Why So Many Different Christian Views?

[Runningman]

I believe it was because Peter stopped eating with the Gentiles , so Paul called him out on it...Barnabas followed Peter in his action , Peter was being a hypocrite...
...xox...

Or maybe Peter was doing this?

1 Corinthians 9:19-23
19For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Also hypocrisy isn't a sin. I mean, it's obviously not good but sins are transgressions of God's laws which hypocrisy isn't. Sins are specific things like lying, stealing, murder, etc but hypocrisy isn't listed among those things.

Even Revelation 21:8 says nothing about hypocrisy.

Rev. 21:8
8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

[Rosemaryx]

Or maybe Peter was doing this?

1 Corinthians 9:19-23
19For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Also hypocrisy isn't a sin. I mean, it's obviously not good but sins are transgressions of God's laws which hypocrisy isn't. Sins are specific things like lying, stealing, murder, etc but hypocrisy isn't listed among those things.

Even Revelation 21:8 says nothing about hypocrisy.

Rev. 21:8
8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Peter was saying one thing but doing another...
The Lord had a lot to say about being a hypocrite...
Peter learned a great lesson from Paul...
I do not understand why you cannot see the wrong Peter did by his actions , after all , he was human and he fell into hypocrisy...

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Peter was saying one thing but doing another...
The Lord had a lot to say about being a hypocrite...
Peter learned a great lesson from Paul...
I do not understand why you cannot see the wrong Peter did by his actions , after all , he was human and he fell into hypocrisy...

I'd let it go (as I have done). Runningman seems to be here to stir the pot and gain attention through the nonsense.

 

[TheLearner]

start at post #80

 

[Runningman]

Peter was saying one thing but doing another...
The Lord had a lot to say about being a hypocrite...
Peter learned a great lesson from Paul...
I do not understand why you cannot see the wrong Peter did by his actions , after all , he was human and he fell into hypocrisy...

I don’t understand why you can’t see my perspective either. I guess just agree to disagree.

 

[Runningman]

I'd let it go (as I have done). Runningman seems to be here to stir the pot and gain attention through the nonsense.

Wow brilliant. If anyone loves attention it’s you. You love blocking people then announcing it to the whole forum how righteous you think you are for doing so. It’s actually quite comical.

My advice to you is that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

 

[Amanuensis]

Your interpretation pits the apostles against each other, not mine. I am saying they are both walking in the Spirit.

Paul corrected Peter and Barnabas. Paul was right they were wrong They did not argue with him about it. Peter considered Paul to be writing scriptures therefore Peter considered what Paul wrote in Gal 2 to be scripture and Peter agreed with Paul and what he wrote in Gal 2 about this incident.

2 Peter 3
15Also, regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.a 16He speaks about these things in all his letters. There are some things hard to understand in them. The untaught and unstable will twist them to their own destruction,a as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

So if Peter believed that Paul spoke with the Wisdom given to him by the Lord and that his letters were equivalent to the rest of the scriptures then Peter would agree that what Paul said about this incident in Gal 2 is exactly how it went down and exactly what Peter was guilty of.

At this point I am going to quit discussing it. It is really not a difficult passage but it has been a good example of what the OP was asking. Not that Peter and Paul come up with different interpretations, but that someone would interpret Peter has not being guilty of what Paul said. That is the weird interpretation that leave us all scratching our heads and asking. Why? What is the reason?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

A church being a local assembly

We both know it’s more than that. I believe those are both seven types of church and seven successive historic periods, and we are living in the very last one.

 

[Runningman]

Paul corrected Peter and Barnabas. Paul was right they were wrong They did not argue with him about it. Peter considered Paul to be writing scriptures therefore Peter considered what Paul wrote in Gal 2 to be scripture and Peter agreed with Paul and what he wrote in Gal 2 about this incident.

2 Peter 3
15Also, regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.a 16He speaks about these things in all his letters. There are some things hard to understand in them. The untaught and unstable will twist them to their own destruction,a as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

So if Peter believed that Paul spoke with the Wisdom given to him by the Lord and that his letters were equivalent to the rest of the scriptures then Peter would agree that what Paul said about this incident in Gal 2 is exactly how it went down and exactly what Peter was guilty of.

