Proof Paul was a Protestant

[itsjustdave1988]

Since Paul explained that meat in itself is not unclean and the eating of meat is not inherently sinful (Rom. 14:1-23, 1 Cor. 8:1-13, 10:23-32), a Christian who violated the apostolic teaching in Acts 15 sinned not because the eating of meat was wrong but because he disobeyed a disciplinary norm of the Church. In other words, the sinner violated Heb 13:17, and and Paul’s Letter to Titus (3:1).

 

[Angainor]

itsjustdave1988:

me:

Paul says it is alright to knowingly eat food offered to an idol

Please provide the chapter and verse. Me thinks your are saying this, not Paul.

Paul said the opposite. Dont’ eat it. His reasons explain the prohibition in Acts 15 further, but do not contradict it.

1 Corinthians 10:25
Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience
If [post=820766]rwoehmke is correct[/post], (and I have no reason to doubt him, the footnote in my NIV Study Bible agrees: “Even if it has been sacrificed to an idol, because out in the public market it has lost its pagan religious significance”) then food sacrificed to idols was sold in the market, and it was advertised as food sacrificed to idols. If Paul is telling the Gentiles they can eat anything in the meat market, this is not a question of don’t ask, don’t tell. There is little chance they could accidentally eat it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Angainor:

1 Corinthians 10:25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscienceIf [post=820766]rwoehmke is correct[/post], (and I have no reason to doubt him, the footnote in my NIV Study Bible agrees: “Even if it has been sacrificed to an idol, because out in the public market it has lost its pagan religious significance”) then food sacrificed to idols was sold in the market, and it was advertised as food sacrificed to idols. If Paul is telling the Gentiles they can eat anything in the meat market, this is not a question of don’t ask, don’t tell. There is little chance they could accidentally eat it.

Ripping Paul out of context is unconvincing. In the very same letter he says "if someone says to you, “This is food offered to an idol,” do not eat it"

Your assertion that Paul is saying, “eat meat that is sacrificed to idols” in 1 Cor is RIDICULOUS.

If I told my son, “eat any fruit in the bowl, but if someone says ‘This fruit is spoiled’ do not it eat.” What am I saying to him? Am I saying “eat any fruit in the bowl, even spoiled fruit???” That is exactly what you are asserting, and it is silly. On the contrary, if I said such a thing to my son, I would be saying, “Eat any fruit that is not spoiled.”

Likewise, Paul is saying “eat any meat unless you find out that it has been sacrificed to idols.”

In 1 Cor 8, Paul even states that he will not eat any meat at all!!!

1 Cor 8:13 “…if food is a cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.”

And we are expected to believe that Paul is teaching us to go ahead and eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols, in opposition to the letter he HANDCARRIED??? Even though he NEVER SAYS SUCH A THING??? Such an interpretation of Scripture shows a distinct lack of understanding.

 

[Angainor]

itsjustdave1988:

me:

… for Peter to allow the Jewish Christians to go on thinking eating food sacrificed to idols is inherently wrong.

I don’t think you know what “inherently” means. Peter never taught that eating meat that was sacrificed to idols was inherently wrong.

Perhaps not, but I didn’t say he did. I said Peter allowed some Jewish Christians to believe that.
[James said] “…we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols” Acts 15:20

[Paul wrote] But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 1 Cor 8:7
Some Christians thought eating food sacrificed to idols is defiled. Peter could have taken this opportunity to tell all Christians that eating food sacrificed to idols is not inherently sinful. He didn’t. Instead he sent a note telling the Gentiles to “abstain from food sacrificed to idols.” What does that mean? I don’t know. Maybe nothing. It just doesn’t seem to me something a Pope would do.

You are right, they could have sent extra verbal instructions with Barnabas and Paul, but what would those extra verbal instructions be? The instructions Paul actually gave were: “Eat ***anything ***sold in the meat market.” (1 Cor 10:25) I don’t think it is likely that was an additional instruction from “abstain from food sacrificed to idols”.

itsjustdave1988:

You are trying to build a false dispute, when you’ve not shown any evidence from history or Scripture that there was ever such a dispute.

I don’t think there was a dispute at all.
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be convinced in his own mind. He who regards onde day as special does so to the Lord.
Romans 14:5-6
I think this food sacrificed to idols business is a case of each side being convinced in their own minds. Those that considers food sacrificed to idols as defiled does so to the Lord.

