Different Gospels

[Old_Scholar]

mercygate

You may want to rethink your timeline of Peter being in Rome. There is no Scriptural evidence or Peter ever being in Rome and no non-Biblical evidence except for Irenæus making a comment that Peter was there.

There are several reasons why Peter could not have been in Rome. I am sure you have heard them all but I would appreciate any actual proof you may have that he was ever there.

We know Paul was converted between 33 and 37 A.D. In Galatians we learn that it was three years after that when Paul went to Jerusalem to meet Peter. That is also about the time Herod tried to kill Peter as recorded in Acts 12. So Peter was in Jerusalem as late as 40 A.D.

Paul went to Jerusalem for the council 14 years after his conversion. That place Peter in Jerusalem as a **Pillar of the Church **and would indicate he was a resident of Jerusalem. Sometime before the council, Peter had visited Antioch in Syria north of Damascus. (Gal 2:11)

The last record we have of Peter is in his first epistle written from Babylon about 60 – 63 A.D. Babylon is about as far from Rome as you can get and still be in the civilized world at that time.

None of the recorded history even hints that Peter even contemplated going to Rome at any time. Instead, the council made the decision in 51 A.D. that Peter would go to the circumcised. (the Jews). That makes it very unlike that Peter would go to Rome as it was a gentile city. Scripture would indicate that Peter abided by the council’s decision as he wrote to *‘strangers’ *scattered abroad. That would be the Jews dispersed from Jerusalem after the death of Stephen and the persecution of the Jews.

Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans about 58 – 60. He sends greetings to many of the believers at Rome but does not mention Peter. Surely if Peter had been there, Paul would not have overlooked him. Paul was later imprisoned at Rome for more than two years and still no mention of Peter being there, instead he lists those who were there with him and asks for Mark to join him. Mark was a companion of Peter if you will recall.

Paul in his letter to the Romans kept promising to go there to “establish” the church. If Peter had ever been there, the church would have been established already but it wasn’t. It is unlikely that Peter ever saw Rome for Rome was in Paul’s territory to evangelize.

I would welcome any credible evidence you may be able to present that places Peter in Rome. It should be from the first century however, since Peter died in the late 60s. I believe the only thing you will find from the early church leaders is a comment from Irenæus that says that the church at Rome was founded by Paul and Peter. That was written in the second century. That is not evidence.

 

[mercygate]

Mercygate

Peter was called to preach to the gentiles early on but after the church was well established and organized, Peter was assigned to preach to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. I have previously given the Scriptures for that.

You will not find anything in Peter’s sermon at Pentecost on grace however, but instead will find he listed two ways to be saved. He says that whosoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved and Christ says otherwise, and then he says baptism is required for salvation. That too is not according to the gospel of grace.

You say you are a master of timelines, yet you then say that within days of Paul’s conversion, he was taken by Barnabas to Jerusalem to be introduced to the leaders in Jerusalem. You may want to re-think that. It was over three years after Paul’s conversion before he went to Jerusalem and then saw only Peter and James, not all the apostles. Paul preached to the Jews in the synagogues at Damascus for three years. In Acts we learn that Paul steadily increased in strength and confounded the Jews at Damascus, proving that he was of Christ.

You are incorrect that the apostles received the gospel of grace before they learned it from Paul. The Scriptures tells us that it was a mystery and had not been revealed to the apostles and was indeed revealed only to Paul. Peter says that himself. I have already listed those Scriptures. You should read them. Check my earlier posts, 3, 12 and 13. The Scriptures are there.

You are separating points of Scripture, and not considering them as a whole.

The idea that Paul preached a different gospel from the eyewitnesses, or that an administrative division of the preaching to Jews and Gentils was a concrete mutual prohibition, is antithetical to the spirit of Apostleship. Did Paul brilliantly articulate the message of salvation in writing? Absolutely. But Paul received the Holy Spirit by Ananias, representing the Church, and he received the laying on of hands for his first missionary journey from the CHURCH.

You are proposing that for two-or-three years following the Resurrection the Apostles were preaching a defective Gospel and that Jesus sent Paul to fix it. I can’t even think of a REASON for proposing such an idea.

Read the Damascus road account in Acts 4 again. It is only DAYS before Paul goes up to Jerusalem with Barnabas. DAYS.

 

[Old_Scholar]

mercygate

Again, you are not reading the Scriptures. Read this in Paul’s own words:

Gal 1:15 "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16) To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17) Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18) Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19) But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. 20) Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not."

