Are Peter and James Apostates?

[SacredBishop]

Matthew 13 warns of enemies sowing tares into the kingdom of Heaven. Paul was Jesus's favorite Apostle, Acts 9:15. Galatians 2:11-14 condemn Peter and James for rejecting the Gentile Church, which is the true Church, thus Peter and James are Christ's enemies. Should we reject Peter and James books as heresy? Are Peter and James apostates?

[SacredBishop]

We (as usual) are only getting Paul's side of it. One only suspects, but it appears that Peter and doubtless James the apparent leader of the 'Saints' in Jerusalem, were looking like observant Jews, as Paul said, initially at least, obliged to observe the Law (later he said that Jesus freed even Jews from the Law), and there are issues of ritual cleanliness here. Which is evidence that they had either forgotten all the teachings of Jesus dismissing ritual cleanliness or they had never heard them.

I'm sure that our pal JW will have much to argue, but I'm convinced that it is is not Peter or James that were 'apostates' (at least from Judaism), but Paul, was more the apostate from Judaism.

I think that Acts (which I regard as no more than Luke's biographical fantasy, loosely based on Paul's letters with a drizzling of Josephus), reflects this wabbling between Jesus taught all foods clean and why Paul had to argue with Peter and James about it.. It isn't cut and dried as Paull (as I say) isn't too clear about it, but Luke shows his Interpretation of Reading of Paul's clues was that James was the totally Law - observant leader of the Nazorene church, though sympathetic to Paul as far as to put on a fraud to distract from the scandal of Paul teaching against circumcision. And the 'council of Jerusalem' has Peter acting like Paul's council for the defense, and not a mention of the squabble about eating with Gentiles.

I can anticipate the rebuttals; I have seen them before. But I just put it out there so at least people know of what looks like a dispute between Paul and the Jesus party about rites and doctrine, and the differences between (not to say adaptation of) what Paul has to say about these disagreements and how Acts shows it.

I find it peculiar that Paul casts shade on Peter for " compelling Gentiles to live as jews ", and a few verses later says " they compell you to be circumcised." Seems plain that Peter was compelling people to convert to Judaism. I agree with what you said about Acts, the most excellent Theopholis of both his books is widley considered to be a bishop of the same name in 180 CE, who wad also called most excellent.

[JehovahsWitness]

Seems plain that Peter was compelling people to convert to Judaism

Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "convert to Judaism" because Judaism has no provision for Christ as a ransom for sin. To "convert to Judaism" would mean adhere to the temple based religious system that was based on animal sacrifices and not on the human sacrifice of Jesus. One cannot be both a Christian and adhere fully to the "Judaism" of the Mosaic law.

My questions for you therefore are as follows ...

1. Are you suggesting Peter was teaching Christians to reject Christ and worship at the Jewish temple. If so, what (outside of the passages in contention) can you present as evidence to that effect?

2. Are you suggesting Peter successfully managed to convert at least some of gentile Christians to Judaism? If so why were they still refered to as Christians? And would Paul not have had something immensely more serious to critisize than the eating arrangements?

[SacredBishop]

Seems plain that Peter was compelling people to convert to Judaism

Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "convert to Judaism" because Judaism has no provision for Christ as a ransom for sin. To "convert to Judaism" would mean adhere to the temple based religious system that was based on animal sacrifices and not on the human sacrifice of Jesus. One cannot be both a Christian and adhere fully to the "Judaism" of the Mosaic law.

My questions for you therefore are as follows ...

1. Are you suggesting Peter was teaching Christians to reject Christ and worship at the Jewish temple. If so, what (outside of the passages in contention) can you present as evidence to that effect?

2. Are you suggesting Peter successfully managed to convert at least some of gentile Christians to Judaism? If so why were they still refered to as Christians? And would Paul not have had something immensely more serious to critisize than the eating arrangements?

" Peter compelled Gentiles to live like Jews", What could better define Judaism if not " to live like Jews"?

[SacredBishop]

I do not believe the typical Sunday school teacher response is appropriately addressing the magnitude of the division. Barnabas abandoned Paul in Galatians 2:13, so obviously Paul's " rebuke" to Peter in verse 14 did not alleviate the division in Antioch. Since Peter was said to " compell Gentiles to live like Jews" after James's associate arrives in Antioch, it seems Peter is complying with the instructions James sent him, i.e., "compell Gentiles to live like Jews."

[SacredBishop]

Also, as scholars point out, if the two books which bear Peter's name were stripped of every Pauline quote, and nearly the full interpolation of Jude's entire book, nothing would be left in them at all. This is very curious indeed. A 2nd century attempt to straighten Peter out!

