No, Peter was afraid of what the Jews would think of him eating with Gentiles.
Proof that Paul didn't preach a different gospel than Peter
- Thread starter tetelestai
- Start date
No, Peter was afraid of what the Jews would think of him eating with Gentiles.
Since Peter does not say "I am afraid" or others say literally "Peter was afraid" we have to accept what the text actually says.
yes Peter was so afraid of Jews, that he couldn't understand Paul's gospel from Christ Jesus - 2 Peter 3:15 KJV - 2 Peter 3:16 KJV -
1 Corinthians 1:22-23 KJV -
Galatians 2:7 KJV - Galatians 2:11 KJV -
1 Corinthians 9:17 KJV -
maybe Peter was jealous of Paul's exclusive dispensations from the Risen and Ascended Christ ? - Ephesians 3-2-3 KJV -
Colossians 1:17-19 KJV - Colossians 1:20 KJV -
Colossians 1:21-22 KJV -
Colossians 1:23 KJV -
Colossians 1:25 KJV - Colossians 1:26 KJV - Colossians 1:27 KJV - Colossians 1:28-29 KJV -
2 Timothy 2:7 KJV -
God's Truth
New member
Galatians 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
God's Truth
New member
You are saying things that are not in the scriptures. The scripture does not say Peter couldn't understand Paul's gospel.
In fact, Paul opposing Peter about acting OUT OF LINE with the truth PROVES there is only one gospel.
Galatians 2:14 As soon as I saw that they were not walking uprightly in the spirit of the Good News, I said to Peter, before them all, "If you, though you are a Jew, live as a Gentile does, and not as a Jew, how can you make the Gentiles follow Jewish customs?
If you do not receive your understandings from Jesus Christ then you are not a Christian..
Eze 34:17 And as for you, O my flock, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats.
Eze 34:18 Seemeth it a small thing unto you to have eaten up the good pasture, but ye must tread down with your feet the residue of your pastures? and to have drunk of the deep waters, but ye must foul the residue with your feet?
Eze 34:19 And as for my flock, they eat that which ye have trodden with your feet; and they drink that which ye have fouled with your feet.
Eze 34:20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD unto them; Behold, I, even I, will judge between the fat cattle and between the lean cattle.
Eze 34:21 Because ye have thrust with side and with shoulder, and pushed all the diseased with your horns, till ye have scattered them abroad;
Eze 34:22 Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey; and I will judge between cattle and cattle.
LA
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I wouldn't think so bro.
Peter was more of a nosy fellow.
John 21:21 KJV
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come , what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Thanks for setting me straight. I usually use the SV for Greek translations. There are clearly other choices to use.
God's Truth
New member
You are welcome.
I checked about ten different translations and they say either 'afraid', or 'fearing'.
And he was not alone. Even Barnabas was part of their hypocrisy.
(Gal 2:12) For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
God's Truth
New member
That's right.
I only needed the only one I have ever needed - the KJV.
Peter's behavior is a recurrent pattern.
Recurrent patterns in a person's behavior, shed light on their personality, values, beliefs, attitudes, fears, intentions, intended sense, and so on.
Words, whether spoken, or written are also behavior.
In this, there is no need for "the Greek," nor for checking different translations, nor even the need to have to read in books supposedly "Bible based" as to what one or another writer of Scripture may or may not have meant.
I only need my KJV, and that is why.
(Acts 10:28) He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.
It wasn't against the Mosaic Law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile.
It was against the law of the evil Talmud for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile.
The Jews of the first century put the teachings of the evil Talmud over the teachings of the Torah.
Peter was afraid of the evil Talmud following Jews.
Jesus pointed this out:
(Matt 15:9) Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.'"
It wasn't against the Mosaic Law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile.
It was against the law of the evil Talmud for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile.
The Jews of the first century put the teachings of the evil Talmud over the teachings of the Torah.
Peter was afraid of the evil Talmud following Jews.
Jesus pointed this out:
(Matt 15:9) Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.'"
Whatever you're doing, you should start doing something different, because you have chosen to be a follower of John Nelson Darby.
God's Truth
New member
Having the Bible in our English is a blessing.
I use different translations. Sometimes one translation will have a more enlightened wording than another.
God's Truth
New member
The Gentiles were unclean because they did not clean themselves by following the ceremonial law.
Gentiles were no longer to be called unclean because of not following the ceremonial laws, since Jesus' blood cleans us.
I believe it was against the Mosaic Law.
God said to keep separate from them.
Why are you bringing up the Talmud?
Are you saying the Pharisees in Jesus' time on earth were the Talmud?
As many translations are translated from one Denominational bias or another; relying on them is a good way to gradually end up off base in one's manner of approach and its resulting impact on one's beliefs, values, sense of intended sense, and so on.
Christ had to deal with that in His enemies overeliance on their many traditions as to what their Law and the Prophets had supposedly really meant.
So much so, that by the time He showed up on Earth, their reaction to Him was much like the traditions of men are against the Mid-Acts Perspective - "reject it; it doesn't match the traditions."
And His enemies then too would go on and on about their supposed knowing what He actually meant or who He really was.
Only the names have changed; your "game" is the same...
yep, Peter had a few things goin' on - a 3 time Jesus rejecter, tried to rebuke Jesus but Jesus rebuked him, referring to satan, Paul clearly rebuked him. i was using conjecture about jealousy, like Teta-lie & GUT.(god's un truth)
I truly believe that Peter didn't fully understand Paul's teachings, and if he did, it was later than sooner - it's just the sense i get; my take on it
i also don't agree with all the catholic doctrines that came in later. i defend Paul whose message is from Jesus Christ. especially against GT: Who OBEYS ALL Jesus' commands and teachings and was only SAVED AFTER she believed, then OBEYED. GT repents daily and doesn't think Jesus did enough; kinda like purgatory -
then there's the Tet Offensive - a man that says Christ's return and Revelation already happened. Tet is a Preterist and preaches that all was fulfilled in A.D. 70. Tet says if it wasn't, then Jesus Lied ! and he enjoys the company of ANY person that disputes Paul's gospel -
Shasta
Well-known member
I don't think he did simply because the events had not happened yet. However just because I might agree with Tet on this point does not mean I agree on ANY other point. I like to stay focused for the sake of clarity.