In Acts, you are reading what happened, not the timeline. Paul preached for three years in Damascus before he went to Jerusalem to see Peter and then only saw Peter and James.

Paul was preaching the gospel of grace and after he preached it to the other apostles, they started preaching it.

You are putting a great deal of faith in the church. It was not the church that annointed Paul but Christ. Ananias was a member of the church, one of the 70 disciples. A church is a collection of believers, not an institution meant to govern. That is why Protestants and Catholics disagree.

Ananias was simply a messenger. Read this:

Acts 9:10-18 tells of this event:

***He Ananias answered, “Here I am, Lord.” The Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight and ask at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul. He is there praying, and (in a vision) he has seen a man named Ananias come in and lay (his) hands on him, that he may regain his sight.” But Ananias replied, “Lord, I have heard from many sources about this man, what evil things he has done to your holy ones in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to imprison all who call upon your name.” But the Lord said to him, “Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name.” So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight." ***

 

[davidv]

mercygate

Again, you are not reading the Scriptures.

How do you know this?

 

[mercygate]

mercygate

Again, you are not reading the Scriptures. Read this in Paul’s own words:

Gal 1:15 "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16) To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17) Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18) Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19) But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. 20) Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not."

In Acts, you are reading what happened, not the timeline. Paul preached for three years in Damascus before he went to Jerusalem to see Peter and then only saw Peter and James.

Paul was preaching the gospel of grace and after he preached it to the other apostles, they started preaching it.

I do not see this as a war of timelines. Do I question Paul’s report? Not more than I question Luke. Luke was Paul’s sidekick. There is a difference in the reports. What does it mean? It cannot mean that until Paul came along the Church was orphaned. The Lord Promised that he would be “with you always.” And he prayed that they would be “one.” If Paul is part of the program (and he is), he is not teaching a “private” gospel. He definitely gets the credit for putting it in writing. And he clearly received his knowledge via an immediate intervention from Christ.

Does he develop doctrine? Yup. But development does not change the core teaching.

You are putting a great deal of faith in the church.

You bet I am!

It was not the church that annointed Paul but Christ.

In Catholic ecclesiology, the Bride and the Bridegroom are one flesh.

Ananias was a member of the church, one of the 70 disciples.

Ananias was the bishop at Damascus. That gives him teaching, pastoral, and sacramental authority, and it makes his relationship with Paul particularly significant in re the laying on of hands and transmitting the Holy Spirit. Christ Himself is the Actor in all sacraments. This does not make the Minister unnecessary.

A church is a collection of believers, not an institution meant to govern. That is why Protestants and Catholics disagree.

It is not possible to build a case for an invisible Church of supposedly “true believers”. When Jesus commissions Peter as the shepherd in Jn. 21, the language presupposes governance.

Ananias was simply a messenger. Read this:

Acts 9:10-18 tells of this event: . . . [abbreviated for space]]

But the Lord said to him, “Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name.” So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight."

Yeah, that’s in my Bible, too. Especially the part in red. Catholics believe that the “messenger” designation is pretty important. We would not say that Ananias was “simply” a messenger. We would say that he was a direct conduit of the Holy Spirit. Remember, Ananias got a special delivery notification from Christ also. .

 

[Old_Scholar]

I can’t find where Ananias was said to be Bishop of Damascus but he is listed as one of the 70 disciples.

Here it seems he is taken out of obscurity for a special purpose God had chosen for him. He seems a little hesitate but to his credit, he obeys his master and does what God tells him to do. Perhaps he also instructed Paul. We don’t know about that because we aren’t told and after this Ananias seems to fade from the picture again.

As Christians we certainly praise God for giving us Paul. I believe he gave us what we needed to know to understand our salvation much better than we could have without him.

Do you ever wonder why God picked one who persecuted and probably murdered Christians(although they weren’t called that until much later) to do His work?

It never ceases to amaze me how God works with us.

 

[Old_Scholar]

How do you know this?

Because statements were made that contradicted Scripture.

 

[anthony022071]

You may want to rethink your timeline of Peter being in Rome. There is no Scriptural evidence or Peter ever being in Rome and no non-Biblical evidence except for Irenæus making a comment that Peter was there.

