Judaism exposed in Peter

[praise_yeshua]

Gal 2:14 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?
Gal 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Notice.

1. Peter lived as a Gentile lived.
2. Peter considered himself justified in such actions.
3. Notice the connection to the moral demands of the law they claimed (Peter included).
4. Notice the TRUTH. There is no justification either morally in the law (Torah) or anything other than belief in Jesus Christ.

The life of Peter itself shows just how impactful Judaism was to the TRUTH of Jesus Christ.

It is dangerous. In my view, it is one of the most dangerous false doctrines in the history of Christianity. So much so that it played out in the very lives of almost all of the apostles.

Witnessing this issue with Peter should be enough for you to be concerned yourself.

 

[Studyman]

Gal 2:14 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?
Gal 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

You have omitted the most important part of this story. Here, let me add the rest, so we can more clearly understand what is happening.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they (Pharisees) were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were "of the circumcision". (Pharisees religion) 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

It was a commandment of men the Pharisees taught for doctrine, not to eat with or keep company with a Non-Jew.

It is important to understand these truths. Peter had repented from living in the commandments and traditions of the disobedient Jews, but was turning again, as Paul teaches, "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Peter was reverting back to the commandments and Philosophies of men the Pharisees taught for doctrines.

Acts 10: 28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

This is one of many "Commandments of men" the Pharisees taught for doctrines. It was never a commandment from God not to eat dinner or sit with a non-Jew that was sojourning with them.

Both the Jew and the Gentile needs forgiveness/justification. The Jews were still promoting their twisted version of the Levitical Priesthood sacrificial "works of the law" for Justification. They had made a business out of it, selling salvation on the Sabbath Days. Jesus actually whipped men for doing this. Paul is telling them what Moses and the Gospel of Christ has promoted since the Exodus.

Deut 10: 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. 17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: 18 He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. 19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

The deceiver uses some of Paul's words to trick men into living in disobedience to God's instruction in righteousness, like the other voice in the garden, who quoted some of God's Word, did to Eve. But Paul knew better, and he and I "press towards the High calling of God" (Be ye perfect) which was in Christ Jesus. Both of us Laboring as Paul teaches.

2 Cor. 5: 9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, "we may be accepted of him". 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

It is unprofitable to pick one paragraph from Paul's letters, without considering all of his teaching.

Notice.

1. Peter lived as a Gentile lived.
2. Peter considered himself justified in such actions.
3. Notice the connection to the moral demands of the law they claimed (Peter included).
4. Notice the TRUTH. There is no justification either morally in the law (Torah) or anything other than belief in Jesus Christ.

There is no Law given that can forgive sins. There is no forgiveness without repentance and turning away from all your transgressions. And the "Doers" of God's Law are justified, not the hearers only. Not by the temporary sacrificial "works of the Law" put in place "Till the Seed should come" that the Pharisees were still promoting. But by Faith, that if I turn from my ways, and turn to God in obedience, that God will give me to Jesus for saving.

Even satan believes in Jesus, so clearly there is more to salvation than calling Jesus Lord, Lord.

The life of Peter itself shows just how impactful Judaism was to the TRUTH of Jesus Christ.

This is why I asked, and have not been answered yet, what is Judaism? Is it walking in the commandments, Judgments and Statutes of God, like Jesus and EVERY Example of Faithful man in the entire bible? Or is it walking in this world's religious philosophies, traditions, high days and doctrines of men?

Why won't religious men answer this simple question?

It is dangerous. In my view, it is one of the most dangerous false doctrines in the history of Christianity.

Which definition of Judaism is dangerous? The Laws, doctrines and instruction in righteousness from God that Jesus walked in? Or the other voice in the garden, who quotes some of God's Word to trick men into rejecting God's Judgments and Commandments, like the rebellious Jews did?

It's an important question that must be answered for honest discussion of this topic, in my view.

So much so that it played out in the very lives of almost all of the apostles.

Witnessing this issue with Peter should be enough for you to be concerned yourself.

