Christ's Christianity and Paul's Christianity are Not the Same

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
.
"...The ancient languages were much more complicated and to translate them becomes a rigerous problem as how do you give three different words the same meaning? These languages had masculin and femine modifiers and neutered modifiers as well and taht needs to be taken into account when translating them, but it would have taken twice as much time as the translation that we presentlu have, which was mostly translated by the Catholic Church to their specifications in order to allow them power over men, in the place of GOD.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High


CHAPTER XIV
"FOLLOWING Tyndale's example, others continued the work of issuing English-printed Bibles, and so in the reign of Henry VIII we have to face quite a deluge of them. One by one they came forth, authorised and unauthorised, printed and published by irresponsible individuals, full of errors, with no proper supervision, and having no other effect (as we shall presently see) than that of drawing down contempt and disgrace upon the Sacred Scriptures..."


(5) "... How long it will be before another Protestant version appears he would be a bold man who would venture to prophecy; but that others will spring up and add to the number of the wrecks that already strew the path we may confidently predict. I have given a goodly list of corrupt and erroneous versions; but please do not imagine for a moment that my catalogue is anything like complete. I have merely mentioned those that were more commonly used and secured a certain amount of popularity and authorisation from Protestant headquarters. But there are, I am safe in saying, hundreds of other editions that flooded this unhappy realm from the time of Tyndale, some from foreign countries, like Holland, and Germany, and Switzerland, and some produced at home, but all of them swarming with blunders and perversions.

On glancing over a bookseller's catalogue the other day my eye happened to light on some of those that have attained notoriety for their absurd mistakes. There is, for example, the 'He' Bible and the 'She' Bible, so called from the hopeless mixing up of these pronouns in the Book of Ruth; the 'He' Bible has one set of errors and the ‘She' Bible another. There is the 'Wicked' Bible from the word 'not' being omitted from the 7th Commandment. There is the 'Vinegar' Bible, from printing 'vinegar' instead of 'vineyard', and so producing ‘The Parable of the Vinegar'. This Bible was printed by a man called Baskett, and is now vainly sought for by collectors on account of its numberless errors; indeed, it was wittily called the 'Basket-ful of Errors'. There is the 'Murderer's Bible', from the words of Our Lord being thus printed: 'But Jesus said unto her, let the children first be killed' (instead of 'fed'). Then we have the 'Whig' Bible and the 'Unrighteous' Bible and the 'Bug' Bible, and the 'Treacle’ Bible, and no end of other kinds of Bibles, all crammed full of mistakes and corruptions. The Pearl Bible, for instance, published by Field, the Parliamentary printer, has 6,000 errors in it. A famous book was written by a man named Ward in the seventeenth century, entitled Errata of the Protestant Bible, containing a formidable list of, I should not like to say how many thousand errors in the various versions. No one has yet succeeded in refuting Ward's Errata. It stands as a gruesome commentary on the history of heretical treatment of the inspired text. I came across a curious and rare book one day in Glasgow University Library, written in 1659, by a Protestant, one William Kilburn, entitled Dangerous Errors in Several Late Printed Bibles to the Great Scandal and Corruption of Sound and True Religion. He enumerates the errors, omissions, and specimens of nonsense that he discovered in these editions, many of them imported from Holland, and mentions that a gentleman had unearthed 6,000 mistakes in one copy alone.

(6) But time would fail to tell of all the corruptions and perversions of the original texts which are to be found in practically all the Protestant Bibles, down to the present time, and whose existence is proved by the fact that one after the other has been withdrawn, and its place taken by a fresh version, which in its turn was found to be no better than the rest. Is this reverence for the Word of God? Which of all these corrupt partisan versions was 'the Rule of Faith?' The Bible, and the Bible only, we are told; but which Bible? I ask. Or had Protestants a different Rule of Faith according to the century in which they lived? according to the copy of the Bible they chanced to possess? What a mockery of Religion! What a degradation of God's Holy Word, that it should have been knocked about like a shuttlecock, and made to serve the interests now of this sect, now of that, and loaded with notes that shrieked aloud party war-cries and bitter accusations and filthy insinuations! Is this zeal for the pure and incorrupt Gospel? Is this the grand and unspeakable blessing of the 'open Bible'? It only remains now to show by contrast the calm, dignified, and reverent action taken by the Catholic Church, towards her own Book.

CHAPTER XV. The Catholic’s Bible

WHAT was the Catholic Church doing all this time? Well, she was in a state of persecution in England, and could not do very much except suffer...

source, (written 101 years ago)
 
Oct 22, 2011
408
11
18
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
CHAPTER XIV
"FOLLOWING Tyndale's example, others continued the work of issuing English-printed Bibles, and so in the reign of Henry VIII we have to face quite a deluge of them. One by one they came forth, authorised and unauthorised, printed and published by irresponsible individuals, full of errors, with no proper supervision, and having no other effect (as we shall presently see) than that of drawing down contempt and disgrace upon the Sacred Scriptures..."


