Gentile Christians in Synagogues? Where? When?
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Well then of course you can explain simply what the issue was regarding women's hair in Corinth. And possibly link that to why Paul invented a word in 2 Timothy 3:16 instead of using the known word "enthousiamos", which meant "God filled". And of course, the easy one of why John's gospel resembles a work of Euripides as well as why it appears that both Mark and John were edited at some early date. And why is there obscure evidence that fits so well with the Jews scourging Jesus but so poorly with the Romans having done so and given that there were so few permanent members of the Sanhedrin (at most four and two would not qualify as secret supporters) that there were two "high ranking" members that were secret supporters of Jesus yet we do not know much more about them.
Now neither tradition nor education from any institution that has a Statement of Faith will allow you to answer the questions with any easy answers because those pesky Statements of Faith require their teachers to toe traditional teachings, and tradition does not necessarily want to reveal the truth. But if you have had the courage to step outside of tradition and look for answers, all these questions can be answered, but if you cower in fear of sounding different and "know" that the HS will not reveal that fear is preventing people from listening and learning what is true, they will prove difficult.
What English version are you addressing in the early part of your post? That makes a difference given that the modern revisions are based upon manuscripts that are questionable to say the least.
MM
In addition to the Antioch synagogue where the word “Christian” was first coined, the book of Acts lists nine other cities where Christianizing synagogues welcomed — or at least tolerated — Paul’s preaching to mixed congregations of Jews and Gentile “godfearers”:
Damascus, 9:20
Salamis, 13:5
Antioch of Pisidia, 13:14,43
Iconium, 14;1
Thessalonica, 17:1
Beroea (sometimes “Berea”), 17:10
Athens, 17:17
Corinth, 18:4,7
Ephesus, 18:19, 19:18
Interestingly, however, Paul, because of the increasing resistances he experienced over time from the Synagogue leaderships in the outlying provinces, eventually it all got to the point that he knew he had come to the end of any tolerance for his presence in those Synagogues. The decree of exclusionism within Jerusalem John 9:22 likely took some time to get out into all the outlying provinces of the Roman Empire, but it did eventually reach them all.
The Gentil converts to Judaism in those Synagogues were indeed intrigued by Paul's message and thus wanted to hear more. Also of note, those Synagogues where Paul preached had not yet been reached by the twelve with the Kingdom Gospel.
MM
My acquaintances within the Hebrew Roots movement are very big on the lies about Gentile converts, in Paul's time and beyond, all having attended local Synagogues to allegedly learn about the Mosaic Law to try and obey it. This folly, which denies the very Bible they claim to believe, contradicts their contrived notions about the Synagogues in ancient times allegedly accepting Gentiles who followed Christ Jesus as Savior.
MM
MM
Brother, I understand the concern, and I agree that believers have often been put out of the synagogues. But the conclusion here goes further than Scripture does, because Acts plainly shows Gentiles sitting in the synagogues.
The expulsions were real, but they were not universal. John 9:22 says "the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue." That is a decree about Jews confessing Christ. The same is true of John 16:2, "They shall put you out of the synagogues," which Jesus spoke to Jewish disciples. Neither verse says Gentiles were barred from hearing the Scriptures read.
Acts shows Gentiles present, and hungry for the word.
"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." (Acts 18:4)
"The Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath... And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." (Acts 13:42, 44)
"A great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed." (Acts 14:1)
"Of the devout Greeks a great multitude." (Acts 17:4)
Not every synagogue turned hostile. The Bereans "were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily" (Acts 17:11). Crispus, "the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house" (Acts 18:8). Paul kept going back, even after suffering for it.
James settles it in Acts 15:21. After giving the Gentile believers their instructions, he says: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." That reasoning only works if the Gentile believers could hear Moses read there.
You are right that the pattern often ended in a split, and that things worsened over time. Both are true: Gentiles heard the Scriptures in the synagogues, and the synagogues often cast believers out. record doesn't support the claim that Gentiles were never there.
I often use my own translation from the Greek, but if you are referring to "enthousiamos", it is not present in the NT, so relax.
But a suggestion for you, should your significant other be acting out of sorts, stomping around, slamming doors, etc., and you ask what is wrong and receive a snarled "Nothing". unless you want to remain in the doghouse, I would not believe that "nothing" and instead probe, gently of course, for the truth. In places the NT says one thing while also providing evidence that implies the exact opposite. In such cases I look very hard to learn what is true rather than casually accepting what is openly said. Tradition, and apparently you, casually accepts what is openly said.