I agree that if Judaism is the religious philosophies, traditions, commandments and doctrines of men the Pharisees laid on the backs of men who listened to them, then it is most dangerous, as Peter shows when he "turned again" to his past life, "Wherein in time past he walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience".

But if Judaism is "Yielding myself" a servant to obey God, as Jesus did, walking in/Living by all the Commandments and Judgments of God, as Jesus did, and "yielding" my mind and body as "instruments of Righteousness" unto God, also as Jesus did. Then it makes perfect sense why Jesus warned, not of Atheists, or Islam or Buddhist, but specifically of religious men who call Him Lord, Lord, who "Come in His Name" but are not "doers" of His sayings, rather, men who walk in the doctrines, philosophies, high days and judgments of the religious system of this world.

 

[mikesw]

I found a different interpretation on the Antioch incident. The most plausible reason for Peter's separation was due to a report from James about a threat against Peter based in Jerusalem. (The general pressures might explain why Peter was suddenly in Antioch anyhow.) Peter's act of separation was then to improve his image to non-Christian Jews. This was the same behavior popular among with Judaism.
Verse 14 only presents the irony of reversed roles, not the problem.
Verses 15-16 only set up the point Paul makes in verses 17-18. I can only summarize the point for now. Paul indicates Peter's act of separation was doing this separation effectively like a work of the law. Paul was telling Peter his doing of the work of the law effectively reinstated the law. Where the law is reinstated alongside the work of Christ, Christ's doctrine is responsible for Peter's breaking of the law.
To the point of the OP, a significant aspect why Christ had to come was that Judaism got focused on these works.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You have omitted the most important part of this story. Here, let me add the rest, so we can more clearly understand what is happening.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they (Pharisees) were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were "of the circumcision". (Pharisees religion) 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

It was a commandment of men the Pharisees taught for doctrine, not to eat with or keep company with a Non-Jew.

It is important to understand these truths. Peter had repented from living in the commandments and traditions of the disobedient Jews, but was turning again, as Paul teaches, "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

I didn't omit anything. Peter was a hypocrite. I'm glad he repented later but Paul was right. Nothing you said changes anything. It is nothing more that nonsense from a carnal man that rejects the Lord Jesus Christ.

You don't care anything about Jesus Christ. All he is a means to an end for YOU!

I mean what mind do you have to have to actually say that Peter wasn't wrong and yet say he was wrong in the same statement. Double minded?

 

[praise_yeshua]

I found a different interpretation on the Antioch incident. The most plausible reason for Peter's separation was due to a report from James about a threat against Peter based in Jerusalem. (The general pressures might explain why Peter was suddenly in Antioch anyhow.) Peter's act of separation was then to improve his image to non-Christian Jews. This was the same behavior popular among with Judaism.
Verse 14 only presents the irony of reversed roles, not the problem.
Verses 15-16 only set up the point Paul makes in verses 17-18. I can only summarize the point for now. Paul indicates Peter's act of separation was doing this separation effectively like a work of the law. Paul was telling Peter his doing of the work of the law effectively reinstated the law. Where the law is reinstated alongside the work of Christ, Christ's doctrine is responsible for Peter's breaking of the law.
To the point of the OP, a significant aspect why Christ had to come was that Judaism got focused on these works.

So Paul was WRONG to confront Peter? Much less use it as evidence to a GROUP OF PEOPLE in an attempt to change them?

As if I have to state the obvious......If what you say is true, then Paul was really a evil sinner to confront Peter.

Read the narrative again. Paul accused Peter of living like Gentiles. (Which Peter did). Do I really need to show you how Peter lived like a Gentile. How about you actually study the life of Peter from the Scriptures. It wasn't just Antioch.

The way you evil teachers try to explain away the Truth of the Scripture is repulsive and proof of your need of repentance.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Peter is like everyone of us. Just because God called him to be an apostle doesn't change the fact he was still a broken man. The same is true of all those who claim Christianity.

There is no reason for this fake "pious" carnal view of Peter or even Paul that is used in your vain traditions.

Want to talk about Paul for a minute? I love the words of Paul. They are divine. So are the words of Peter. However, Paul made it clear that he wasn't sinless. That he hadn't been perfected.

