Gentiles as evidence for Christ

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Sherlock Holmes

Gentiles as evidence for Christ

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

It has always struck me as just too bizarre that Christianity invited Gentiles to share the God of the Jews. I cannot understand how that could have developed unless the Gospel is true, Christ did perform miracles and was resurrected. I just cannot see how Jews would ever share their religion with Gentiles under any imaginable ordinary circumstances, it strikes me as the last thing we'd expect unless this really was a true an momentous event that took place.

So - is the fact that Christianity arose from Jews, from Judaism (the "chosen people") yet openly embraces Gentiles as equals - indirect evidence for the truth of the Gospel?

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Gentiles as evidence for Christ

Post #11

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 3:24 pm So - is the fact that Christianity arose from Jews, from Judaism (the "chosen people") yet openly embraces Gentiles as equals - indirect evidence for the truth of the Gospel?
No more'n dinosaurs're evidence for the truth of Jurassic Park.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Gentiles as evidence for Christ

Post #12

Post by Difflugia »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 10:40 amThank you, I wasn't aware of that. It does seem though that was not initiated by Jews, but by Gentiles (the article states "... were a numerous class of Gentile sympathizers...") who had some kind of affinity for Judaism, so that's a difference that might be important, also we can't forget that it was Jews who as well as welcoming Gentiles, were prepared to disregard circumcision in Gentiles.
Even if that's true, that would seem to match the situation with early Christians. The Paul/Peter/James conflict in Galatians was exactly this, that the Jewish faction of Christianity considered Christianity open only to circumcised Jews. That this had been apparently smoothed out by the time Acts was written doesn't show that the earliest Jewish Christians accepted uncircumcised Gentiles. This dynamic would just as easily (and perhaps more easily) be explained by Gentile Christians appropriating certain aspects of Jewishness that contemporary Jews, Christian or not, considered unauthorized.

Remember also that the entire New Testament was written in Greek. If nothing else, that means that the legacy that we have is that of a Hellenistic movement, almost by definition. If Paul's description of his conflicts with the Jerusalem Church is accurate, then the apparent harmony may only be because we lack any writings from Jewish Christians with which to compare.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Gentiles as evidence for Christ

Post #13

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Difflugia wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 2:13 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 10:40 amThank you, I wasn't aware of that. It does seem though that was not initiated by Jews, but by Gentiles (the article states "... were a numerous class of Gentile sympathizers...") who had some kind of affinity for Judaism, so that's a difference that might be important, also we can't forget that it was Jews who as well as welcoming Gentiles, were prepared to disregard circumcision in Gentiles.
Even if that's true, that would seem to match the situation with early Christians. The Paul/Peter/James conflict in Galatians was exactly this, that the Jewish faction of Christianity considered Christianity open only to circumcised Jews. That this had been apparently smoothed out by the time Acts was written doesn't show that the earliest Jewish Christians accepted uncircumcised Gentiles. This dynamic would just as easily (and perhaps more easily) be explained by Gentile Christians appropriating certain aspects of Jewishness that contemporary Jews, Christian or not, considered unauthorized.

Remember also that the entire New Testament was written in Greek. If nothing else, that means that the legacy that we have is that of a Hellenistic movement, almost by definition. If Paul's description of his conflicts with the Jerusalem Church is accurate, then the apparent harmony may only be because we lack any writings from Jewish Christians with which to compare.
These are all good points I admit. Paul was of course a Jew and a pretty orthodox one at that, so to find him regarding uncircumcized Gentiles as equals just doesn't make sense to me, it's the last thing I'd expect in addition to Paul already abandoning other long cherished beliefs and embracing Christianity.

I agree that the earliest Jewish Christians likely did not accept Gentiles as brothers let alone uncircumcized Gentiles.

It seems Cornelius is among the first Gentile Christian, apparently he's the first that's mentioned in the records and might even be the very first since the record indicates that it was during his meeting with Simon Peter that the latter announces this inclusion of Gentiles. I don't understand why you say "had been apparently smoothed out" because it was during Simon Peter's visit that he first announced this and even stated that it was against the law for a Jew to visit a Gentile in this way, that doesn't seem like a "smoothing out" of an existing unsettled question, it seems to me there was no question, the idea of Gentiles being Christians wasn't on anyone's agenda - until this meeting.

I agree we are talking of a Hellenized community, yet it was nevertheless against the law in that community, for a Jew to visit the home of a Gentile, so we can't presume (I'm not saying you are either) the "Hellenization" was some kind of liberal social attitude among Jews.