 

[Angainor]

itsjustdave1988:

Ripping Paul out of context is unconvincing. In the very same letter he says "if someone says to you, “This is food offered to an idol,” do not eat it"

Your assertion that Paul is saying, “eat meat that is sacrificed to idols” in 1 Cor is RIDICULOUS.

First of all, it is not my assertion, but I do agree with it. The idea never occured to me until I [post=820766]read it from rwoehmke[/post], who calles himself a Catholic.

Secondly, it is NOT Ridiculous. If I may paraphrase Paul: Eat anything sold in the meat market unless someone says to you, “This food is offered to an idol”. Why would someone say “This food is offered to an idol”? They would say that because that little bit of information is significant to them. If the other person thinks it is significant that the food was sacrificed to an idol, then you should not eat it, because it may cause them to stumble. They are likely to misunderstand your actions and think you condone or are willing participants to idol worship.

If the other person does not say “This food is offered to idols” then either a) The food wasn’t offered to idols, or b) The food was unknowingly sacrificed to idols (this does not seem likely if it is true that sacrificed food was sold at a discount in the market) or c) the food was known to be offered to idols, but the other person does not find this significant enough to mention because he, like you knows there is nothing inherently wrong with eating food sacrificed to idols.

itsjustdave1988:

In 1 Cor 8, Paul even states that he will not eat any meat at all!!!

1 Cor 8:13 “…if food is a cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.”

IF

What if food is not a cause of Paul’s brother’s falling?

itsjustdave1988:

And we are expected to believe that Paul is teaching us to go ahead and eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols, in opposition to the letter he HANDCARRIED???

Yes

itsjustdave1988:

Even though he NEVER SAYS SUCH A THING??!??

Yes he did:
“Eat anything sold in the meat market” (1 Cor 10:25)

 

[Karen10]

Actually, Dave, Paul does say it’s not inherently evil to eat it. “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat; asking no question for conscience’s sake”.

HOWEVER, what he goes on to say later though is addressing the new Gentile-Christians with Peter’s concern–that people have been scandalized by seeing other followers eating meat that had been sacrificed to pagans, mistaking their partaking as acknowledgment of the legitimacy of that sacrifice. SO… If, and *if, *one of these new Gentiles were privy to the information that this meat had been offered to an idol, in that case one should not eat it, just to avoid confusion.

This scandalization prompted both Peter and Paul to get the message out, that for these people’s sakes, when in the full view of others who knew and said that the meat was offered to idols, then one should not eat it–just to eliminate doubts in the new Christians’ mind and make clear, “No, we don’t see these sacrifices as legitimate.” It was the principle of the thing: that some of these people were mistaking such partaking of goods as acceptance of the pagan god(s) and rituals. Peter and Paul both saw a need to address that.

Againor, there isn’t any proof that Peter allowed anyone to think that the meat was inherently evil; his intention was clear in Acts 15:24.

I think, Againor, what you might be doing, is assuming that everything is in the Bible in all the places that you personally want them to be, when we know that’s not always true. It would help, because then we also wouldn’t have to cross-reference so much, but that’s not how it was written (and it’d be a lot thicker).

So, Acts doesn’t have Peter explicitly saying “Oh yea and also tell them that the meat isn’t inherently evil, lest people reading this in 2005 think I wasn’t being entirely honest with these people”.

This omission as written down is just an omission, and doesn’t mean that part of Peter’s message to these people was that meat was inherently evil at all. And certainly the messengers knew Peter’s intention. Everyone knew, and so it was even eventually written down.

So, there’s no proof that the intention should have been kept a secret; not a reasonable one, anyway. Mere omission doesn’t count towards proving that Peter wanted them to think the meat was inherently evil. The Gospel doesn’t say that Peter said, “Just tell them it’s inherently evil, or at least let them think that, because I get a kick out of giving them random messages that don’t make sense to them.”

 

[Angainor]

Karen10:

Againor, there isn’t any proof that Peter allowed anyone to think that the meat was inherently evil; his intention was clear in Acts 15:24.

I think I have made a [post=966957]pretty good case[/post] that there were groups of Christians that were not working under the same rules.
[James said] “…we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols” Acts 15:20

[Paul wrote] But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 1 Cor 8:7

Some Christians really did have the idea that food sacrificed to idols was defiled. Why this is, maybe we cannot say for sure. Maybe they didn’t get the word yet. Maybe they got the word and were stubborn.