Php 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
Php 3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Sin is "missing the mark".......

Whatsoever is not of faith is SIN...........................................
Read it again. Whatsoever that is not of faith is SIN...............................................

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Such an unrealistic view of the apostles is ridiculous. Sure. They were authoritative. However, there is no authority relative to being wrong.........

At a time when you should be teachers. You have need that one teach you again........

Having faith is not the absence of sin. Having faith doesn't make you always right in everything you do. In fact, faith in the forgiveness of God is essential to forgiveness. You MUST believe that God will forgive you because HE said HE WOULD.

 

[mikesw]

So Paul was WRONG to confront Peter? Much less use it as evidence to a GROUP OF PEOPLE in an attempt to change them?

As if I have to state the obvious......If what you say is true, then Paul was really a evil sinner to confront Peter.

Read the narrative again. Paul accused Peter of living like Gentiles. (Which Peter did). Do I really need to show you how Peter lived like a Gentile. How about you actually study the life of Peter from the Scriptures. It wasn't just Antioch.

The way you evil teachers try to explain away the Truth of the Scripture is repulsive and proof of your need of repentance.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. It does not relate to what I shared. Paul properly confronted Peter for his act of separation and showed how it was wrong. Paul's argument also reveals that the separation from gentiles represents a work of the law -- which is one problem of Judaism -- if not the central failure.
Paul acted properly and uses this account of Antioch to show that he consistently stood against works of the law being a requirement upon the followers of Jesus. Peter, however, seems to have acted out of fear but his solution was improper but was not really an action based on doctrine. I do show a problem of Judaism, especially when brought in contrast with Christ's grace that set people free from the burden of the law (and made more of a burden by the first century). I have then shared a problem of Judaism, which was an issue in view for this discussion.

I'm not aware of your general beliefs and trends in the discussions here. But your rebuke of me is ludicrous. I'm hoping it is because you bias has temporarily steered your interpretation of my point improperly rather than a true hostility to open discussion. It does seem that your forum name is indicating you are supportive of some form of Christianity, so you are not here just to tear people apart.

 

[Studyman]

I didn't omit anything.

Only what Peter actually did.

Peter was a hypocrite. I'm glad he repented later but Paul was right. Nothing you said changes anything. It is nothing more that nonsense from a carnal man that rejects the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes, Peter got carried away with dissimulation and hypocrisy. Thankfully he had a brother that pointed it out to him, to set him back on the right path. I'm quite sure Paul didn't tell him, "You don't Love God, you can't please God, you hate Jesus, You, You, You, You.

But to point out again what the Scriptures actually teach, Peter wasn't rebuked because he "reverted back" to obeying God's Commandments. He reverted back to living by the religious philosophies and traditions of the Pharisees, causing him to "Transgress God's Commandments".

Why this undeniable truth stirs up such anger and nastiness in your heart is beyond me.

You don't care anything about Jesus Christ. All he is a means to an end for YOU!

LOL,

Ya, Ya, ya, "PY", I don't love God, I don't care about Jesus, I reject the Jesus "of the Bible", bla, bla, bla, and on and on and on. Jesus said you were coming.

Nevertheless, it seems prudent to point out what actually happened with Peter. That is why there is a story written about it. How can you understand the story, if you omit the very thing Peter did?

I mean what mind do you have to have to actually say that Peter wasn't wrong and yet say he was wrong in the same statement. Double minded?

Of course, I never said Peter wasn't wrong. Not one time. You cannot find anything in my post to support another judgment you make against me. But you have to lie about others, it seems, in order to exalt yourself. This is not an uncommon trait, but there is treatment should you ever consider the beam in your own eye. I am happy to help you if you need.

But until then, if you can show me in my post, where I said, implied or suggested that Peter wasn't wrong, or that Paul's rebuke of Peter wasn't justified, please show me.

