Come on!There is no "until," but there is also no "do" or "don't." Our argument is one of interpretation. To claim an addition or subtraction to Scripture is false, as neither of us have done this.
Paul and Peter don't even oppose. There is a creation of dichotomy, imposed by the doctrine you are proposing. If one accepts all Scripture as true, neither oppose the other, but they work in unison.
They do oppose.
Telling no man is opposed to telling any man.
If you tell any man, you have opposed telling no man, because that is the exact opposite of telling no man.
And it has nothing to do imposing on MAD doctrine, as MAD does not even start until Paul is converted.
And the "do and don't tell" happened before that.
Jesus' instructions to His 12 were different from the instructions given to Paul.
There were similarities AND differences.
And it's those differences which make them not the same.
Just as there are similarities and differences between the old covenant and new covenant, yet both are used in history to achieve GOD's goal (circumcision of the flesh being one).
Doesn't make the old covenant a lie.
Just different instructions for different times.
A contradiction would be pitting a truth with a lie.
Opposition does not pit a truth against a lie, but changes the rules all together.
When playing baseball, one will hit the ball with a bat, and the opposition will not try to hit the ball, but try to catch the ball.
They don't contradict (as both are within the whole complete game), they just oppose.
Both teams are in the game, but both teams oppose what the other is doing.
Opposition within the game, but no contradiction within the game.