There was NOT any pitting inspired word of two people in the story.
There is something you aren't realizing about
2ndTimothyGroup's position and how it pertains to the conversation. Look back through this chain to post 30.
Now look at this:
How can we say that the Bible is infallible if the Apostles couldn't agree?! LOL - It's crazy!
2TG literally believes that parts of scripture should be pitted against each other, and this commentary extends to what might appear like disagreements between 1 Peter/2 Peter and the writing attributed to Paul.
Look at this too:
How do we know that Jesus was even telling the Truth? In another piece of Scripture, we find that Jesus lied to His "brothers" when He told them that He wouldn't be attending a specific festival. However, after his "brothers" left His presence, Jesus attended anyway.
He also spreads hateful antiChristian rhetoric:
If anyone alive could properly translate the original Hebrew, it isn't white "christians" of today, but would be my Blessed Jewish Brothers and Sisters.
To the point of writing lower-case "Christian" in more than one case:
I recommend that all people get a Tanakh for their next timeline, chronological reading through the Old Testament. Its beautifully written, and even contains some passages that our "christian" Bibles do not have.
So I ask you again, with this understanding/context of
2ndTimothyGroup, look back at post 30 in this thread:
He disagreed with Peter's Hermeneutics? As in, the way that Peter was interpreting Scripture (that hadn't been written as of yet?)
Gal 2:11-13 isn't about physical circumcision, this text that you've quoted has to do with Peter's fear and the reverting back to the Law os Moses . . . which is the hypocrisy regarding how Peter was recanting on the True Gospel (that set the Jews free from the Law). The reference to circumcision was to identify the group of people whom Peter was siding with (this is the hypocrisy) . . . the Jews.
So here we have it . . . Hermeneutics is breaking down again.
Based on his posting history, he is likely not talking about a simple case of Peter being incorrect in that instance, he is seemingly weaving a pattern of raising doubt in scripture by pitting the words and reputations of different authors against each other. And beyond authors, he is also advocating for the idea that Christians don't have the Holy Spirit simply because they disagree at times (or make mistakes like Peter in Gal 2). This is coming from a user that accused Jesus Christ, God the Son, of lying.
It is clearly his position that he believes that differences in theology were an indication of lacking the Holy Spirit:
In my opinion, you've already addressed the problem. We're supposed to have the same Holy Spirit that teaches us what we are to know, hence the Laws of the Spirit of Life. The problem, as you stated, is that few have the same theology. Therefore, what are we to conclude other than the obvious, which is that very few actually possess the Holy Spirit.
And when we compare it to this:
If anyone alive could properly translate the original Hebrew, it isn't white "christians" of today, but would be my Blessed Jewish Brothers and Sisters.
If he is correlating the presence of the Holy Spirit with the presence of sound knowledge, his comment is inferring that he believes Jews have the Holy Spirit and "white Christians of today" don't.
Pushing a "singular correct" interpretation at the expense of other valid interpretations is by its nature robbing from one to give to another. It's not that Peter and Paul necessarily ever had a disagreement or argument, but that doesn't stop people from using the words of different people to create a perception that two people are/were contrary to each other. And from there to create the false dichotomy of having to "choose" between one side or the other, when in fact there is no contradiction, it's just that the nuance is not understood.
2ndTimothyGroup is not an example of someone I would encourage anyone to take pointers from.
In a different part of this thread we have the short exchange between SomeDisciple and Runningman:
If only that were true. Peter was fearful of those of the circumcision- he was not walking in the Spirit.
Your interpretation strips apostle Peter of the Holy Spirit and mine doesn’t. Big red flag you’re under deception.
It comes to a question of whether a mistake is an indication of not "walking in the Spirit". If one falters, does that mean they are not walking in the Holy Spirit? Is it by a blip of that instance? Or in entirety (i.e. never was to begin with)? In retrospect, I think SomeDisciple was talking about a blip (in a Platonic sense of momentarily lapsing in the skill of something means that you wouldn't be acting as that thing), while Runningman was seemingly addressing the "in entirety" concept that users like 2ndTimothyGroup seemed to be presenting.
So we come to an interesting crossroads of how we approach the topic of "walking in the Spirit" and what exactly that means. I think different people are going to have different takes on the topic. But at the very least, we should acknowledge that Peter's momentary fault in Gal 2 should not be used as some sort of evidence that he was "not walking in the Spirit" in general. We should not rob the recognition of Peter's walk in the Spirit for the purpose to exult the recognition of Paul's walk in the Spirit.
There are people in the world that are completely willing to try to pit the teachings of Peter (1 Peter / 2 Peter) against Paul's to the point of suggesting "How can we say that the Bible is infallible if the Apostles couldn't agree?!" as 2ndGroupTimothy did.
To recap, I think you may have misunderstood my previous post. It wasn't talking about Gal 2, I was alluding to conversations and interpretation that occur around scripture and the ultimate undesirable nature of trying to make it seem like two apostles are against each other.