At this point I am going to quit discussing it. It is really not a difficult passage but it has been a good example of what the OP was asking. Not that Peter and Paul come up with different interpretations, but that someone would interpret Peter has not being guilty of what Paul said. That is the weird interpretation that leave us all scratching our heads and asking. Why? What is the reason?

But Peter is reliable too. Jesus said that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built and that the gates of hell will never prevail against the church. I think Paul and Peter are both correct.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

But Peter is reliable too. Jesus said that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built and that the gates of hell will never prevail against the church. I think Paul and Peter are both correct.

That's a myth. "Peter" in the original Greek is like a small pebble, whereas the "rock" in "upon this rock" is like a huge bedrock. That was referring to Jesus Christ himself, the chief cornerstone.

 

[Runningman]

That's a myth. "Peter" in the original Greek is like a small pebble, whereas the "rock" in "upon this rock" is like a huge bedrock. That was referring to Jesus Christ himself, the chief cornerstone.

I disagree, Jesus is calling Peter the rock and speaking directly to him about what he can do.

Now I am intrigued. You think Peter is not reliable?

Matthew 16:18-20
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I disagree, Jesus is calling Peter the rock and speaking directly to him about what he can do.

Now I am intrigued. You think Peter is not reliable?

Matthew 16:18-20
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

The rock is always referring to Jesus himself, His church is the house built upon the rock, He is the chief cornerstone rejected by the builders. In the book of Acts, Peter mostly preached to the Jews in the Holy Land, it was Paul who brought the gospel to the gentiles. I know that this is a big can of worms I've just opened, but "Peter the first pope" is nothing but Vatican propaganda. The Catholic church as the state church didn't even exist until a few centuries later.

 

[Inquisitor]

For several years, something hit me in the head. It felt like someone threw a brick at me! It was like someone started annoying me and won't leave me alone!

The Bible seems to be saying that we Christians, have the same "Holy Spirit" that guides us in all truth. I heard a pastor say, that unbelievers can't understand the Bible because they don't have the Holy Spirit. And yet at another Church I met a guy who claimed that even before He became a Christian He knew the Bible better than most Christians, simply because He enjoyed reading a lot. He became a Christian, therefor God did get a hold of him! But according to that one pastor, it was backwards.

When I log into Christian forums, I see an awful lot of "interesting" views. I wonder, if everyone has the same "Holy Spirit" then why does all these views exist? Some of these views set me on edge. Because of all the different Bible teachings I have ever heard, I've never come across some of these ideas. And other thing. I do the best I can. I listen to an audio Bible while I work. I've been through the entire thing from Genesis to Revelation, probably 4 or 5 times, and some of these ideas never even entered in my mind once! So when I read them, I'm like where on earth are these ideas coming from? When I look at the provided scriptures, at first glance, it looks like people are reading in between the lines, or taking things out of context to form their views. But why on earth, anyone who has the "Holy Spirit" would do such a thing? I suppose we could have some wolves in sheep clothing, but then again, we would have an awful lot of self deceived people. Which would make it really hard to determine who is and who isn't deceived. Because people who are deceived, don't know they are the deceived. That is what deception is...

So I guess, I'm curious, why do you think "Spirit Filled" people are messing up so bad?

Below are just scripture verses that I found before I started writing this post.

John 14:26
26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Romans 8:26
26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.

John 16:13
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

1 Corinthians 12
4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

So many different interpretations of the apostolic teaching in the New Testament.

I agree with you.

Though I do believe there is a simple explanation.

Most Christians are taught a specific interpretation in the church they attend, at the church they grow up in.

Some churches even teach an interpretation of the end times (eschatology) in their teaching.

I would hazard a guess, that approximately 90% of churches have some level of erroneous doctrine.

 

[Amanuensis]

But Peter is reliable too. Jesus said that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built and that the gates of hell will never prevail against the church. I think Paul and Peter are both correct.