Alas, there is a dearth of literature - if only we could discover further early material it would be fascinating.
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Mon May 16, 2022 10:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Gentiles as evidence for Christ

Post #14

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Incidentally, have you watched this TV programme before? I need to watch it afresh myself.



David Suchet (who played detective Poirot for years) is a Jew (not religiously) who embraced Christianity at around the age of 40, he's also the voice of the NIV Audio Bible.

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7957
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Gentiles as evidence for Christ

Post #15

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 10:28 am
Difflugia wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 2:13 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 10:40 amThank you, I wasn't aware of that. It does seem though that was not initiated by Jews, but by Gentiles (the article states "... were a numerous class of Gentile sympathizers...") who had some kind of affinity for Judaism, so that's a difference that might be important, also we can't forget that it was Jews who as well as welcoming Gentiles, were prepared to disregard circumcision in Gentiles.
Even if that's true, that would seem to match the situation with early Christians. The Paul/Peter/James conflict in Galatians was exactly this, that the Jewish faction of Christianity considered Christianity open only to circumcised Jews. That this had been apparently smoothed out by the time Acts was written doesn't show that the earliest Jewish Christians accepted uncircumcised Gentiles. This dynamic would just as easily (and perhaps more easily) be explained by Gentile Christians appropriating certain aspects of Jewishness that contemporary Jews, Christian or not, considered unauthorized.

Remember also that the entire New Testament was written in Greek. If nothing else, that means that the legacy that we have is that of a Hellenistic movement, almost by definition. If Paul's description of his conflicts with the Jerusalem Church is accurate, then the apparent harmony may only be because we lack any writings from Jewish Christians with which to compare.
These are all good points I admit. Paul was of course a Jew and a pretty orthodox one at that, so to find him regarding uncircumcized Gentiles as equals just doesn't make sense to me, it's the last thing I'd expect in addition to Paul already abandoning other long cherished beliefs and embracing Christianity.

I agree that the earliest Jewish Christians likely did not accept Gentiles as brothers let alone uncircumcized Gentiles.

It seems Cornelius is among the first Gentile Christian, apparently he's the first that's mentioned in the records and might even be the very first since the record indicates that it was during his meeting with Simon Peter that the latter announces this inclusion of Gentiles. I don't understand why you say "had been apparently smoothed out" because it was during Simon Peter's visit that he first announced this and even stated that it was against the law for a Jew to visit a Gentile in this way, that doesn't seem like a "smoothing out" of an existing unsettled question, it seems to me there was no question, the idea of Gentiles being Christians wasn't on anyone's agenda - until this meeting.

I agree we are talking of a Hellenized community, yet it was nevertheless against the law in that community, for a Jew to visit the home of a Gentile, so we can't presume (I'm not saying you are either) the "Hellenization" was some kind of liberal social attitude among Jews.

Alas, there is a dearth of literature - if only we could discover further early material it would be fascinating.
The thing is that citing Cornelius sounds to me like you are relying on Acts as a reliable record of events. Like the rest of the gospels I do not accept it as reliable witness testimony. Acts is ( I am convinced) a fictionalized biography of Paul and his mission, written by the Luke-writer and based loosely on Paul's letters with some Josephus mucked in as historical background. I wouldn't trust a word of it, myself. So arguing from it as evidence to how things went down at the time is in my view a non -starter.

I have argued this in the past and the response has been to either make things up or silence. For example, my point that Luke takes Paul's account of escaping from Damascus (AD 36) because the Nabatean army was after him (an absurd claim by Paul, in my view) was turned into a plot by the Jews to kill him. The apologist simply 'wove the stories together' so the plot was to hand Paul over to the Nabateans to kill him that way. I do not buy it any more than I buy that Judas hanged himself and also fell flat and burst open, or he bought the field with his own money and the Priests bought it for their own use with the money he threw back at them (1).

Neither does Paul mention a conversion on the road to Damascus. Romans shows a clear process of arguing his case, not relating something that was told to him by Jesus in the 3rd heaven (II Cor 12.2 - the 'man' is surely Paul himself), and it's fiddled argument anyway.
The 'council of Jerusalem' is (In Paul) a quiet chat with Peter and James and a deal he works out with James. But it's turned into a full hearing with the goodies on one side and the 'Jews of the circumcision' on the other with Peter advocating for Paul. And I already mention his absurd claim that the Law was a burden their fathers were not able to bear. The Jews (like the Pharisees faceds with Jesus sabbath - breaking) would protest at this, but (as usual) they are struck silent. This is not true, friends, and we can see it's taken straight out of Paul's argument that the law was imposed on the Jews by God to make life hard for them.

