Paul was a false apostle: Galatians 2:12

[spirit5er]

I don't believe much history as reported by the NT, so I'm only assuming it accurate for the sake of argument with conservative Christians.

Galatians 2:11-14, NAU --

11 "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Were the men in vs. 12 who came from James, legalistic? If so,

What rule of hermeneutics is violated when the reader concludes that James was legalistic, because the men who came from him were legalistic?

Peter would know whether James was legalistic. Do you think he would have feared these circumcised "men from James" if he felt they were perverting the gospel? Keep Peter's gift of discernment and power to call down severe divine judgement on pretenders (Acts 5) as you ponder your answer.

Barnabas was very seperate from James and was Paul's right-hand man in the Gentile ministry. What's the likelihood that he, being no more predisposed to legalism than Paul, would have started acting legalistically as he is reported to have done in verse 13? Does his going along with the legalistic change upon the arrival of men from James, suggest that he must have heard them give a powerful argument for legalism? Would you act legalistically as this, without a powerful argument that Jesus acted that way too?

[FlimFlamboyant]

Dude... Your posts don't normally make any sense from a logical standpoint, but this one totally fails on basic comprehension. What on earth is your point? That Peter was being a hypocrite, just as the text says?

[Seasanctuary]

I don't get it. But it doesn't sound like gibberish, so maybe my attention span is too short this morning.

[spirit5er]

Dude... Your posts don't normally make any sense from a logical standpoint, but this one totally fails on basic comprehension. What on earth is your point? That Peter was being a hypocrite, just as the text says?

No, my point was that Galatians 2:12 implies that James held a legalistic view of salvation, thus would be quite opposed to a law-free gospel like Paul's. And you conservative-types sure can't tolerate the idea that two original apostles would disagree with each other about the gospel.

If you are so sure that James and Paul agreed with each other on what the gospel was, why do Paul and James disagree on the perfectly Christ-like act of Gentiles eating with Jews?

Let me know if you require further clarification.

[mig_killer2]

No, my point was that Galatians 2:12 implies that James held a legalistic view of salvation, thus would be quite opposed to a law-free gospel like Paul's. And you conservative-types sure can't tolerate the idea that two original apostles would disagree with each other about the gospel.

If you are so sure that James and Paul agreed with each other on what the gospel was, why do Paul and James disagree on the perfectly Christ-like act of Gentiles eating with Jews?

Let me know if you require further clarification.

James did not believe that you had to obey the law to be saved. in fact, no one did. this seems to be a popular misconception. People were not saved by obeying the law ever. obeying the law brought righteousness. Paul believed that you gain righteousness through the work of the holy spirit, but from this passage you can at best assert that James believed that you obey the law to gain righteousness. this was the contradiction between the nazarenes and the ebionites.

[FlimFlamboyant]

No, my point was that Galatians 2:12 implies that James held a legalistic view of salvation, thus would be quite opposed to a law-free gospel like Paul's.

Yeah, so what? Paul called it "my gospel" for a reason. It concerned the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery; Gentiles sharing in the promises of the New Covenant. Now what does this have to do with him being a "false apostle"?