Paul said he was given the g of the uncircumcision, while Peter was given the Gospel of circumcision

Davy said:

I think all that is a bit too much speculation, and doesn't really address the ten lost tribes issue in relation to flesh circumcision.

Click to expand...

What is your take on James'—who had the "g" of the circumcision—opening address in his letter "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad"? I looked up some commentaries and they were interesting.

Davy said:

I think all that is a bit too much speculation, and doesn't really address the ten lost tribes issue in relation to flesh circumcision.

Click to expand...

I really dont want to get into a tribe discussion, you had brought it up. I said you could be correct and that I did not know I do not look into the whole tribe thing, but extended a courtousy to you at the start and asked if you would rather me call them "the circumcision" if its bothering you (for the sake of the discussion).

The last part of my comments is the only place where the age of children are shown by Paul to be circumcised (as the Jew that he was) and where he also counted it for dung, so whether that place is what you are calling speculatory (or not) you were not specific at all, but its all I have to go on if looking for the charge against him (in his own words) in his epistles.

2BeholdHisGlory said:

I really dont want to get into a tribe discussion, you had brought it up.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I kind of noticed that. Yet that was the subject of my previous post that you responded to.

I said you could be correct and that I did not know I do not look into the whole tribe thing, but extended a courtousy to you at the start and asked if you would rather me call them "the circumcision" if its bothering you (for the sake of the discussion).

Click to expand...

Doesn't really bother me what others call the ten lost tribes. God's Word is plain enough about their history, and their final establishing under Christ. Others can listen to man, I'll keep to God's Word.

The last part of my comments is the only place where the age of children are shown by Paul to be circumcised (as the Jew that he was) and where he also counted it for dung, so whether that place is what you are calling speculatory (or not) you were not specific at all, but its all I have to go on if looking for the charge against him (in his own words) in his epistles.

Click to expand...

OK, I break your previous post down with what I'm talking about.

But you really should... understand about the history of the nation of Israel per God's Word, if you really want to know Paul's real views with their relation in The Gospel and circumcision.

I should understand alot more of the things other people want me to understand, like more about circumcisions, like more about universalisms, and like more tribes and many more, but there is only so many hours in a day and other topics which are more desirable will often take precedence. Theres nothing worse then taking up a discussion on something you have no interest in at a time when that interest isnt sparked in you. I learn better and faster when I actually am.

But can continue for others sake if you would like but I need to call it quits on this thread, theres nothing left for me here.

2BeholdHisGlory said:

You could probably be correct because I don't follow the whole tribe thing, but I try to separate more between who was bringing up the issue and it was those from Judaea (who believed) which were telling the Gentiles that except they be circumcised after the manner of Moses they cannot be saved (and that by Christ, a minister of the circumcision).

Click to expand...

Those Jews who raised the Gentiles needing to be circumcised was from a group of Pharisee converts. It was not an issue that the original disciples had started.

Acts 15:5
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, "That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
KJV

Per the Book of Galatians, Paul had to contend with some of those Pharisee converts that going around spying on Gentiles to see if they were circumcised. So there's a lot more going on there than Jews in general at Jerusalem wanting Gentiles to be circumcised. It was a specific group of Judaizers behind that. So just applying that to all the believing Jews there is speculation. It also reveals lack of Bible understanding about the subject of the crept in unawares of Jude.

It was they of Judaea (which I call Jews there, perhaps the circumcision would be better?) both of which Paul was (who was a Jew, circumcised the 8th day and of the tribe of Benjamin). In the first picture these same (which believed) are trying to get the Gentiles to become circumcised after the manner of Moses (as they are) and its these Paul was disputing with them on this point (and when taken to James and the elders) they sided with Paul as being correct, they never received any commandment (from them) to run with that message (as Jesus said believe and be baptized not believe and be circumcized) they are already are, however even here is a truth that even before the Gentiles were baptized they were also given the Holy Ghost before doing so.

Click to expand...

Yes, and it was Peter who first spoke out against those Pharisee converts among them (Acts 15:7-11).

The second picture is where James own words from Acts 15 come up again is in Acts 21:25 where just before that its James again telling Paul what these other Jews were informed with respects to what Paul taught concerning the Jews (among the Gentiles) not in respects to the Gentiles (this time). And that pertained to Paul teaching against their customs in respects to Jews not circumcising their own children at 8 days old. I just have not read anything about Paul demanding that Jews stop having their children circumcised but I also do not see him advocating it either because Paul himself was circumcised at 8 days old but he counts his own circumcision that way as nothing. Unless ofcourse that is what was really getting under their skin, was that he counted his own childhood circumcision as dung?