(5) "... How long it will be before another Protestant version appears he would be a bold man who would venture to prophecy; but that others will spring up and add to the number of the wrecks that already strew the path we may confidently predict. I have given a goodly list of corrupt and erroneous versions; but please do not imagine for a moment that my catalogue is anything like complete. I have merely mentioned those that were more commonly used and secured a certain amount of popularity and authorisation from Protestant headquarters. But there are, I am safe in saying, hundreds of other editions that flooded this unhappy realm from the time of Tyndale, some from foreign countries, like Holland, and Germany, and Switzerland, and some produced at home, but all of them swarming with blunders and perversions.

On glancing over a bookseller's catalogue the other day my eye happened to light on some of those that have attained notoriety for their absurd mistakes. There is, for example, the 'He' Bible and the 'She' Bible, so called from the hopeless mixing up of these pronouns in the Book of Ruth; the 'He' Bible has one set of errors and the ‘She' Bible another. There is the 'Wicked' Bible from the word 'not' being omitted from the 7th Commandment. There is the 'Vinegar' Bible, from printing 'vinegar' instead of 'vineyard', and so producing ‘The Parable of the Vinegar'. This Bible was printed by a man called Baskett, and is now vainly sought for by collectors on account of its numberless errors; indeed, it was wittily called the 'Basket-ful of Errors'. There is the 'Murderer's Bible', from the words of Our Lord being thus printed: 'But Jesus said unto her, let the children first be killed' (instead of 'fed'). Then we have the 'Whig' Bible and the 'Unrighteous' Bible and the 'Bug' Bible, and the 'Treacle’ Bible, and no end of other kinds of Bibles, all crammed full of mistakes and corruptions. The Pearl Bible, for instance, published by Field, the Parliamentary printer, has 6,000 errors in it. A famous book was written by a man named Ward in the seventeenth century, entitled Errata of the Protestant Bible, containing a formidable list of, I should not like to say how many thousand errors in the various versions. No one has yet succeeded in refuting Ward's Errata. It stands as a gruesome commentary on the history of heretical treatment of the inspired text. I came across a curious and rare book one day in Glasgow University Library, written in 1659, by a Protestant, one William Kilburn, entitled Dangerous Errors in Several Late Printed Bibles to the Great Scandal and Corruption of Sound and True Religion. He enumerates the errors, omissions, and specimens of nonsense that he discovered in these editions, many of them imported from Holland, and mentions that a gentleman had unearthed 6,000 mistakes in one copy alone.

(6) But time would fail to tell of all the corruptions and perversions of the original texts which are to be found in practically all the Protestant Bibles, down to the present time, and whose existence is proved by the fact that one after the other has been withdrawn, and its place taken by a fresh version, which in its turn was found to be no better than the rest. Is this reverence for the Word of God? Which of all these corrupt partisan versions was 'the Rule of Faith?' The Bible, and the Bible only, we are told; but which Bible? I ask. Or had Protestants a different Rule of Faith according to the century in which they lived? according to the copy of the Bible they chanced to possess? What a mockery of Religion! What a degradation of God's Holy Word, that it should have been knocked about like a shuttlecock, and made to serve the interests now of this sect, now of that, and loaded with notes that shrieked aloud party war-cries and bitter accusations and filthy insinuations! Is this zeal for the pure and incorrupt Gospel? Is this the grand and unspeakable blessing of the 'open Bible'? It only remains now to show by contrast the calm, dignified, and reverent action taken by the Catholic Church, towards her own Book.

CHAPTER XV. The Catholic’s Bible

WHAT was the Catholic Church doing all this time? Well, she was in a state of persecution in England, and could not do very much except suffer...

source, (written 101 years ago)

Yet another cut & paste job by Kepha31. Oft times it's what's not said by someone that's more relevant than what is said. And what is not said in "your" post that most of these "errors" are minor mistakes. Even before the error of the printing press, there were scribal and translational errors in the earlier manuscripts.

What IS important is that valiant men like Tyndale made the Word of God available to the common man in his own language. Where there mistakes? Yes, but the Holy Spirit is able to provoke the reader to investigate further when he encounters these errors. What is fantastic about today's computer versions is that we are able to simultaneously compare dozens of Bible Versions (including those bearing the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church) and decipher where the mistakes in translation or simple copying errors occur. Can the basic knowledge of the Gospel of Christ be gleaned from even the most inferior Bible translations? Yes. Well, then Praise God for it!

Meanwhile, your blessed RCC was torturing and burning these earlier Bible translators at the stake with their brutal Inquisitions. IMO, what one chooses to believe and then does with his acquired scriptural knowledge is far more important than which particular version they choose to read.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Yet another cut & paste job by Kepha31.

Why don't you complain about NetChaplain in the discipleship forum? He cut and pastes more than I do.


Oft times it's what's not said by someone that's more relevant than what is said. And what is not said in "your" post that most of these "errors" are minor mistakes. Even before the error of the printing press, there were scribal and translational errors in the earlier manuscripts.

Is that an excuse for adopting them all?


What IS important is that valiant men like Tyndale made the Word of God available to the common man in his own language.

Phrasing it this way makes it sound as if the heresy Tyndale was condemned for was the act of translating the Bible into English. This is a common mistake and often repeated. In fact, when doing a bit of research for this article, I came across several web sites on Tyndale that said just this. One stated, "Translating the Bible was considered a heresy" (our-world. CompuServe.com/homepages/geoff_whiley/tyndale.htm). Another proclaimed that in 1408 a law was enacted that forbade the translation of the Bible into English and also made reading the Bible illegal (britannia.com/bios/tyndale.html).

