rhutchin

The issue of Galatians related to the need to be circumcised. The early church in Jerusalem apparently continued to practice circumcision and that was not an issue so long as they reached out only to Jews. When Paul comes with Titus, the issue becomes front and center because Titus was not circumcised and some of the Jewish converts (or tares) insisted that circumcision was needed. The apostles and leaders of the church all agreed that circumcision was not necessary to salvation. Paul condemned those who then continued to teach that salvation required circumcision. John 3:16 is consistent with this.

SeekingKnowledge

So can circumcised people enter the kingdom of heaven, or not? All the sudden I am on pins and needles.. LOL

skepticdude

I wasn't talking specifically about the circumcision issue in Acts 15 debate, I was talking about the more general problem of Gentile salvation being a point of contention, when, if conservative Christian assumptions are granted, such debate should not have existed. The first followers of Peter had criticized him for eating with Gentiles, and his response that God gave him a vision that Gentiles are to recieve salvation too (Acts 10 and 11).

Jesus made it perfectly clear from the beginning of his ministry that Gentiles should be saved as much as Jews, so why is the salvation of Gentiles such a point of contention, such a "new thing", within the church after Jesus died? Did they also have debates about whether Jesus claimed to be a man? How many other obvious truths did they "forget"?

or....could it be that the Gentile-loving Jesus we know in our 4 gospels today, wasn't quite the same story character originally?

Sheshbazzar

Allegedly Peter and the Apostles walked and talked with Jesus during his ministry, and were taught by him all things pertaining to him and the kingdom of heaven, and the acceptance of the Gentiles- 'ceptin he just plumb-done forgot to mention the subject of gentile circumcision to them, -or did he?
They seemed pretty convinced, otherwise they would not have been found teaching contrary to Johnny-come-lately Paul's writings.
Someone was full of something, and you can bet that it wasn't the Holy Ghost.

Uralman

Perhaps. But practicing Jews for Jesus get to call them "dogs" first...

rhutchin

Of course they can. Whether a person is circumcised does not determine whether a person can enter the kingdom of heaven, or heaven itself, and never did.

rhutchin

First, there is the growing period where people come to know the full meaning of that which Jesus taught. Thus, we have the letters of Paul, Peter, and others explaining what Jesus taught and how it applied to those who follow Him. Just because God saves a person does not make that person pure and sinless. That person still must deal with the sinful habits he has learned in his life. He begins to learn what Jesus taught but can promote actions (like circumcision) until he learns the truth.

The problem also comes about because not all who call themselves Christians are actually Christians.

Jesus warned:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. (Matt 7:15-16)

Reiterated by Jude:

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 4)

Johnny Skeptic

Not necessarily. There is not sufficient historical evidence that Jesus said anywhere near everything that the Gospels say that he said. Speculation and guesswork is not evidence. The Gospels are quite speculative.

rhutchin

So is every account of historical events. You just can't believe anything you read about events in the past. Can you?

show_no_mercy

The problem with trying to compare the gospels with other historical events is that other historical events are well documented.

Let's compare Josephus Flavius with Jesus.

Josephus has writings attributed to him (Antiquities of the Jews, Jewish War), writings about him by his contemporaries, busts made of him, among other evidences. Jesus has none of these things. No contemporaries of Jesus wrote about him, Jesus himself didn't write anything, sayings of Jesus are only written some 40 - 70 years after his alleged death and there are no images of Jesus until about 300 years after his alleged death.

Some things are just better evidenced than others. It's fallacious to claim that if the gospels are unreliable therefore everything is unreliable.