If you counted it for "something" and he regarded it "as nothing " and dung you might be a little ticked off too

Click to expand...

Paul was very plain about the role of flesh circumcision under Christ Jesus...

Gal 5:1-6
5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
KJV

Flesh circumcision as a requirement for Jews is STILL saying that circumcision is necessary to be saved under Christ. It is of following the law. It is saying keeping the law for the Jews (who never could truly keep it) is needed for them to be saved.

That clearly is NOT James' idea, nor any of the Apostles, especially not Paul either as easily shown above. And that... is where your speculation is towards your claim of not seeing anywhere that Paul said the Jews shouldn't do it. Just because he didn't tell Jews NOT... to do it doesn't omit the Jews from Paul's teaching above, especially in Galatians 2 about those Pharisee converts who were trying to require circumcision to be saved under Christ...

Gal 2:3-6
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
KJV

Thus requirements of circumcision represents "bondage" to the law, NOT "our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus". So no Jew under Christ Jesus is required to be circumcised, even though it has been proven to be a healthy practice.

Davy said:

Those Jews who raised the Gentiles needing to be circumcised was from a group of Pharisee converts. It was not an issue that the original disciples had started.

Acts 15:5
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, "That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
KJV

Per the Book of Galatians, Paul had to contend with some of those Pharisee converts that going around spying on Gentiles to see if they were circumcised. So there's a lot more going on there than Jews in general at Jerusalem wanting Gentiles to be circumcised. It was a specific group of Judaizers behind that. So just applying that to all the believing Jews there is speculation. It also reveals lack of Bible understanding about the subject of the crept in unawares of Jude.

Click to expand...

See post #190 I had posted this verse

Davy said:

Yes, and it was Peter who first spoke out against those Pharisee converts among them (Acts 15:7-11).

Click to expand...

Yes after the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter and when there had been much disputing Peter rose up to speak about the matter, but why that is important here is beyond me.

Davy said:

Paul was very plain about the role of flesh circumcision under Christ Jesus...

Gal 5:1-6
5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
KJV

Click to expand...

Posted this as well in the first part post #217

Davy said:

Flesh circumcision as a requirement for Jews is STILL saying that circumcision is necessary to be saved under Christ. It is of following the law. It is saying keeping the law for the Jews (who never could truly keep it) is needed for them to be saved.

Click to expand...

Posted the same in post # 219

Davy said:

That clearly is NOT James' idea, nor any of the Apostles, especially not Paul either as easily shown above. And that... is where your speculation is towards your claim of not seeing anywhere that Paul said the Jews shouldn't do it.

Click to expand...

Where is my speculation? Does not James say to Paul this...?

Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

Acts 21:22-24 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

Davy said:

Just because he didn't tell Jews NOT... to do it doesn't omit the Jews from Paul's teaching above, especially in Galatians 2 about those Pharisee converts who were trying to require circumcision to be saved under Christ...

Click to expand...

There are no men that are uncircumcised among the Jews at that time thats what they did to the children back then these already circumcised men were going after the Gentiles that were uncircumcised (not Jews) and convinced them they could not be saved unless they became like them (circumcised in their flesh)

Paul fought them, and did not preach it

Gal 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

Davy said:

Gal 2:3-6
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
KJV

Thus requirements of circumcision represents "bondage" to the law, NOT "our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus". So no Jew under Christ Jesus is required to be circumcised, even though it has been proven to be a healthy practice.

Click to expand...

I already posted on this also not only mentioning Titus who was not compelled to be (by these virtue signallers) but Paul also circumcising Timotheus in Acts 16:3 order to gain to Jews in certain quarters where they were going, and I did so on the bottom part of post #194

Who said Jews are required by Christ to be circumcised?

Can you at least adress me on things I said incorrectly, the back and forths on nothings really are tedious and something I am not partial to when having to say, "I posted on that, I posted on that" and the only thing I did not post on was who was the first to speak (which is a little ridiculous to make that an issue). Thats strange

One last post and I am done here I have other things to do.

Davy said:

Flesh circumcision as a requirement for Jews is STILL saying that circumcision is necessary to be saved under Christ. It is of following the law. It is saying keeping the law for the Jews (who never could truly keep it) is needed for them to be saved.

That clearly is NOT James' idea

Click to expand...

I am curious, how did you conclude that James believed that physical circumcision was not required from Jewish believers?

Especially after you read what he told Paul to do in Acts 21:18-25, as well as his famous James 2:14 onwards?

Are you saying James do not believe what Genesis 17:14 clearly stated to every Jew brought up in the OT?

Is there a scripture you are using or are you just holding that as a doctrine?

2BeholdHisGlory said:

Who said Jews are required by Christ to be circumcised?

Click to expand...

Have you not heard of Genesis 17:14?

As I already stated in Paul said he was given the g of the uncircumcision, while Peter was given the Gospel of circumcision ,

Christ never told the 12, not even after the cross, that the Law has been nailed to the cross. That was a mystery to be revealed to Paul by the ascended Christ later on (Galatians 1:11-12)

So there is no need for an explicit verse where Jesus stated to Israel "You are to be physically circumcised", it is understood that Genesis 17:14 continue to hold for all of them.

Guojing said:

Have you not heard of Genesis 17:14?

As I already stated in Paul said he was given the g of the uncircumcision, while Peter was given the Gospel of circumcision ,

Christ never told the 12, not even after the cross, that the Law has been nailed to the cross. That was a mystery to be revealed to Paul by the ascended Christ later on (Galatians 1:11-12)

So there is no need for an explicit verse where Jesus stated to Israel "You are to be physically circumcised", it is understood that Genesis 17:14 continue to hold for all of them.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty much done here Guojing like I said but yes I have heard of Genesis 17:14 even before

Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

There is the the flesh of the foreskin of your heart shown also

Deut 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Gen 17:24 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

Paul (circumcised the 8th day also) acknowledges Abrahams circumcision, here

Romans 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

Romans 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Romans 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Col 2:12 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

I'm glad I don't have a penis is all I have to say, I'll let you boys talk about what you want to do with your stuff (amongst yourselves).

2BeholdHisGlory said:

I'm pretty much done here Guojing like I said but yes I have heard of Genesis 17:14 even before

Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

There is the the flesh of the foreskin of your heart shown also

Deut 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Gen 17:24 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

Paul (circumcised the 8th day also) acknowledges Abrahams circumcision, here

Romans 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

Romans 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Romans 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Col 2:12 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

I'm glad I don't have a penis is all I have to say, I'll let you boys talk about what you want to do with your stuff (amongst yourselves).

Click to expand...

So you are saying that you believe Genesis 17:14 is actually referring to heart circumcision and not physical circumcision?

If your answer is yes, then we can move on. I respect your different interpretation of Genesis 17:14.

We are not Jews here by the way, so thankfully, that is irrelevant to all of us here.

2BeholdHisGlory said:

Yes after the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter and when there had been much disputing Peter rose up to speak about the matter, but why that is important here is beyond me.

Click to expand...

Really, you don't know why what Peter said in Acts 15:7-11 is important to this? This is why it's important to this topic...

Acts 15:9-11
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
KJV

By that Peter put the whole subject of circumcision in perspective to Christ's Salvation, i.e., that flesh circumcision has NO bearing whatsoever on being saved, which of course is what Paul taught also. And that's really the END of it.

So if you want to continue to say flesh circumcision is a requirement for Jews to be saved, then that is nothing but your own 'personal' doctrine, for it is NOT a requirement for Jews to be saved by Jesus Christ. Faith on Jesus Christ is... a requirement for Jews, and for Gentiles. No one will be justified by the law, but by Faith.

Guojing said:

I am curious, how did you conclude that James believed that physical circumcision was not required from Jewish believers?

Especially after you read what he told Paul to do in Acts 21:18-25, as well as his famous James 2:14 onwards?

Are you saying James do not believe what Genesis 17:14 clearly stated to every Jew brought up in the OT?

Is there a scripture you are using or are you just holding that as a doctrine?

Click to expand...

Per Apostle Peter...

Acts 15:9-11
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
KJV

Can you show James saying Jews must be circumcised to be saved by Christ Jesus?? No, you cannot. So why are you supporting flesh circumcision to be saved like those rebellious Pharisee Jew converts?

Gal 2:3-5
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
KJV

Acts 15:5
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
KJV

Acts 15:5
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
KJV

What some here obviously fail to grasp, is that those Pharisee converts weren't just interested in teaching the falsehood that circumcision is required to be saved, but also keeping the law of Moses. So that means basically the 'bondage' to the old covenant which Christ nailed to His cross!

Under Christ the keeping of the law is not what saves us, neither does flesh circumcision. To say it still is required for Jews only is STILL saying the 'old covenant' is still in effect, and that Jesus did not offer Jews The New Covenant. It's that simple.

Guojing said:

This picture might help you understand the difference between the 2 gospels

View attachment 297230

Click to expand...

Wow! What a great example of dividing things which the NT presents as the same into two or more things alleged to be different.