Of course, anyone familiar with the history of the Catholic Church, which for 2,000 years has been preserving and protecting the word of God, recognizes how ludicrous this is. It was is only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available. All Christians everywhere owe it a great debt for that.

So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture and no Protestant today would accept it.

Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.

It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of Scripture existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, "Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff"). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but encouraged. All this law did was prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.

Which, as it turns out, is just what William Tyndale did. Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.
go here for the list of reasons

Tyndale is often used as an instant bat to beat Catholics with because it requires no thought, and upon investigation, doesn't amount to anything. William Tyndale was executed for the charge of "heresy" by order of the Protestant King of England Henry VII in October 1536, but the Catholic Church gets blamed for it on every anti-Catholic web site on the Internet.

Where there mistakes? Yes, but the Holy Spirit is able to provoke the reader to investigate further when he encounters these errors.

There is no verse in all of scripture to support this theory of private "readers" guided by the Holy Spirit to resolve doctrinal disputes, declare anathemas, excommunicate, or bind and loose anything.


Meanwhile, your blessed RCC was torturing and burning these earlier Bible translators at the stake with their brutal Inquisitions. IMO, what one chooses to believe and then does with his acquired scriptural knowledge is far more important than which particular version they choose to read.

I'm not going to get baited into an off topic defense and explanation of the Inquisition. Try another day. Do some research beforehand lest you embarrass yourself with the usual Protestant propaganda that serious historians don't accept.

Tyndales Heresy

The Charge of Burning bibles

The Church and the Bible
 

wayseer

New Member
Oct 28, 2012
23
0
0
When you read the Bible , it is obvious that the letters of Paul are not the same message as the message that Christ sends us, that is, if we assume that we are to emulate Christ.

[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]"When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, 'Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'? [/background][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]When Jesus heard this, he said, 'Healthy people don't need a doctor--sick people do.' (Matthew 9:11-12)[/background]

[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]Paul the Apostle says[/background]

[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]"When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin [/background][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. [/background][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. (Cor. 5:9-11)[/background]

[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]Are we to assume that these brothers who are immoral are to be outcasts in the mind of Paul but for Jesus it is exactly these same people who NEED Christ's love. And doesn't Paul's Christianity assume a Judgemental and holier-than-thou point of view that "I, who am not [/background][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler are outcasting YOU, brother , and I shall not eat with you." ??? [/background]

I return to the OP because the question is one that deserves response.

There are a number of issues which must be considered not the least of which is the genuine letters of Paul (1 Thess, 1 & 2 Cor, Gal, Eph, Phil, Philemon and Romans). Paul was writing under a different regime and in a different place to Jesus. He was addressing different issues and he was 'constructing' Jesus as a Lord that in every way challenged the Lord of the Roman Empire - Augustus. The 'language' of Paul was the language of Rome but pointed to a different 'saviour'.

Second, there were many ChristaInities at the time of Paul. For instance, it is clear from Paul's own writings that the Christainity of the Apostles, James, John and Peter, was different to the one Paul was promoting. But there were others in existence and we can gauge this from texts such as the Didache and the various 'gospels' which did not make it into the Canon.

Third, by the time Paul is writing to the Thessalonians it has been some 20 years since Jesus' death and things are heating up for this new sect known by some as The Way. Rome allowed any number of gods and tolerated the Jews and their own worship of their God. But this new sect was something different and would not eat the meat dedicated to the acknowledged gods of Rome. Hence they were deemed atheists - a situation that lead to persecution and death.

As a result, the followers of Jesus became something of an exclusive order - one had to pass through an initiation process before being allowed into the community. And it was a 'community' because new converts could no longer obtain protein, i.e. meat, from the local butcher's shop i.e. page temple. (The sacrifice of animals at local temple was a means of distributing meat and therefore protein among the population. Temples were also the local brothel). In other words, the new sect was effectively cut off from taking part in the normal affairs of the surrounding country.

Paul's words can therefore be understood against the social imperatives of his time. Paul himself could get away with a fair bit being both a Roman citizen, a Jew and a person of some social standing. (The letter of Philemon indicates Paul was a patron - which is why Onesimus took refuge with Paul, a slave could only take refuge with his master's patron). But the rest of the sect could not expect to be tolerated in the same way. In Romans 13 Paul makes also it clear that his converts should take no part if any subversion against Roman authority.

This change from an 'inclusive' philosophy to an 'exclusive' ideology becomes more pronounce in the Pastoral Letters - the ones Paul did not write but which were written well into the 2nd century. These letters indicate that the fledging Christian community was becoming both defensive and more authoritarian in order to protect itself from outside influence - both doctrinally and socially through increasing persecution.

But this 'exclusiveness' should have changed when Christianity became protected by the State in the 3rd century. That it did not deserves further consideration.
 
Oct 22, 2011
408
11
18
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thanks for your input Wayseer. That was a well written thought-provoking post! Welcome to ChristianityBoard.com. I look forward to hearing more from you.