I could go on, with the death of Herod Agrippa lifted from Josephus, but altered so the omen of death is changed from an Owl to an angel. Or the altering of the angelic message at the tomb so they are not told to go to Galilee but to stay in Jerusalem - because Luke knows from Paul's letters that is what they did.

But that should be enough to show that I do not trust Acts as some sort of reliable historical account from which we can draw conclusions. I admire David Suchet as an actor, but that does not make him an expert on the Bible, even if he believes every word of his scripted TV programme.

(1) The apologetic 'Well it's the same thing, isn't it' is?' is a Faith -saving exercise. No, it is not the same thing at all.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Gentiles as evidence for Christ

Post #16

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 11:57 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 10:28 am
Difflugia wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 2:13 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 10:40 amThank you, I wasn't aware of that. It does seem though that was not initiated by Jews, but by Gentiles (the article states "... were a numerous class of Gentile sympathizers...") who had some kind of affinity for Judaism, so that's a difference that might be important, also we can't forget that it was Jews who as well as welcoming Gentiles, were prepared to disregard circumcision in Gentiles.
Even if that's true, that would seem to match the situation with early Christians. The Paul/Peter/James conflict in Galatians was exactly this, that the Jewish faction of Christianity considered Christianity open only to circumcised Jews. That this had been apparently smoothed out by the time Acts was written doesn't show that the earliest Jewish Christians accepted uncircumcised Gentiles. This dynamic would just as easily (and perhaps more easily) be explained by Gentile Christians appropriating certain aspects of Jewishness that contemporary Jews, Christian or not, considered unauthorized.

Remember also that the entire New Testament was written in Greek. If nothing else, that means that the legacy that we have is that of a Hellenistic movement, almost by definition. If Paul's description of his conflicts with the Jerusalem Church is accurate, then the apparent harmony may only be because we lack any writings from Jewish Christians with which to compare.
These are all good points I admit. Paul was of course a Jew and a pretty orthodox one at that, so to find him regarding uncircumcized Gentiles as equals just doesn't make sense to me, it's the last thing I'd expect in addition to Paul already abandoning other long cherished beliefs and embracing Christianity.

I agree that the earliest Jewish Christians likely did not accept Gentiles as brothers let alone uncircumcized Gentiles.

It seems Cornelius is among the first Gentile Christian, apparently he's the first that's mentioned in the records and might even be the very first since the record indicates that it was during his meeting with Simon Peter that the latter announces this inclusion of Gentiles. I don't understand why you say "had been apparently smoothed out" because it was during Simon Peter's visit that he first announced this and even stated that it was against the law for a Jew to visit a Gentile in this way, that doesn't seem like a "smoothing out" of an existing unsettled question, it seems to me there was no question, the idea of Gentiles being Christians wasn't on anyone's agenda - until this meeting.

I agree we are talking of a Hellenized community, yet it was nevertheless against the law in that community, for a Jew to visit the home of a Gentile, so we can't presume (I'm not saying you are either) the "Hellenization" was some kind of liberal social attitude among Jews.

Alas, there is a dearth of literature - if only we could discover further early material it would be fascinating.
The thing is that citing Cornelius sounds to me like you are relying on Acts as a reliable record of events. Like the rest of the gospels I do not accept it as reliable witness testimony. Acts is ( I am convinced) a fictionalized biography of Paul and his mission, written by the Luke-writer and based loosely on Paul's letters with some Josephus mucked in as historical background. I wouldn't trust a word of it, myself. So arguing from it as evidence to how things went down at the time is in my view a non -starter.

I have argued this in the past and the response has been to either make things up or silence. For example, my point that Luke takes Paul's account of escaping from Damascus (AD 36) because the Nabatean army was after him (an absurd claim by Paul, in my view) was turned into a plot by the Jews to kill him. The apologist simply 'wove the stories together' so the plot was to hand Paul over to the Nabateans to kill him that way. I do not buy it any more than I buy that Judas hanged himself and also fell flat and burst open, or he bought the field with his own money and the Priests bought it for their own use with the money he threw back at them (1).

