Built on the wrong apostle

[RichardBurger]

Built on the wrong apostle:

It is believed, by many, that the grace church was started by Peter on the day of Pentecost. But all that is written in Acts, spoken by Peter, is to get the Jews (Israel) to accept Jesus as their Messiah and king so that He would return and setup the kingdom that was promised in the covenant God made with Abraham. This covenant was not made to the Gentiles.

Even in Acts 8 & 9 where we see Saul being converted it was still time for the Jews to accept Jesus as their king so that He could return and set up the promised kingdom.

However we see that Saul/Paul was chosen by God to be an apostle to the Gentiles. This gospel was hidden in God and revealed to Paul, not the 12. The 12 were apostles to the Jews. No where in the scriptures do we see Jesus and the 12 rescinding the Law of Moses, yet Paul taught that we are no longer under the Law of Moses and are dead to it. No where in the preaching of Peter do we see any mention of salvation by the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. The reason is very simple. It was not revealed to them until Jesus told it to Paul.

Many say that James rescinded the law in Acts 15. But did he really? He said the Gentiles did not have to keep the law but nowhere in Acts 15 did he say the Jews did not have to keep it.

I believe that if people would REALLY see the words in the scriptures for what they say they would find that the religious have perverted the scriptures to say what they want them to say in order to keep the religious ideas they have. Most of these religious ideas came through the RCC who built their church on the wrong apostles. The church for this age should have been built on the writings of the apostle that was sent to the Gentiles.

 

[lawrance]

Built on the wrong apostle:

It is believed, by many, that the grace church was started by Peter on the day of Pentecost. But all that is written in Acts, spoken by Peter, is to get the Jews (Israel) to accept Jesus as their Messiah and king so that He would return and setup the kingdom that was promised in the covenant God made with Abraham. This covenant was not made to the Gentiles.

Even in Acts 8 & 9 where we see Saul being converted it was still time for the Jews to accept Jesus as their king so that He could return and set up the promised kingdom.

However we see that Saul/Paul was chosen by God to be an apostle to the Gentiles. This gospel was hidden in God and revealed to Paul, not the 12. The 12 were apostles to the Jews. No where in the scriptures do we see Jesus and the 12 rescinding the Law of Moses, yet Paul taught that we are no longer under the Law of Moses and are dead to it. No where in the preaching of Peter do we see any mention of salvation by the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. The reason is very simple. It was not revealed to them until Jesus told it to Paul.

Many say that James rescinded the law in Acts 15. But did he really? He said the Gentiles did not have to keep the law but nowhere in Acts 15 did he say the Jews did not have to keep it.

I believe that if people would REALLY see the words in the scriptures for what they say they would find that the religious have perverted the scriptures to say what they want them to say in order to keep the religious ideas they have. Most of these religious ideas came through the RCC who built their church on the wrong apostles. The church for this age should have been built on the writings of the apostle that was sent to the Gentiles.

That wipes out Jesus coming to save the Jewish people then doesn't it.

Maybe only the stupid goy need some sort of half baked savior figure then.

Sounds like someone who looks up the Bible, finding sound bites to push a spirit less worldly view.

I think it's a Roll over type of so called Christians that never had anything at all and the saints and the prophets were in vain to, by that type of reckoning.

The 12 were apostles to Jesus only as they are his.

Why would anyone want a people to be trapped by the OT law.

No mate i believe Jesus was the son of God and he came to save "all" from sin, anything less is just slandering God, and the work of old mate Satan and his golden calf worshiping fools.

Look at 'religious' ideas in the OT and what they have been pushing as i see no hope in that.

Lets face it richard, Jesus Christ means our 'Lord and Saviour' and their is no other way to come to the Father. and that means anyone be it any race! at all. get over it and come to the true Jesus and 'abide in him only' as he is the way and the Light of the world for ever. as he is the alpha and the omega, is he not richard.

 

[RichardBurger]

That wipes out Jesus coming to save the Jewish people then doesn't it.

Maybe only the stupid goy need some sort of half baked savior figure then.

Sounds like someone who looks up the Bible, finding sound bites to push a spirit less worldly view.

I think it's a Roll over type of so called Christians that never had anything at all and the saints and the prophets were in vain to, by that type of reckoning.

The 12 were apostles to Jesus only as they are his.

Why would anyone want a people to be trapped by the OT law.

No mate i believe Jesus was the son of God and he came to save "all" from sin, anything less is just slandering God, and the work of old mate Satan and his golden calf worshiping fools.

Look at 'religious' ideas in the OT and what they have been pushing as i see no hope in that.