The reason you ascended is BECAUSE YOU ONLY WANT TO ARGUE. The notion of actually legitimately discussing any issue is tossed out in favor of you instantly picking a stupid argument....
THATS why you are a moron.
The MAIN reason.
Now if you can control yourself and actually behave like a reasonable human being instead of a member of the most annoying race on the planet (the whole reason why Jews are God's chosen) then maybe we can have a discussion.
Think you can manage that?
And you say you follow Christ? Is that how we treat others in the church? You did the same thing to me. You say you are a lamb like others but speak like a dragon. You accuse others of being argumentative, yet your entire reply is a string of personal insults rather than an engagement with the actual point being discussed.
Calling someone a "moron," questioning their humanity, and mocking them does not strengthen your argument; it simply avoids addressing it.
Scripture says, "The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient" (2 Tim. 2:24), and "let your speech be always with grace" (Col. 4:6). If someone's argument is wrong, show where it is wrong from the text and reasoning.
If you cannot defend your position without ridicule and contempt, then perhaps the problem is not that others want to discuss the issue, but that you have mistaken personal attacks for discussion. I am sure others will be happy to examine evidence, but being called names is not evidence. Nor is it following the commands of Christ.
Good point. However, those Gentiles were still proselytes to Judaism, not followers of Christ Jesus...yet. That's why some of them stayed to speak with Paul before he left. They wanted to hear more.
Dare we consider what Paul was out doing in the outlying provinces when on the roadway to Damascus before Christ confronted him, what do you say Paul was out there to do across all of Asia Minor and beyond? He was persecuting, imprisoning and having executed believing Jews who were departing from Judaism to follow the One who confessed He is the Christ.
Now, when others decide they're going to superimpose/inject upon/into the contexts the idea those Gentiles were in the Synagogues in the first place because they were following Christ and wanted to learn the Law, that's a fanciful tale that has no grounding within the scriptures anywhere I can find. If some want to believe that, then they're free to do so, but it's well known among my former and present Orthodox Judaism brothers that those Gentiles were proselytes to Judaism.
I don't get bent out of shape over this as do some of my Hebrew Roots acquaintances. They're all free to believe "another gospel" that's rooted in works and the Law, but that will never save them today.
MM
Ah, yes. The "contradictions" argument. Seen that many a time, be it ever so meaningless once one delves into the contexts and the broader scope of scripture for what it says.
MM
Folks, if we think back upon what scripture says and remember where Paul stated that we're dead to the Law:
Romans 7:4
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Just in these two verses alone, we can see how irrational is the belief among Hebrew Roots followers, among other legalistic groupings, that assuming Gentile followers of Christ wasted their time sitting in Synagogues trying to learn the Law to which we are all dead, there's plenteous reason to question, with the strongest of objections, such a notion. Do you see the problem here? Paul's Gentile converts didn't waste their time learning about a Law to which we are ALL dead! Does that make sense?
MM
Romans 7:4
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Just in these two verses alone, we can see how irrational is the belief among Hebrew Roots followers, among other legalistic groupings, that assuming Gentile followers of Christ wasted their time sitting in Synagogues trying to learn the Law to which we are all dead, there's plenteous reason to question, with the strongest of objections, such a notion. Do you see the problem here? Paul's Gentile converts didn't waste their time learning about a Law to which we are ALL dead! Does that make sense?
MM
Whether it becomes meaningless or not depends on the assumptions one brings when they examine things.
But since you know so much, who were the possible "high ranking" members of the Sanhedrin, a group that unlike the Roman Senate, had very few permanent members and thus very few members who could be "high ranking". And while you are at it, which of these very few people would have been able to secure the large quantity of myrrh and aloe that was brought to Jesus's tomb on such short notice?
Exactly….there was a reason why Saul of Tarsus was a “chosen vessel” to Jesus Christ…..of all the apostles, (though never one of the 12) he alone was educated as a former Pharisee. His zeal for his God was manifest in his bound determination to rid the cities of these heretical Christians.
His conversion showed that his love for the truth was genuine because his arrogance was replaced with humility….and his zeal was redirected to serving the God that Jesus served and telling his fellow Jews about the Messiah from a completely different perspective.
