonies have their place, as do miracles, but where does Scripture say faith comes from?
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
On this spot, I am marking that NKP_Vet never provided any evidence to support a single claim he made on this thread.
He was asked repeatedly. Never posted a single fact, no evidence and no logical argument. Zip.
I agree with you that Peter certainly wasn't referring to the pope. LOL! This is 1 Peter 2:5-9. Note the passage uses the words peculiar, priesthood, holy and chosen:
"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;" (1 Pet 2:5-9 KJV)
We know for certain he was not referring to the Pope, and Christ is clearly identified in the middle part of the passage as the chief corner stone and the stone of stumbling. But who was Peter referring to as chosen, an holy and royal priesthood, and a peculiar people?
I believe he was referring to the chosen ones from the children of Israel: the faithful remnant: the elect. We know that Israel as a nation broke the covenant; but a remnant kept the covenant, and God rewarded them.
But it doesn't matter what we believe, if the scripture doesn't support it. Let's see if the scripture supports that view. This is a chain of references from Moses, forward. Note the use of the keyword redeemed in conjunction with the other keywords:
"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:" (Exo 19:5 KJV)
"And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine." (Lev 20:26 KJV)
"For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth." (Deu 14:2 KJV)
"For the Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure." (Ps 135:4 KJV)
"And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the Lord: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken." (Isa 62:12 KJV)
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love … Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will … In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace … That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ." (Eph 1:4-5, 7, 12 KJV)
"Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." (Tit 2:14 KJV)
The keywords moving forward are priests, holy, blameless, and redeemed. This is from the Revelation:
"And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel." (Rev 7:4 KJV)
"And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads . . . the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God." (Rev 14:1, 3-5 KJV)
"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Rev 20:6 KJV)
That explains what happened to the "royal priesthood" that Peter was referring to. They were the 144,000 redeemed from among men: those of the first resurrection. Now let's look at the "foundations" of the Holy Temple:
"Now therefore ye [Jews and Gentiles] are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Eph 2:19-22 KJV)
Therefore, it is safe to assume that those of the first resurrection are the royal priesthood, and some of those, the foundations of the holy temple, are the apostles and prophets.
But the key point is: all are of the children of Israel. God did not desert or reject Israel: he kept his covenant with them. Those God rejected were those who had rejected him: those who had lost their status as children of Israel, and even their status as the children of Abraham:
"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Mat 3:7-9 KJV)
"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." (John 8:39 KJV)
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29 KJV)
Therefore, Christ "kicked off" (if you will) the New Covenant (the New Testament) by sending his angels to gather his elect--his chosen ones--his lost sheep--from amongst the children of Israel; and they became permanent servants (priests and kings) in his eternal kingdom:
"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:" (Mat 25:31 KJV)
"And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other " (Mat 24:31 KJV)
"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." (Rev 1:5-6 KJV)
Philip
Except for that to be true, those people would have been preached to by Peter, not happening. He was talking to believers then alive and believers hence.
Keep it handy then, I doubt it will be the last time you will have need of it.
All Hat No Cattle Placemarker - may he rest in peace until the next thread when it starts all over again.
who can ignore or just not wonder what that all means? Foolish virgins will...
If we believe we are his people then we should know that it is us that are told to come out.
And you would think that pretty soon we would figure out what it is that we should come out of.
Being Christian what would we as a people be involved in that we would have to be commanded to come out of?
What mortal ever refers to “my gospel?” (Rm. 2:16; 16:25; 2Tim. 2:8)?
Acts 9
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
Paul himself said that every thing must be established by two or more witnesses, how many witnesses did Paul have?
Did Paul actually see Jesus in his blind state? At that time Paul was told to go into the city and he would be told what he must do.
Nothing else is recorded.
The only witness Paul had was Ananias as the Lord had already talked to him before Ananias went to Paul.
Also since it is claimed that Luke was a traveling companion to Paul, was he with him at this time?
If so why did he not mention that Paul went some where else for three years and not directly to Jerusalem as he does indicate?.
Paul also has a little different version of his trip to Jerusalem 14 years later than what is recorded in acts.
