“But no, I am not convinced every thing they wrote in the epistles was directed by the holy spirit.”
That is true, but you are wanting to go all over the place with it.
I pointed out that I thought Paul was going against what Jesus taught when he accosted Peter in public rather than going to him in private as Jesus said to do.
You contend that it was not a private matter but the fact that we only know about it via Paul proves other wise.
You want to take it all over the place which does nothing but cover up the issue.
“But no, I am not convinced every thing they wrote in the epistles was directed by the holy spirit.”
That is true, but you are wanting to go all over the place with it.
So you've quoted yourself, as if I said it, and then said what you said was true. For the record, I didn't say what you appear to be quoting me as saying, and it is still false, and I would prefer if in the future you would provide proper attribution of such statements. In case anyone is confused by your rendering,
I believe everything recorded in Scripture is God-breathed, i.e., directed by the Holy Spirit, and that the doctrine of
partial inspiration, which you appear to hold, is a significant deviation from the truth.
You contend that it was not a private matter but the fact that we only know about it via Paul proves other wise.
Sorry, having a single source of information about an event doesn't impeach the testimony that it was a public event. To the contrary, because Paul was writing under divine inspiration, that alone would certify his testimony as true, and that means the offense as well as the rebuke happened in public. God chooses what goes in His Book. Editorial privilege. For example:
John 20:30-31 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: (31) But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
So you couldn't say all those unrecorded events were "private" just because God decided not to record them.
But I have a bigger logic problem with your statement. To qualify for the privacy rule under Matthew 18, Peter's offense would have to have been personal to Paul. In other words, logically, Paul would have had to bring a complaint about Peter snubbing him because he was Gentile. You can see the absolute absurdity of this, I hope. Paul arose in defense of many other people who were being hurt by what Peter did. Under law you don't need a lot of people to get to "public" status, as with defamation. Just passing something defamatory on to a third person is enough. And there were way more than three people involved, the whole congregation at Antioch. So yes, very public, under almost any standard you care to measure it.
Anyway, at this point the reader can judge for themselves.
Peace,
SR
You contend that it was not a private matter but the fact that we only know about it via Paul proves other wise. It wasn't a private matter because it did not happen in private between Peter and Paul.
It happened in public involving other people. That immediately precludes it from being private.
Public rebuke is necessary for public sins and so is public repentance.
The people wronged need to be involved and if many people are wronged in a public setting, they need to be involved in the process.