Gentile Christians in Synagogues? Where? When?

[rewriter]

Well let's give you a simple question involving the Bible for you to answer without having to twist history. Acts claims Paul escaped Damascus by being let down the wall in a basket, and this is easy to reconcile with what Paul says in Galatians. But In Acts, the issue is Jews trying to capture Paul and in Galatians it is Arabs. Now given that in the mid-30's Jews and Arabs had an open conflict, one that reached the ears of Tiberius and that he was upset about, they would not have worked together. So, is Paul lying when he claims he was trying to get away from Arabs or is Acts lying when it claims that he was trying t get away from Jews. And please do not change scripture and claim that two different events are being referred to as that again would make someone a liar as Paul claims to have only stopped in Damascus one time prior to his missionary journeys.

Or would you prefer to explain when Jesus cleansed the temple, John has it very early in His ministry while the Synoptics have it at the end. Or are you going to suggest that despite His very public ministry, that no one remembered that He had taken the same action earlier and were thus surprised when He did it a second time and that the gospel writers all chose to only record one of two very similar events at opposite ends of His ministry

Have fun turning yourself into a pretzel to defend your theology.

 

[Musicmaster]

Well let's give you a simple question involving the Bible for you to answer without having to twist history. Acts claims Paul escaped Damascus by being let down the wall in a basket, and this is easy to reconcile with what Paul says in Galatians. But In Acts, the issue is Jews trying to capture Paul and in Galatians it is Arabs. Now given that in the mid-30's Jews and Arabs had an open conflict, one that reached the ears of Tiberius and that he was upset about, they would not have worked together. So, is Paul lying when he claims he was trying to get away from Arabs or is Acts lying when it claims that he was trying t get away from Jews. And please do not change scripture and claim that two different events are being referred to as that again would make someone a liar as Paul claims to have only stopped in Damascus one time prior to his missionary journeys.

Or would you prefer to explain when Jesus cleansed the temple, John has it very early in His ministry while the Synoptics have it at the end. Or are you going to suggest that despite His very public ministry, that no one remembered that He had taken the same action earlier and were thus surprised when He did it a second time and that the gospel writers all chose to only record one of two very similar events at opposite ends of His ministry

Have fun turning yourself into a pretzel to defend your theology.

This is getting too much of a tit-for-tat level of hostility on your part. Trying to make others look like simpletons under tour boot of arrogance, no thanks. I'm not playing your worthless game any longer. When you're ready to talk WITH me rather than trying to talk DOWN to me, let me know and we can continue. Until then, no... You're out-classed and don't even know it when you employ such meaningless tripe.

MM

 

[BartholomewB]

Well let's give you a simple question involving the Bible for you to answer without having to twist history. Acts claims Paul escaped Damascus by being let down the wall in a basket, and this is easy to reconcile with what Paul says in Galatians. But In Acts, the issue is Jews trying to capture Paul and in Galatians it is Arabs.

In Galatians? Are you sure about that? I remember seeing the name Aretas mentioned in 2 Cor in the basket connection, but not in Gal.

 

[OMC]

The Ethiopian Bible is a tragic corruption of doctrine along with other modern versions, only that the Ethiopian version has about 22 extra books added. Let's do some textual comparisons:

In the Allegedly Complete Ethiopian Bible:​

• Daniel 3:25
  • KJV: "the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" (capitalized), indicating the pre-incarnate Son (second person of the Godhead).
  • NIV-like reading: "a son of the gods" (lowercase), changing the meaning from a divine Person to a generic pagan reading; the Complete Ethiopian Bible reads similarly to NIV.
• Matthew 5:22
  • KJV: includes "without a cause," distinguishing unrighteous anger from righteous anger (e.g., Jesus’ temple cleansing).
  • NIV-like omission: removes "without a cause," making the verse condemn any anger and implies Jesus’ righteous anger would be judged. The (allegedly) Complete Ethiopian Bible aligns with this omission.
• Mark 1:2–3
  • KJV: "as it is written in the prophets" (plural), accurate because verses quote both Malachi and Isaiah.
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: "as it is written in Isaiah the prophet" followed by a quotation from Malachi ("I am sending my messenger…"), which is a factual error—misattribution of Malachi to Isaiah.
• Mark 9:44, 9:46, 9:48
  • KJV: repeats "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" in vv. 44, 46, 48, a deliberate emphasis.
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: omissions noted—verses 44 and 46 missing (numbers skipped from 45 to 47) without footnotes, which undermines preservation and clarity.
• John 5:3–4 (Pool of Bethesda)
  • KJV: includes explanation that an angel troubled the water and only the first entrant was healed; provides narrative coherence (the lame man’s urgency).
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible/NIV-like: omits latter part of v. 3 and all of v. 4, removing the reason for the urgency and, per the instructor, making the passage incoherent.
• Acts 8:37 (Ethiopian eunuch)
  • KJV: includes the eunuch’s confession, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," as a key testimony prior to baptism.
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: verse omitted (jumps from 36 to 38), erasing a pivotal confession tied to an Ethiopian figure, an ironic and problematic omission.
• 1 Corinthians 1:18
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: "to us who are being saved, it is the power of God."
  • KJV: "unto us which are saved, it is the power of God." Salvation is instantaneous, not a process; "being saved" is a false gospel construct.
• 2 Corinthians 2:17
  • KJV: "we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God…"
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: "not like… hucksters who peddle the word of God for profit…" Notes the semantic shift from "corrupt" to "peddle," which is ironic given the product’s sales price ($49.95 implied), and defends legitimate Bible printing costs; emphasizes that altering this verse itself exemplifies corruption.
• Colossians 1:14
  • KJV: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins."
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." It's worthy to critique the omission of "through his blood," which cannot help but to lead one to the blood of Christ as central to redemption.
• Colossians 2:18
  • KJV: warns against "worshiping of angels… intruding into those things which he hath not seen…"
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: phrasing implies the person may have "supposedly seen" such things, effectively removing "not" and altering the meaning; underscoring how deletion of "not" changes doctrinal sense.
• 2 Timothy 2:15
  • KJV: "Study… rightly dividing the word of truth."
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: "Make every effort… teaching the message of truth accurately." emphasizing loss of the "rightly dividing" concept, which is absolutely essential to sound interpretation.

