In John 1:42 Jesus called Peter as Cephas. > Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter). But throughout the Gospels, Peter was called as Peter and his books also called in his name I Peter and II Peter. But why did Paul call Peter, Cephas (Galatians 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5)? In some occasions he also calls him as Peter. When I asked my mom, she said Paul was rebuking Peter in the name Cephas. Is this true? Or is calling Peter as Cephas normal? At times, Paul and Peter had disagreements as in Galatians 2:11-16: > 11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? > 15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. How was their relationship as fellow apostles?

**Question** I am not asking for all Christian interpretations; I am asking from a biblical-theology perspective. **Romans 7:2** says that a married woman is bound (by the law) to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from that marital bond and may belong to another (the law ceases to have jurisdiction). My question is not whether Christ’s death makes the Law itself void, abolished, or of no effect. In Paul’s marriage analogy, when the husband dies, the marriage law does not cease to exist. What ceases is the woman’s legal status as bound to that particular husband under the law within that particular marriage. Given this distinction, I am asking whether **Romans 7:2–4** can be understood as addressing the legal termination of the old covenant-marriage bond. The Old Testament presents YHWH’s relationship to Israel in covenant-marriage terms; **Jeremiah 31:32 says Israel broke the covenant, though YHWH was her husband; **Jeremiah 3:8** says YHWH gave faithless Israel a certificate of divorce; **Jeremiah 3:1** invokes the **Deuteronomy 24:1–4** problem, where a divorced and defiled wife may not return to her former husband; and finally **Jeremiah 31:31–34** promises a new covenant (marriage), not simply a repaired old-covenant. Within a Pauline biblical-theology context, does the cross address a covenant-legal problem (as well as the atonement for sin)? More specifically, does Christ’s death terminate the old covenant legal claim of a bond between Israel as bride and YHWH as husband, thereby making a new covenant union possible, without implying that the Law itself has ceased to exist?

Skeptical scholars sometimes argue that the resurrection accounts arose from grief-induced hallucinations, or that one apostle had a visionary experience that later spread through cognitive dissonance. On this view, the tradition develops over time: the earliest Gospel, Mark, does not describe a physical appearance of Jesus, while later Gospels like Matthew, Luke, and John portray increasingly physical encounters—Jesus being touched, eating with the disciples, and emphasizing that he is not a ghost. A point raised against the resurrection is this: if it was truly physical from the beginning, why doesn’t St. Paul—writing earlier than the Gospels—describe it that way? In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul lists appearances of the risen Jesus, but he does not mention any physical interaction such as touching or eating. His own experience also seems more visionary or revelatory in nature rather than clearly bodily.

In Galatians 3:29, Paul writes: “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” How should this verse be understood in relation to other biblical passages that describe the Jewish people as God’s chosen people? Specifically, does Paul mean that believers in Christ (including Gentiles) are now included in the promises given to Abraham, or is he speaking in a different (e.g., spiritual or metaphorical) sense?

The Catholic Archdiocese of Malta celebrates the Feast of the Shipwreck of St Paul on February 10 each year. I would like to know if the domestic church has any traditional ways of celebrating this feast within the family at Malta?

> Romans 12:20 - "On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." > > Proverbs 25:22 - "In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you." Do these two verses have the same contextual meaning or are Paul and the author of Proverbs saying different things? And what might the meaning be given their context?

In Romans 7:12–14, Paul writes that the law is “holy, righteous, and good,” yet he also emphasizes that it cannot save humanity from sin. How have theologians, especially in the Protestant tradition, reconciled this apparent tension?

Commentators on the story of [Acts 1:15–26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+1%3A15-26&version=ESV) , where the Apostles select Matthias to replace Judas as the 12th apostle, often say vague things like: > Some have held that the choice of Matthias was unauthorized and that he was never accepted as an apostle. ([*People's New Testament*](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/johnson_bw/pnt.pnt0501.html)) There seems to be some biblical evidence that Paul *was not* considered (not even by himself) to be "one of the twelve," like [Acts 2:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2%3A14&version=ESV) and [1 Corinthians 15:5–9](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+15%3A5-9&version=ESV) . But some apparently either disagree with this assessment, or think that if Paul was not considered the 12th apostle, he should have been. So, my question. What are the arguments used by theologians who believe that the apostles erred in selecting Matthias to be the 12th apostle instead of Paul? Related: [Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthias or Paul?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7507/21576) Unlike this closed question, my question focuses on one side of the debate.

Philippians 2:6 is "Ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ" "Hos en morphe theou hyparchon ouch harpagmon hegesato to einai isa theo" In his talk Philippians 2: Jesus is not God , Dr. Tom Gaston says (~3 min. mark) > "Had Paul meant to say that Jesus was God, or was a god, he would have > had a very simple way of doing so. That's not a difficult thing to say > in Greek. So the fact that he doesn't use those words makes it very > unlikely that that's what he means." If St. Paul had wanted to say Jesus was God at Philippians 2:6 straightforwardly, he could have said so. Instead, he adds the word 'form', as in 'form of God'. Similarly, as Gaston continues > "Also, had Paul meant to be talking about Jesus' *nature* - saying > that Jesus had the nature of God - again, he would have used other > words. Look at this passage from Galatians 4:8, where Paul talks about > the nature of gods. [...] He uses the Greek word 'phusis' for > 'nature', and again, when you look at that verse for 2 Peter 1:4, it > talks about participating in the divine nature, and again the Greek > word used is 'phusis'. **So had Paul wanted to say Jesus had divine > nature, there are other words he could have used to say that. Instead, > what Paul says is that Jesus was in the form of God. The word he uses > is 'morphe', which is most commonly used in reference to *outward* > appearance, rather than essence or being** [as is done at Mark 16:12]." Why, according to Trinitarians who believe Philippians 2:6 is saying Jesus was God, did Paul add the word 'form' ('morphe')?

