Then you agree that Peter could have been laying the same foundation as Paul?
What?
Is this a real question?
If so, it demonstrates that you and I are speaking different languages. I can find no mental path to that question.
No, they didn't stopped following it at all, because they were still taking the gospel to those in Jerusalem (first part of the Great Commission). They had already taken it to Samaria (third part of the Great Commission). Since Paul writes to churches he didn't plant, someone else was laying foundations.
That isn't what the bible teaches, as I have already established. Your stating an opposing opinion doesn't count as a rebuttal to a biblical argument.
So if Peter was at one time laying foundations, and someone besides Paul was also laying foundations, it could very well be that Peter was still laying foundations. So let's see where Peter might have gone to lay foundations.
Unresponsive and irrelevant.
How about Antioch? Peter was chastised by Paul because when Peter was in Antioch (not part of Jerusalem, Judea, or Samaria), and some from James came there, Peter quit communing with the Gentiles. This was before Paul chastised him, showing that Peter communed with the Gentiles previously.
Again, you present evidence that supports my doctrine and not yours. Peter was trying to play both sides of the fence and Paul called him out on this hypocrisy. If everyone was preaching the same stuff, there would not have been two sides of a fence for Peter to play and that whole episode could never have happened.
Why was Peter in Antioch? Partly because those who had heard the gospel from him were carrying it to Antioch:
[Act 11:19 KJV] Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
[Act 11:20 KJV] And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.
[Act 11:21 KJV] And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.
[Act 11:22 KJV] Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
Peter going to Antioch is neither in dispute nor relevant to the topic at hand. What exactly are you even trying to argue?
First someone besides Peter went. Then Barnabas went. Then Barnabas got Paul to go to Antioch. Then, somewhere along the line, Peter made it there. Before Peter made it to Antioch, the foundation was laid by men from Cyprus and Cyrene. Barnabas went to confirm those Gentiles in the faith. Paul helped with that, and eventually men from Jerusalem ("from James", according to Galatians) went to make sure all of the Gentiles were circumcised.
Okay, so what?
You seem to be arguing MY doctrine!
Do you think we aught to be preaching a gospel where the church might send someone to make sure everyone gets circumcised?
Put another way, do you practice according to the gospel that James preached (a gospel which the bible states had been "committed to Peter" by the way, and to which Peter instinctively defaulted) or do you practice according to Paul's gospel?
Peter's and Paul's (and the rest of the apostles).
Is this you stating that you don't intend to respond to the actual argument?
Unless he was actually Judas's replacement, chosen by Christ, personally.
Which I have already established biblical is definitely not the case.
Or if the others weren't quite as willing to suffer what Paul was to suffer, at least not yet.
A notion that you have exactly zero evidence for and which would contradict the fact that all twelve of them had been given the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (a Jewish feast day, by the way).
How do you know this? What is your source to know that the twelve (save John) were devout to the point of death?
Are you denying that's its true?
The ancient history concerning the Apostle's deaths is admittedly somewhat less than iron clad but...
Peter was crucified upside down.
Andrew was crucidied.
Marthoma Christians in India claim that Thomas was pierced through with the spears of four soldiers.
Philip was put to death by a Roman Proconcul in retaliation for having converted the proconcul's wife.
Matthew's death is in dispute. Some reports say he was not martyred, while others say he was stabbed to death in Ethiopia.
There are various accounts of how Matholomew met his death, with martyrdom being the common denominator.
Josephus reported that James was stoned and then clubbed to death.
Simon was killed after refusing to sacrifice to a Sun god.
Matthias was burned to death.
Andrew was also burned to death.
John is the only one believed to have dies a natural death but did so in exile.
That's eleven of the twelve. There is confusion because there are at least three people named James in the New Testament, two of which were Apostles, and their histories are muddled.
As for citing a source, I don't have a specific one to cite you. If you deny that this is the well accepted history of the church and has been for many centuries then I'd say the extraordinary claim is yours and thus so is the burden of proof.
As for me, I count it as an enormous point for me that you're having to stretch so far as to question to devoutness of the Twelve and throw their martyrdom into doubt in an attempt suggest that they were, at least initially, cowards to the extent that it was necessary for God to replace them with Paul!
Is there even one other Christian at any point in the history of the church or even of the whole history of planet Earth that has ever even implied such a thing?
Right?
What do you mean, "Right."?
That "Right" just contradicted everything you've said up to this point!
Exactly!
But if you say there are other foundations (surely you acknowledge that Peter was laying SOME kind of foundation, right), then you contradict Paul.
No, you just aren't following the simplest of logic.
News flash!
Peter was an Apostle of Jesus Christ, Derf!
When Jesus went to Heaven, the idea was for the Twelve to spread the gospel that Jesus and the Twelve had already been preaching and which Peter did preach in Acts 2. This process was underway when a certain man named Saul started putting every Christian he could find into prison or killing them outright. At the same time Stephen is presenting "irresistible wisdom" to the leaders of Israel and then gets murdered for his trouble at which time we see Christ standing (i.e. in judgment) in response to this event and goes and coverts Saul on the road to Domascus.
In short, the very Jewish foundation that Peter and the Twelve were laying was stopped when Israel was cut off for unbelief. God, having cut off Israel (Israel being the people of the circumcision - not a coincidense), turned instead to the Gentiles and through the converted Saul of the Tribe of Benjamin (again no coincidence), now called Paul, begins a new foundation laying project called "The Body of Christ".
[1Co 3:11 KJV] For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Is this you trying to argue that Paul was undermining his own ministry when he stated explicitly...
Romans 15:20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation,
or were you hoping that I was just somehow unware that this passage existed?
I just showed you how.
Peter and friends stayed in Jerusalem until persecution came (stoning of Stephen), then many (Philip is a good example, not to mention those in the verses I cited above) went outside of Jerusalem and Judea, but to the Jews only. Then some went to the Gentiles. All this was before Paul went to Antioch. But Peter and the 11 still stayed, at least until James bar-Zebedee was killed by Herod and Peter almost was. Why do you think persecution was needed to get them out of Jerusalem?
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit that the Twelve recieved at Pentecost had left them or is it that you believe that the Holy Spirit was just inspiring them to be dilitory to the point that some of them had to be murdered to get them off their backsides in Jerusalem?
That, was a rhetorical question. Obviously neither is true. The point being that your doctrine simply ignores the fact that the Twelve had been given the Holy Spirit and would therefore not be prone to the errors of judgment that you are suggesting took place. Indeed, they would be utterly immune to such errors.
I think you sincerely want good conversation, but you lack the patience to engage people where they are.
If by "were they are" you mean lazy, stupid or boring, then yes, you're quite right. I have no patience for people who don't have the brains or wherewithall required to escape a wet paper bag.
