[dangus]

Sorry, but Peter was faulted not for false doctrine, but failure for hypocrisy. Paul explicitly tells us that Peter had allowed his community to eat with gentiles, but that Peter acted hypocritically in stopping that practice. For this, Paul calls him a hypocrite, TWICE.

A hypocrite is someone who SAYS one thing, and DOES another. Peter was separating himself from the Gentiles. If he was preaching the doctrine that the Jews shouldn't eat with the uncircumcised, he would be a heretic, but not a hypocrite. Paul calls him a hypocrite because he knows Peter had been preaching that Christian Jews should be in community with Gentiles (uncircumcized), but was allowing his own community to be divided.

You guys crack me up the way you seem to think that over 2,000 years, not one Catholic ever opened a bible.

[RnMomof7]

Sorry, but Peter was faulted not for false doctrine, but failure for hypocrisy. Paul explicitly tells us that Peter had allowed his community to eat with gentiles, but that Peter acted hypocritically in stopping that practice. For this, Paul calls him a hypocrite, TWICE.

It was doctrinal issue that was resolved by the Jerusalem council ... The doctrinal question was were Gentiles bound by the law...