That’s not true. The historian Eusebius and St. Jerome both said that Peter was in Rome by the year 42. Acts of the Apostles says that he “went to another place”. He had to leave Jerusalem because after he had been set free from prison by the angel. He could have gotten to Rome with the help of Cornelius the centurion,whom he had converted. Paul,in his letter to the Romans,says that he intends to see the church in Rome on his way to Spain. He says that he does not want to build upon another man’s foundation. That other man was Peter. Peter,as the head apostle of a persecuted church,was a wanted man. This is probably why Paul does not mention Peter by name in that letter. In the year 49,the Emporer expelled the Jews from Rome after there was a riot over someone named Chrestus. That is the same year that the council in Jerusalem took place.

catholic-legate.com/dialogues/peterinrome.html

< “As for the establishment of the Roman church itself, Paul clearly says (in Rom 15:20) that he does not wish to build on “another man’s foundation” —that is, on the work of the APOSTLE who DID establish the city-church of Rome. Indeed, for anyone familiar with the language of St. Paul, whenever he speaks of a “foundation,” he is always referring to the work of an Apostle (e.g. 1 Corinth 3:10, Ephesians 2:19-20, etc.). Ergo, any sensible person is forced to conclude that Rome – the biggest and most important city IN THE WORLD at the time (with a population of over a MILLION souls) – was evangelized by one of the Apostles …and it wasn’t St. Paul. So, who was it? Whose “foundation” does Paul not wish to “build upon” (Rom 15:20)??? Which Apostle, aside from Paul, converted both Jews and Gentiles? All the Scriptural evidence, and the universal witness of our ancient Christian forefathers all say that it was the Apostle Peter, which is the only reason why St. Paul would “pass over” the important work of evangelizing Rome (targeting Spain instead).” >

The last record we have of Peter is in his first epistle written from Babylon about 60 – 63 A.D. Babylon is about as far from Rome as you can get and still be in the civilized world at that time.

Babylon refers to Rome! The Christians called Rome Babylon,as in the book of Revelation,because of it’s wealth,power,decadence and cruelty. There is no record of Peter going East. The Church fathers knew that Peter was in Rome and founded the Church there,and was bishop there.

< “As all credible scholars recognize, “Babylon” was the early Christian code-name for pagan Rome: Rev 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, 18:10, 18:21, etc. The literal, Mesopotamian city of Babylon was a tiny, half-ruined village in the 1st Century, and there would be no reason for Peter to go there. What’s more, in 1 Peter 2:17, Peter tells the Christians of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1) to honor “the king.” Here, the Greek word is “basileus,” which refers to the Roman emperor Nero. However, if Peter was writing from the literal, Mesopotamian village of Babylon, this instruction would be both pointless and treasonous, since Babylon, at the time, was not part of the Roman Empire at all, but outside the influence of Rome and part of the PARTHIAN Empire. >”

 

[Janet_S]

As far as Peter being in Rome, we have archeological evidence too.

The Bones of St. Peter: A 1st Full Account of the Search for the Apostle’s Body (Paperback)
by John Evangelist Walsh

amazon.com/Bones-St-Peter-Account-Apostles/dp/0385150393/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196997669&sr=1-1

 

[Old_Scholar]

As far as Peter being in Rome, we have archeological evidence too.

The Bones of St. Peter: A 1st Full Account of the Search for the Apostle’s Body (Paperback)
by John Evangelist Walsh

amazon.com/Bones-St-Peter-Account-Apostles/dp/0385150393/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196997669&sr=1-1

Your archaeological evidence has been found to be mostly animal bones and certainly not those of Peter.

There is more archaeological evidence of Peter’s remains that shows Peter’s tomb is in Jerusalem.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Anthony022071

Eusebius and Jerome saying Peter was in Rome hundreds of years after the fact is not evidence. I have already shown elsewhere that Peter was not in Rome in 42 A.D. That is the standard RCC line but it is not true. If it is, please prove it.

Many years later than 42 A.D. Paul wrote this to the Romans:

Romans 1:11 “For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;”

The church in Rome had not yet been established or Paul would not have made that statement. The Scripture can’t be wrong.

You are assuming that since Paul said he didn’t want to build on another man’s foundation, the church had already been established. Paul continually told the Romans he wanted to go there and establish the church. No one had built the foundation until Paul went there the first time and that was long after he wrote Romans and that was in approx 58 A.D. He made that statement because if someone had been there, then he would not go. In addition, Rome was a gentile city and Paul was the apostle to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews. Peter would not have gone there because of that.

