Peter and Paul

[Right Divider]

And why would Paul be interested in reigning over Peter (by correcting him) when he wasn't one of the twelve who were to reign over the 12 tribes?

Firstly, Paul was not "reigning over Peter (by correcting him)".

Secondly, it was because Peter was in ANTIOCH, which was Paul's "home court".

Acts 11:26 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:26) And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.​

​

The disciples in Jerusalem were called Jews.

 

[Tambora]

And why would Paul be interested in reigning over Peter (by correcting him) when he wasn't one of the twelve who were to reign over the 12 tribes?

Probably because the MAD playbook doesn't have it all figured out and needs to keep adjusting their perspective upon further study.
To be fair, everyone should do that.
It's not as though MAD doesn't have any good points, but they do go a bit too far out in left field at times and try to force things to fit their narrative.
But heck, most doctrinal stances do the same at times.
That's why it's always good to share perspectives because something may pop up that you haven't considered before.

 

[Derf]

Firstly, Paul was not "reigning over Peter (by correcting him)".

Secondly, it was because Peter was in ANTIOCH, which was Paul's "home court".

Acts 11:26 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:26) And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.​

​

The disciples in Jerusalem were called Jews.

Not the Cornelius types. He nor his family were NEVER called Jews, even though he was in Peter's territory. The Ethiopian eunuch was never called a Jew. I don't think any of the Samaritans that believed and we're prayed for by Peter ever became Jews or were called Jews, yet they were in his territory.

So this shows what @Tambora was talking about--that you

do go a bit too far out in left field at times and try to force things to fit [your] narrative.

It certainly doesn't say the Jewish disciples were never called Christians in Jerusalem, yet you have used the silence of the scriptures to try to prove they weren't. You should probably stop doing that, as it makes people think your whole doctrine is faulty, despite the fact that:

It's not as though MAD doesn't have any good points,

Try to focus on the good, and scripturally supported, points instead of these odd ones.

 

[Bright Raven]

And why would Paul be interested in reigning over Peter (by correcting him) when he wasn't one of the twelve who were to reign over the 12 tribes?

Peter's Gospel is the Gospel of the Kingdom, not the Gospel of the Revelation of the Mystery (Grace). You can't be saved by the Gospel of the Kingdom. We are saved by Grace, not by repentance and water baptism.

 

[Derf]

Peter's Gospel is the Gospel of the Kingdom, not the Gospel of the Revelation of the Mystery (Grace). You can't be saved by the Gospel of the Kingdom. We are saved by Grace, not by repentance and water baptism.

But Peter and Paul were deciding not to go to each other's groups with their particular gospel, according to the MAD doctrine. If that's so, and Peter's gospel didn't save, then Peter was making it impossible for his group to be saved.

 

[Bright Raven]

But Peter and Paul were deciding not to go to each other's groups with their particular gospel, according to the MAD doctrine. If that's so, and Peter's gospel didn't save, then Peter was making it impossible for his group to be saved.

But Peter and Paul were deciding not to go to each other's groups with their particular gospel, according to the MAD doctrine. If that's so, and Peter's gospel didn't save, then Peter was making it impossible for his group to be saved.

That would be right. How many people do you know today that are saved through repentance and water baptism?

 

[Derf]

That would be right. How many people do you know today that are saved through repentance and water baptism?

Neither did Peter claim anyone would be saved through repentance and baptism. But if he deliberately prevented Paul from preaching Paul's gospel (the only one by which we can be saved), in order to preach a non-saving gospel, Peter is responsible for damning people to hell. If the two gospels are exclusive (Paul vs. Peter and the 12) then you've defined Peter's gospel as "another gospel" that Paul warned about.
Galatians 1:6-7 KJV — I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Those that came to the Galatians were preaching the kingdom gospel, which says that you are saved by your works. They came from Jerusalem, claiming to be from James, the leader of the church at Jerusalem. If the only problem is that they went outside the prescribed territory (to the uncircumcised rather than the circumcised) then how is it they are to be ACCURSED for preaching outside their territory? Paul also preached outside his territory (see Acts 28) by preaching to the circumcised. Yet he wasn't to be accursed.

The issue is that those men were preaching a FALSE gospel. One that would turn the Galatians away from the saving power of Christ.

 

[Right Divider]

The gospel that Peter preached to Israel (i.e., the gospel of the kingdom) is about a future salvation, per Peter.

1Pet 1:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:5) Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. ​

 

[Bright Raven]

The only Gospel we should be concerned with is the Gospel of Grace given to Paul

 

[Idolater]

The gospel that Peter preached to Israel (i.e., the gospel of the kingdom) is about a future salvation, per Peter.

1Pet 1:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:5) Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. ​

Same with Paul.

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

 

[Right Divider]

Same with Paul.

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Paul is talking about REWARDS and not salvation.

See verse 14 "he shall receive a reward".

For the Jews (Israelites) salvation was the kingdom. The one where twelve apostles will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

[glorydaz]

Probably because the MAD playbook doesn't have it all figured out and needs to keep adjusting their perspective upon further study.
To be fair, everyone should do that.
It's not as though MAD doesn't have any good points, but they do go a bit too far out in left field at times and try to force things to fit their narrative.
But heck, most doctrinal stances do the same at times.
That's why it's always good to share perspectives because something may pop up that you haven't considered before.

Proverbs 27:17
Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

 

[glorydaz]

But Peter and Paul were deciding not to go to each other's groups with their particular gospel, according to the MAD doctrine. If that's so, and Peter's gospel didn't save, then Peter was making it impossible for his group to be saved.

If that was the case then why would Paul say there was neither Jew nor Greek? He didn’t separate believers into different camps. There must be some technical difficulties.

 

[Derf]

If that was the case then why would Paul say there was neither Jew nor Greek? He didn’t separate believers into different camps. There must be some technical difficulties.

"In Christ” there is no Jew nor Greek. But aren’t the Jews told to “abide in” Christ?