If Christ was “the end of the Law” then that should have been a relief for the Jewish converts, as Paul said…
“ For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” (Gal 3:10-14 NASB) See also Romans 10:4; 6:14.
The Jews were ‘cursed’ by the Law every day, because not a soul could keep it perfectly….the whole reason for the regular sacrifices leading to the ultimate ransom, which could only be paid by a sinless man.
After his encounter with Jesus when on his way to persecute more Christians, after regaining his sight, Saul was then led away to be educated by the same teacher as the other apostles did, Saul was not educated by the other apostles, but by Jesus through God’s spirit. Hat a unique assignment this man had and he fulfilled it beautifully, taking his persecution as recompense for what he had formerly done in his ignorance.
Saul then became Paul “an apostle to the nations”, so his education put him in a better position to address the learned Greek philosophers and not be laughed out of the forum. He could address high officials and the religious leaders of his day like no others…..he was one of them, educated at the feet of Gamaliel. So Paul occupied a very special position in the team assigned to take Christ’s message to the nations.
The best-supported answer, from what I learned in the schools I attended as an Israeli, is Nicodemus. That premise may need a measure of correction: The Sanhedrin wasn't a tiny body as some seem to assume, with only a few permanent members. The Great Sanhedrin was traditionally described as a council of about 71, though its exact composition and operation in Jesus’ time is debated among Jewish rabbis. The Gospels themselves also don't give to us a reliable roster of its members or a formal “high-ranking” tier within its structure of leadership.
The seemingly clearest possible senior figures in the Gospel accounts are these:
- The high priest as the council’s leading religious authority. At the time of Jesus’ trial, the Gospels identify Caiaphas as high priest at that time.
- Then we have Joseph of Arimathea, with Mark calling him a respected council member and Matthew describing him as rich. He secured Pilate’s permission to take Jesus’ body and provided the tomb.
- Also Nicodemus where John calls him a Pharisee and “a ruler of the Jews,” and later shows him speaking up in a council discussion. That makes him a plausible, influential council member, though John doesn't explicitly say he held a specific office.
So, if you’re asking which high-status person the account itself connects to the large quantity of spices, it is Nicodemus so far as I've seen. Joseph’s stated role is arranging access to the body and providing the tomb showing Nicodemus bringing the spices.
Does that help? My notes are less than ordered from those years of study, so I'm drawing from a really fast perusal of them rather than a thorough one due to a lack in plenteous time today.
MM
Amen to that.
Yes indeed.
Yes, when the Lord led him to Arabia, which happens to be the location of Mount Sinai where Moses received the Law, also known as Horeb. Paul referred to “Mount Sinai in Arabia” in Galatians 4:25, in spite of modern debates over Sinai's location. Perhaps the Lord met with him there...we don't know since we're not told specifics about that.
Recall where the disciples were promised that the Spirit would give them to them what they needed to say when confronted, so it's not so much that the twelve could not have gotten the job done, but Paul was especially equipped with understanding of logic and philosophy of the times. He also is the one to whom the Lord revealed mysteries, one main hidden wisdom that even Satan didn't know until it was too late.
Good post. Thanks for participating.
MM
And I trust that you recognize that the name "Nicodemus" is virtually unknown prior to the gospels? It would not have likely belonged to a Judean as it was primarily a Greek name, meaning "Defender of the People". And there are ample records indicating the composition of the Sanhedrin in Jesus's time, but the number 71 is consistently absent. Rather the debate was whether it was 72 or 144. And there was only one permanent member with a first name of Joseph in the early 30's CE, and at most there were four permanent members, definitely two, plausibly three, maybe a fourth. We know the names of one of the two definite members, Joseph, as well as the plausible third, and the other definite member and the possible fourth would have obviously been pro-Jesus just based on their knowable theological stance. But here is the obscure evidence, which you are clearly unaware of, that tilts the entire issue. Obtaining even 75 pounds of myrrh and aloe on short notice would be virtually impossible without special access, the quantity simply would not be generally available at any price on short notice. Access to such a quantity would require specific access, with a very limited number of people allowed and special permission needed for them, and there is the key. Figure out who could grant such access and why they would and you can understand who is involved. But such appears to be beyond your limited knowledge.
I agree his language was not proper at all.
But how do you determine that is antisemitic? How do you determine he will speak to you nicer if you are african or eu or indian....?
Just curious.