Peter was rebuked by Paul. Anybody know why?

For his inconsistent treatment of the Gentiles and siding with James and the Judaziers, who believed that Gentiles should be compelled to live according to Jewish customs.

I think it's a fair assumption...I'm not going to hold the coat(s) of one or more people if they're doing something I don't approve.

 

I didn't say he didn't approve. I felt your post that he "oked the stoning" sounded like he was ring leader who approved it for the group. I've seen it portrayed like that in movies but I don't think there's a biblical text that is one way or the other on that one.

For his inconsistent treatment of the Gentiles and siding with James and the Judaziers, who believed that Gentiles should be compelled to live according to Jewish customs.

 

But to give Peter some props he broke new ground when dealing with Cornelius. It's just that he backed away from it when he was "called on the carpet" in Jerusalem.

Someone mentioned Peter earlier and thats a great point.

 

Both had key roles in the early churches and in the book of Acts Luke writes about Peter and his role in the starting of the church. these two had several common events.

 

Both heal cripples, seeing cures in unusual ways, bring people back to life, both meet a sorcerer, both are released from prison due to a miracle.

 

They had common friends as in Luke and Mark.

 

Peter was rebuked by Paul. Anybody know why?

 

Now on Mary...after the Gospels she is only mentioned two times and I guess the poster meant Mother Mary.

 

 

I'm not sure that Mark always considered Paul a friend when you consider the way Paul castigated him as a "quitter," from the mission trip.

I didn't say he didn't approve. I felt your post that he "oked the stoning" sounded like he was ring leader who approved it for the group. I've seen it portrayed like that in movies but I don't think there's a biblical text that is one way or the other on that one.

 

The initial post was actually Larry's...I was just giving my unsolicited opinion.

 

As for portraying him as a ring leader, I agree with what you say. I don't get that idea from the text. The idea I get is that he was fine with what they were doing, thus he held their coats for them so they could get a little more "oomph" behind their throws.

I'm not sure that Mark always considered Paul a friend when you consider the way Paul castigated him as a "quitter," from the mission trip.

 

You think Paul ever sugarcoated anything he said? :lol:

To start out on a mission trip they may have been somewhat friendly, and like you said Paul sent him home but asked about him later. Paul sure was a very busy man and was a great choice after all. I guess Jesus knew what he was doing.

 

A lot of women have some problems with Paul. "Women should be silent in church". Might be another topic thread to start. I have mixed feelings on this. One...Paul mentions women several times who help him in his journey.

 

Some small churches the men are not leaders and women have to teach.

 

Who can deny a women's calling to preach? I've spoke with women preachers.

 

Can she pray/sing/give a testamony? Silent means silent.

 

What about 2nd Corinthians chapter 6? Unequally Yoked? This also might need to be in a start-up thread.

You think Paul ever sugarcoated anything he said? :lol:

 

I get the feeling that if Paul was pastor of a church, there wouldn't be 5 people there. He is crabby to the nth degree and lacks people skills. Then again, that's probably exactly what they needed (and sometimes us) at the time.

 

As to sugarcoating, the English language translations (all of them) have sugarcoated Paul more than Paul ever sugarcoated himself. :thumb:

I get the feeling that if Paul was pastor of a church, there wouldn't be 5 people there. He is crabby to the nth degree and lacks people skills. Then again, that's probably exactly what they needed (and sometimes us) at the time.

 

As to sugarcoating, the English language translations (all of them) have sugarcoated Paul more than Paul ever sugarcoated himself. :thumb:

 

He seems like a no nonsense guy. Paul had a mission to carry out and he didn't have time for small talk, sugarcoating, or anything else...he had to get the truth out to as many people as possible, and defend that truth when necessary.

 

I like your last comment...and to go a step further, I think a lot of Christians today sugarcoat Paul because they're afraid of offending someone if they just state what Paul did flat out.

 

Paul was the world's greatest missionary/evangelist. We should follow his example rather than watering it down...