There is also no credible evidence that Babylon was used to mean Rome until well after 70 A.D. when John wrote Revelation. Peter said he was in Babylon and there is no reason to doubt him. The statement of hundreds of years later is useless as history. Polycarp, Justin Martyr and Ignatius lived then and neither places Peter in Rome.

 

[mercygate]

Your archaeological evidence has been found to be mostly animal bones and certainly not those of Peter.

There is more archaeological evidence of Peter’s remains that shows Peter’s tomb is in Jerusalem.

The excavations in the necropolis under St. Peter’s Basilica were undertaken in modern times using the most careful archaeological techniques. There is absolutely no question of “animal bones” being misidentified as the bones of St. Peter. This is blatantly absurd.

 

[guanophore]

(Cont’d)

Paul’s gospel was the gospel of grace. The gospel of grace is that “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, freely gave His life as the perfect sacrifice to pay for our sins. He was crucified, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day.” (l Cor 15:1-4)

Peter and the others had taught that the Jews had murdered Jesus, not that Jesus had given His life for our sins.

You have been erroneously taught about the New Testament. All the Apostles taught the same gospel, each according to the revelation that was given to him. Peter and the other Apostles taught that we are cleansed by the blood of Christ, and that He died on the cross to forgive our sins. I think you are just being fed a load of anticatholic bull.

1 Peter 1:1-2

To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado’cia, Asia, and Bithyn’ia, 2 chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:"

Only the blood of Jesus can wash away our sins.

1 Peter 1:18-19
18 You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

The Apostles clearly understood that Jesus sacrifice was that of the sin offering, the lamb without blemish, given to purchase our freedom from sin.

They also understood the grace of God. James 2:13
“yet mercy triumphs over judgment.”

You never see the apostles talking about Jesus Christ’s redeeming blood or saying how He died for our sins.

You probably don’t see this because you have not spend enough time studying Judaism. The other Apostles were steeped in Jewish salvation history. Paul had more experience with Greek and Greek philosophy, and he used different language, not a different gospel.

Gentiles would not have understood the meaning of the lamb that had to be sacrificed for sin, because they did not have the theological background.

Rev 7:14
“These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”

Heb 9:22
everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins."

They used the language we find in the book of Hebrews.

They mention His death and resurrection but only to give a miracle to prove to Israel the He is alive and can return as their king as was prophesied in the Old Testament.

I am wondering what might be your goal in devaluing the gospel of the Apostles in favor of Paul’s message. What do you benefit by separating them from each other?

1 Peter 3:18-19
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;"

Are you thinking that the other Apostles did not teach that Jesus died for our sins because you don’t read any of their writings?

Jude 4
“ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God”

Even Jude, though his writing is very brief, mentions the grace of God.

Check Acts closely. The apostles do not associate Jesus’ death with forgiveness of sins.

You have been misinformed, Old Scholar. The Apostles most definitely teach that Jesus is the Lamb who was slain for our sins. They also teach that baptism is the method by which we become washed in this sanctifying blood.

The mystery was that His death and forgiveness of sins was related. That was not known until the mystery was revealed to Paul.

This statement demonstrates a gross ignorance of Jewish history. What you don’t seem to understand is that salvation comes from the Jews. Christ was the capstone of many millenia of revelation, all of which was based upon the principle that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.

 

[guanophore]

“But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Cor 2:7-8)

It is clear that God, even though He knew the future, had to keep the plan of redemption (our gospel) a secret (a mystery), and He did not reveal the secret until after He had called forth Paul. Romans 16:25 “Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,”

(cont’d)

This is just a bald faced denial of what Jesus said and did. What is the point of it? Why disqualify the other apostles?

Mark 4:33-34

33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; 34 he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything. "

Is the Gospel of Mark also lying? Is he in error in recording that Jesus explained everything to his own disciples?

 

[guanophore]

(Cont’d)

I will end with one example of what I have been saying. While Jesus was in His earthly ministry, He said:* “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” * First you have to forgive others, then you will be forgiven.

But now see what the gospel of Paul teaches. (remembering this was revealed to Paul after Christ’s ascension)
“And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” If we are believers, God has already forgiven us; not of just some sins, but of all the sins we will ever commit. Col 2:13 “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;”

Christians should forgive others as God wants us to do, and we will receive rewards in heaven according to our works (1 Cor 3:10-15). * “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12) Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13) Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. 14) If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15) If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. But our salvation does not depend on the works at all:”*

But our salvation does not depend on the works at all: Romans 4:5 * “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”*

Though Peter and Paul taught different gospels, they were not contradictory at all. Their messages were to different people and in different dispensations. Jesus Christ was teaching Jews who were under the law of Moses, but later Jesus, through Paul, was teaching Christians, mostly non-Jews who were not under the law of Moses, but under grace. We are still in the dispensation of grace today.