Whatever the case, there were Christians working under two sets of rules 1) Don’t eat food sacrificed to idols 2) OK to eat food sacrificed to idols.

I see no evidence of any urgency on the part of Catholicism to smooth over this difference to make sure everyone is following a unified doctrine.

On the contrary, I see every evidence of efforts being made to accomodate these differences in doctrine (if that is the right word), especially by Paul. This accomodation of different doctrines is what I see as very un-Catholic-like. That is my point in all of this.

 

[dafalax]

Yes, Angainor you should seek to understand the truth the best you can then follow the best you can then understand more. The point I was trying to make was that Paul in excommunicating the incestuous man was imposing his conscience on another person. Which contradicts your interpretation of 1 cor. 10 29. Also he instructed the other christians which could be construed as imposing his conscience upon others especially when he is saying that fornicators and the like will not enter the kingdom 1 cor. 6vs9. Don’t you see that Paul is judging and condemning the acts of others which seems to contradict your interpretation of 1 cor. 10vs29. He is saying that if you violate his understanding, his conscience then you done for.
God give you peace!

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

Catholics say the council in Jerusalem made a decree in the form of a letter to the Gentile Christians. Included in that decree was a dietary restriction:

You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols…

Acts 15:29

Paul disagreed:

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

1 Corinthians 10:25-26

Paul goes on to explain why he does not consider himself bound by a decree from Jerusalem:

Why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience?

1 Corinthians 10:29

Who is the “another” that Paul is talking about? Catholics say it was Peter that decreed the dietary restriction.

Paul does not consider himself bound by Peter’s conscience.

Therefore Paul is a Protestant.

He wasn’t talking about food sacrificed to idols. He was talking about the restriction on eating certain foods like pork or any kind of meat. Paul never goes against what is said at the council of Jersusalem.

 

[Coder]

Angainor:

Whatever the case, there were Christians working under two sets of rules 1) Don’t eat food sacrificed to idols 2) OK to eat food sacrificed to idols.

Where does it say it is OK to eat food sacrificed to idols if it offends the conscience of others?

One must look at the motivation behind Acts 15:29. Paul seems to merely be more fully revealing (this is also why Sola Scripture fails) the thinking of the Church and the decision of Acts.

Once again this is in agreement with Acts.

Scriptures can be twisted to look like they are saying something they are not and it is easy to mislead until there is depth of understanding.

1 Cor 8:7 is likely merely reflecting the motivation behind Acts 15:29. Remember, the context of Acts 15 is regarding Jewish law and Jews were offended by idol worship (for good reason). So it is very reasonable that Acts 15:29 is based (at least to a large extent) on not offending Jewish conscience. Paul even states that later.

Therefore 1 Cor 8:7 and Acts 15:29 are in agreement and this is further confirmed by:

1 Corinthinians 8:13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin.

 

[Karen10]

Hi Againor, I just woke up so bear with me.

I just don’t see that it’s contradictory.

But if you want to take it that there were different rules for different cities (for the Corinthians or those in Antioch), it doesn’t really matter. It’s a disciplinary matter, not a pope pronouncing a teaching as fact, infallibly. It would be different if he’d said, “Teach Antioch that the Blessed Mother was a virgin, but teach the Corinthians, definitively, that she wasn’t,” and it would be even more absurd to think that Paul would make such a statement infallibly. Besides that, one requisite for the Pope to speak infallibly, is that it’s his intention that all of Christendom will be held to what he has to teach, not just one city.

The Eastern and Roman Catholic churches still today have different rites in matters of discipline, while both are still subject to the pope’s teaching, for example. I don’t see a reason to believe that the two sets of Gentiles had different instructions, but if you want to see that, there’s still no infallible statement being taught to complain about.

Peter’s letter in Acts included abstaining from food offered to idols, fornication, etc. He said, “If you do these things, you’ll be doing right.” He knows that when Paul comes with his message, that if they have any troubling doubts about whether to eat the meat or not, that they can know they’re safe if they just don’t eat it. I tend to think that a lot of these people just weren’t too bright, but that’s besides the point.

One thing we’re not talking about here, is Peter coming out and teaching to anyone “This meat is inherently evil”, speaking ex-cathedra (from the chair, and infallibly). We know from Acts 15:24 that he never intended such a thing, and people knew it, Paul and Barnabas knew it, Luke knew it, and … eventually it was Luke who wrote Acts in 80-90 A.D. and made the intention clear.