Note, i am not anti Paul by any means but i have heard things which would indicate that Jesus was just the forerunner of Paul.
Although i believe Paul was really converted to Jesus i also believe because of his persecution of Christians which was the thorn in his side that he was Jealous of the other apostles, especially Peter.
Jesus is the only name in which we can be saved.
THE GOSPEL OF JESUS is the gospel of Paul, since it came from Him, and refers to the message of salvation, "the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation," "by which also ye are saved," (Eph. 1:13; 1Cor. 15:2) the meaning of the words and works recorded in the gospels. And only one of which actually says it is the gospel of Jesus Christ, (Mk. 1:1) and John never even uses the word, and within these "gospels" Christ is preaching the gospel - the message of salvation.
You are evidently making the same error as another who may have sent you to me, that of simply seeing the gospel record of Christ's words and works as the gospel, so that there was no "Paul's gospel," but it id clear that "gospel" actually primarily refers to the actual message of salvation, thus when the gospel is preached in Scripture, it is not 28 chapters of Matthew, but can even a 3 minute message, (Acts 10:36-43) or the essence of it. (Rv. 14:6,7)
Paul himself said that every thing must be established by two or more witnesses, how many witnesses did Paul have? Did Paul actually see Jesus in his blind state? At that time Paul was told to go into the city and he would be told what he must do. Paul had two or more witnesses to the light that shined round about him from heaven, And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." (Acts 9:3,7) which is when "the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." (Acts 9:6; 22:10)
The others with him apparently only heard the sound, (Acts 22:9) not the voice (phōnē, cf. Mt. 24:31; Joh_3:8, 1Co_14:7-8 (2), Rev_1:15, Rev_9:9 (2), Rev_18:22)
It is possible that is when he saw the Lord, but i think he did when given the revelation of the gospel referred to in Gal. 1:11,12, perhaps in Arabia. And which message was confirmed by more than 3 witnesses, including those who "seemed to be pillars." (Gal. 2:9)
Also since it is claimed that Luke was a traveling companion to Paul, was he with him at this time?
The problem is supposing Luke was with Paul at "this time." As Barnes states,
Luke has by no means recorded all that Paul or the other apostles did, nor has he pretended to do it. He has given the leading events in the public labors of Paul; and it is not at all improbable that he has omitted not a few short excursions made by him for the purpose of preaching the gospel. The journey into Arabia, probably, did not furnish any incidents in regard to the success of the gospel there which required particular record by the sacred historian, nor has Paul himself referred to it for any such reason, or intimated that it furnished any incidents, or any facts, that required particularly the notice of the historian. He has mentioned it for a different purpose altogether, to show that he did not receive his commission from the apostles, and that he did not go at once to consult them. He went directly the other way.
Since Luke, in the Book of Acts , had no occasion to illustrate this; since he had no occasion to refer to this argument, it did not fall in with the design to mention the fact. Nor is it known why Paul went into Arabia. Bloomfield supposes that it was in order to recover his health after the calamity which he suffered on the way to Damascus. But everything in regard to this is mere conjecture...
JFB opines,
Into Arabia — This journey (not recorded in Acts) was during the whole period of his stay at Damascus, called by Luke (Act_9:23), “many [Greek, a considerable number of] days.” It is curiously confirmatory of the legitimacy of taking “many days” to stand for “three years,” that the same phrase exactly occurs in the same sense in 1Ki_2:38, 1Ki_2:39.`
And Roberton's word pictures:
Before me (pro emou). The Jerusalem apostles were genuine apostles, but so is Paul. His call did not come from them nor did he receive confirmation by them. Into Arabia (eis Arabian). This visit to Arabia has to come between the two visits to Damascus which are not distinguished in Act_9:22. In Act_9:23 Luke does speak of “considerable days” and so we must place the visit to Arabia between Act_9:22, Act_9:23.
Although i believe Paul was really converted to Jesus i also believe because of his persecution of Christians which was the thorn in his side that he was Jealous of the other apostles, especially Peter.