Lets face it richard, Jesus Christ means our 'Lord and Saviour' and their is no other way to come to the Father. and that means anyone be it any race! at all. get over it and come to the true Jesus and 'abide in him only' as he is the way and the Light of the world for ever. as he is the alpha and the omega, is he not richard.

I take it you did not read what Peter was REALLY preaching in Acts. All your ideas about what I said and about me are just your way of not actually reading the book of Acts for what it really says. No where in that book does Peter say the shed blood on the cross pays for the sins of mankind. All he is doing is trying to get Israel to accept Jesus as their Messiah and king.

The fact that Jesus' shed blood pays for the sins of mankind was only taught by Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. Why! Because Paul's gospel was given to him BY JESUS when God turned to the Gentiles, not before.

I found one of my discussions with and orthodox Jew to be interesting. We know, today, that Jesus was to come twice, once as a suffering Messiah and then as an all powerful king. But the Jews could never see the Messiah as suffering. They thought the suffering servant was the nation of Israel. You see what happens when you don't REALLY read the scriptures for what they say.

 

[FHII]

I take it you did not read what Peter was REALLY preaching in Acts. All your ideas about what I said and about me are just your way of not actually reading the book of Acts for what it really says. No where in that book does Peter say the shed blood on the cross pays for the sins of mankind. All he is doing is trying to get Israel to accept Jesus as their Messiah and king.

The fact that Jesus' shed blood pays for the sins of mankind was only taught by Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. Why! Because Paul's gospel was given to him BY JESUS when God turned to the Gentiles, not before.

I found one of my discussions with and orthodox Jew to be interesting. We know, today, that Jesus was to come twice, once as a suffering Messiah and then as an all powerful king. But the Jews could never see the Messiah as suffering. They thought the suffering servant was the nation of Israel. You see what happens when you don't REALLY read the scriptures for what they say.

Richard,

You seem to be big in this particular subject that I can only sum up as to say, "the age of grace began with Paul". I agree with that, as (if I may use a biblical metaphor) when Paul came to his time of preaching, the wine was ready to be served. I agree with you that it was a new era and a new message.

My contentions with you are two fold. First. That's when the wine was ready to be served. But it is not the time when it was prepared or set up. The grapes of that wine were planted with John the Baptist. The grapes then were put to fermentation with Jesus. He started the wine making process. The ground (the preparing of the field) was by the prophets of the Old Testament. Thus, I don't see a clear cut line between the Gospels and the epistles of Paul, nor do I see a clear cut line between the OT and the epistles. I see it as a continuing story. Not a fictional story, but an account of a continuing flow. Without Genesis 1, we cannot fully understand Revelation 22. Every verse inbetween is important for the ONE history and doctrine of the Bible. I simply cannot divide them totally.

My second contention with you is not really important. I find you to be a hard man and one who is stubborn and cannot "work well with others". I fail to find a better phrase than that. I do not mind your hard headedness, nor your stubborness. I actually admire them and wish more were like that. What I don't think you realize Richard is that I agree with what you say quite a bit. Have you found anything I've said that is wrong? We are on the same page with 99.9% of things. The .1% is minor, though worth debating. The problem is that one of us is a rock, and the other a hard place. I too am hard headed, and stubborn. But I think we agree.

I commend you on a fine point about Paul bringing in the age of grace (if I may coin the term). But I also can't but help to wonder.... Now what do we do with it? I read a post you made earlier that suggested [I can't find that post now.... please allow me to paraphrase] that this knowledge would clarify things that seemed to be discrepencies in the NT. I have yet to see how. I'm not saying it won't. So, assuming you are right, (and first, assuming I have read you correctly), where do we go from here? How does this knowledge change things?

 

[veteran]

I find the false doctrine Richard is holding to actually blaspheming Christ's Ministry among His chosen 12 Apostles, and blasphemy against Christ's Church. And to be clear, those 12 Apostles Christ chose were with Him while Apostle Paul was still in confusion persecuting Christ's Church.

Apostle Paul DEFINED the Foundation of Christ's Church...

Eph 2:19-22
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In Whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In Whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
(KJV)

Funny, I don't see anywhere there that only our Lord Jesus and Apostle Paul made up that foundation.

The first example of righteousness being imputed by Faith was with Abraham, which Paul also taught. That is pointing to God's Grace through Faith all the way back then, for Jesus said that Abraham saw His day, and was glad (John 8:56). It's also why Paul taught in Galatians that those of Faith like Abraham have become the "children of Abraham".