There’s simply no reasonable proof that Peter intended to omit this little tidbit–that they were to think that the meat was inherently evil. Nowhere does it say, also, that Paul was implicitly or explicitly commanded to lead the Corinthians to think so–an explicit or implied command that in no uncertain terms was Paul permitted to elaborate. This is what you’d have to show, if you wanted to prove that Paul was rebelling.

The messengers knew the reason and explained them. Just the same, Luke knew, and wrote it down for us. If it were a big secret, then Luke should have left out Acts 15:24, but he didn’t. Why? There was no big secret. There’s no reasonable ground for thinking there was; certainly these Gentiles talked to one another once in a while. That’d be a big secret to keep, and a stupid one to want to keep anyway.

So with these pieces, you simply cannot prove that Peter’s intention was to keep people in the dark about supposed inherent evil of this meat. It just doesn’t reasonably follow from what we do know Peter really thought, and what Paul went on to teach, which is in agreement with Peter, not contrary to it.

As to 1 Corinthians 10:29, can you see now, how you were originally taking Paul’s reference to conscience out of context? This verse is far from supporting the idea that Peter said to tell them one thing, and that Paul was being defiant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Paul was not speaking of defiance to the pope at all. The point of your original post is that he was, and that this was proof that he was a Protestant, rebelling against Peter who wants these people to think that the meat is not morally neutral, but inherently wrong.

But Paul wasn’t even talking about his conscience vs. Peter’s. If you read it in context, and not as just one sentence that stands alone in its own right, then it’s perfectly clear what Paul is talking about: He’s talking about the actual **moral **neutrality of that meat, no matter what the pagans’ consciences declare about it. So read it again until you can see that.

I hope you can see that, because Paul goes to some lengths to make his point about the neutrality of that meat. Besides the passage in 1 Corinthians 10:23-33, he talks more about the possible scandal in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. All of Paul’s conscience talk concerns other people getting the wrong impression from someone partaking in sacrificed meat, how his conscience/freedom isn’t affected by what the pagans did to it BUT that others can get the wrong impression, so if they say something, stay away from the meat for their sakes.

So using this as a proof that Paul was a rebelling Protestant falls flat, even if it’s only because you understand what he was really talking about in 1 Corinthians 10:29 when he said, “For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? (a pagan’s conscience?)” That’s not talking around anything, that’s just the truth.

 

[Karen10]

AH!! Get this:

Luke was from Antioch (a Syrian from Antioch)!
Luke wrote Acts!

Luke, an Antiochian, obviously couldn’t have been taught something different from the Corinthians, namely, that the sacrificed meat was inherently evil. In Acts 15:24, he knows exactly what’s behind the teaching.

There ya go!

 

[Karen10]

Karen10:

But then Paul goes on to say that there is, however, danger in accepting such meat after someone (XGXeXnXtXiXle Christian) has told you that it was offered to false gods. Such a person could in fact be scandalized…

Argh, makes me mad that I can’t edit this. It doesn’t change the basic argument, but to correct myself: Peter was addressing the Gentile Christians’ offending Jewish Christians in Acts, by eating meat that someone told them was sacrificed to idols.

Still, it remains very evident that the product of this kind of inter-Christian calamity, was confusion, which messes with people’s consciences and which was the reason for his message, as stated in all of Acts 15.

The actual neutrality of the meat is a clear message in Acts; Peter’s saying, “Why should they [Gentiles] be bound by these yokes?” (“Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” – Acts 15:10)

Then, addressing the calamity and confusion–the reason for Peter’s letter, we have Acts15:29: “For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted.”

So does Acts 15:20 necessarily mean that the message to be delivered to Antioch and other Gentiles must have said that eating such meat was inherently evil? Does it even remotely suggest that Paul was expressly forbidden to elaborate on Peter’s intention?

No. Firstly, it’s not really believable, as there’d be no reason to presume that Peter wanted to mislead any particular city, especially with all of those witnesses who knew his intentions. A Protestant would have to also doubt Peter as a valid apostle and not just as a pope, which I don’t think they do. Secondly, Luke, the author of Acts and who is from Antioch, clearly shows that he understood that the meat must have been morally neutral. That’s the message that was received in Antioch, then, which is also in accordance to what Paul taught the Corinthians about the meat’s moral neutrality.