Our salvation comes by believing the gospel of grace that our Lord Jesus Christ revealed to our apostle Paul.

I am beginning to get a clue now. You are some sort of dispensationalist. Peter and Paul did not teach different gospels.

Acts 11:12-18
12 And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brethren also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 And he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon called Peter; 14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" 18 When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.”

There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the kingdom of grace.

Acts 8:32-36

“As a sheep led to the slaughter
or a lamb before its shearer is dumb,
so he opens not his mouth.
33 In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken up from the earth.”

34 And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus.

Phillip also teaches salvation by the blood of the lamb.

 

[mercygate]

I can’t find where Ananias was said to be Bishop of Damascus but he is listed as one of the 70 disciples.

You read the Bible as if it stands in a vacuum. Ananias is venerated as the Bishop of Damascus in Damascus. He is celebrated on the liturgical calendars of the Orthodox Churches to this very day. There is no reason to ignore history. Much of the authentication of the Gospels comes from the corroboration of history.

Here it seems he is taken out of obscurity for a special purpose God had chosen for him. He seems a little hesitate but to his credit, he obeys his master and does what God tells him to do. Perhaps he also instructed Paul. We don’t know about that because we aren’t told and after this Ananias seems to fade from the picture again.

We would not consider the person chosen to ratify the authenticity of Paul’s conversion to be “obscure.”

As Christians we certainly praise God for giving us Paul. I believe he gave us what we needed to know to understand our salvation much better than we could have without him.

Do you ever wonder why God picked one who persecuted and probably murdered Christians(although they weren’t called that until much later) to do His work?
It never ceases to amaze me how God works with us.

Most Christians would say that Paul was chosen because the radical turnaround would vouch for its authenticity. In a way it was his ticket to credibility among the broader Christian community.

 

[guanophore]

Neil_Anthony

It is true that John was one of the apostles. I never said he wasn’t.

No, what you said was that he preached a different gospel! This is not true.

In your post, you also quoted Peter from 1 Peter 2:24.

I am sure you are aware that Paul had been preaching his gospel for more than 31-32 years before Peter wrote that. Give me a similar quote from Peter that predates Paul’s teaching, please.

Also, your quote from John was made between 85 - 90 A.D., many years after Paul had been preaching his gospel.

When Paul was converted, Christ taught him for an unknown time but it could have been as much as 3 years. We don’t know for sure. Perhaps it could have been done instantly. It really doesn’t matter because Paul preached for three years before going to Jerusalem to see Peter and James and was there for 15 days. The next time he saw them he had been preaching for 14 more years and then he found it necessary to rebuke Peter for not living the gospel he preached.

Be sure when you make quotes, you know the timeline.

Acts 2:32-36
33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says,

‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,
35 till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.’

36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ,"

These words are taken from Peter’s first sermon. To understand them, you must understand the Jewish concept of “Lord” and “Christ”. Peter taught that Pilate, as the High Priest that year, made a prophesy about Jesus:

John 11:50
50 you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."

This quote is taken from the second recorded sermon of Peter, years before Paul ever met Jesus:

Acts 3:17-19
18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he thus fulfilled."

Notice the equivancy: Christ=suffer=died for the people.

This is from his defense before the Sanhedren:

Acts 4:12
12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Do you think these words of Peter represent something “different” than what Paul taught?

 

[mercygate]

Anthony022071

Eusebius and Jerome saying Peter was in Rome hundreds of years after the fact is not evidence. I have already shown elsewhere that Peter was not in Rome in 42 A.D. That is the standard RCC line but it is not true. If it is, please prove it.

Many years later than 42 A.D. Paul wrote this to the Romans:

Romans 1:11 “For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;”

The church in Rome had not yet been established or Paul would not have made that statement. The Scripture can’t be wrong.

If the Church has not been established, then to whom is Paul writing? Of COURSE the Church had been established at Rome. Scholars are uncertain who planted the faith there. But it WAS there.