Richard must keep denying the Scripture evidence for all that, because remember, the MAIN PURPOSE for believing Christ's Grace didn't begin until Paul preached to the Gentile is about the Dispensationalist's need to divide Israel apart from Christ's Church in order to SUPPORT their false Pre-tribulational rapture theory. Dispensationalism is hard-linked to the Pre-trib rapture theory that originated in 1830's Britain.

 

[RichardBurger]

Richard,

I can only sum up as to say, "the age of grace began with Paul". I agree with that, as (if I may use a biblical metaphor) when Paul came to his time of preaching, the wine was ready to be served. I agree with you that it was a new era and a new message.

I commend you on a fine point about Paul bringing in the age of grace (if I may coin the term). But I also can't but help to wonder.... Now what do we do with it? I read a post you made earlier that suggested [I can't find that post now.... please allow me to paraphrase] that this knowledge would clarify things that seemed to be discrepencies in the NT. I have yet to see how. I'm not saying it won't. So, assuming you are right, (and first, assuming I have read you correctly), where do we go from here? How does this knowledge change things?

What do we do with it! We teach what the scriptures tell us and not what men want us to teach. How does this knowledge change things? Which would prefer to believe, the truth or a lie? A lie can not save you.

I deleted some of your reply because some of it was not about the thread.

I will repeat """ I am not going to be drawn into a discussion about your opinions about me. Since it seems that is you intentions why don't you start a new thread "Things I don't like about Richard.” I am sure it will be a hit.

I find the false doctrine Richard is holding to actually blaspheming Christ's Ministry among His chosen 12 Apostles, and blasphemy against Christ's Church. And to be clear, those 12 Apostles Christ chose were with Him while Apostle Paul was still in confusion persecuting Christ's Church.

Apostle Paul DEFINED the Foundation of Christ's Church...

Eph 2:19-22
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In Whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In Whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
(KJV)

Funny, I don't see anywhere there that only our Lord Jesus and Apostle Paul made up that foundation.

The first example of righteousness being imputed by Faith was with Abraham, which Paul also taught. That is pointing to God's Grace through Faith all the way back then, for Jesus said that Abraham saw His day, and was glad (John 8:56). It's also why Paul taught in Galatians that those of Faith like Abraham have become the "children of Abraham".

Richard must keep denying the Scripture evidence for all that, because remember, the MAIN PURPOSE for believing Christ's Grace didn't begin until Paul preached to the Gentile is about the Dispensationalist's need to divide Israel apart from Christ's Church in order to SUPPORT their false Pre-tribulational rapture theory. Dispensationalism is hard-linked to the Pre-trib rapture theory that originated in 1830's Britain.

Everything I write I back up with scriptures to show it. I never have denyed any scriptures. You are just upset because I said that the RCC and it's doctrine are based on the wrong apostle.

The 12 were to convince the Jews (Israel) that Jesus was their Messiah and King. None of them taught about the shed blood of Jesus in the book of Acts. You can't prove me wrong since no one has posted a single scripture in the first 4 books of the N.T. and the book of Acts that said otherwise.

 

[RichardBurger]

I posted this on another forum and it was locked so no one can see it. Although the forum says that all Christians are welcome to joint in I believe it to be mostly catholics.

Yep! that is what the catholic church has always done, not let other see the truth unless it's their truth.

 

[lawrance]

I posted this on another forum and it was locked so no one can see it. Although the forum says that all Christians are welcome to joint in I believe it to be mostly catholics.

Yep! that is what the catholic church has always done, not let other see the truth unless it's their truth.

It may be because you maybe wrong richard and on this point, you are just barking up the wrong tree. as it is that the possition you are taking up drags Christ down and is raising up a people as God.
I am sorry to say that i think someone has bewitched you on this point.
The people who are opposing you view are mainly not RCC and i am not a RC. and when i was a protestant i never heard them trying to put Christ down.
And if people would stop blindingly bagging the RCC and and open their eyes to it's true position they may learn some thing of real value as my own point of view of the RCC position was just a joke, now that i look back at the rubbish that was told to me by Protestants.
I have a mate who rattles on with the same type of stuff you rave on about. he listens to all these tapes and some radio program with some nut ranting and raving about verse this verse that, twisting everything to push the LEFT BEHIND program etc etc and everything that's wrong with the world has to do with the RCC. but hang about a jumped up religious mob pops up in the last 20 years saying just totaly ridiculous things.
It just like as the Bible says in the last days their will be people like so.

 

[Groundzero]

Some food for thought concerning whether Paul was given a special revelation, was the one who ushered in grace, whatever.