There are a number of issues which must be considered not the least of which is the genuine letters of Paul (1 Thess, 1 & 2 Cor, Gal, Eph, Phil, Philemon and Romans). Paul was writing under a different regime and in a different place to Jesus. He was addressing different issues and he was 'constructing' Jesus as a Lord that in every way challenged the Lord of the Roman Empire - Augustus. The 'language' of Paul was the language of Rome but pointed to a different 'saviour'.

Yes, understanding the makeup of the audience is an important key factor in properly interpreting many scriptures.

Second, there were many Christianities at the time of Paul. For instance, it is clear from Paul's own writings that the Christianity of the Apostles, James, John and Peter, was different to the one Paul was promoting. But there were others in existence and we can gauge this from texts such as the Didache and the various 'gospels' which did not make it into the Canon.

True. There were, indeed, various modes of Christianity in the first century as there are in the present. I’m currently reading an interesting book entitled “The Lost Christianities” by Bart D. Ehrman in which he describes the various doctrines, religious practices and numerous lost gospels and spurious texts of many of these early Christian sects and how they were eventually subsumed and dominated by what he calls the proto-orthodox teachings of the Pauline Churches.
<snip for brevity>


Paul's words can therefore be understood against the social imperatives of his time. Paul himself could get away with a fair bit being both a Roman citizen, a Jew and a person of some social standing. (The letter of Philemon indicates Paul was a patron - which is why Onesimus took refuge with Paul, a slave could only take refuge with his master's patron). But the rest of the sect could not expect to be tolerated in the same way. In Romans 13 Paul makes also it clear that his converts should take no part if any subversion against Roman authority.

There were definite advantages in possessing Roman citizenship. The Apostle Paul was not hesitant to claim his democratic Roman rights and this may also have influenced his pacifist stance in the Book of Romans.


This change from an 'inclusive' philosophy to an 'exclusive' ideology becomes more pronounce in the Pastoral Letters - the ones Paul did not write but which were written well into the 2nd century. These letters indicate that the fledging Christian community was becoming both defensive and more authoritarian in order to protect itself from outside influence - both doctrinally and socially through increasing persecution.

Good point. Not many Christians know that a number of "Paul's epistles" were not actually authored by Saul of Tarsus.
The above mentioned book also theorizes that the need for such authoritarian Church structure became more evident and necessary as the predicted “last days” imminent return of the Lord did not materialize after a number of generations.


But this 'exclusiveness' should have changed when Christianity became protected by the State in the 3rd century. That it did not deserves further consideration.

What ensued was a competition of sorts between the various Christian sects. The main groups were the Ebionites (Jerusalem based Christians which basically rejected Paul’s writings and incorporated many practices of Judaism e.g. circumcision, Sabbath, feast days), Marcionites (who rejected Judaism entirely, embraced Paul’s teachings but held to unorthodox beliefs regarding the Godhead and the embodiment of Christ), Gnostics (claimed that true enlightenment comes from understanding the ‘secret knowledge’, discovering these hidden mystical concepts was the key) and finally the Proto-Orthodox Pauline Christians which were the eventual victors in this theological feud. To the victor goes the spoils, so in order to preserve their doctrinal dominance many of their opposing sects writings were systematically destroyed or lost to antiquity.

Personally, I tend to favor the Ebionite Christian perspective, i.e., follow Christ’s earthly example and Christ’s teachings regarding God’s Law in preference to the popular Pauline anti-nomianist doctrines which still largely dominate Christianity today.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I return to the OP because the question is one that deserves response.

There are a number of issues which must be considered not the least of which is the genuine letters of Paul (1 Thess, 1 & 2 Cor, Gal, Eph, Phil, Philemon and Romans). Paul was writing under a different regime and in a different place to Jesus. He was addressing different issues and he was 'constructing' Jesus as a Lord that in every way challenged the Lord of the Roman Empire - Augustus. The 'language' of Paul was the language of Rome but pointed to a different 'saviour'.

Second, there were many ChristaInities at the time of Paul. For instance, it is clear from Paul's own writings that the Christainity of the Apostles, James, John and Peter, was different to the one Paul was promoting. But there were others in existence and we can gauge this from texts such as the Didache and the various 'gospels' which did not make it into the Canon.

Then why did Paul go to Peter, James and John to make sure his gospel was true? Gal 2:2


Third, by the time Paul is writing to the Thessalonians it has been some 20 years since Jesus' death and things are heating up for this new sect known by some as The Way. Rome allowed any number of gods and tolerated the Jews and their own worship of their God. But this new sect was something different and would not eat the meat dedicated to the acknowledged gods of Rome. Hence they were deemed atheists - a situation that lead to persecution and death.

As a result, the followers of Jesus became something of an exclusive order - one had to pass through an initiation process before being allowed into the community. And it was a 'community' because new converts could no longer obtain protein, i.e. meat, from the local butcher's shop i.e. page temple. (The sacrifice of animals at local temple was a means of distributing meat and therefore protein among the population. Temples were also the local brothel). In other words, the new sect was effectively cut off from taking part in the normal affairs of the surrounding country.

That had no bearing on the Gentile Christians, and the pagan Romans were not so much persecuting non-meat eating Jewish Christians, they were being persecuted because the Romans thought Christians were eating human flesh.


