Why did peter

[WPG12]

In the book of John, peter decides to go fishing. The other disciples decide to go with him. When one disciple realizes it is Jesus on the shore, peter puts his clothes on and jumps out of the boat. He abandoned the work he started and left others to finish the work he started. Not caring that the others wanted to see him just as bad as peter did. Peter was always impetious and selfish.

When the others finally got the nets to the shore, Jesus asked them to bring their catch to him, peter ran and took of the catch he abandoned to bring to them. Always taking credit for what he didn't do.

Jesus, knowing peter would be sent to that "other flock", the gentiles he was told to go to, and knowing peter would jump out of that boat, also. Admonishes him asking peter if peter loves him and telling peter to feed the sheep. The gentiles peter would be sent to would become, the "body of Christ" that peter was sent to, to do the work in feeding the flock. Peter always cared about what men thought of him, and always being disobedient, jumped out of that boat when "those who came from james" caused him to fall away.

How can it be said that Jesus was restoring peter to a position he never really had in the first place, and not admonishing Peter's selfishness and disobedience, warning him not to do what he had just done in abandoning his brothers and the work he started? Whole theologies are built on this story, and the idea that Jesus was putting peter in a place peter should never have been put.

If Jesus was rewarding Peter's selfish, impetious, disobedience then it cannot be said that Jesus was a just man.

[showme]

[Replying to marco]

Peter did come to understand, but then because he feared men he stepped off of that path, and got his feet dirty. Once Paul saw Peter was off track, he had to cut him off.

It is odd that Jesus saw hope and promise in Peter, but Paul didn't. The picture we have is of Paul being the intellectual, and knowing it, and Peter being a simpleton, but the chosen vessel. We can ally ourselves with Paul if we wish but I think the nicer story is of Jesus raising greatness from humility in Peter; of preaching that those rich in material wealth or intellectuality find the gate to heaven too narrow.

Peter, frightened, confused but moulded into an instrument of truth by Christ, is an example of Christ exalting the humble. Paul never saw Jesus; Peter was chosen, and lived with him. And if we have to judge people on past iniquities, Paul's crimes were darker than Peter's.

You are being over harsh.

You forget. Yeshua chose Judas Iscariot and Yeshua called Peter, "Satan" and a "stumbling block to me".. Both Judas and Peter were chosen to fill different Scripture/Word, and Peter and Paul, were the two "staffs" chosen to "pasture" the "flock doomed to slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7), which would be the "Christian" church, built on the foundation of Peter and Paul.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to marco]

Once Paul saw Petter was off track, he had to cut him off.

Paul corrected Peter on at least one occasion but there is no reason to presume Paul subseqently "cut Peter off" .

• [1] Their relationship seemed to be as solid as ever after this event as Peter later endorses Paul's letters to the Christain community refering to Paul as "our beloved brother" (2 Pet. 3:15), something that would have been unlikely had there been a permanent rift between them.
  
  [2] Also, writing after the event, Paul (who was never one to hesitate calling out wrongdoers when the need arose) in no way indicated that Peter should no longer be considered a faithful Apostle, in a position of leadership, on the contrary he spoke of him as a respected member of the Christian community exercising his rights as such (see 1 Cor 9:5).
  
  [3] Further it could be argued that had a serious and permanent rift occurred between two such prominent members of the community, this would have been reflected in some way in the Christian scriptures which is not the case. In short had Paul cut Peter off on scriptural grounds* there is no reason to believe he would not have recommended the Christian community to whom his letters were addressed, do the same.
  
  *NOTE The public nature of the reprimand clearly indicates it was a organisational/doctrinal matter rather than a personal disaccord (compare Acts 15:36-41)

To conclude that Paul cut off all contact with Peter because he saw the need to publically correct him is not only unsubstantiated in scripture but would have been counterproductive if Paul's primary goal in correcting Peter was to maintain Christian unity amongst believers. While Peter is indeed frequently corrected in scripture, he consistently shows a remarkable ability to take correction without holding a grudge. There is absolutely nothing in Paul's numerous letters to indicate the matter wasn't viewed as a regrettable but repairable incident and it seems reasonable then to suppose there was in fact no permanent damage to the relationship between the two men.



RELATED POSTS

Did Peter ever repent of denying Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 15#p932815

Was Peter's swimming to shore to greet the resurrected Jesus a sin?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 69#p932769

Was Peter the "rock" upon which the church was built?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p883113

Did Pauls confrontation with Peter represent a rift in the church?
viewtopic.php?p=1109774#p1109774

Did Paul go to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion to consult with the apostles?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 97#p374497

[WPG12]

[Replying to post 30 by marco]

Ok, show me where Paul was disobedient once he came out of the religion he faought so hard for, comparing them to the things Jesus taught.

I can show serveral things where you would have to completely dismiss what Jesus taught to justify peter, in fact I think I already have.

Peter was a chosen vessel, but not for the reason who are trying to make it sound like.

[showme]

[Replying to post 30 by marco]

Ok, show me where Paul was disobedient once he came out of the religion he faought so hard for, comparing them to the things Jesus taught.

I can show serveral things where you would have to completely dismiss what Jesus taught to justify peter, in fact I think I already have.

Peter was a chosen vessel, but not for the reason who are trying to make it sound like.

"Disobedient" to what? Paul created his own religion, with him as the leader and teacher. He even goes so far as to threaten angels who should not walk his line.

YHWH picked king Saul, who was big and handsome, and he picked Saul of Tarsus, who was short, fat and bald, yet both tried to hold up king David's kingdom. They both died, and are buried. Of the two, it is only Paul, as the demon spirit of the false prophet (Revelation 16:13), who has leaders to bring to Har-Magedon (Rev 16:16).

[WPG12]

[Replying to showme]

Where does he threaten angels who did not walk his line?

[showme]

[Replying to showme]

Where does he threaten angels who did not walk his line?

Give me a break. Have you even read Paul's supposed works. (Galatians 1:8)

[WPG12]

[Replying to showme]

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Galatians 1:6‭-‬10 KJV

Threatening angels, how do you see this as him making a threat?

[showme]

[Replying to showme]

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Galatians 1:6‭-‬10 KJV

Threatening angels, how do you see this as him making a threat?

The threat is to accurse any angel who should disagree with Paul's "another gospel". Of course, Paul is the one who was accursed by the gift given to him by Satan. Paul's followers are accursed as well in as much as they reject the gospel of Yeshua, and hold to the gospel preached by Paul. Each to his own.

[WPG12]

[Replying to showme]

Let the me accured, does not mean to curse. Bringing another gospel, they are already under a curse. Paul is just saying, leave them alone, and to the curse.

[showme]

[Replying to showme]

Let the me accured, does not mean to curse. Bringing another gospel, they are already under a curse. Paul is just saying, leave them alone, and to the curse.

It means for them, the angels, to be cursed if they don't go along with Paul's "another gospel". Not that Paul has the power to cause angels or men to be cursed, but by cursing them, who will not go along with Paul's "another gospel", Paul's curse comes upon himself, and therefore upon any that would follow Paul. They fall under the curse of the "mark of the beast", which is taking on "plagues" of the daughter of Babylon, and drinking from the cup of God's wrath. Paul and his followers are simply saying up is down and down is up, and the result is that they are the one's cursed. The angels will be the one's who gather out the lawless, and cast them into the fire, and they are fine (Matthew 13:39-41). It is the lawless, that have the problem.