Neither does Paul mention a conversion on the road to Damascus. Romans shows a clear process of arguing his case, not relating something that was told to him by Jesus in the 3rd heaven (II Cor 12.2 - the 'man' is surely Paul himself), and it's fiddled argument anyway.
The 'council of Jerusalem' is (In Paul) a quiet chat with Peter and James and a deal he works out with James. But it's turned into a full hearing with the goodies on one side and the 'Jews of the circumcision' on the other with Peter advocating for Paul. And I already mention his absurd claim that the Law was a burden their fathers were not able to bear. The Jews (like the Pharisees faceds with Jesus sabbath - breaking) would protest at this, but (as usual) they are struck silent. This is not true, friends, and we can see it's taken straight out of Paul's argument that the law was imposed on the Jews by God to make life hard for them.

I could go on, with the death of Herod Agrippa lifted from Josephus, but altered so the omen of death is changed from an Owl to an angel. Or the altering of the angelic message at the tomb so they are not told to go to Galilee but to stay in Jerusalem - because Luke knows from Paul's letters that is what they did.

But that should be enough to show that I do not trust Acts as some sort of reliable historical account from which we can draw conclusions. I admire David Suchet as an actor, but that does not make him an expert on the Bible, even if he believes every word of his scripted TV programme.

(1) The apologetic 'Well it's the same thing, isn't it' is?' is a Faith -saving exercise. No, it is not the same thing at all.
Well I was of course trying to explain why I felt that the acceptance, inclusion, of uncircumcized Gentiles seemed almost inconceivable to me and used scripture to address certain points raised by Difflugia.

Now if you regard Acts as a fabrication then of course we're discussing a completely different question, namely the historicity of Acts.

That likely deserves its own thread and I'm sure like any book in the NT or OT we can devise umpteen reasons why it cannot be trusted.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Gentiles as evidence for Christ

Post #17

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Here's one objection I read about, an objection you might share:
In Acts 15:16–18, James, the leader of the Christian Jews in Jerusalem, gives a speech where he quotes scriptures from the Greek Septuagint (Amos 9:11–12). Some believe this is incongruous with the portrait of James as a Jewish leader who would presumably speak Aramaic, not Greek. For instance, Richard Pervo notes: "The scriptural citation strongly differs from the MT which has nothing to do with the inclusion of gentiles. This is the vital element in the citation and rules out the possibility that the historical James (who would not have cited the LXX) utilized the passage."[88]

A possible explanation is that the Septuagint translation better made James's point about the inclusion of Gentiles as the people of God.[89] Dr. John Barnett stated that "Many of the Jews in Jesus' day used the Septuagint as their Bible".[90] Although Aramaic was a major language of the Ancient Near East, by Jesus's day Greek had been the lingua franca of the area for 300 years.
Well the LXX does use the term "Gentiles" and the MT does not, this is true, but what of it? As you know it was Greek speaking Jewish scribes who did the translation resulting in the Septuagint so this objection is more about explaining differences between LXX and the MT and one's expectations of what text James would have referred to.

Moreover, the majority of OT quotes in the NT are in fact quotes from the Septuagint! so surely that shows us that the LXX was foremost amongst Jews at that juncture.

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7957
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Gentiles as evidence for Christ

Post #18

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:14 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 11:57 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 10:28 am
Difflugia wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 2:13 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 10:40 amThank you, I wasn't aware of that. It does seem though that was not initiated by Jews, but by Gentiles (the article states "... were a numerous class of Gentile sympathizers...") who had some kind of affinity for Judaism, so that's a difference that might be important, also we can't forget that it was Jews who as well as welcoming Gentiles, were prepared to disregard circumcision in Gentiles.
Even if that's true, that would seem to match the situation with early Christians. The Paul/Peter/James conflict in Galatians was exactly this, that the Jewish faction of Christianity considered Christianity open only to circumcised Jews. That this had been apparently smoothed out by the time Acts was written doesn't show that the earliest Jewish Christians accepted uncircumcised Gentiles. This dynamic would just as easily (and perhaps more easily) be explained by Gentile Christians appropriating certain aspects of Jewishness that contemporary Jews, Christian or not, considered unauthorized.

Remember also that the entire New Testament was written in Greek. If nothing else, that means that the legacy that we have is that of a Hellenistic movement, almost by definition. If Paul's description of his conflicts with the Jerusalem Church is accurate, then the apparent harmony may only be because we lack any writings from Jewish Christians with which to compare.
These are all good points I admit. Paul was of course a Jew and a pretty orthodox one at that, so to find him regarding uncircumcized Gentiles as equals just doesn't make sense to me, it's the last thing I'd expect in addition to Paul already abandoning other long cherished beliefs and embracing Christianity.

I agree that the earliest Jewish Christians likely did not accept Gentiles as brothers let alone uncircumcized Gentiles.

