OneInFundieville

It's necessary for Peter's character, the more Jewish-aligned Apostle, to have it both ways. To position the faith as both historically rooted but also to be acknowledged by those roots.

Rick Sumner

What makes you think Paul isn't "Jewish aligned?"

The dispute is about how we should define the "New Israel." It has nothing to do with being "more" or "less" Jewish.

dog-on

Paul, himself states that they shook hands on it.



(At least that is what the cannonical version of Galatians says... )

OneInFundieville

When the Gentile side of early Christianity needed to have Apostolic stories of the Jewish side of early Christianity giving validity to the Gentile side of early Christianity, the authors often placed those words into the mouth of Peter's character.

Rick Sumner

"Often?"

And when they do (ie food laws) what makes you think they put it in Peter's mouth because he's "Jewish aligned" rather than because of his stature?

Solo

G.K. Chesterton said that religion to function fully as religion, it has to be sybaritic. Peter evidently supplied that element. Chesterton also said - cleverly as always - that Jesus chose Peter to head his church because he knew that the chain was only as strong as its weakest link. With Paul having the show all to himself Christianity would have been so tight-a'saintly it could have hardly hoped for popular support. Peter provided assurance in the church that the expectations placed on the common believer would not be too high.

Jiri

OneInFundieville

By "Jewish" I'm most referring to the appeal to tradition.

The words attributed to Paul more so seem to appeal to the propheçý of that tradition in a "here's what they meant [to say] kind of way."

aa5874

But, how do the words found in the Pauline Epistles become automatically true?

What we have are contradictory statements in Acts and the Pauline Epistles. There are NO external corroborative sources for Acts or the Pauline Epistles.

And Acts of the Apostles promoted Saul/Paul ABOVE every single disciple, even Peter, the supposed bishop of Rome.

The author of Acts CLAIMED he traveled and preached with Paul and is the only canonised book to mention the conversion of Saul/Paul and gave detaled information about his post-conversion activities.

The evidence or information found in Acts shows that the author severly limited and eventually eliminated the 1st bishop of Rome, Peter from his book.

The author of ACTS eliminated Peter after Acts 15.11 to the very end, Acts 28.31. Peter vanished completely.

For almost 14 chapters, the author of Acts wrote almost entirely about his companion Paul and his activities all over the Roman Empire. The author mentioned Peter about 50 times, but refered to Saul/Paul about 150 times.

It cannot be shown that the author of Acts tried to limit the popularity of Paul, but that he elliminated Peter for about 14 chapters.

storytime

You haven't read about Peter's vision and how it was devised to change the Law of what was clean and unclean? The Gentiles were uncircumcised, "unclean". The Gentiles offered sacrifice[food] to idols. But Peter's vision said the Gentiles were acceptable to his Hebrew god.

I think "Acts of the Apostles" is myth and that myth became church history.

Paul rebuked Peter for hypocrisy; exposed Peter's hypocrisy to the other disciples in Peters presence. The argument wasn't about food laws. Peter was living in the manner of Gentiles while telling the Gentiles they needed to live as the Jews. The main topic of decention was circumcision. So what was Peter guilty of? He was telling the Gentiles that they could offer sacrifices to god while being uncircumcised. That was totally unacceptable to the Hebrew god. Paul fixed the problem by telling the Gentiles that they need not offer sacrifice in their uncircumcision due to Christ being their sacrifice.

Rick Sumner

This doesn't make much sense. Everything Paul is describing has Peter living in the manner of Jews. The entire description of the dispute indicates that Peter had given Paul the impression that the Gentile members would be accepted as equals, and that Peter would acknowledge and adhere to that. And then didn't.