Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

[Buzzard3]

The church in the first century were warned that the church would be torn apart by wolves.

Acts 20:28-30
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them.

If you check the church letters from the first three centuries. There were many issues that the church wrestled with. One of the main issues was legalism, the law. It was chaos.

In fact, the church creeds were written in an attempt to straighten out the churches. Have a look at the Nicene creed.

What's your point?

 

[Buzzard3]

There was a rift among the Jewish apostles and Paul. That is what the letter to the Galatians is all about. Paul versus Peter and James.

Once again, what's your point?

 

[Buzzard3]

It's a historical event. Jesus usually knows people before he meets them.

Why did Jesus give Simon the name "rock"?

Btw, Jesus is also called the "rock" in the NT. Coincidence?

 

[BNR32FAN]

You misunderstand the gravity of Peter's error.

Peter was listening to the circumcision, to the letter of the law, obeying the letter of the law.

Galatians 5:1-6
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery (the law). Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised (law), Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised (law), that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace.

Peter withdrew from eating with Gentiles as the law states. Peter was once again following the law.

Did Peter teach other Jews that they were not permitted to eat with the Gentiles? No he didn’t. Did Peter himself ever eat with the Gentiles? Yes he did. When did Peter not eat with the Gentiles? When the Jewish Christians were present. So your adaptation of Galatians 5 does not describe Peter’s actions in Galatians 2. Notice in Galatians 5 Paul specifically asks

“You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5:7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

If it were Peter who was guilty of this Paul wouldn’t have had to ask who was hindering them. Not to mention that Peter wasn’t rebuked for teaching obedience to the law or circumcision he was rebuked for being a hypocrite because when the Jewish Christians weren’t present he would eat with the Gentiles but when they were present, he wouldn’t.

 

[klutedavid]

Where did that "revelation" come from? The Holy Spirit, I would say.

Correct.

Regardless, you didn't answer my question:
Why did Paul go "by revelation" to the Jewish Church leaders in Jerusalem to have his preaching examined and then approved (Gal 2)?

This next paragraph will answer all your questions concerning the difference between the apostles. Those that walked with Jesus under the law in Jerusalem and Paul.

Galatians 2:2
Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 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 somehow I might be running, or had run, in vain. But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

There is a deeper point to this paragraph that you may miss, if you do not read it properly.

Paul had been an apostle for seventeen years. When Paul first became a Christian and an apostle which was three years before that period of fourteen years. Paul went to Jerusalem because God told Him to go for an obvious reason.

Paul knew the church in Jerusalem was following the law.

But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

Paul was not in Jerusalem to have His ministry approved, because Paul had been an apostle for seventeen years. Paul is condemning the entire church in Jerusalem, that church was circumcising their converts. The Jerusalem church was following the law. Paul knew what was going on but the Jerusalem church was not under His authority. Paul could not directly rebuke that church as it was a Jewish church.

5 But we did not yield in subjection to them, even for an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

Jesus had Paul in Jerusalem for a reason. To witness the legalism of the Jewish apostles. This issue of legalism would explode in Antioch with Peter.

Why did Paul need his preaching approved and what authority did Peter, James and John have to approve Paul's preaching?

Paul did not need his apostleship, his authority over the Gentile churches approved.

6 But from those who were of considerable repute (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism)—well, those who were of repute contributed nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised (Gentiles), just as Peter had been to the circumcised (the Jews)

It is clear now that Paul's authority, papal authority, over all Gentile churches was confirmed. By the Jewish apostles.

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that Paul was under the authority of the Church leaders in Jerusalem.

Incorrect. Paul was directly under the authority of Jesus and Paul was the pope of the Gentile churches. Later, Paul would directly condemn Peter in Antioch. Because Peter was entering a Gentile church and that was under Paul's authority.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Paul would directly condemn Peter in Antioch. Because Peter was entering a Gentile church and that was under Paul's authority.

When did this happen, in what verse?

 

[klutedavid]

Your claim makes no sense - why would Christ provide a temporary Church that provided infallible doctrine for a few years and then let it die out?

Your assuming wrongly that the church in Jerusalem was infallible. You only have to read chapter two of Galatians carefully. To understand that the Jerusalem church was under the law. Titus who was a Gentile resisted the pressure to be circumcised, when Titus visited with Paul. Paul even made the statement below.

3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

Paul witnessed the backslidden church in Jerusalem first hand. Then Paul makes the astounding statement regarding the apostles in Jerusalem.

5 But we did not yield in subjection to them, even for an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

What more needs to be said about Peter, James, and John?

 

[BNR32FAN]

5 But we did not yield in subjection to them, even for an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

Jesus had Paul in Jerusalem for a reason. To witness the legalism of the Jewish apostles. This issue of legalism would explode in Antioch with Peter.

This issue was brought about by the “false brethren” or “spies” he mentioned in the verse right before this verse, not Peter.

“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.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭2:4‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Peter was one of the false brethren secretly brought in? No if Peter had been one of these false brethren Paul would’ve mentioned him by name and included that in his rebuke of Peter.

 

[klutedavid]

When did this happen, in what verse?

Read the following paragraph from Galatians carefully.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing those from the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel

 

[BNR32FAN]

Your assuming wrongly that the church in Jerusalem was infallible. You only have to read chapter two of Galatians carefully. To understand that the Jerusalem church was under the law. Titus who was a Gentile resisted the pressure to be circumcised, when Titus visited with Paul. Paul even made the statement below.

3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

Paul witnessed the backslidden church in Jerusalem first hand. Then Paul makes the astounding statement regarding the apostles in Jerusalem.

5 But we did not yield in subjection to them, even for an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

What more needs to be said about Peter, James, and John?

This is about the Judaisers not about the apostles that’s why everyone was in agreement in Acts 15 without any squabble or debate. Your falsely accusing Peter, John, and James of practicing and teaching Judaism.

 

[klutedavid]

This issue was brought about by the “false brethren” or “spies” he mentioned in the verse right before this verse, not Peter.

“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.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭2:4‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Peter was one of the false brethren secretly brought in? No if Peter had been one of these false brethren Paul would’ve mentioned him by name and included that in his rebuke of Peter.

But Paul did mention the pope in Jerusalem. That is one of the remarkable points that Paul makes in Galatians 2.

If you do not understand Galatians 2, then keep reading that chapter, over and over, until you do.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing those from the circumcision.13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel

 

[klutedavid]

This is about the Judaisers not about the apostles that’s why everyone was in agreement in Acts 15 without any squabble or debate. Your falsely accusing Peter, John, and James of practicing and teaching Judaism.

Incorrect, you have not studied Galatians 2, that is clear.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing those from the circumcision.13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel

 

[klutedavid]

Did Peter teach other Jews that they were not permitted to eat with the Gentiles? No he didn’t. Did Peter himself ever eat with the Gentiles? Yes he did. When did Peter not eat with the Gentiles? When the Jewish Christians were present. So your adaptation of Galatians 5 does not describe Peter’s actions in Galatians 2. Notice in Galatians 5 Paul specifically asks

“You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5:7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

If it were Peter who was guilty of this Paul wouldn’t have had to ask who was hindering them. Not to mention that Peter wasn’t rebuked for teaching obedience to the law or circumcision he was rebuked for being a hypocrite because when the Jewish Christians weren’t present he would eat with the Gentiles but when they were present, he wouldn’t.

Peter was not straight forwarded about the truth of the gospel. Paul sided with the circumcision. Paul was telling the Gentiles to live like the Jews, i.e, to obey the law. That is heresy and blasphemy.

13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Peter was fallen from grace!!!!!

 

[klutedavid]

This is about the Judaisers not about the apostles that’s why everyone was in agreement in Acts 15 without any squabble or debate. Your falsely accusing Peter, John, and James of practicing and teaching Judaism.

Correction, Paul is the one accusing Peter of his error. That is why Paul mentions Peter in the letter to the Galatians. The pope in Jerusalem had fallen from grace, condemned.

 

[klutedavid]

This is about the Judaisers not about the apostles that’s why everyone was in agreement in Acts 15 without any squabble or debate. Your falsely accusing Peter, John, and James of practicing and teaching Judaism.

Some how you missed the point Paul is making to the Galatians. Don't trust the apostles in Jerusalem they are backslidden, condemned.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Read the following paragraph from Galatians carefully.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing those from the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel

Ive read that passage numerous times and already explained it. Peter was rebuked for being a hypocrite not for being a Judaiser. He feared persecution and ridicule from the Jewish Christians.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Correction, Paul is the one accusing Peter of his error. That is why Paul mentions Peter in the letter to the Galatians. The pope in Jerusalem had fallen from grace, condemned.

He mentioned what? That Peter refrained from eating with the Gentiles while the Jewish Christians were around. That’s what Peter was rebuked for.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Some how you missed the point Paul is making to the Galatians. Don't trust the apostles in Jerusalem they are backslidden, condemned.

Nowhere does Paul say that. Paul didn’t know who was teaching them to keep the law. That’s why he asked in Galatians 5:7 who hindered you from obeying the truth?

 

[klutedavid]

He mentioned what? That Peter refrained from eating with the Gentiles while the Jewish Christians were around. That’s what Peter was rebuked for.

I told you to go away and read Galatians 2, carefully.

 

[klutedavid]

Nowhere does Paul say that.

Oh yes he does.