It seems Cornelius is among the first Gentile Christian, apparently he's the first that's mentioned in the records and might even be the very first since the record indicates that it was during his meeting with Simon Peter that the latter announces this inclusion of Gentiles. I don't understand why you say "had been apparently smoothed out" because it was during Simon Peter's visit that he first announced this and even stated that it was against the law for a Jew to visit a Gentile in this way, that doesn't seem like a "smoothing out" of an existing unsettled question, it seems to me there was no question, the idea of Gentiles being Christians wasn't on anyone's agenda - until this meeting.

I agree we are talking of a Hellenized community, yet it was nevertheless against the law in that community, for a Jew to visit the home of a Gentile, so we can't presume (I'm not saying you are either) the "Hellenization" was some kind of liberal social attitude among Jews.

Alas, there is a dearth of literature - if only we could discover further early material it would be fascinating.
The thing is that citing Cornelius sounds to me like you are relying on Acts as a reliable record of events. Like the rest of the gospels I do not accept it as reliable witness testimony. Acts is ( I am convinced) a fictionalized biography of Paul and his mission, written by the Luke-writer and based loosely on Paul's letters with some Josephus mucked in as historical background. I wouldn't trust a word of it, myself. So arguing from it as evidence to how things went down at the time is in my view a non -starter.

I have argued this in the past and the response has been to either make things up or silence. For example, my point that Luke takes Paul's account of escaping from Damascus (AD 36) because the Nabatean army was after him (an absurd claim by Paul, in my view) was turned into a plot by the Jews to kill him. The apologist simply 'wove the stories together' so the plot was to hand Paul over to the Nabateans to kill him that way. I do not buy it any more than I buy that Judas hanged himself and also fell flat and burst open, or he bought the field with his own money and the Priests bought it for their own use with the money he threw back at them (1).

Neither does Paul mention a conversion on the road to Damascus. Romans shows a clear process of arguing his case, not relating something that was told to him by Jesus in the 3rd heaven (II Cor 12.2 - the 'man' is surely Paul himself), and it's fiddled argument anyway.
The 'council of Jerusalem' is (In Paul) a quiet chat with Peter and James and a deal he works out with James. But it's turned into a full hearing with the goodies on one side and the 'Jews of the circumcision' on the other with Peter advocating for Paul. And I already mention his absurd claim that the Law was a burden their fathers were not able to bear. The Jews (like the Pharisees faceds with Jesus sabbath - breaking) would protest at this, but (as usual) they are struck silent. This is not true, friends, and we can see it's taken straight out of Paul's argument that the law was imposed on the Jews by God to make life hard for them.

I could go on, with the death of Herod Agrippa lifted from Josephus, but altered so the omen of death is changed from an Owl to an angel. Or the altering of the angelic message at the tomb so they are not told to go to Galilee but to stay in Jerusalem - because Luke knows from Paul's letters that is what they did.

But that should be enough to show that I do not trust Acts as some sort of reliable historical account from which we can draw conclusions. I admire David Suchet as an actor, but that does not make him an expert on the Bible, even if he believes every word of his scripted TV programme.

(1) The apologetic 'Well it's the same thing, isn't it' is?' is a Faith -saving exercise. No, it is not the same thing at all.
Well I was of course trying to explain why I felt that the acceptance, inclusion, of uncircumcized Gentiles seemed almost inconceivable to me and used scripture to address certain points raised by Difflugia.

Now if you regard Acts as a fabrication then of course we're discussing a completely different question, namely the historicity of Acts.

That likely deserves its own thread and I'm sure like any book in the NT or OT we can devise umpteen reasons why it cannot be trusted.
Fair point. But it had to be said. Any discussion of what the situation was with early Christianity and the messianic Judaism of the time and how it related to politics that is based on taking Acts (or the gospels or even Paul) as reliable, has to consider that maybe Acts is not a reliable guide to anything. The point being that, if they follow my argument and say 'That's it; Acts is not reliable' that they cannot be obliged to respect Acts as a factual source in the debate.

Analogy :) What discussion is worth a damn' between a Christian and an atheist regarding the value of Christianity when the atheist is supposed to accept the accounts of the resurrection as reliable? It's just skewing the whole discussion in favour of one side.