If you can't, then apologize for the lies you promote and become a new man. As it is written;

Eph. 4: 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. 25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I have no idea what you are talking about here. It does not relate to what I shared. Paul properly confronted Peter for his act of separation and showed how it was wrong. Paul's argument also reveals that the separation from gentiles represents a work of the law -- which is one problem of Judaism -- if not the central failure.
Paul acted properly and uses this account of Antioch to show that he consistently stood against works of the law being a requirement upon the followers of Jesus. Peter, however, seems to have acted out of fear but his solution was improper but was not really an action based on doctrine. I do show a problem of Judaism, especially when brought in contrast with Christ's grace that set people free from the burden of the law (and made more of a burden by the first century).

The excuse you reference concerning Peter having an attempt against his life is commonly used to show that Peter was only wrong at this very point in his life. Which is not true. Peter actually had a problem that it took many years to correct. I don't know if Peter ever really got over his issue with Gentiles. He was very much like Jonah was toward Nineveh.

He did not like the fact that Christ's death made Gentiles "joint heirs" with Christ. You can see in his own actions in the book of Acts. I can take you through it but do you really want know? I've meet few people that will actually go through the process to "see it". They are always putting up excuses. Always seeing "mankind" after Christ as "perfect Jews".

I'm not aware of your general beliefs and trends in the discussions here. But your rebuke of me is ludicrous. I'm hoping it is because you bias has temporarily steered your interpretation of my point improperly rather than a true hostility to open discussion. It does seem that your forum name is indicating you are supportive of some form of Christianity, so you are not here just to tear people apart.

Tell you what. Lump me in with those Unitarians (though I'm not a Unitarian) that go around the forum saying what they believe just like they believe it.

I told you the truth. You're not a teacher. The evidence is found in how easily you embrace this nonsense concerning Peter having a reason to do what he did. It is not a reason. It is an excuse.

Reasons are true.
Excuses are lies.

What do you believe about being a teacher? I bet you think God calls people to be teachers?????

Teachers are those that have learned of God through experience and qualify to teach others through the validity of their beliefs. Anyone in Christ can become a teacher. Anyone.

It takes the will of the "teacher" to grow in knowing God.

Look. You see me as being mean to you. I'm just telling you the truth. Take for it is.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Only what Peter actually did.

Not true at all. I included the Scriptures that provided the narrative. That details what he did.

Yes, Peter got carried away with dissimulation and hypocrisy. Thankfully he had a brother that pointed it out to him, to set him back on the right path. I'm quite sure Paul didn't tell him, "You don't Love God, you can't please God, you hate Jesus, You, You, You, You.

But to point out again what the Scriptures actually teach, Peter wasn't rebuked because he "reverted back" to obeying God's Commandments. He reverted back to living by the religious philosophies and traditions of the Pharisees, causing him to "Transgress God's Commandments".

Why this undeniable truth stirs up such anger and nastiness in your heart is beyond me.

Do I really have to state the obvious again.

If this was a "one time" event. Then Paul would have talked to him personally. The Scriptures demand it. Are you really that dense?

Paul rebuked HIM before ALL...... and then told all those in Galatia about it in A LETTER that we still have today. So every one can know about it.

Pay attention to what you read.

 

[mikesw]

The excuse you reference concerning Peter having an attempt against his life is commonly used to show that Peter was only wrong at this very point in his life. Which is not true. Peter actually had a problem that it took many years to correct. I don't know if Peter ever really got over his issue with Gentiles. He was very much like Jonah was toward Nineveh.

He did not like the fact that Christ's death made Gentiles "joint heirs" with Christ. You can see in his own actions in the book of Acts. I can take you through it but do you really want know? I've meet few people that will actually go through the process to "see it". They are always putting up excuses. Always seeing "mankind" after Christ as "perfect Jews".



Tell you what. Lump me in with those Unitarians (though I'm not a Unitarian) that go around the forum saying what they believe just like they believe it.

I told you the truth. You're not a teacher. The evidence is found in how easily you embrace this nonsense concerning Peter having a reason to do what he did. It is not a reason. It is an excuse.

Reasons are true.
Excuses are lies.

What do you believe about being a teacher? I bet you think God calls people to be teachers?????