Paul's words can therefore be understood against the social imperatives of his time. Paul himself could get away with a fair bit being both a Roman citizen, a Jew and a person of some social standing. (The letter of Philemon indicates Paul was a patron - which is why Onesimus took refuge with Paul, a slave could only take refuge with his master's patron). But the rest of the sect could not expect to be tolerated in the same way. In Romans 13 Paul makes also it clear that his converts should take no part if any subversion against Roman authority.

Then why do you think the pagan Romans cut off Paul's head?

This change from an 'inclusive' philosophy to an 'exclusive' ideology becomes more pronounce in the Pastoral Letters - the ones Paul did not write but which were written well into the 2nd century. These letters indicate that the fledging Christian community was becoming both defensive and more authoritarian in order to protect itself from outside influence - both doctrinally and socially through increasing persecution.

Jesus established authoritativeness when He said, "all authority is given to Me, therefore... Matthew 28:18-20

"He who hears you (Apostles and successors) hears Me." Luke 10:16 You can't get more authoritative than that.

But this 'exclusiveness' should have changed when Christianity became protected by the State in the 3rd century. That it did not deserves further consideration.

I don't know what you mean by this. Christianity was affirmed at the Council of Nicae in 325 AD. The doctrine of Nicaea is the identical doctrine of the New Testament. Nicaea detailed formally and clearly what was implicit in the scriptural formulas. What deserves further consideration is the Protestant acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity, a development, and their ongoing reductionism of everything else.

By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth has become more deeply understood and more clearly perceived than it had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite uncommon in the Church's previous history. The whole spectrum of Christology and Mariology has witnessed such dogmatic progress. Adoration of the Eucharist, therefore, is simply another, though dramatic, example of doctrinal development.

Always implied in such progress is that, objectively, the revealed truth remains constant and unchanged. But through the light of the Holy Spirit, the subjective understanding of the truth becomes more clear, its meaning becomes more certain and its grasp by the believing mind becomes increasingly more firm.
 

wayseer

New Member
Oct 28, 2012
23
0
0
Then why did Paul go to Peter, James and John to make sure his gospel was true? Gal 2:2

Good point? I think it fairly obvious that the reason Paul undertook the trip was to confront the 'pillars' (Gal 2:9). It is also obvious that Paul's argument won the day.

That had no bearing on the Gentile Christians, and the pagan Romans were not so much persecuting non-meat eating Jewish Christians, they were being persecuted because the Romans thought Christians were eating human flesh.


The stories of 'cannibalism' are probably just that - stories - gossip.

Jews had a dispensation from Rome to worship Yahweh - the Christians had no such dispensation.

Then why do you think the pagan Romans cut off Paul's head?


I don't think Paul, along with Peter, got execution but got thrown into Saturdays matinee at the colosseum as a result of Nero's retribution for the Fire of Rome in 64.

Jesus established authoritativeness when He said, "all authority is given to Me, therefore... Matthew 28:18-20

"He who hears you (Apostles and successors) hears Me." Luke 10:16 You can't get more authoritative than that.


This has nothing to do with the issue I raised.

I don't know what you mean by this.

It is clear you don't know what I mean.

My point has been about the 'exclusivenss' of the Church at a time when it enjoy the protection of the State and therefore did not need itself to be circumspect on who it invited in to its ritual life.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Good point? I think it fairly obvious that the reason Paul undertook the trip was to confront the 'pillars' (Gal 2:9). It is also obvious that Paul's argument won the day.


Paul confronted the other Apostles? Really? Gal 2:9) James, Cephas and John gave Paul and Barnabas their blessing, not the other way around. You're bible twisting.

The stories of 'cannibalism' are probably just that - stories - gossip.


Specifically, Christians were most frequently accused of cannibalism and incest -- “Thyestian banquets and Oedipodean intercourse”[sup][26][/sup]—due to their practices of eating the “blood and body” of Christ and referring to each other as “brothers” and “sisters”.
http://en.wikipedia....he_Roman_Empire

Contemporary pagan and Christian sources preserve other accusations levelled against the Christians. These included charges of incest and cannibalism, probably resulting from garbled accounts of the rites which Christians celebrated in necessary secrecy, being the agape (the ‘love-feast’) and the Eucharist (partaking of the body and blood of Christ).
http://www.bbc.co.uk...rticle_01.shtml

The historian Tacitus regarded Christianity as ‘a pernicious superstition’; Suetonius described it as ‘novel and mischievous’; Pliny the Younger as ‘depraved and extravagant.’ Tacitus went as far as calling the Christians enemies of mankind. Therefore it is not surprising that ordinary people attributed to Christians all sorts of monstrosities such as infanticide and cannibalism, etc. According to Tertullian, ‘Christians to the lions’ became the obligatory catch-cry of every riot.
http://www.earlychri...xpansion_3.html

The second area to be examined is that of the pagan misunderstanding of the rites and ceremonies of the Christian Church. A regular accusation propagated against Christianity was that of atheism. Christianity, because of its monotheistic faith, would not offer the customary sacrifices and worship to other gods: a duty of Roman subjects. Justin Martyr wrote: "Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God...".[sup]11[/sup] The necessary secrecy surrounding the believer's meetings aroused suspicion; the rites and ceremonies being interpreted as immoral. The agape, or love feast, was regarded as an orgy and as Athenagoras records: "Three things are alleged against us: atheism, Thyestean feasts [cannibalism], Oedipodean intercourse [incest]".[sup]12[/sup] So, even the sacramental rite was believed to be an act of cannibalism. The Christian 'kiss' was also misunderstood.[sup]13[/sup]
http://www.earlychur...on-russell.html

None of these "stories...gossip" sources are Catholic, BTW.