In [2 Corinthians 10:3-5](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/2-corinthians/passage.aspx?q=2-corinthians+10:3-5) Paul makes a contrast between spiritual warfare and war "according to human standards": >Indeed, we live as human beings, but we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ. In using the phrase "we do not wage war according to human standards", is Paul assuming or expecting Christians will all be pacifists, or is he merely highlighting the contrast between physical and spiritual warfare?

My understanding of the Hebrew Roots movement is that they celebrate feast days and more closely resemble Jewish traditions rather than "Christian" ones. For example, most Christians would celebrate Christmas while Hebrew Roots would celebrate Hanukkah, though both believe in Christ as savior. If I'm misunderstanding, feel free to set me straight. My question is how the Hebrew Roots (denomination?) handles Paul's writings, since a lot of it seems to disapprove of following the traditionally Jewish practices. For example, Galatians 4 says things like > But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces ? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you (9‭-‬11) NIV And verses 21 through 31 talk about being "children of promise" where those under the law are slaves to it. Does the Hebrew Roots movement have an explanation for scriptures like these?

**Premise** 1Cor 8:6 KJV > But to us there is but one **God, the Father**, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1Tim 1:17 >Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, **the only God**, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. Romans 15:6 NASB >so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the **God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ**. Ephesians 4:6 KJV >One **God and Father** of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 2 Timothy 1:3 >I thank **God**, whom I serve with a pure conscience, **as my forefathers did**, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day, **Question** ***Who do Trinitarians understand Paul's God to be?***

### Background Protestants believe that all scripture is infallible (that it is incapable of error) and that it is inspired by God (that it is God-breathed and the words of God). In 1st Corinthians 7:10-13 (NRSV) Paul gives two commands. In the first command, Paul says that it is "**from the Lord**". In the second command, Paul interestingly says that it comes from himself and "**not [from] the Lord**". > To the married **I give this command—not I but the Lord**—that the wife > should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does separate, let > her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband) and that > the husband should not divorce his wife. > > **To the rest I say—I and not the Lord**—that if any brother has a wife > who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he should not > divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever > and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce the husband. ### Question Do Protestants believe that the command that Paul explicitly says is "not from the Lord" is both infallible and inspired? Is this portion of 1st Corinthians considered scripture by Protestants?

I’m doing some research about early Christianity, specifically looking into the circumstances of the divergence between Judaism and Christianity as two very distinct religions as we know them today. It seems Paul had a very remarkable role in shifting the Christian faith into a more Gentile and independent religion rather than enforcing Mosaic laws. Since Paul is considered the Apostle to the Gentiles, did Paul continue to consider himself a Jew after conversion?

During Paul's second missionary journey, he meets Timothy and wants to take him along on the rest of his journey. The Bible makes a special point about Timothy being circumcised to avoid offending the Jews: > **Acts 16:1-3 (NASB) **
1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. I understand that the Jews who knew Timothy would assume that he wasn't circumcised because his father wasn't Jewish. How would they know that he had been circumcised? Would Paul and Timothy just announce it? Would the Jews insist on verifying it?

I have this question for a school assignment but it doesn’t specify what journey. Please help!

I have been taught all my Christian life that the uniquely Pauline expression "the works of the law" found in the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Galatians refers to acts of righteousness, good works and keeping God's commandment. So when Paul denounces the works of the law as lacking justification value, it is taught that it is acts of righteousness, good works and obedience to God's commandments that he denounces. Even though I often wrestled with this identification when I read some passages of Scripture that seem to contradict it, I generally accepted it as the truth. I have however studied the expression and the context in which it is used by Paul and have found it to be referring to circumcision and contingent works and not to righteousness, good works or acts of obedience to God's moral law. I am now curious to find out the origin of the interpretation. I want to be sure I have not missed anything that was considered to arrive at it which makes my conclusion to differ. Has anyone done a study on this or come across any exposition giving the background to this interpretation?

If there are unmistakable events or experiences that prove "true" salvation, how would we then be able to discern a deceptive event or experience that was administered by Satan? Isn't this why faith is required instead of visible proof? I believe it protects us from the power of Satan, "the god of this world" and master of deception, along with his false "ministers of righteousness". **2 Corinthians 4:3-4** >But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. **2 Corinthians 11:13-15** >For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. Please provide actual scripture from our apostle Paul's epistles (Romans through Philemon) that states where we will experience an immediate event or experience that would confirm our eternal salvation aside from having faith alone in Jesus Christ and the work that He completed on the cross on our behalf.

Yet 1 John 1:9 is widely taught as conditional forgiveness for the Christian when the passage of 1 John 1 is directed as an invitation to Gnostic Jews to become believers.

> Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was **because of a revelation** that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles. - **Galatians 2:1-2, NASB** I am wondering ***what*** Paul's revelation was? Do we have any scripture, tradition, or writings from church fathers which might help answer this?