Teachers are those that have learned of God through experience and qualify to teach others through the validity of their beliefs. Anyone in Christ can become a teacher. Anyone.

It takes the will of the "teacher" to grow in knowing God.

Look. You see me as being mean to you. I'm just telling you the truth. Take for it is.

Odd you figure you are lumped in with Unitarians. All I said is that I do not know your general views -- the stuff you share in this forum. I can understand your misunderstanding of the situation in Antioch. Your ideas on that do not diverge from the common proposals about the text. I can also see how you mistaken my point as Peter giving a "reason" for his separation. However, Peter does not provide a reason. Nor does the reason for his separation mean that his separation was an acceptable solution. Obviously Paul shows that Peter's response as wrong.
If you realize your reaction is mean and ill-conceived, you just have to correct your mindset and allow for reasonable debate instead of condemning people for sharing insights into scripture -- even if you disagree with them.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Odd you figure you are lumped in with Unitarians. All I said is that I do not know your general views -- the stuff you share in this forum.

It isn't odd at all. The context of what I wrote is right there in what I wrote. It is clear. Undeniable. The Unitarians here whatever they believe. I will do the same. I say things that are offensive. Not morally offensive but doctrinal offensive. However, I don't actually see any difference between doctrinal offense and moral offense. They are the same offense. The human mind has constructed this fantasy that you can say what you really believe while being morally unoffensive.

Humm....... I wonder why the apostles were murdered then.....

What people believe is important to them. There is no escape from offending you with what I say. I tell the Truth. I might not speak at all at times but when I do. I try my best to let it go just like it really is......

I will continue to do this regardless of what anyone thinks. That includes anyone. It has caused me much pain over the years but the Truth itself is offensive.

I can understand your misunderstanding of the situation in Antioch. Your ideas on that do not diverge from the common proposals about the text. I can also see how you mistaken my point as Peter giving a "reason" for his separation. However, Peter does not provide a reason. Nor does the reason for his separation mean that his separation was an acceptable solution. Obviously Paul shows that Peter's response as wrong.
If you realize your reaction is mean and ill-conceived, you just have to correct your mindset and allow for reasonable debate instead of condemning people for sharing insights into scripture -- even if you disagree with them.

Yeah. I offended you. You need to change. You should be offended.

Paul rebuked Peter before ALL. Care to deal with that fact or not? I bet you will not. So surprise me.

 

[mikesw]

It isn't odd at all. The context of what I wrote is right there in what I wrote. It is clear. Undeniable. The Unitarians here whatever they believe. I will do the same. I say things that are offensive. Not morally offensive but doctrinal offensive. However, I don't actually see any difference between doctrinal offense and moral offense. They are the same offense. The human mind has constructed this fantasy that you can say what you really believe while being morally unoffensive.

Humm....... I wonder why the apostles were murdered then.....

What people believe is important to them. There is no escape from offending you with what I say. I tell the Truth. I might not speak at all at times but when I do. I try my best to let it go just like it really is......

I will continue to do this regardless of what anyone thinks. That includes anyone. It has caused me much pain over the years but the Truth itself is offensive.



Yeah. I offended you. You need to change. You should be offended.

Paul rebuked Peter before ALL. Care to deal with that fact or not? I bet you will not. So surprise me.

You effectively are saying that you are unable to debate and discuss scripture in case your perception and beliefs on a passage are not as true and accurate as your guess would make it seem. Should we even go as far as pointing out how you misconstrue what I have said even to the point of you saying I have denied Paul's confrontation with Peter? When you misunderstand my simple statements, how are you going to defend that you understand the text properly? It seems you just want to brawl rather than refine understanding of scripture.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You effectively are saying that you are unable to debate and discuss scripture in case your perception and beliefs on a passage are not as true and accurate as your guess would make it seem. Should we even go as far as pointing out how you misconstrue what I have said even to the point of you saying I have denied Paul's confrontation with Peter? When you misunderstand my simple statements, how are you going to defend that you understand the text properly? It seems you just want to brawl rather than refine understanding of scripture.

