Some more questions..

Also Lyle, no Pope is above rebuke, St. Catherine of Siena is the most famous example, but neither St. Catherine, nor St. Paul denied the Popes authority when they rebuked him.

Also consider that the prophet Nathan rebuked King David (2 Sm 12:1-14) and it did not change the fact that David was King.

geocajun said:

There is nothing objectivly wrong with that behavior mind you - but given the circumstances it would seem to imply that a gentile convert would need to be circumsized. This was not the case, so St. Paul opposed St. Peter on those grounds.

Click to expand...

BINGO!

Thats what I was driving at but you hit the nail on the head and explained it far better than I.

J.M.J.
plainswolf

plainswolf said:

BINGO!

Thats what I was driving at but you hit the nail on the head and explained it far better than I.

J.M.J.
plainswolf

Click to expand...

Whats more, is that St. Paul himself behaved like a Jew whenever the circumstances indicated that it would help win converts.

He explains why here -
1 Cor 9:20 "To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law--though I myself am not under the law--to win over those under the law."

St. Paul was clever and knew how to interpret circumstances to win over converts, and to ensure that his actions did not give chance for scandal. In the case of St. Peter refusing to eat with the uncircumsized converts, St. Paul keenly saw that this behavior, coupled with St. Peters authority would raise questions among the uncircumsized.

geocajun said:

Whats more, is that St. Paul himself behaved like a Jew whenever the circumstances indicated that it would help win converts.

He explains why here -
1 Cor 9:20 "To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law--though I myself am not under the law--to win over those under the law."

St. Paul was clever and knew how to interpret circumstances to win over converts, and to ensure that his actions did not give chance for scandal. In the case of St. Peter refusing to eat with the uncircumsized converts, St. Paul keenly saw that this behavior, coupled with St. Peters authority would raise questions among the uncircumsized.

Click to expand...

Not to mention among the uncircumcised as well . . .

Skripper said:

Not to mention among the uncircumcised as well . . .

Click to expand...

isnt that what I said?

geocajun said:

isnt that what I said?

Click to expand...

Ooops! You did indeed! Reverse what I said. I meant "circumcised."

Skripper said:

Ooops! You did indeed! Reverse what I said.

Click to expand...

". . . llew sa desicmusricnu the gnoma noitnem ot toN"

much better!

LOL! Yes, it makes much more sense that way!

ZooMom said:

LOL! Yes, it makes much more sense that way!

Click to expand...

I don't think Dave got it.

That's supposed to be Shelb's line.

Scary.

ZooMom said:

That's supposed to be Shelb's line.

Scary.

Click to expand...

wow, you're right! that is scary!

geocajun said:

I don't think Dave got it.

Click to expand...

ZooMom said:

That's supposed to be Shelb's line.

Scary.

Click to expand...

Oh no! This can't be happening! I must be having a nightmare . . . somebody wake me up!!! :o

Forgot to take your medicine, didn't you, Dave?

You know topics like this, that arise either because of trolls or honest inquiry, this also serves to help many Catholics understand certain points of their Faith better.

J.M.J.
plainswolf

plainswolf said:

You know topics like this, that arise either because of trolls or honest inquiry, this also serves to help many Catholics understand certain points of their Faith better.

J.M.J.
plainswolf

Click to expand...

agreed, and it also helps those of us who never leave OBOB keep our apologetics skills up

Bump . . .

Sorry to ressurrect a thread that is already on a ventilator . . . . . . but something just occurred to me regarding the nature of the argument presented here about Peter's "teaching" being "wrong." First I would like to point out that that premise and conclusion has already been shown to be incorrect, since Peter was not rebuked by Paul for anything he taught but rather his hypocritical personal behavior. However, some Christians don't see it that way. They actually do believe that Peter was rebuked for false teaching. Since this is the case, consider the implications of this.

Since some Christians obviously do believe this . . . wow. If it were true, it would mean that there was disagreement regarding doctrine, even dogma, among the apostles. Moreover, it would mean that at least one (and possibly more?) apostles somehow "got it wrong" and were actually teaching false doctrine . . . even though they were personally taught by Christ Himself. Now, consider the implications of that.

It would mean that it is left up to today's individual Christians to determine which Apostle got it "right" and which got it "wrong." And what are the implications of that? Who would that place, (once again, for those who subscribe to this), in the seat of final authority regarding what is and isn't "true" Christian teaching? The individual Christian. The individual Christian then, at least tacitly, assumes for himself/herself the place of final arbiter of Christian truth, even over and above (at least what he/she perceives to be) the teaching of an actual Apostle of Jesus.

And if said individual claims that this isn't so, that he/she is claiming no such authority, and that in fact he/she is deferring to the "Holy Spirit," well, that opens another door, doesn't it? Along with another can of worms. Because it would have to mean that the "Holy Spirit" is, in a sense, guiding him/her to "correct" teaching even over and above, and "more" so than He did and actual desciple and Apostle of Jesus Christ.

The end result would be (and often is) chaos. At least doctinally, among various Christians. Because it would mean, ultimately, that the individual Christian would, personally, not only determine what is "true" but would also, by default, be forced to admit that anyone that disagreed with them, even an Apostle personally taught by Jesus Himself, was "wrong," at least insofar as what the Apostle taught is at odds with what the individual Christian perceives to be "right."