No. Just as I say "This is why the resurrections are not reliable", This is why Acts is not a reliable account of what happened. And I must leave it to others to judge, but it must be said.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Gentiles as evidence for Christ

Post #19

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 1:18 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:14 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 11:57 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 10:28 am
Difflugia wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 2:13 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 10:40 amThank you, I wasn't aware of that. It does seem though that was not initiated by Jews, but by Gentiles (the article states "... were a numerous class of Gentile sympathizers...") who had some kind of affinity for Judaism, so that's a difference that might be important, also we can't forget that it was Jews who as well as welcoming Gentiles, were prepared to disregard circumcision in Gentiles.
Even if that's true, that would seem to match the situation with early Christians. The Paul/Peter/James conflict in Galatians was exactly this, that the Jewish faction of Christianity considered Christianity open only to circumcised Jews. That this had been apparently smoothed out by the time Acts was written doesn't show that the earliest Jewish Christians accepted uncircumcised Gentiles. This dynamic would just as easily (and perhaps more easily) be explained by Gentile Christians appropriating certain aspects of Jewishness that contemporary Jews, Christian or not, considered unauthorized.

Remember also that the entire New Testament was written in Greek. If nothing else, that means that the legacy that we have is that of a Hellenistic movement, almost by definition. If Paul's description of his conflicts with the Jerusalem Church is accurate, then the apparent harmony may only be because we lack any writings from Jewish Christians with which to compare.
These are all good points I admit. Paul was of course a Jew and a pretty orthodox one at that, so to find him regarding uncircumcized Gentiles as equals just doesn't make sense to me, it's the last thing I'd expect in addition to Paul already abandoning other long cherished beliefs and embracing Christianity.

I agree that the earliest Jewish Christians likely did not accept Gentiles as brothers let alone uncircumcized Gentiles.

It seems Cornelius is among the first Gentile Christian, apparently he's the first that's mentioned in the records and might even be the very first since the record indicates that it was during his meeting with Simon Peter that the latter announces this inclusion of Gentiles. I don't understand why you say "had been apparently smoothed out" because it was during Simon Peter's visit that he first announced this and even stated that it was against the law for a Jew to visit a Gentile in this way, that doesn't seem like a "smoothing out" of an existing unsettled question, it seems to me there was no question, the idea of Gentiles being Christians wasn't on anyone's agenda - until this meeting.

I agree we are talking of a Hellenized community, yet it was nevertheless against the law in that community, for a Jew to visit the home of a Gentile, so we can't presume (I'm not saying you are either) the "Hellenization" was some kind of liberal social attitude among Jews.

Alas, there is a dearth of literature - if only we could discover further early material it would be fascinating.
The thing is that citing Cornelius sounds to me like you are relying on Acts as a reliable record of events. Like the rest of the gospels I do not accept it as reliable witness testimony. Acts is ( I am convinced) a fictionalized biography of Paul and his mission, written by the Luke-writer and based loosely on Paul's letters with some Josephus mucked in as historical background. I wouldn't trust a word of it, myself. So arguing from it as evidence to how things went down at the time is in my view a non -starter.

I have argued this in the past and the response has been to either make things up or silence. For example, my point that Luke takes Paul's account of escaping from Damascus (AD 36) because the Nabatean army was after him (an absurd claim by Paul, in my view) was turned into a plot by the Jews to kill him. The apologist simply 'wove the stories together' so the plot was to hand Paul over to the Nabateans to kill him that way. I do not buy it any more than I buy that Judas hanged himself and also fell flat and burst open, or he bought the field with his own money and the Priests bought it for their own use with the money he threw back at them (1).

Neither does Paul mention a conversion on the road to Damascus. Romans shows a clear process of arguing his case, not relating something that was told to him by Jesus in the 3rd heaven (II Cor 12.2 - the 'man' is surely Paul himself), and it's fiddled argument anyway.
The 'council of Jerusalem' is (In Paul) a quiet chat with Peter and James and a deal he works out with James. But it's turned into a full hearing with the goodies on one side and the 'Jews of the circumcision' on the other with Peter advocating for Paul. And I already mention his absurd claim that the Law was a burden their fathers were not able to bear. The Jews (like the Pharisees faceds with Jesus sabbath - breaking) would protest at this, but (as usual) they are struck silent. This is not true, friends, and we can see it's taken straight out of Paul's argument that the law was imposed on the Jews by God to make life hard for them.

I could go on, with the death of Herod Agrippa lifted from Josephus, but altered so the omen of death is changed from an Owl to an angel. Or the altering of the angelic message at the tomb so they are not told to go to Galilee but to stay in Jerusalem - because Luke knows from Paul's letters that is what they did.

