I don’t think Catholics are seriously thinking about the consequences of Galatians, Chapter 2, for their entire religion. The twelve, who were commanded by Jesus Christ, to take the Kingdom Gospel to “all the world”, beginning at Jerusalem did something entirely anti-Catholic when Paul went up to Jerusalem and met with them. Once Paul, by revelation, communicated unto them THAT GOSPEL which he preached among the Gentiles (v.2), and they understood that the gospel of the uncircumcision was COMMITTED unto Paul (v. 7), they LOOSED themselves from their command to go into ALL THE WORLD. They gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, and agreed that Paul would go to the Gentiles and they would go to the Jews (v.9). THAT IS EPIC. By this one act, there cannot POSSIBLY be apostolic succession that Rome claims. But Rome doesn’t THINK or read the Scriptures and what God plainly states. Because their whole religious system would collapse if they admitted what Galatians plainly states. That Peter, by divine revelation knew that Paul was to go to the Gentiles with his gospel of grace, and Peter and the 11 were to preach their kingdom gospel to the Jews only. Their whole system depends on a succession that does not exist, and has never existed.
We do have Hippolytus, Eusebius and Irenaeus writing a little differently. And, we have the evidence of the traditions of the various Christian settlement, such as the ones in India who trace back to (doubting) Thomas and Bartholomew. There weren't any Jews in India at the time.
All three sources put Peter and Paul in Rome.
Check out http://www.ichthus.info/, which is not a Catholic site. You might be interested in the content.
Perhaps you should read more carefully.
Matthew 24:14 states that "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world."
The command known as the Great Commission is given in Matthew 28:19 - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations."
Now, if Paul were teaching only the Gentiles - as per your personal interpretation of Galatians 2 - why did he preach in the synagogues?
If Cephas were teaching only the Jews, why did he preach to the Gentile Cornelius?
Was each individual apostle sent to preach to each and every nation - or were the apostles allowed to divide up the task among themselves?
Further, why is the letter of Peter addressed to the strangers of, among other places, Galatia and Cappadocia?
If there were no apostolic hierarchy, why did Paul need the fellowship of James, Peter and John?
And why choose Matthias, if there were no succession?
Your interpretation has many holes that one could drive a fleet of Mack trucks through.
The RCC has distorted scripture for their own purposes. Not only developing a hierarchy which us unbiblical but incorporating most of the pagan practices and symbols to attract pagans. Unfortunately most of the Protestant denominations have continued with many of the pagan practices.
Excellent points. This is definitely the kind of "searching the Scriptures" that Rome refuses to do. Thank you.