The technicality doesn’t change the argument but I’m obsessive about corrections.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Karen10:

Actually, Dave, Paul does say it’s not inherently evil to eat it.

I agree. However, he is not contradicting the letter he carried to Antioch from Acts 15, which is the thesis proposed. The letter to Antioch told them not to eat meats sacrificed to idols (and avoid blood and strangled animals). Why? Because of SCANDAL that was already present in Antioch with regard to Gentiles disregarding the Mosaic Law as Christians. SCANDAL already existed!!!

The letter alone was not sent to teach the Antiochans of the decree of Jerusalem, but also teachers commissioned by the apostles were sent. It is unlikely to think Paul simply handed them the letter and said, “go by sola epistle” Instead, he likely explained the position of the apostles at Jerusalem, and did what he does very well, taught them the Catholic theology behind the decree.

Catholic theology has always insisted that if one thinks he is about to act contrary to God’s will (even if objectively, he is not), yet he willfully chooses to commit the act anyway, then he truly commits a sin. Willfully trying to steal property from another, for example, but later finding out you goofed, and it was your own property you stole is *still a sin. *

The Corinthians appearantly were a bit overconfident in their actions, eating meats sacrificed to idols no matter what, based upon some knowledge that they had. While their knowledge was correct, as Paul states, this knowledge was not merely given to them, but to all. Yet the Holy Spirit gives gifts to all, but not to all equally. Some have the gift of understanding and wisdom, while others do not. Paul is correcting the scandalous discipline of the Corinthians, by exhorting the Corinthians to abstain from eating meat sacrificed to idols, not because the meat was unholy, but because of risk of scandal. Paul even states to them that he would not eat ANY meat to avoid such scandal. He’s giving them a better way of being Christian, not merely a rule-oriented way, but a charity-oriented way. In other words, even if your theology is sound, if you don’t live charitably, you sin.

So, it appears that in context, Paul agrees with Corinthian’s correct theology that meats are not inherently evil, nor is it inherently evil to eat any meat. There was never an assertion in either Scripture or early Church history that the apostles at Jerusalem taught that eating meats sacrificed to idols were inherently evil. However, it is evil meat contrary to Mosic Law if it can cause scandal, especially in the historical context of Antioch in the 1st century. While the reasons are lacking from the letter in Acts 15 to the Antiochans, the lack of written reasons does not imply they taught such a thing was inherently evil. It is more likely that Paul and the others gave their oral explanation, which was exactly as Paul taught to the Corinthians. Thus, this account does nothing to advance the claim that the apostles were rebelling against one another in either doctrine or discipline.

The only account I am familiar with where Paul criticized Peter was due to his actions, not any teaching of his. Peter, trying to be all things to all people as Paul himself recommends, abstained from eating with the Gentile-Christians so as not to scandalize the Jewish-Christians. Paul’s criticized Peter for such actions. In Paul’s view, he should have ate with the Gentile-Christians and risked scandalizing the Jewish-Christians.

Lesson learned: sometimes we are faced with a choice of scandalizing someone, and we have to tolerate the lesser of two evils.

Paul was no rebel, as Againor would have us believe. He was a Pharisee and understood the authority of the Chair of Moses. He taught in Hebrews 13:17 that we are to obey our prelates, and in Titus 3:1 that we are to obey the magistrates. This doesn’t sound very prostant at all. Seem instead he was just as concerned about Christian unity as Peter and the other apostles.

I recommend St. John Chrysostom’s Homily on 1 Cor. This is the ancient interpreation of this passage.

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM’s Homily 20 on First Corinthians
newadvent.org/fathers/220120.htm

 

[Karen10]

Dave, I don’t think we’re disagreeing

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Steven Merten:

Well the Protestants keep telling me that St. Paul opposes Jesus teaching to obey the commandments if we wish to go to heaven, like they do. Lots of laughs!

St. Paul says:
Galatians 2:16
…who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Jesus says:
NAB MAT 19:16

“Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?” He answered, “Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied “You shall not kill”; ‘You shall not commit adultery’; ‘You shall not steal’; ‘You shall not bear false witness’; ‘Honor your father and mother’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Yes, it is TRUE that the message Christ gave to Paul is different than the one He preached and gave to Peter and John and the other apostles. Jesus preached and gave to Peter what is referred to as the Gospel of the Circumcision. Once Israel rejected the risen Christ in Acts 3 God took a different course and committed to Paul the Gospel of the Uncircumcision which does NOT include keeping the Mosaic Law which the Gospel of Circumcision DID require.

