stephan huller

We have learned, therefore, that through fear of the Jews both Peter and Paul alike pretended that they observed the precepts of the law. How could Paul have the assurance and effrontery to reprove in another what he had done himself? I at least, or, I should rather say, others before me, have given such explanation of the matter as they deemed best, not defending the use of falsehood in the interest of religion,1929 as you charge them with doing, but teaching the honourable exercise of a wise discretion; seeking both to show the wisdom of the apostles, and to restrain the shameless blasphemies of Porphyry, who says that Peter and Paul quarrelled with each other in childish rivalry, and affirms that Paul had been inflamed with envy on account of the excellences of Peter, and had written boastfully of things which he either had not done, or, if he did them, had done with inexcusable presumption, reproving in another that which he himself had done. They, in answering him, gave the best interpretation of the passage which they could find; what interpretation have you to propound? Surely you must intend to say something better than they have said, since you have rejected the opinion of the ancient commentators. [Jerome To Augustine Letter 75]

aeebee50

Also, seems like Paul did not like others. He was upset with John/Mark in Acts 15:36-41.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV. Paul libel to loose his ears quarreling with Peter.

la70119

You have that in Galatians, too. Where Paul takes Peter (or Cephas) down a notch or two in Antioch because of what happened there. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV

With Paul's spin on it, of course.

aa5874

When did those things happen??? Surely you should know that Acts of the Apostles is NOT Credible.

Using Acts of the Apostles as a history book is like using Genesis to re-construct the history of the human race.

aeebee50

About 396 to 410 A.D. would be my guess. There are a lot of people who love Acts and Paul, but I am still asking questions. I assume I will fall in the blasphemies of Porphyry, http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/gatatians.html. I use Genesis for the stories, but use facts for the history of the world.

sotto voce

Assuming that Genesis 1-11 is referred to, any who reckon to do otherwise need a basic course.

aeebee50

Yes. I need more than a basic course.

sotto voce

Don't just sit there.

aeebee50

It is easier to study and use my computer.

sotto voce

Perhaps it's easier to allege that early Genesis must be interpreted literally than to prove that it must.

:snooze: