Nonsense, Paul goes into the works of the flesh vs spirit in the rest of the letter. Acts 21, if one still excepts this questionable letter as being factual, shows the earthly (Matt 11:11, Galatians 3:10, 4:24) based Mosaic law is being taught by the James gang verses the liberty and more excellent way of the Divine Born Seed Galatians 4:26 1Cor 13, 1Cor 9:20, 10:23, Luke 17:20-21 etc........The only divide in scripture is 2Cor 3:6 concerning the temple of God Ephesians 2:22, reconciling the two natures not two literal groups of people in history which is the killer.
The way you are portraying the Twelve Apostles and James (as well as their writings) suggests that they were on par with the Judaeizers. Yet whenever they actually encountered Judaisers they did not side with them but with Paul.
Paul writes about one of these instances in Galatians.
“1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain (Galatians 2:1-2).
Since they ordinarily did not hear Paul preaching to the Gentiles he presented them his doctrine in its entirety. Notice that I used the term “his doctrine” where I might just as well have used the term “his gospel” for a "gospel" is the sum total of the body of essential doctrines that comprise the truth. The term does not necessarily mean it was completely different only that it was the message he had obtained from Jesus, just as the disciples had received the gospel from Jesus.
Paul did not go there to teach them something new though, if you are right he should have rebuked them for their legalism but according to Paul himself he wanted them to judge whether what he had to say was in line with what they had been taught. Had he presented some brand new revelation they would have had no basis to judge the correctness of Paul’s gospel and Paul could not have known from anything they said whether he had "run in vain." The Gospel of the Lord Jesus was the only standard of orthodoxy the disciples had. This rule was applied to what Paul said.
Verse 4 gives another reason why Paul had conferred with them
4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.
These
false brethren were trying to bring Paul’s converts under the bondage of legalism. Most likely, given the time in history this occurred these false brethren were probably Judaisers. In this meeting, the Apostles and James, did
not accept the message of legalism. Instead
they sided with Paul, not only agreeing with the orthodoxy of his message but giving him their blessing to continue his work among the Gentiles.
7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Gal. 2:7-9)
On another occasion Peter and Paul also encountered some Old Covenant prejudice that led to New Covenant hypocrisy. Concerning this incident Paul relates the following:
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. (Galatians 2:11-12)
The common practice in Judaism was to avoid unnecessary concourse with Gentiles since they were “unclean.” This was the result of a long history of the Jews adopting the practices and gods of the surrounding cultures. It had eventually evolved into an attitude of superiority and exclusivism. This attitude was ingrained in any Jewish person who belonged to a religious family. Peer pressure ensured that no Jew would break ranks. When Paul said that Peter and the others “
feared he party of the circumcision.” What were they afraid of if not that they felt threatened by the disapproval and possible shunning by the Jewish community?
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to THE truth of THE gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
The New Covenant Community consisted of all who believed in Jesus. All these drank of a a common cup and all partook of the covenant meal together. Not only that, but God had told Peter years before not to “call unclean (the Gentiles) what God had declared clean.”
Peter did not have a personal problem fellowshiping with Gentiles. Apart from the influence of his Jewish peers Peter had not only associated with the Gentiles he had “
lived as a Gentile.” which is a odd thing to say about a person supposedly teaching and practicing a uniquely Jewish Gospel. How “Jewish” could it have been if Peter, its chief proponent,
was not attempting to keep the Jewish law? But that was not Peter’s error.
Paul did not say Peter violated some "Jewish Gospel." Instead he said that what Peter had done with was inconsistent with “
THE truth of THE gospel.” Because there was
one truth and
one gospel Paul and Peter could have that dialogue. They had a common benchmark. Paul’s use of singular nouns THE truth, of THE gospel indicated that they both believed in ONE Gospel not in separate Jewish and Gentile Gospels.
Another time when Paul and the Apostles discussed doctrinal matters was in
Acts 15. The reason they had to meet is explicitly stated here:
1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
The issue was circumcision and salvation. Again it was more of the same question about whether they should continue to practice Jewish customs and laws.
2 … Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question (Acts 15:1-2)
After their deliberations James and Peter and the Council did NOT conclude that Gentile Christians must be circumcised and follow the provisions of the Mosaic covenant.
7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear THE word of THE gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,
9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” (Acts 15:7-11)
As far as your suggestion that the letters of Peter, James and John are either not authentic or not inspired - history and scholarship are against you. The Church Fathers back as far as the First Century quoted from their works on the assumption that they were both authentic and inspired. Many of the earliest like Clement of Rome actually knew Paul and some knew the longer lived Apostle John or else were second and third generation disciples. Of course, you can deny their testimony or just ignore it like many seem to do but given the close proximity in history to the events I think that is unsound methodology. Of course, you can always find a liberal scholars who will deny the authenticity of any and every book of the Bible.
All this leaves me wondering what your essential conflict is with the books you are denying. If you are like others, then the problem lies with the false belief that Paul’s “Gospel of Grace” was antinomian. Even looking at his writings it is apparent Paul was not an antinomian, nor was Jesus for that matter.
-