Thats why what Paul says in Galatians differs so greatly from what Jesus said in the Gospels. One gospel requires keeping the works of the law and the other does not require it. You have to pay attention to what is going on to understand WHY things happened the way they did in the entire Bible.

Here is another “contradiciton” for you to look at and make sense of.

In Genesis 1:29 God says to eat only vegetables. Later on in Gen 9:3 God says that man may eat anything including animals. Is this a big contradiction?? Or is there a reason why God said it was only OK to eat vegetables at one time and later on says its OK to eat anything that moves??

Here is a little rhyme to keep in mind to help make sense of what you read in the Bible.

Know the plot,
enjoy the twists;
know it not,
annoy your wits.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

The CHURCH teaches truth and interprets and outlines what is meant. Do you honestly think that the chat in the original meeting that declared meat sacrificed to idols etc was illegal, was the only conversation that related to such things, either before or after.

The Apostles did not sit down to write a gospel on this subject so that we could read their words in this particualr little bit of scripture then automatically assume that it contained all knowledge and understanding in relation to these subjects.

The Apostles would still have had numerous discussions about the vagaries of this ruling and numerous others.

Paul comes along and we read some clarification in the teaching, which the Church acknowledge as true teaching at the time because we cannot find early christians saying Paul was a heretic etc for such a teaching.

This is a big issue, in the early Church various people gave their life up as martyrs to the cause by refusing to eat meat offered to idols, if Pauls teaching was in opposition to the teaching of the Church in general then there would have historical proof that the Church either refuted their earlier council meeitng of the Apostles or refuting Paul.

Such information I have not been able to find, that is why Protestants cannot win, for us to make genuine sence of what the Council says and what Paul says requires a competent authority who was intimate with teachings and individuals of the time to know that they are not in opposition to each other.

This is where the CHURCH comes in, whether we like it or not

We know that man cannot even come close to the salvation truth with just the bible by reading it ourselves and coming to the truth, our common sence showsus this.

God is REQUIRED to give us someone or some body to interpret and guide us accuratey and to be guaranteed of such accuracy, because we know that as individuals we cannot be relied upon to come to the truth by choosing our own guidance in ourselves.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Yes, it is TRUE that the message Christ gave to Paul is different than the one He preached and gave to Peter and John and the other apostles.

I disagree.

After Paul’s conversion and three years’ residence in Arabia, Paul came to Jerusalem “to see Peter”. Here the Apostle of the Gentiles clearly understands Peter as the authorized head of the Apostles and of the early Christian Church.

Here’s what scripture says, in Peter’s own words…

Acts 15:7 - " After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.”

I find it unconvincing that Peter was confined to the “Gospel of the Circumcised” as in his own words, God made choice among all the apostles that the Gentiles would hear th word through what Peter calls “my mouth.”

Peter preached the SINGLE Gospel of Christ to both the Jews and Gentiles. Paul did likewise. That Paul and his colleagues should go to the Gentiles did not exclude his preaching to the Jews as well. Did he not enter the synagogue in Ephesus and preached there to Jews and Greeks alike? (Acts 19) Did he not preach to a crowd of circumcised Jews in Jerusalem prior to his imprisonment? Even when Paul was in Rome, did he not preach to Jews there? (Acts 28:17ff)

From Dionysius of Corinth, AD 170, "You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

Note that Peter and Paul were teaching similarly to the very same people–one gospel…one church.

Your exegesis is flawed if you think the other holy apostles like Peter, James, or John, etc. are somehow teaching a different gospel than Paul. There is one body of Christ, not many. The apostles taught the same gospel message to both Jews and Gentiles.

This Gospel of Paul/Gospel of Peter is a thesis, antithesis, synthesis theory that was first proposed by a guy named F.C. Bauer, in the 1800s. However to support his teaching, he asserted that the Paul of the Book of Acts was not the same as the “real” Paul who wrote the Pauline epistles. This thesis was just as unconvincing then as it is now.

 

[The_Eurasian]

Paul might look like a Protestant to you, but look at it this way. Did Paul found a new church like these founders of some 30,000 christian churches??? Did he???