Did you actually participate in this discussion we just had? I am more than capable of discussing this with you.

Do you remember that "bet". I "bet" that you would NOT rightfully recognize that Paul rebuked Peter before them ALL. This is absolute proof that this wasn't the first time Peter "hated" on Gentiles.

One of the first times was early in the book of Acts.

Act 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

The witness was true. Peter (along with all the disciples) neglected the Grecian widows in the church at Jerusalem.

Do you know what Peter's answer was?????

Don't trouble me with this. Pick you someone else to deal with these issues.

Exact words........

Act 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Tradition has it that this was "good"...... It was good for the those being offended but it certainly wasn't good for Peter. Peter had forgotten that he was a servant.

Such is true today. Men like yourself are not looking to serve. You're looking to be served.

Jesus washed Peter's feet. The very Son of God.... washed Peter's feet and here is Peter "shifting the responsibility" of service to others. It pleased God because OTHERS got to serve that were faithful to the Grecians. Which is what really mattered at that time.

It definitely wasn't good for Peter. Nor was it good for the disciples and the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. How many Gentiles do you think died after the death of Christ without the Gospel?????

Now... Since you believe you are leader of the blind. A teacher.

Tell me why they shouldn't have dealt with the issue of hatred toward Gentiles at that very moment? Cowardness?

Whatever you come up with.... there is no excuse for denying every Gentile equal rights to Christ and ALL Christ has to give.

 

[mikesw]

Wow. You misquote me and you are showing a bias against these first-century followers of Christ.

Peter is not shown anywhere as hating gentiles. His separation preceding Acts 10 was based on what he was told by Jewish laws about gentiles being unclean. An analogy could be that he loved bacon but avoided it because of the Mosaic law. This idea should not exclude the possibility that many Jews could have hated gentiles at that time. But for specific persons, you would have to show evidence.

You really have missed how Peter was doing fine among Jews and gentiles in Antioch. It was just a certain encounter that led him to separate from them. Paul does not even share views of the situation from the gentiles' perspective. The gentiles could even have sympathized with Peter's behavior. However they may have perceived the situation, it was not the focus here.

It really seems that you have taken an unwarranted view about these first-century Jewish Christians (if not including all Jews of all time). That only leads to your self-destruction. As to others, it just appears divisive. Your obligation is to be at peace with others inasmuch as possible.

I have no idea what you mean by throwing unrelated verses into this discussion. You need to really back off from your vitriol. If you want to be convincing in the forum, you have to get beyond name calling.

 

[Dizerner]

Peter sinned in Gal. 2, but he repented.

That's the Christian life.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Wow. You misquote me and you are showing a bias against these first-century followers of Christ.

You're still losing that bet.....

Why are you ignoring the fact Paul corrected Peter before everyone? Why? You're full of excuses..... teachers don't have excuses.

Peter is not shown anywhere as hating gentiles.

Sure he is. He did not repent of neglecting the Grecians. Where did he repent openly about neglecting the Grecians? Please show us all.

If you insist Peter wasn't part of it.... then why didn't Peter rebuke those who did?

I don't expect you to actually deal with these facts. You're not a teacher.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Peter sinned in Gal. 2, but he repented.

That's the Christian life.

You're more reasoned than these others.

Show me where Peter repented in the narrative for this event?

In fact, this is probably one of the reasons that Paul had to tell others about the event in his letter.

So again. Show me where Peter repented. Not assumptions. Facts.

 

[Dizerner]

You'd probably get better engagement if you didn't order people around, seriously.

Just saying.

 

[mikesw]

You're more reasoned than these others.

Show me where Peter repented in the narrative for this event?

In fact, this is probably one of the reasons that Paul had to tell others about the event in his letter.

So again. Show me where Peter repented. Not assumptions. Facts.

For the sake of others who might read this ...
The passage was not designed to show the complete sequence of events and any correction by Peter. The passage functionally is to contribute to seeing Paul's consistency in standing against works of the law. If we fail to recognize Paul's purpose, we can be a backseat driver and try to tell Paul what he should have included in his account.