But that should be enough to show that I do not trust Acts as some sort of reliable historical account from which we can draw conclusions. I admire David Suchet as an actor, but that does not make him an expert on the Bible, even if he believes every word of his scripted TV programme.

(1) The apologetic 'Well it's the same thing, isn't it' is?' is a Faith -saving exercise. No, it is not the same thing at all.
Well I was of course trying to explain why I felt that the acceptance, inclusion, of uncircumcized Gentiles seemed almost inconceivable to me and used scripture to address certain points raised by Difflugia.

Now if you regard Acts as a fabrication then of course we're discussing a completely different question, namely the historicity of Acts.

That likely deserves its own thread and I'm sure like any book in the NT or OT we can devise umpteen reasons why it cannot be trusted.
Fair point. But it had to be said. Any discussion of what the situation was with early Christianity and the messianic Judaism of the time and how it related to politics that is based on taking Acts (or the gospels or even Paul) as reliable, has to consider that maybe Acts is not a reliable guide to anything. The point being that, if they follow my argument and say 'That's it; Acts is not reliable' that they cannot be obliged to respect Acts as a factual source in the debate.

Analogy :) What discussion is worth a damn' between a Christian and an atheist regarding the value of Christianity when the atheist is supposed to accept the accounts of the resurrection as reliable? It's just skewing the whole discussion in favour of one side.

No. Just as I say "This is why the resurrections are not reliable", This is why Acts is not a reliable account of what happened. And I must leave it to others to judge, but it must be said.
I think these are very fair points, very valid concerns and unless one confronts these questions then it is not clear how to establish Christianity as even meaning anything.

The difficulty is that we are so far removed from the time that establishing the correct expectations is a challenge. Also, if something extraordinary did take place then how can we not expect to find extraordinary accounts?

Its fine to be skeptical about the veracity of these accounts, totally justified but at the same time we must recognize that if these events did take place, truly astonishing events then what else could they have done but write it down?

Ask yourself what would you, what could you have done 2,000 years ago if you had witnessed such mind boggling events, water into wine, resurrection and so on?

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7957
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Gentiles as evidence for Christ

Post #20

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 2:27 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 1:18 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:14 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 11:57 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 10:28 am
Difflugia wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 2:13 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 10:40 amThank you, I wasn't aware of that. It does seem though that was not initiated by Jews, but by Gentiles (the article states "... were a numerous class of Gentile sympathizers...") who had some kind of affinity for Judaism, so that's a difference that might be important, also we can't forget that it was Jews who as well as welcoming Gentiles, were prepared to disregard circumcision in Gentiles.
Even if that's true, that would seem to match the situation with early Christians. The Paul/Peter/James conflict in Galatians was exactly this, that the Jewish faction of Christianity considered Christianity open only to circumcised Jews. That this had been apparently smoothed out by the time Acts was written doesn't show that the earliest Jewish Christians accepted uncircumcised Gentiles. This dynamic would just as easily (and perhaps more easily) be explained by Gentile Christians appropriating certain aspects of Jewishness that contemporary Jews, Christian or not, considered unauthorized.

Remember also that the entire New Testament was written in Greek. If nothing else, that means that the legacy that we have is that of a Hellenistic movement, almost by definition. If Paul's description of his conflicts with the Jerusalem Church is accurate, then the apparent harmony may only be because we lack any writings from Jewish Christians with which to compare.
These are all good points I admit. Paul was of course a Jew and a pretty orthodox one at that, so to find him regarding uncircumcized Gentiles as equals just doesn't make sense to me, it's the last thing I'd expect in addition to Paul already abandoning other long cherished beliefs and embracing Christianity.

I agree that the earliest Jewish Christians likely did not accept Gentiles as brothers let alone uncircumcized Gentiles.

It seems Cornelius is among the first Gentile Christian, apparently he's the first that's mentioned in the records and might even be the very first since the record indicates that it was during his meeting with Simon Peter that the latter announces this inclusion of Gentiles. I don't understand why you say "had been apparently smoothed out" because it was during Simon Peter's visit that he first announced this and even stated that it was against the law for a Jew to visit a Gentile in this way, that doesn't seem like a "smoothing out" of an existing unsettled question, it seems to me there was no question, the idea of Gentiles being Christians wasn't on anyone's agenda - until this meeting.

I agree we are talking of a Hellenized community, yet it was nevertheless against the law in that community, for a Jew to visit the home of a Gentile, so we can't presume (I'm not saying you are either) the "Hellenization" was some kind of liberal social attitude among Jews.