This would result not only in chaos, but would in effect render the teachings of any Apostles suspect . . . if percieved to be in conflict with whatever is believed to be "true" as determined by today's individual Christian. And if that isn't assuming for the self a tremendous personal authority . . . then I just can't imagine what is.

You are absolulely right Skripper. And if you add to that Lyle's current situation it becomes self destructive.

If one understands the passage incorrectly because they are relying on their own understanding, and they believe that Peter was teaching in error, then they would have to assume that his epistles could be in error as well. Since they have no way of knowing exactly when Peter wrote those epistles or whether they were approved by Paul (who is now the apparent authority) then how could you read them with any conviction. Certainly you would not be able to lean on the canonization process that determined their inclusion in the Bible in the first place since that is a product of the Church founded by the very man you no longer trust. A conundrum I would say. Perhaps he could, like Luther, just rip out 1Peter and 2Peter...but then again, there are many references in the other epistles to Peter's teaching and of course there is the whole Gospel of Mark that is commonly understood to be the teachings of Peter regarding the life of Christ....well dump that too. The man can't be trusted!

Maggie893 said:

You are absolulely right Skripper. And if you add to that Lyle's current situation it becomes self destructive.

If one understands the passage incorrectly because they are relying on their own understanding, and they believe that Peter was teaching in error, then they would have to assume that his epistles could be in error as well. Since they have no way of knowing exactly when Peter wrote those epistles or whether they were approved by Paul (who is now the apparent authority) then how could you read them with any conviction. Certainly you would not be able to lean on the canonization process that determined their inclusion in the Bible in the first place since that is a product of the Church founded by the very man you no longer trust. A conundrum I would say. Perhaps he could, like Luther, just rip out 1Peter and 2Peter...but then again, there are many references in the other epistles to Peter's teaching and of course there is the whole Gospel of Mark that is commonly understood to be the teachings of Peter regarding the life of Christ....well dump that too. The man can't be trusted!

Click to expand...

Exactly. It would, and often does, then boil down to no more than, "Peter (or any other Apostle for that matter) is 'right' only insofar as he agrees with me . . . and 'wrong' when he doesn't." Of course, it would never be stated as such, but that is the underlying theme and practical reality.

You've also hit on another salient point. That being that too often everything takes a back seat to Paul's epistles. Even Jesus Himself in the Gospels. In other words, everything tends to be focused and viewed through the lens of one's personal interpretations and opinions regarding what one believes Paul to be teaching in his epistles. Paul's epistles, or more accurately one's personal opinions and interpretations of Paul's epistles, in the view of some, have somehow been elevated above all else in the Bible. Rather than viewing all the epistles, including Paul's, in light of and through the lens of Jesus' words in the Gospel's, the reverse is actually happening. Jesus' words are being viewed in light of and through the lens of Paul's epistles. Instead of the epistles being harmonized with the Gospels, the Gospels are being made to conform to personal interpretations of the epistles. This is backwards. It is perhaps the perfect quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog. And in the case of today's individual Christian personally making the call regarding what's "true" and what isn't, it's even more analogous to the flea wagging the tail, wagging the dog.

Skripper said:

Exactly. It would, and often does, then boil down to no more than, "Peter (or any other Apostle for that matter) is 'right' only insofar as he agrees with me . . . and 'wrong' when he doesn't." Of course, it would never be stated as such, but that is the underlying theme and practical reality.

You've also hit on another salient point. That being that too often everything takes a back seat to Paul's epistles. Even Jesus Himself in the Gospels. In other words, everything tends to be focused and viewed through the lens of one's personal interpretations and opinions regarding what one believes Paul to be teaching in his epistles. Paul's epistles, or more accurately one's personal opinions and interpretations of Paul's epistles, in the view of some, have somehow been elevated above all else in the Bible. Rather than viewing all the epistles, including Paul's, in light of and through the lens of Jesus' words in the Gospel's, the reverse is actually happening. Jesus' words are being viewed in light of and through the lens of Paul's epistles. Instead of the epistles being harmonized with the Gospels, the Gospels are being made to conform to personal interpretations of the epistles. This is backwards. It is perhaps the perfect quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog. And in the case of today's individual Christian personally making the call regarding what's "true" and what isn't, it's even more analogous to the flea wagging the tail, wagging the dog.

Click to expand...

And thus... Here is Protestism... and thus the wheel is constantly being re-invented... and thus more confusion...

I believe the Scriptures say that God is not God of confusion. Also Jesus promised that he would never leave us, nor forsake us... So, if there was no Leader of the Church and/thus no One Church under that one leader's authority... wouldn't that also mean that Jesus broke His promise? Wouldn't that mean that God is the God of confusion?

Thank God that Peter was the first Pope and the Leader of the Early Church and that Jesus gave him the keys to build his church. Thank God that Jesus did keep his promises too. We were not left without guidance. We were not left as sheep waiting to be slaughtered by wolves. Jesus gave us a shephard and Peter was his name.

God's Peace,

D'Ann

Oosp and sorry, I misspelled Protestantism.