Why So Many Different Christian Views?

You just decided that Paul was falsely accusing Peter. You did not avoid the decision that you claim you wanted to avoid.

Unbelievable.

Paul did not shrink back in fear of being persecuted. If hypocrisy is
not a sin, Jesus was unnecessarily harsh towards the Pharisees.

“The Lord says, ‘These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.’”

Ironically, you’re now falsely accusing me of saying something I never said nor intended to say.

That passage is not about hypocrisy, but rather about false worship, a kind of lip service, in the absence of love.

Same to you.

You have to be kidding! You just got through putting words into my mouth several hours ago.

We won't be sharing any more dialogue in the future, at least not until I remove everyone from my ignore list which takes place once per year.

If hypocrisy is not a sin, Jesus was unnecessarily harsh towards the Pharisees.

Do you think Peter was not being a hypocrite?


1 Samuel 16:7b

This just dawned on me regarding Galatians 2 and the exchange between Paul and Peter:

It's interesting that Peter, who never was a Pharisee, was having a more difficult time letting go of trying to get right with God by keeping the Mosaic Law. On the other hand, Paul (when he was Saul) who WAS a Pharisee, a "hebrew of Hebrews" & "zealous for the traditions" of his fathers as he put it, had an easier time with it.

Maybe what helps in a discussion about the scriptures is to remember God is the word first. Jesus was that word made flesh.

And the bible, has always been at the hands of man.

Don't make an idol of it.

How can Paul be walking in the Spirit if he is falsely accusing Peter of fear of those of the circumcision group and hypocrisy if Peter was not guilty of such a thing.

Where do you see Peter giving any words on this? He never said anything to dispute it. He obviously agreed with Paul's rebuke and repented.

You keep saying one apostles word against another apostles word as if there is any suggestion in the text that they exchanged words or that Peter said something to defend himself. Why do you do that?

The sin was that he was moved with fear wanting the praise of men (the circumcision Christians taught that the gentiles must be circumcised) He went along with their separating from the Gentiles when eating and this after God had already showed him that Gentiles believers were as spiritually clean as Jewish believers. Therefore his sin is hypocrisy because he already knew better but his actions were not in line with his doctrine.

It is not possible that he was following Paul's instructions about being all things to all people that he might save some because these were supposed to be already saved. This was a church gathering and these were a group that needed correcting. Circumcision was not required for salvation and his actions were confirming them instead of rebuking them, and as a leader he should have sat with the Gentiles to show them that they were clean in the eyes of the Lord. He taught that. He should have walked that.

The Church council at Jerusalem met over this and prayed and heard from the Holy Spirit that they were not to teach that the Gentiles must be circumcised.

From that day forward all those so called Christian believers that kept insisting that the gentiles believer be circumcised became known as false teachers, and dogs, and enemies of the cross. And they are still with us today. Those that teach people have to be baptized over again if the preacher did not say the words exactly to their specifications would be one example.

Paul had a greater grasp of the law's fulfiment in Jesus

Peter was a bit of a waffler

My amazing friend, do you see the connection between this artwork and the one of Deut 30:6 that you just created? Why does God look at the heart? He is "looking" for the Circumcision of Christ; the removal or disassociation of the Adamic Curse that is applied to the "heart" of a person.

This is why all three of the Godhead take responsibility for Circumcision of the Heart.

Deuteronomy 30:6 KJV - "And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live."

Romans 2:29 NLT - "No, a true Jew is one whose heart is right with God. And true circumcision is not merely obeying the letter of the law; rather, it is a change of heart produced by God's Spirit. And a person with a changed heart seeks praise from God, not from people."

Colossians 2:11 NLT - "When you came to Christ, you were "circumcised," but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision--the cutting away of your sinful nature."

So when God said that He would give us new Hearts, those numerous statements in the Old Testament were pointing directly to Colossians 2:9-15 . . . the cutting away of sinful Flesh, or Sarx, the Sinful state of a person.

The NIV footnotes for "Flesh" often refer to Sarx. Here are the footnotes:

Rom 8:3 (for example) - "In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, often presented as a power in opposition to the Spirit; also in verses 4-13."

So when we read translations other than the NLT, they refer to the Flesh in Colossians 2:9-15 and not the Sinful Nature (as does the NLT).

You are doing amazing Work within your artWork! You are so amazing . . . (no flattery intended).

I think Peter was just having a difficult time with confrontation. He did not want to confront something that needed to be confronted and let it just go on. He was afraid to confront them, and being hypocritical.

Why did he fear those of the circumcision group? Probably just that normal desire to not have a big argument. Sort of a "can't we just all get along" approach and yet by doing so and going along with their treatment of the gentile believers and not making it clear to everyone that those gentile believers were just as clean in the eyes of the Lord, he was not standing up for the true Gospel and allowing it to be perverted and polluted by the attitude of these of the circumcision sect which is what they were.

He was not showing Christ like love to the gentile believers by making sure they understood that these of the Circumcision sect were wrong by the way they were treating them and he should have been an example of the TRUE Gospel message and sat with them and showed them great amounts of love and affection. If he did some of the others would have followed his lead because the Holy Spirit would have lead them to do so and they would know that Peter was right and the circumcision sect was wrong.

Thank God Paul who was full of the Holy Spirit set things right that day and Peter and Barnabas responded to the Holy Spirit and repented of their dissimulation.

What can we take from this today? Don't be afraid to preach the Full Gospel in the face of persecution. Don't be afraid of confrontation when false teachers try to add something to the Gospel message as a requirement for salvation. Don't go along with a crowd to do evil because you are afraid of standing up or standing alone. There are many lessons here but the main one is that we are called to keep the Gospel pure and there are many enemies, especially those from within that would try to introduce perversions and pollutions to the Gospel and we are to confront it without fear. Always live what we preach and have a holy hatred toward hypocrisy.
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.

Thank you, and yes I certainly do see the connection It highlights one of the paradoxes people
grapple with and often fall down too hard on one side or the other in failing to grasp the whole of it.


Deuteronomy 30:6

100%. Paul literally tells us that Peter was afraid. This whole thing is as simple 1, 2, 3.