I think that to be a kind of superficial analysis of liberal elites, or the biased view of RCs who want to impugn Paul for what he did to "their" Peter. And which is based on Pauline statements such as,
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10)
"For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." (2 Corinthians 11:5)
"Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft." (2 Corinthians 11:23)
However, in the first instance it is Paul testifying to the great grace of God to one who persecuted the church, and how it was not in vain but as him that is forgiven much, the same loveth much, (LK. 7:47) so Paul laboured more than they all, "yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."
And rather than being jealous of the others, for Paul all he cares about is that "whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." (Philippians 1:18) Thus he next expresses the same sentiment, "Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed." (1 Corinthians 15:11)
Souls, and not self, is always paramount to Paul, to the glory of God.
In the next instances, rather than passionate Paul laboring under an inferiority complex to the real apostles in speaking these Divinely inspired truths, he actually is jealous, as God is when His own follow false gods to their own hurt, placing affection on that which cannot save.
"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (2 Corinthians 11:2) For Paul is laboring to rescue his beloved but backslidden church, which he gives more attention to than any other, from following false apostles who have them under a spell.
And as cults and cultic personalities will do, these "false apostles, deceitful workers" were attacking Paul in order to validate themselves, and in his love for these dumb deceived sheep Paul resorts to what he calls being a fool, in testifying to then of his sacrificial love for them in Christ.
Thus it is love for the church - "Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?" (1Cor. 11:29) "And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved." (2 Corinthians 12:15) - that drives this, not jealously of the apostles.
Perhaps Galatians 2:9 could also be listed, "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."
But which is in contrast to the demigod status RCs give their leaders, yet in all these there is no rebuke by the Holy Spirit, who uses Paul mightily, and once again Paul's passion is for the church, which tends to look at men after the flesh and to "think of men above that which is written." (1Cor. 4:6)
And in contrast what Paul states is entirely correct and needful. For indeed the church began in dissent from those who thought of themselves above that which is written and had men doing so.
Jesus is the only name in which we can be saved.
Indeed. I man named Paul agreed and preach that and rejoiced that Christ was validly preached, and condemned any other gospel than what he (and the other apostles) preached, as "by Him [the risen Lord Jesus] all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:39) "that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance." (Acts 26:20)
Amen.
It's far more likely that Peter was jealous of Paul, although I think it's a stretch to try to create that kind of animosity between the Apostles.
Gospel I believe means Good News. Good news of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Paul certainly preached the Gospel message. [Pinging Salvation because she was apparently gobsmacked that Paul could be preaching the "gospel." I think that was because Peter MUST be seen as the top ranking person back in the 1st century because Catholicism made him the ex post facto pope 300 or so years later. There fore Paul must be marginalized]
Jesus is the only name in which we can be saved.
Amen to that, but some popes declare that Mary can save.
The Church did not begin upon Scripture, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
It was founded upon people.
You are missing the necessary means by which the apostles and prophets, and Jesus Christ Himself established their truth claims as being apostles and prophets, and Jesus Christ.
Why should anyone believe a man in the desert who ate insects and in Itinerant Prophet, both of whom those who sat in the seat of Moses rejected, and whom the subjects at issue reproved by Scripture, and upon substantiation of which they established their claims? (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
>>>Except for that to be true, those people would have been preached to by Peter, not happening. He was talking to believers then alive and believers hence.<<<
Where can I find that? Where did Peter write that he was talking to believers then alive and believers hence?
Philip
It’s far more likely that Peter was jealous of Paul, although I think it’s a stretch to try to create that kind of animosity between the Apostles.
Or is it that he did exactly what Jesus said to do which is turn the other cheek?
What was the instructions Jesus gave concerning this matter?
Matthew 18:15
Moreouer, if thy brother shall trespasse against thee, goe and tell him his fault betweene thee and him alone: if he shall heare thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Paul did not follow Jesus in this matter, what he did was to tell the whole world about Peters fault, imaginary or real.
What it does show is that if true Peter was not perfect and true or not neither was Paul, they were men just like us and they obviously said and wrote things with out guidance from the Holy spirit.
The job of the apostles was to build Churches of people and preach the word of Jesus which is the gospel and this they did.
Much in the letters wrote by Paul was not about the Gospel but about how to oversee a Church and how a Church should be governed in order for Jesus to be honored, for instance 1Cor ch 11.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.