Evidence for God from Science

Galatians 2:

11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Is it about food? -- non-kosher food? -- I don't think so. I think it is about a circumcised Jew sitting at a table with uncircumcised Gentiles, who would be considered unclean.

What do you all think?

Thanks.

Christian2 wrote:Galatians 2:

11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Is it about food? -- non-kosher food? -- I don't think so. I think it is about a circumcised Jew sitting at a table with uncircumcised Gentiles, who would be considered unclean.

What do you all think?

Thanks.

The way I understand it is that Peter wore 2 different hats, when he was with gentiles he acted like a gentile so as not to offend them, and when he was with Jews he acted like a Jew so also as not to offend them. He was being diplomatic. Paul thought consistency would better serve the faith and was justified in correcting Peter.

Byblos wrote:
The way I understand it is that Peter wore 2 different hats, when he was with gentiles he acted like a gentile so as not to offend them, and when he was with Jews he acted like a Jew so also as not to offend them. He was being diplomatic. Paul thought consistency would better serve the faith and was justified in correcting Peter.

Yes, I realize Peter was being hypocritical. Do you think Peter was eating non-kosher food with the Gentiles?

Thanks.

Christian2 wrote:Galatians 2:

11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Is it about food? -- non-kosher food? -- I don't think so. I think it is about a circumcised Jew sitting at a table with uncircumcised Gentiles, who would be considered unclean.

What do you all think?

Thanks.

Matthew Henry Comentary says it this way... and note the underline and Italic's I placed in this quote...

Galatians 2:11-14

Notwithstanding Peter's character, yet, when Paul saw him acting so as to hurt the truth of the gospel and the peace of the church, he was not afraid to reprove him. When he saw that Peter and the others did not live up to that principle which the gospel taught, and which they professed, namely, That by the death of Christ the partition wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and the observance of the law of Moses was no longer in force; as Peter's offence was public, he publicly reproved him. There is a very great difference between the prudence of St. Paul, who bore with, and used for a time, the ceremonies of the law as not sinful, and the timid conduct of St. Peter, who, by withdrawing from the Gentiles, led others to think that these ceremonies were necessary.

Hope that helps...

Also note what Peter did was not in line with

Isaiah 11:10 - Isaiah 49:6 - Isaiah 60:3

There was a test here - to become righteous by works of the law/tradition or by Christ who gives light - to make one new man from the two....

Also note there is a difference to keep the feast with Faith or to keep the feast thru law - same with holy days, the law and the feast foreshadow Christ. Paul kept these by faith pointing all to Christ not by law - pointing to the law alone as means of salvation.
-
-
-

Christian2 wrote:

Byblos wrote:
The way I understand it is that Peter wore 2 different hats, when he was with gentiles he acted like a gentile so as not to offend them, and when he was with Jews he acted like a Jew so also as not to offend them. He was being diplomatic. Paul thought consistency would better serve the faith and was justified in correcting Peter.

Yes, I realize Peter was being hypocritical. Do you think Peter was eating non-kosher food with the Gentiles?

Thanks.

He could have, I don't see why not.

Byblos wrote:
He could have, I don't see why not.

I can see why not; because he was a Jew and Jews don't eat pork chops.

The way I see it, Jews (who converted to Christianity) thought of themselves as special. remember in acts early chapters when the Christians were living in groups the widows of the Greeks and gentiles complained that they were not being taken care of as the Jews were because the serving persons were Jews. also by what happened at Cornelius home, you can judge why the Jews held themselves apart from the gentiles even after they came to Christ and that was the reason why peter was being hypocritical, when the Jew Christians were not there he would spend time and eat with gentiles when they came, he set himself apart, like he didn't care.

What many of the priests and pharisees of the day believed, and many still do, is that God chose to reveal himself and work with the Jews because they were special, chosen above all other peoples as God's only chosen. Through the revelation of Jesus Christ, we were supposed to realize that the Jews were God's outlet for reaching the world, not his only choice. The Jews were and are just as in need of a savior as the Gentiles, but the teachings of the priests, just as those of the PC activists of today, rang out in popular support, which even managed to get to the disciples. There is a lesson here, because the same things happen today, we just have to learn that sometimes the "true" teachings of those in power or those with money or those who are politically correct can be detrimental to our faith. And, just like Paul, we need to stand up for what we believe in instead of going along with the crowd.

Why do you think James sent people to Antioch?

Galatians 2:

11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
12 Before certain men came from James,

Thank you.

Christian2 wrote:Why do you think James sent people to Antioch?

Galatians 2:

11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
12 Before certain men came from James,

Thank you.

I found the answer to my question: James did not send these people to Antioch.

Acts 15: Some men(A) came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers:(B) “Unless you are circumcised,(C) according to the custom taught by Moses,(D) you cannot be saved.”

From James at the Jerusalem Council:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch,(AH) Syria(AI) and Cilicia:(AJ)

Greetings.(AK)

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

Christian2 wrote:

Christian2 wrote:Why do you think James sent people to Antioch?

Galatians 2:

11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
12 Before certain men came from James,

Thank you.

I found the answer to my question: James did not send these people to Antioch.

Acts 15: Some men(A) came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers:(B) “Unless you are circumcised,(C) according to the custom taught by Moses,(D) you cannot be saved.”

From James at the Jerusalem Council:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch,(AH) Syria(AI) and Cilicia:(AJ)

Greetings.(AK)

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

How come Paul didn't know that they came without Authorization from James?
Answer: Because Paul didn't know everything.
For some reason we tend to believe that there can be no "mistakes" or "confusions" in the bible and fail to realize that the writers. like Paul, were still 100% human and made "mistakes".

It may have been an issue of eating non-kosher foods and not wanting to do that in front of the Jews out of being afraid of condemnation, or it may have been about laws in the Oral Torah (the rabbinical laws added onto Scripture that were and are treated with the same authority in Judaism) that didn't allow eating with Gentiles. Either way, I think Byblos said it well; Peter was being diplomatic, and Paul thought (rightly) that consistency was better. I would like to point out that there's nothing in the actual "Law of Moses" or the Torah in the Bible about eating with Gentiles.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Christian2 wrote:

Christian2 wrote:Why do you think James sent people to Antioch?

Galatians 2:

11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
12 Before certain men came from James,

Thank you.

I found the answer to my question: James did not send these people to Antioch.

Acts 15: Some men(A) came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers:(B) “Unless you are circumcised,(C) according to the custom taught by Moses,(D) you cannot be saved.”

From James at the Jerusalem Council:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch,(AH) Syria(AI) and Cilicia:(AJ)

Greetings.(AK)

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

How come Paul didn't know that they came without Authorization from James?
Answer: Because Paul didn't know everything.
For some reason we tend to believe that there can be no "mistakes" or "confusions" in the bible and fail to realize that the writers. like Paul, were still 100% human and made "mistakes".

We know because Paul was preaching the same Gospel as the rest of the Apostles. Paul met with James.

“After three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother” (vv. 18–19).

- Galatians 1:18–20

See Galatians 2:9

Acts 15: Some men(A) came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers:(B) “Unless you are circumcised,(C) according to the custom taught by Moses,(D) you cannot be saved.”

Paul would have known James didn't believe anything except faith in Christ was necessary for salvation, so the matter was taken to the Jerusalem Council for a formal ruling.