It was the confession that Peter made that Jesus was the Son of God that he would build the church on.

Not Peter himself though he would use him to start the church as he did many others.

Peter made a mistake but it did not disqualify him from being an apostle or being used by God or being inspired by the Spirit in writing or many other things. This mental hurdle you have that acknowledging that Peter was guilty of what Paul said somehow makes Peter not inspired by the Spirit at other times is not necessary.

 

[Inquisitor]

It was the confession that Peter made that Jesus was the Son of God that he would build the church on.

Not Peter himself though he would use him to start the church as he did many others.

Peter made a mistake but it did not disqualify him from being an apostle or being used by God or being inspired by the Spirit in writing or many other things. This mental hurdle you have that acknowledging that Peter was guilty of what Paul said somehow makes Peter not inspired by the Spirit at other times is not necessary.

Peter did not contribute much to church doctrine.

Peter was the author of only two letters in the N.T.

Paul wrote the bulk of the doctrine of the church.

The church you attend is very likely derived from various church traditions, stretching way back to the first century. More than likely to a church founded by Paul or a church that Paul later governed.

Greek Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox both have distinct church tradition to the Roman church.

The early church had Paul's letters and Paul would be considered, the father of all the Gentile churches.

Nearly all church doctrine is based on what Paul wrote and to a lesser extent on what John wrote.

 

[Marilyn]

For several years, something hit me in the head. It felt like someone threw a brick at me! It was like someone started annoying me and won't leave me alone!

The Bible seems to be saying that we Christians, have the same "Holy Spirit" that guides us in all truth. I heard a pastor say, that unbelievers can't understand the Bible because they don't have the Holy Spirit. And yet at another Church I met a guy who claimed that even before He became a Christian He knew the Bible better than most Christians, simply because He enjoyed reading a lot. He became a Christian, therefor God did get a hold of him! But according to that one pastor, it was backwards.

When I log into Christian forums, I see an awful lot of "interesting" views. I wonder, if everyone has the same "Holy Spirit" then why does all these views exist? Some of these views set me on edge. Because of all the different Bible teachings I have ever heard, I've never come across some of these ideas. And other thing. I do the best I can. I listen to an audio Bible while I work. I've been through the entire thing from Genesis to Revelation, probably 4 or 5 times, and some of these ideas never even entered in my mind once! So when I read them, I'm like where on earth are these ideas coming from? When I look at the provided scriptures, at first glance, it looks like people are reading in between the lines, or taking things out of context to form their views. But why on earth, anyone who has the "Holy Spirit" would do such a thing? I suppose we could have some wolves in sheep clothing, but then again, we would have an awful lot of self deceived people. Which would make it really hard to determine who is and who isn't deceived. Because people who are deceived, don't know they are the deceived. That is what deception is...

So I guess, I'm curious, why do you think "Spirit Filled" people are messing up so bad?

Below are just scripture verses that I found before I started writing this post.

John 14:26
26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Romans 8:26
26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.

John 16:13
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

1 Corinthians 12
4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

Yes we have the Holy Spirit to guide us, however people have forgotten that the Holy Spirit has been sent to reveal Jesus, His character and His purposes as Christ the Head speaks forth.

`However, when He the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears he will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify me, for He will take of what is mine and declare it to you.` (John 16: 13 & 14)

People who are just focused on the `Holy Spirit` and NOT on Christ the Head, can be led into all sorts of spirits, for unless Christ is the source then someone is open to demonic spirits.

Also the Head of His Body has 5 ministry gifts that are given to His Body, to open up God`s word, teach, exhort and thus equip the believers for the work of ministry out to others.

 

[Goliath]

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.

That is interesting and thanks for sharing your thought. You may have discovered one of the multifaceted reasons Jesus chose Paul. The Lords disciples had been given wisdom, but the vernacular of the educated teachers may have been a bit overwhelming for an uneducated fisherman. Paul was given wisdom and had the educational background needed to overcome this obstacle. And Peter said as much...