[JehovahsWitness]

Seems plain that Peter was compelling people to convert to Judaism

Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "convert to Judaism" because Judaism has no provision for Christ as a ransom for sin. To "convert to Judaism" would mean adhere to the temple based religious system that was based on animal sacrifices and not on the human sacrifice of Jesus. One cannot be both a Christian and adhere fully to the "Judaism" of the Mosaic law.

My questions for you therefore are as follows ...

1. Are you suggesting Peter was teaching Christians to reject Christ and worship at the Jewish temple. If so, what (outside of the passages in contention) can you present as evidence to that effect?

2. Are you suggesting Peter successfully managed to convert at least some of gentile Christians to Judaism? If so why were they still refered to as Christians? And would Paul not have had something immensely more serious to critisize than the eating arrangements?

" Peter compelled Gentiles to live like Jews", What could better define Judaism if not " to live like Jews"?

Okay, well thank you for trying. Have amost wonderful day,



JW

[TRANSPONDER]

We (as usual) are only getting Paul's side of it. One only suspects, but it appears that Peter and doubtless James the apparent leader of the 'Saints' in Jerusalem, were looking like observant Jews, as Paul said, initially at least, obliged to observe the Law (later he said that Jesus freed even Jews from the Law), and there are issues of ritual cleanliness here. Which is evidence that they had either forgotten all the teachings of Jesus dismissing ritual cleanliness or they had never heard them.

I'm sure that our pal JW will have much to argue, but I'm convinced that it is is not Peter or James that were 'apostates' (at least from Judaism), but Paul, was more the apostate from Judaism.

I think that Acts (which I regard as no more than Luke's biographical fantasy, loosely based on Paul's letters with a drizzling of Josephus), reflects this wabbling between Jesus taught all foods clean and why Paul had to argue with Peter and James about it.. It isn't cut and dried as Paull (as I say) isn't too clear about it, but Luke shows his Interpretation of Reading of Paul's clues was that James was the totally Law - observant leader of the Nazorene church, though sympathetic to Paul as far as to put on a fraud to distract from the scandal of Paul teaching against circumcision. And the 'council of Jerusalem' has Peter acting like Paul's council for the defense, and not a mention of the squabble about eating with Gentiles.

I can anticipate the rebuttals; I have seen them before. But I just put it out there so at least people know of what looks like a dispute between Paul and the Jesus party about rites and doctrine, and the differences between (not to say adaptation of) what Paul has to say about these disagreements and how Acts shows it.

I find it peculiar that Paul casts shade on Peter for " compelling Gentiles to live as jews ", and a few verses later says " they compell you to be circumcised." Seems plain that Peter was compelling people to convert to Judaism. I agree with what you said about Acts, the most excellent Theopholis of both his books is widley considered to be a bishop of the same name in 180 CE, who wad also called most excellent.

Since yourself and our Pal JW seem to have concluded, yes. i find this Wrangle between Paul and Peter very interesting. It is one of the reasons I think that Peter, and thus James (evidently the head of the Jewish - Christian' church) were orthodox Jews and administering Jewish observance. Not perhaps insisting on circumcision for Gentile believers, but associate Jews, observing only the 'Noahide Laws' which is what Paul might be referring to as 'compelling them to live like Jews'. But then that letter he has from James (he only gives us his take on it) may only be telling Paul that his converts can be associate Jews observing the minimum Torah - Laws. We will never know for certain, but I suspect that Peter and James insisted on more from Paul's Gentiles and they would only be 'part of' the eternal life when the last days came (1) while Paul reckoned that Jesusfaith freed them from all the laws and they were as much God's people as the Jews.

Incidentally, I have read that Luke (whoever he was) would not have been writing to an actual Roman patron, but is using the convention to address his books to 'Theo-philes' - lovers of God, or other believers.

(1) on a previous board I questioned the Jewish thread about all this and they were very cagey indeed about just what part 'associate Jews' would have in the life to come, but I suspect it would involve yardbrushes.

[Ozzy_O]

There was only one Jew that I read of compelling gentile circumcision….

Acts 16:3
Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

[JehovahsWitness]

There was only one Jew that I read of compelling gentile circumcision….

Acts 16:3
Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Emphasis MINE

The verse does not say he compelled all gentiles to be circumcised, it makes reference in the singular and the verb used does not indicate compulsion so much as direction. Further the verse itself explains the very particular reasson for such a measure.

For further details please go to other posts related to ...

PAUL, THE APOSTLE PETER and ...THE GREAT APOSTACY