Alas, there is a dearth of literature - if only we could discover further early material it would be fascinating.
The thing is that citing Cornelius sounds to me like you are relying on Acts as a reliable record of events. Like the rest of the gospels I do not accept it as reliable witness testimony. Acts is ( I am convinced) a fictionalized biography of Paul and his mission, written by the Luke-writer and based loosely on Paul's letters with some Josephus mucked in as historical background. I wouldn't trust a word of it, myself. So arguing from it as evidence to how things went down at the time is in my view a non -starter.

I have argued this in the past and the response has been to either make things up or silence. For example, my point that Luke takes Paul's account of escaping from Damascus (AD 36) because the Nabatean army was after him (an absurd claim by Paul, in my view) was turned into a plot by the Jews to kill him. The apologist simply 'wove the stories together' so the plot was to hand Paul over to the Nabateans to kill him that way. I do not buy it any more than I buy that Judas hanged himself and also fell flat and burst open, or he bought the field with his own money and the Priests bought it for their own use with the money he threw back at them (1).

Neither does Paul mention a conversion on the road to Damascus. Romans shows a clear process of arguing his case, not relating something that was told to him by Jesus in the 3rd heaven (II Cor 12.2 - the 'man' is surely Paul himself), and it's fiddled argument anyway.
The 'council of Jerusalem' is (In Paul) a quiet chat with Peter and James and a deal he works out with James. But it's turned into a full hearing with the goodies on one side and the 'Jews of the circumcision' on the other with Peter advocating for Paul. And I already mention his absurd claim that the Law was a burden their fathers were not able to bear. The Jews (like the Pharisees faceds with Jesus sabbath - breaking) would protest at this, but (as usual) they are struck silent. This is not true, friends, and we can see it's taken straight out of Paul's argument that the law was imposed on the Jews by God to make life hard for them.

I could go on, with the death of Herod Agrippa lifted from Josephus, but altered so the omen of death is changed from an Owl to an angel. Or the altering of the angelic message at the tomb so they are not told to go to Galilee but to stay in Jerusalem - because Luke knows from Paul's letters that is what they did.

But that should be enough to show that I do not trust Acts as some sort of reliable historical account from which we can draw conclusions. I admire David Suchet as an actor, but that does not make him an expert on the Bible, even if he believes every word of his scripted TV programme.

(1) The apologetic 'Well it's the same thing, isn't it' is?' is a Faith -saving exercise. No, it is not the same thing at all.
Well I was of course trying to explain why I felt that the acceptance, inclusion, of uncircumcized Gentiles seemed almost inconceivable to me and used scripture to address certain points raised by Difflugia.

Now if you regard Acts as a fabrication then of course we're discussing a completely different question, namely the historicity of Acts.

That likely deserves its own thread and I'm sure like any book in the NT or OT we can devise umpteen reasons why it cannot be trusted.
Fair point. But it had to be said. Any discussion of what the situation was with early Christianity and the messianic Judaism of the time and how it related to politics that is based on taking Acts (or the gospels or even Paul) as reliable, has to consider that maybe Acts is not a reliable guide to anything. The point being that, if they follow my argument and say 'That's it; Acts is not reliable' that they cannot be obliged to respect Acts as a factual source in the debate.

Analogy :) What discussion is worth a damn' between a Christian and an atheist regarding the value of Christianity when the atheist is supposed to accept the accounts of the resurrection as reliable? It's just skewing the whole discussion in favour of one side.

No. Just as I say "This is why the resurrections are not reliable", This is why Acts is not a reliable account of what happened. And I must leave it to others to judge, but it must be said.
I think these are very fair points, very valid concerns and unless one confronts these questions then it is not clear how to establish Christianity as even meaning anything.

The difficulty is that we are so far removed from the time that establishing the correct expectations is a challenge. Also, if something extraordinary did take place then how can we not expect to find extraordinary accounts?

Its fine to be skeptical about the veracity of these accounts, totally justified but at the same time we must recognize that if these events did take place, truly astonishing events then what else could they have done but write it down?

Ask yourself what would you, what could you have done 2,000 years ago if you had witnessed such mind boggling events, water into wine, resurrection and so on?
We have to take the records as we find them. Let's face it, if we can't trust an account of a mobile star, a shekel eating fish or Jesus walking on water, as being a claim of an actual event, what in the gospels can we believe at all? Doubts of Gospel veracity means that we doubt the Resurrection, Jesus and Christianity, not that we believe it all and dismiss any arguments and doubts based on what the Gospels say because we can't really understand them these days.

Back to the drawing board on that one ;)

Post Reply