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things. Therein are some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(2 Peter 3:15-16)

Also notice the teachers of the Law didn't come around until after Paul was made a disciple.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Paul corrected Peter and Barnabas. Paul was right they were wrong They did not argue with him about it. Peter considered Paul to be writing scriptures therefore Peter considered what Paul wrote in Gal 2 to be scripture and Peter agreed with Paul and what he wrote in Gal 2 about this incident.

2 Peter 3
15Also, regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.a 16He speaks about these things in all his letters. There are some things hard to understand in them. The untaught and unstable will twist them to their own destruction,a as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

So if Peter believed that Paul spoke with the Wisdom given to him by the Lord and that his letters were equivalent to the rest of the scriptures then Peter would agree that what Paul said about this incident in Gal 2 is exactly how it went down and exactly what Peter was guilty of.

At this point I am going to quit discussing it. It is really not a difficult passage but it has been a good example of what the OP was asking. Not that Peter and Paul come up with different interpretations, but that someone would interpret Peter has not being guilty of what Paul said. That is the weird interpretation that leave us all scratching our heads and asking. Why? What is the reason?

This tells one thing, that in the first century church, long before the canonical bible of 66 books was compiled, Paul's epistles had already become "canons" - as in a part of "all scriptures" inspired by God for teaching, reproof and correction.

 

[Jocund]

Paul corrected Peter and Barnabas. Paul was right they were wrong They did not argue with him about it. Peter considered Paul to be writing scriptures therefore Peter considered what Paul wrote in Gal 2 to be scripture and Peter agreed with Paul and what he wrote in Gal 2 about this incident.

2 Peter 3
15Also, regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.a 16He speaks about these things in all his letters. There are some things hard to understand in them. The untaught and unstable will twist them to their own destruction,a as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

So if Peter believed that Paul spoke with the Wisdom given to him by the Lord and that his letters were equivalent to the rest of the scriptures then Peter would agree that what Paul said about this incident in Gal 2 is exactly how it went down and exactly what Peter was guilty of.

At this point I am going to quit discussing it. It is really not a difficult passage but it has been a good example of what the OP was asking. Not that Peter and Paul come up with different interpretations, but that someone would interpret Peter has not being guilty of what Paul said. That is the weird interpretation that leave us all scratching our heads and asking. Why? What is the reason?

1) Why do you assume 2 Peter 3 references Gal 2?

2) What exactly are you alleging Peter was "guilty" of? Based on your support of post 38, if your position is that this "guilt" indicates that Peter was not walking in the Spirit, what level of perfection is required to be considered "walking in the Spirit"? If Peter stumbles for a moment, is he not walking in the Spirit?

3) Do you see a difference between being in the Spirit vs walking in the Spirit? How does that apply in this case?

That is the weird interpretation that leave us all scratching our heads and asking.

3) I can't vouch for exactly what Runningman means but have you ever read the works of Augustine of Hippo? (https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/galatians/augustine-on-galatians-2). Augustine basically brings up the point that the rebuke of Paul to Peter in front of others served a greater purpose. The topic isn't clean cut. There are obviously many interpretations of what exactly the exchange meant.

The passage in Gal 2 works well as an expansion on the teachings of Rom 14. You could be led into a certain understanding only to be corrected later. Your intention could be to offend the least number of people but still have your position be incorrect. That correction could be for the benefit of others and intended by God to provide perspective.

I don't agree that there is a singular "obvious" / necessary interpretation to Gal 2. We should be happy to explore any interpretation that does not contradict scripture and be mindful not to jump to conclusions about a singular answer so quickly.

 

[Jocund]

This tells one thing, that in the first century church, long before the canonical bible of 66 books was compiled, Paul's epistles had already become "canons" - as in a part of "all scriptures" inspired by God for teaching, reproof and correction.

The Marcionite Bible is allegedly the oldest Bible that existed and reflects only Paul's teachings and contains a version of Luke (it did not contain the OT books).

It's an interesting topic, I recommend looking into it if you are interested.