It is clear you don't know what I mean.

My point has been about the 'exclusivenss' of the Church at a time when it enjoy the protection of the State and therefore did not need itself to be circumspect on who it invited in to its ritual life.


Again, I don't understand your use of the word, "exclusive". My perception of the Church is all inclusive.

Roman laws of persecution had become redundant with so many senators converted. THEN the Edict of Milan was passed. The Roman Empire had largely converted before the Church was formally protected.

Next comes the floodwaters of myths about Constantine that can't be found in any encyclopedia.
 

wayseer

New Member
Oct 28, 2012
23
0
0
Thanks for your input Wayseer. That was a well written thought-provoking post! Welcome to ChristianityBoard.com. I look forward to hearing more from you.


Thank you - and I have to apologize for not responding sooner - I missed your post for some reason.

True. There were, indeed, various modes of Christianity in the first century as there are in the present. I’m currently reading an interesting book entitled “The Lost Christianities” by Bart D. Ehrman in which he describes the various doctrines, religious practices and numerous lost gospels and spurious texts of many of these early Christian sects and how they were eventually subsumed and dominated by what he calls the proto-orthodox teachings of the Pauline Churches.
<snip for brevity>

Ehrman is also a favourite of mine with respect to historical matters.

There were definite advantages in possessing Roman citizenship. The Apostle Paul was not hesitant to claim his democratic Roman rights and this may also have influenced his pacifist stance in the Book of Romans.


Indeed - and Paul's stance in Romans 13 has always troubled me. But I think I can understand his concerns - it would have been relatively easy for some
'hotblood' to attack some Roman soldier and thereby bring the wrath of Rome down on his fledging community.

Good point. Not many Christians know that a number of "Paul's epistles" were not actually authored by Saul of Tarsus.
The above mentioned book also theorizes that the need for such authoritarian Church structure became more evident and necessary as the predicted “last days” imminent return of the Lord did not materialize after a number of generations.


Again, Thank you.

What ensued was a competition of sorts between the various Christian sects. The main groups were the Ebionites (Jerusalem based Christians which basically rejected Paul’s writings and incorporated many practices of Judaism e.g. circumcision, Sabbath, feast days), Marcionites (who rejected Judaism entirely, embraced Paul’s teachings but held to unorthodox beliefs regarding the Godhead and the embodiment of Christ), Gnostics (claimed that true enlightenment comes from understanding the ‘secret knowledge’, discovering these hidden mystical concepts was the key) and finally the Proto-Orthodox Pauline Christians which were the eventual victors in this theological feud. To the victor goes the spoils, so in order to preserve their doctrinal dominance many of their opposing sects writings were systematically destroyed or lost to antiquity.

Personally, I tend to favor the Ebionite Christian perspective, i.e., follow Christ’s earthly example and Christ’s teachings regarding God’s Law in preference to the popular Pauline anti-nomianist doctrines which still largely dominate Christianity today.

Hmmm ... we could have a very interesting discussion.
 

IAmAWitness

New Member
Nov 7, 2012
177
6
0
The central issue that speaks volumes to the validity of Paul is the meats sacrificed to idols issue. Paul apparently saying in 1 Cor 8 that such meat is acceptable to eat. Jesus says in Revelation 2:20 "Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols."

I don't know if that subject has been dealt with here as I can't read through all 9 pages to catch up with the conversation.
 
Oct 22, 2011
408
11
18
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The central issue that speaks volumes to the validity of Paul is the meats sacrificed to idols issue. Paul apparently saying in 1 Cor 8 that such meat is acceptable to eat. Jesus says in Revelation 2:20 "Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols."

I don't know if that subject has been dealt with here as I can't read through all 9 pages to catch up with the conversation.

No, that hasn't been mentioned yet, IAmAWitness. Thanks for pointing out yet another position of Pauline doctrine that is contrary to Christ's teachings. It appears that the Apostle Paul took quite a number of liberties in his various epistles to the Gentiles regarding God's Law.
 

IAmAWitness

New Member
Nov 7, 2012
177
6
0
No, that hasn't been mentioned yet, IAmAWitness. Thanks for pointing out yet another position of Pauline doctrine that is contrary to Christ's teachings. It appears that the Apostle Paul took quite a number of liberties in his various epistles to the Gentiles regarding God's Law.

James directed Paul to teach four things. Paul had been brought to James and Peter on account of allegations of false teachings. Here's Acts 15:28,29:

"[sup] [/sup]For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;[sup] [/sup]That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

James is issuing a directive to Paul and the apostles that these are the things that we must teach the Gentiles. On the issue of circumcision, and they were of the circumcision but not Paul, he says that they should lay no greater burden on the Gentiles. The view was to get them on the boat first. Get them into the camp, and then lay it on them at a rate they could understand and be comfortable, otherwise they would have alienated a great number of people from Christ. The idea is we will cross that bridge when we get there, so to speak.