It is a characteristic of dispensationalism, as in
two second comings,
two first resurrections,
two last trumpets,
two bodies of Christ,
two temporal Messianic kingdoms,
two final world battles,
two final judgments,
two churches, one the body of Christ, and one not,
two gospels, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles,
two new covenants, one of law keeping, and one not.
and more to come for sure. . .etc., etc., etc.

They haven't yet split salvation, faith, new birth, Jesus, grace, justification, righteousness, etc. . .stay tuned.

Dispensationalism must multiply events and things which are the same so as not to contradict the NT's location of these events with the coming of Jesus at the end of time.

Davy said:

Really, you don't know why what Peter said in Acts 15:7-11 is important to this? This is why it's important to this topic...

Acts 15:9-11
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
KJV

By that Peter put the whole subject of circumcision in perspective to Christ's Salvation, i.e., that flesh circumcision has NO bearing whatsoever on being saved, which of course is what Paul taught also. And that's really the END of it.

So if you want to continue to say flesh circumcision is a requirement for Jews to be saved, then that is nothing but your own 'personal' doctrine, for it is NOT a requirement for Jews to be saved by Jesus Christ. Faith on Jesus Christ is... a requirement for Jews, and for Gentiles. No one will be justified by the law, but by Faith.

Click to expand...

Not emphasizing the importance of who spoke first at Jerusalem after Paul's dispute with those who come down from Judaea verses getting their sentence on the matter is not "not understanding" its trying to shorten very long posts where I am able. And you are an example as to why you should not shorten a post because you seem to want to jump in whenever the obvious is missing, or a WORD concerning who they were (so you can get into the whole tribes thing) which is why I asked if it was better for you if I just said circumcision so that maybe you can get past fewer words a little. Been on these kinds of threads for ever, and posted on Peter being first to open his mouth (I think thats well established) so not posting who opened their God given lips first in this is neither here nor there, whats important is what was said, what was agreed upon and sent out from them concerning these things.

Its being petty.

Davy said:

Really, you don't know why what Peter said in Acts 15:7-11 is important to this? This is why it's important to this topic...

Acts 15:9-11
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
KJV

By that Peter put the whole subject of circumcision in perspective to Christ's Salvation, i.e., that flesh circumcision has NO bearing whatsoever on being saved, which of course is what Paul taught also. And that's really the END of it.

So if you want to continue to say flesh circumcision is a requirement for Jews to be saved, then that is nothing but your own 'personal' doctrine, for it is NOT a requirement for Jews to be saved by Jesus Christ. Faith on Jesus Christ is... a requirement for Jews, and for Gentiles. No one will be justified by the law, but by Faith.

Click to expand...

Yes peter said that, but I was asking about James.

The one in charge of the Jewish believers, by the time acts 15, was James and not peter.

Notice James conclusion at the end of the council only exempted the gentile believers, and not the Jews? This was confirmed by what James stated in acts 21:18-25.

Or are U assuming that because peter happen to say that, James automatically must be saying the same thing, even though scripture was clear that he was saying something else?

Davy said:

Acts 15:5
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
KJV

What some here obviously fail to grasp, is that those Pharisee converts weren't just interested in teaching the falsehood that circumcision is required to be saved, but also keeping the law of Moses. So that means basically the 'bondage' to the old covenant which Christ nailed to His cross!

Under Christ the keeping of the law is not what saves us, neither does flesh circumcision. To say it still is required for Jews only is STILL saying the 'old covenant' is still in effect, and that Jesus did not offer Jews The New Covenant. It's that simple.

Click to expand...

2BeholdHisGlory said:

Gal 6:13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

Click to expand...

2BeholdHisGlory said:

Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
-
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Click to expand...

Davy said:

Can you show James saying Jews must be circumcised to be saved by Christ Jesus?? No, you cannot. So why are you supporting flesh circumcision to be saved like those rebellious Pharisee Jew converts?

Click to expand...

As I already stated to you here in Paul said he was given the g of the uncircumcision, while Peter was given the Gospel of circumcision ,

Christ never told the 12, not even after the cross, that the Law has been nailed to the cross. That was a mystery to be revealed to Paul by the ascended Christ later on (Galatians 1:11-12)

So there is no need for an explicit verse where James or Jesus stated to Israel "You are to be physically circumcised", it is understood that Genesis 17:14 continue to hold for all of them.

Jesusfann777888 said:

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

What? How does this even make sense?

did Paul worship the same Jesus?

Click to expand...

The difference is that Paul was to bring the Gospel message to the Gentiles while Peter was to bring it to the Jews. Please pray on this.