An early reference to Peter’s death in Rome comes around 175-185 A.D. in Irenaeus’ *Adversus Haeresis. *There is less time between 185 A.D. and the martyrdom of Peter and Paul than there is between me and my great-grandmother, who, as a child, personally witnessed the train carrying Abraham Lincoln’s body to its final resting place and told the story to me. In other words, there wasn’t much time for scrambling the history. Adv. Haer. was an important major work, and widely known, even in that age of limited access to manuscripts. For Irenaeus to misrepresent the case would have drawn hot protests.

You are assuming that since Paul said he didn’t want to build on another man’s foundation, the church had already been established. Paul continually told the Romans he wanted to go there and establish the church. No one had built the foundation until Paul went there the first time and that was long after he wrote Romans and that was in approx 58 A.D. He made that statement because if someone had been there, then he would not go. In addition, Rome was a gentile city and Paul was the apostle to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews. Peter would not have gone there because of that.

There was a large Jewish population in Rome in the first century. Check the Jewish catacombs. Paul’s intent to visit Rome was in connection with garnering support for a missionary journey to Spain.

There is also no credible evidence that Babylon was used to mean Rome until well after 70 A.D. when John wrote Revelation. Peter said he was in Babylon and there is no reason to doubt him. The statement of hundreds of years later is useless as history. Polycarp, Justin Martyr and Ignatius lived then and neither places Peter in Rome.Nor do they deny his presence there. This statement is pointless.

 

[Old_Scholar]

guanophore

Thanks for your response.

However you are way off on your dates. John was written about 20 - 30 years after Paul died.

Acts was written about the time Paul was in prison in Rome a few years before he died. He had been preaching for over 25 years then.

During the time of your quotes, however, Paul’s preaching and letters had been circulating for many years. You must remember that Paul was converted in approximately 35-37 A.D. He immediately started preaching his gospel.

John was written about 80 - 90 A.D. Long after Paul had died.

The writing of Acts began in about 62 AD and was written by Luke, a companion of Paul. He knew Paul better than anyone and was with him for many years.

Luke wrote Acts about Paul and Peter mostly but stops mentioning Peter after the conversion of Cornelius. We don’t know why.

 

[guanophore]

I’m sorry but I have read very little of what Luther wrote. I am not aware that he considered Paul’s gospel different. I do know that he did not like Paul and thought he was a heretic. That’s why he dismissed so many of Paul’s writings. He did not agree with what Paul was teaching. That’s known.

Janet S. rightly pointed out to you the source of the heresy you are purporting here. Whether your read it in the original, or you were taught it by your Pastor or someone else’s writings, it still has the same source.

Please demonstrate (sources) that show “Luther did not like Paul”.

When Paul returned 14 years later, he made sure to tell his gospel to those present and apparently convinced them of his teachings. Peter certainly endorsed Paul’s writings as Scripture.

Do you honestly believe Peter would have done this if anything Paul had to say disagreed with what Jesus taught Peter?

Paul did not try to get anyone to believe a different gospel. I believe many miss the point here. I do not say there were two gospels in order to say they taught differently. I say it because Christ made Paul aware of much more than any of the other apostles knew.

This is not true either. Jesus revealed everything to the Apostles. He revealed things differently to Paul because he had a different background and mission. The content is the same, though the delivery was different.

There is no other reason for Christ to have converted Paul and to lead him to seek audience with the other apostles. Until Paul had met with them, they taught as I have previously stated. They did not teach grace as Christ taught Paul.

Do you presume to know the mind of God, now, so that you can decide upon his reasons for using Paul?

The other apostles taught grace. John 1:17-18
17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. "

What would you say that is different about Paul’s gospel compared to what the others had taught until Paul came on the scene?

In content, nothing. In audience, a great deal.

The big difference was that they started teaching how to achieve salvation by grace and not good works. I believe I gave a very good explanation of the difference earlier.

The Apostles did not teach salvation by works, but by grace. They taught that Jesus was the Lamb of God, who was crucified for our sins. They taught that the saved should “bear fruit that befits repentance”,and that is why those belonging to Apostolic faiths do not separate salvation from working out that salvation with fear and trembling.

And no I do not believe the secret lay hidden for 1500 years. It is Scriptural, if one looks. It is all there. Luther did not add anything to it. It would appear he wanted to take some away from it by denying certain of the books.

Yes, books, doctrine, Sacred Tradition. he took out a great number of things. why would you choose to follow such an abbreviated understanding of Christianity?