Paul says in 1 Timothy 4:2:

"Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

Paul dedicates nearly all of 1 Corinthians 8 to dispute with the Apostles on this teaching.

Back in Acts 15, we find at Acts 15:7, Peter addresses the Apostles, saying:

"[sup] [/sup]And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."

Paul disputes this also at Galatians 2:8:

"(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)..."

Paul in effect says no, I am the apostle to the Gentiles, Peter lies, and in fact he rebukes Peter at Galatians 2:11 while saying, "Rebuke not an elder..." In other words, I will do as I please, you do as I say.

Paul in 2 Timothy 1:15 lamented near the end of his life, "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes."

Jesus to the church in Ephesus, Revelation 2:2:

"I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars."

Jesus to the church in Thyatira, Revelation 2:20:

"Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols."

Finally, on the way to Jerusalem he says to his companions in Acts 21:13, "Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus."

Before Festus and Agrippa he has a different take on things however, Acts 25:11, "For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar."

Who are the sheep, the true sheep?. What are sheep known for? We hear the phrase today about like sheep being lead to slaughter. Like Jesus, the perfect Lamb, they go silently, perhaps even willingly, without a peep or a cry silently unto death. We are called His sheep, the sheep of the Shepherd and we are called that in the event where it is time to lay down our lives that we go silently and willingly. The greatest fussbudgets on the way to their deaths are the guilty. The prisons are filled with self-professed innocent people and those who really are to blame go away many times fighting to the death. Is this the mark of a sheep or a wolf?
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
James directed Paul to teach four things. Paul had been brought to James and Peter on account of allegations of false teachings. Here's Acts 15:28,29:

"[sup] [/sup]For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;[sup] [/sup]That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

James is issuing a directive to Paul and the apostles that these are the things that we must teach the Gentiles. On the issue of circumcision, and they were of the circumcision but not Paul, he says that they should lay no greater burden on the Gentiles. The view was to get them on the boat first. Get them into the camp, and then lay it on them at a rate they could understand and be comfortable, otherwise they would have alienated a great number of people from Christ. The idea is we will cross that bridge when we get there, so to speak.

Paul says in 1 Timothy 4:2:

"Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

Paul dedicates nearly all of 1 Corinthians 8 to dispute with the Apostles on this teaching.

"this teaching" refers to the Gnostics. There was no dispute with the Apostles.

Some of them had infiltrated the Christian community. They "forbid marriage": because they believed the flesh was evil. They "abstained from meats" because they thought the food itself was evil. John writes about the same people. Gnosticism opposes the Incarnation. In St. John's letters (1 John 4, 2 John 1), he tells us that the spirit of the Antichrist denies the Incarnation (the Son of God becoming man) and thereby also the Trinity (the Father and the Spirit, too). These are the same people that Paul is writing about. By studying Gnostic beliefs, they "forbade marriage" and "abstained from meat" that had nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity. They denied the Incarnation. They taught Jesus "seemed to be human". Gnosticism was very annoying to the Apostles. Plus they were writing fake scriptures. Furthermore, St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was trained by St. John the Apostle, also writes about these same people:

“6:6 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God.6:7 They (who hold strange doctrines) have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty.
6:8 THEY (who hold strange doctrines) ABSTAIN FROM EUCHARIST AND PRAYER,6:9 BECAUSE THEY (who hold strange doctrines) ALLOW NOT THAT THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, WHICH FLESH SUFFERED FOR OUR SINS, AND WHICH THE FATHER OF HIS GOODNESS RAISED UP."
(snip)
"7:1 They (who hold strange doctrines) therefore that gainsay the good gift of God perish by their questionings.



Back in Acts 15, we find at Acts 15:7, Peter addresses the Apostles, saying:

"[sup] [/sup]And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."

Paul disputes this also at Galatians 2:8:

"(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)..."

Having different apostolates does not mean they are opposed to one another.

Paul in effect says no, I am the apostle to the Gentiles, Peter lies, and in fact he rebukes Peter at Galatians 2:11 while saying, "Rebuke not an elder..." In other words, I will do as I please, you do as I say.

How did you squeeze that out of Gal.2:11 ?? Paul did not correct Peter's teaching, he corrected his behavior. How does one teach something while hiding?
 

wayseer

New Member
Oct 28, 2012
23
0
0
The question is - did Paul teach what Jesus taught?

Short answer - No.

Paul was not an apostle as appointed by Jesus - as far as we know there is no record of Paul having met Jesus although they were contemporaries.

It is also obvious that what Paul was teaching was at odds with what the 'pillars', James, Jesus brother, John and Peter were teaching in Jerusalem.

It is also clear that Paul won the day and the argument.

But this does not answer the question.
 
Oct 22, 2011
408
11
18
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The question is - did Paul teach what Jesus taught?

Short answer - No.

I generally agree. Now, does this doctrinal acknowledgment of difference mean we are free to throw the baby out with the bath water and dismiss 2/3 of the New Testament because it was attributed to Paul?