2Pe 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


Oh, and it seems to be that Paul preached the same message as all the other apostles: listen to his testimony!


Act 26:22-23 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

 

[RichardBurger]

In me first:

1 Timothy 1:15-17
15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
NKJV

Verse 16: “that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.”

This is when the grace church of His body started. It started with the calling out of Paul.

If you do not believe what Paul wrote then you don't believe the scriptures.

But the problem is that for those that do not wish to believe what Paul wrote they will go to other parts of the scriptures to make what Paul said a mute point because it does not support their theology.

Some food for thought concerning whether Paul was given a special revelation, was the one who ushered in grace, whatever.


2Pe 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


Oh, and it seems to be that Paul preached the same message as all the other apostles: listen to his testimony!


Act 26:22-23 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

What has Acts 26:22-23 have to do with the subject of the O.P.? Paul's gospel was based on the the prophets and Moses; in that Jesus suffered, died on a cross and rose from the dead. But Paul's gospel went on to say that because of Jesus' shed blood on the cross all the sins of the world are paid for. But it only applies """if you place your faith in it""".

 

[Prentis]

Amen, Groundzero!

 

[7angels]

ok i am not sure what it is you are getting at. everything paul taught you can find in the old testament. act 17:11 shows us that they searched the scriptures daily to see if what paul told them was true. you need to remember that the new testament has not been written yet so all they had was the old testament to look at.

It is believed, by many, that the grace church was started by Peter on the day of Pentecost. i believe this is because he was the first one to preach on it.

 

[tomwebster]

Built on the wrong apostle:
...

:blink: :wacko: :blink:

The church was not built on an apostle, it was built on Jesus Christ, THE ROCK, not Peter, a littlte stone.

 

[veteran]

The problem is how some are misled to think that God's Grace didn't come until Paul's preaching. Yet Paul preached in Romans and Galatians that those of Faith have believed as Abraham did, and have thus become 'the children of Abraham'. In John 8:56, Christ said that Abraham saw His day and was glad. The Gospel of Jesus Christ has always been about Grace by Faith. The only difference with Paul's day, is that Christ had already come and died on the cross and resurrected to fulfill it, and He chose Paul to go mainly to the Gentiles, while Peter was to mostly preach the same Gospel to Israel.

 

[HammerStone]

This interpretation makes no sense in the light of Acts 2. If this wasn't a message for Gentiles at this time, then why did God very clearly and deliberately ordain a time where tongues were spoken in a variety of Gentile languages even down to the dialect?

Acts 2:8-11
Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs--we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"

It seems like you're taking up the argument of Judaizers amongst the Apostles. My friend, that argument was already laid to rest when these letters were written.

Unfortunately, there is such a thing as hyper-dispensationalism, and I'm seeing it here.

 

[RichardBurger]

That wipes out Jesus coming to save the Jewish people then doesn't it.

Maybe only the stupid goy need some sort of half baked savior figure then.

Sounds like someone who looks up the Bible, finding sound bites to push a spirit less worldly view.

I think it's a Roll over type of so called Christians that never had anything at all and the saints and the prophets were in vain to, by that type of reckoning.

The 12 were apostles to Jesus only as they are his.

Why would anyone want a people to be trapped by the OT law.

No mate i believe Jesus was the son of God and he came to save "all" from sin, anything less is just slandering God, and the work of old mate Satan and his golden calf worshiping fools.

Look at 'religious' ideas in the OT and what they have been pushing as i see no hope in that.

Lets face it richard, Jesus Christ means our 'Lord and Saviour' and their is no other way to come to the Father. and that means anyone be it any race! at all. get over it and come to the true Jesus and 'abide in him only' as he is the way and the Light of the world for ever. as he is the alpha and the omega, is he not richard.

So you are saying there is not any hope in the gospel of Grace as taught by Paul, that we are saved by faith in the shed blood of Jesus on the cross.

Jesus came to set up the promised kingdom for the Jews. There is absolutely no preaching by Peter and the 11 in the book of Acts that teaches were are saved by the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. I have said that to you before and it just goes through your head.

If, as you say, Jesus and the 12 taught that we are saved simple by the shed blood of Jesus on the cross then show the scriptures to prove it. Until you do thius you are just blowing in the wind.

The problem is how some are misled to think that God's Grace didn't come until Paul's preaching. Yet Paul preached in Romans and Galatians that those of Faith have believed as Abraham did, and have thus become 'the children of Abraham'. In John 8:56, Christ said that Abraham saw His day and was glad. The Gospel of Jesus Christ has always been about Grace by Faith. The only difference with Paul's day, is that Christ had already come and died on the cross and resurrected to fulfill it, and He chose Paul to go mainly to the Gentiles, while Peter was to mostly preach the same Gospel to Israel.