Paul was not an apostle as appointed by Jesus - as far as we know there is no record of Paul having met Jesus although they were contemporaries.

Paul’s conversion occurred after Christ’s death and ascension. Do you question the validity of Saul of Tarsus’ encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus? Must apostleship (i.e., being ‘sent forth’) be based on encountering Jesus before His death?

It is also obvious that what Paul was teaching was at odds with what the 'pillars', James, Jesus brother, John and Peter were teaching in Jerusalem.

I couldn’t agree more.


It is also clear that Paul won the day and the argument.

I don’t know about that. Paul’s traveling companion Luke is penning the account and is bound to see the argument in favor of his friend. There were certainly other doctrinal discussions that were not recorded in the Book of Acts. All the first council agreed upon was the Paul was evidently on an anointed mission to the Gentiles and that he was given a certain freedom to preach a more lenient version of God’s Law to the scripturally ignorant Gentiles. I doubt that the Christian Church in Jerusalem headed by James, Peter and John were drastically affected in their local congregations by the conclusions of that first ecclesiastical synod. Pork wasn’t suddenly on their dinner plates.

But this does not answer the question.

Another pertinent question is: Should we accept EVERY solitary teaching in the canonized NT as the definitive WORD OF GOD or do we grant the Holy Spirit license to direct our consciences as to which of Paul’s teachings are relevant and which should be questioned?
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
The question is - did Paul teach what Jesus taught?

Yeah he did. Paul also taught the Gospel of the Kingdom to Gentiles.


Paul was not an apostle as appointed by Jesus - as far as we know there is no record of Paul having met Jesus although they were contemporaries.

Paul WAS an apostle appointed by Jesus, as he himself said so in Titus 1, 1 Timothy 1, 2 Timothy 1, Colossians 1, Ephesians 1, Galatians 1, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 1.

The specific event of Christ appointing Apostle Paul is recorded in Acts 9 when Christ struck Saul (Paul) down on the road to Damascus. So if that is not Paul MEETING Jesus Christ then I don't know what is.

So you are terribly wrong about Paul's ministry ordained directly by Christ Jesus, with Christ even declaring Paul to be His "chosen vessel" (Acts 9).
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
If one can successfully argue that Paul was some kind of spiritual "Lone Ranger" then you can pit the Bible against the Church. This doesn't work.
  • In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17).
  • He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),
  • and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).
  • He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4),
  • which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
  • Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
  • Acts 15:2 states: ". . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question." The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas "being sent on their way by the church."
  • Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (Acts 15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: ". . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).

The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don't even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).

Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6,13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible.

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical. Protestant frown upon institutions, but we Catholics rather like the Church that Jesus Christ set up, initially led by St. Peter.

Paul gets his apostleship from BOTH Jesus and Peter.

Dialogue With a Calvinist on Paul's Apostolic Calling and Infallible (?) Church Authority (and the "Dichotomous" Protestant Tendency of Thought)
 

IAmAWitness

New Member
Nov 7, 2012
177
6
0
In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17).
  • He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),
  • and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).
  • He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4),
  • which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
  • Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
  • Acts 15:2 states: ". . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question." The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas "being sent on their way by the church."
  • Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (Acts 15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: ". . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).
The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don't even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).

Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6,13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible.

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical. Protestant frown upon institutions, but we Catholics rather like the Church that Jesus Christ set up, initially led by St. Peter.

Paul gets his apostleship from BOTH Jesus and Peter.

Dialogue With a Calvinist on Paul's Apostolic Calling and Infallible (?) Church Authority (and the "Dichotomous" Protestant Tendency of Thought)

Conversion experience: there are three different, contradicting accoutns of that experience told in Acts. Which one is true?

Council: The Council was not commissioning Paul, it was actually sanctioning him due to allegations of false teachings.

Paul "proclaimed its teachings": That is flat out dishonest. Paul taught directly against the provision on meats sacrificed to idols that James commanded him to cease teaching against in 1 Corinthians 8. On circumcision, Paul calls it the mutilation, calling them "the mutilators of the flesh", just as a Roman would be expected to say. He was clearly opposed to any law but Roman rule.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Paul got his apostleship directly from Christ Jesus, as Christ said so...

Acts 9:13-16
13 Then Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on Thy name."
15 But the Lord said unto him, "Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for My name's sake."
(KJV)


Gal 2:1-8
1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For He That wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
(KJV)


The whole matter is simple. Paul's commission in The Gospel was directly from Christ, just as Peter's also was directly from Christ. Yet each had different apostleships in the SAME Gospel. Both preached to Gentiles, Paul being given that commission to a greater degree. But Paul also preached the SAME Gospel to kings and the children of Israel also, just as CHRIST JESUS chose him to do per Acts 9:15.

So arguments about either Peter or Paul having ascendency one over the other is MADNESS!
 
Nov 9, 2012
3
0
0
I don't buy that - are you really to believe that if the tax collectors and sinners that Jesus ate with were Gentiles , He would not eat with them? He would consider these brothers who lived in sin, outside of the Christian faith? He would not be a "doctor" to the Gentiles who were living in sin?

"let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" (John 8:7)

Jesus came to save the sinners. Paul preaches to save the Christians.