How many times must I show this to you before you will understand.

Foreseeing-Beforehand-would justify

Galatians 3:6-8

6 just as Abraham "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.
8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." NKJV

Note the words “foreseeing“, “would justify“, “beforehand“. They clearly indicate that faith was not instituted at that time. It was to be a future event.

Since you just can't read it as it is written then how do you read it? What do you make of the words "“foreseeing“, “would justify“, “beforehand?"

 

[RichardBurger]

This interpretation makes no sense in the light of Acts 2. If this wasn't a message for Gentiles at this time, then why did God very clearly and deliberately ordain a time where tongues were spoken in a variety of Gentile languages even down to the dialect?

Acts 2:8-11
Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs--we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"

It seems like you're taking up the argument of Judaizers amongst the Apostles. My friend, that argument was already laid to rest when these letters were written.

Unfortunately, there is such a thing as hyper-dispensationalism, and I'm seeing it here.

First of all there is no need to "Interpret" Acts 2. It says what it says. All Peter is trying to do is to get the Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah; to believe that He is their Messiah and that they killed Him. There is no mention of salvation through the shed blood of Jesus that covers sins.

　
Second, according to my Bible the people there in Jerusalem were mostly Jews and Gentile proselytes celebrating the Passover (visitors from Rome “”(both Jews and converts to Judaism)””. Gentile of other religions would not be there to celebrate the Jewish Passover.

　
Third, Many of the Jews and Jewish proselytes that were there were visiting from their Gentile countries and spoke the language of the land in which they lived.

　
No I am not doing what you claim. Jewish Judaizers were trying to get those that were in the grace church to go back under the Law of Moses just like many Christian Churches are doing today with their blended gospel. They teach Jewish law for us today. -- But I am sure you had a reason for writing that falsehood.

　
As far as your last remark, I see you have something against teaching the scriptures from a dispensational viewpoint. Obviously you are in the crowd that takes all the scriptures and blends them together and comes up with a harmonized gospel that man has written to fit a theology that man thinks will save him.

:blink: :wacko: :blink:

The church was not built on an apostle, it was built on Jesus Christ, THE ROCK, not Peter, a littlte stone.

The grace church was built by the teachings of the hidden gospel of grace that was given to Paul by Jesus. Yes, Jesus is the stone that the builder (Jews) rejected. He is also the root of our salvation.

 

[Groundzero]

In me first:

1 Timothy 1:15-17
15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
NKJV

Verse 16: “that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.”

This is when the grace church of His body started. It started with the calling out of Paul.

If you do not believe what Paul wrote then you don't believe the scriptures.

But the problem is that for those that do not wish to believe what Paul wrote they will go to other parts of the scriptures to make what Paul said a mute point because it does not support their theology.



What has Acts 26:22-23 have to do with the subject of the O.P.? Paul's gospel was based on the the prophets and Moses; in that Jesus suffered, died on a cross and rose from the dead. But Paul's gospel went on to say that because of Jesus' shed blood on the cross all the sins of the world are paid for. But it only applies """if you place your faith in it""".

Lots. You are saying Peter and Paul preached different messages as Peter was pre-Grace, Paul was the one to whom Grace was revealed first. Paul himself says otherwise. he says that he preached the gospel of Jesus! The exact same thing that the apostles did! No more, no less. Perhaps the fact that Paul wrote the majority of the NT has affected your thinking!

Seems to be that not enough attention has been focused on this Scripture

2Pe 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


Seems to me that Peter was in full agreement with Paul about grace. It seems to be that there were those back then who wrest with what Paul wrote about! From memory, I believe that wrest was referring to violently twisting or something like that!

 

[RichardBurger]

Lots. You are saying Peter and Paul preached different messages as Peter was pre-Grace, Paul was the one to whom Grace was revealed first. Paul himself says otherwise. he says that he preached the gospel of Jesus! The exact same thing that the apostles did! No more, no less. Perhaps the fact that Paul wrote the majority of the NT has affected your thinking!

If you insist that Peter and Paul were teaching the same message then that is your right. But I certainly can't see it in the scriptures.

By the way, why did you put this in your reply, what purpose did it serve? quote "Perhaps the fact that Paul wrote the majority of the NT has affected your thinking!"

 

[THE Gypsy]

OOPS! Wrong thread!