So, one must read that corrupt book as if walking through a mine field, as is true of all the modern versions.

MM

The problem with this argument is that it assumes every textual difference is a corruption rather than first demonstrating which reading is original.
Simply listing places where the KJV differs from the Ethiopian Bible, or from modern translations, does not prove corruption.
It only proves that manuscript traditions differ.

 

[ScooterJackson]

It's likely that believing Jews would have continued to keep the law; though not as mistaking it for salvation requirements. Gentiles who became Christians and lived among them likely did the same.

So if they goofed up and sinned they would go whack an animal to cover their sin?
The Holy Spirit didn't lead anybody to do that which is what the law of Moses required.

Galatians 5:4 - Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

 

[Musicmaster]

The problem with this argument is that it assumes every textual difference is a corruption rather than first demonstrating which reading is original.
Simply listing places where the KJV differs from the Ethiopian Bible, or from modern translations, does not prove corruption.
It only proves that manuscript traditions differ.

You're absolutely right. The question, then, is what other source(s) is there that would show the stated corruptions in the modern versions? Are you saying the modern versions are not corrupted? What about the law of non-contradiction; meaning that when two writings disagree, one or both are wrong, so what's the source you think is more demonstratably credible than the KJV?

Now, please don't get me wrong. I've not been saying that nobody should read those other versions, but I am saying that the modern versions have corruptions and should therefore be read with care and critical thought given that we all have a basis of comparison.

Thanks

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

It's likely that believing Jews would have continued to keep the law; though not as mistaking it for salvation requirements. Gentiles who became Christians and lived among them likely did the same.

Yes. That's precisely what the believing Jews in Jerusalem did, which is to continue venerating most of the Law of Moses. They were still zealous of the Law along with the Gentile proselytes. You're right. They knew it wasn't a matter of salvation, for the twelve apostles were entirely in favor of their converts remaining zealous of the Law, although not the animal sacrifices for sin given that was fulfilled and paid in full in Christ Jesus.

Amen

MM

 

[rewriter]

In Galatians? Are you sure about that? I remember seeing the name Aretas mentioned in 2 Cor in the basket connection, but not in Gal.

Galatians spells out that Paul was in Damascus only one time. But you are correct that the incident is referenced in Corinthians. However, no matter what, the issue of who was Paul escaping remains. According to Paul, the incident could only have occurred one time and Jews and Arabs were not going to cooperate. If you do not know the circumstances, which I am sure you do not, it is also related to why Antipas went to the Euphrates.

 

[rewriter]

This is getting too much of a tit-for-tat level of hostility on your part. Trying to make others look like simpletons under tour boot of arrogance, no thanks. I'm not playing your worthless game any longer. When you're ready to talk WITH me rather than trying to talk DOWN to me, let me know and we can continue. Until then, no... You're out-classed and don't even know it when you employ such meaningless tripe.

MM

Good attempt to dodge and deflect when you do not know the history. That is unless you know more than seminary professors in the NT. Antipas going to the Euphrates was not by his choice, he was compelled. His going back to Jerusalem alone was not his choice, he was merely released from custody and left to fend for himself. He was taken back into custody in 39, Josephus invents a reason, but the timing suggests something far different, pardons were issued in 37, when Antipas returned from the Euphrates, and revoked in 39 when Antipas was arrested and exiled.

Not all history is recorded in scripture, sometimes you simply need to look outside scripture to know what the original readers would have known without being told.

 

[BartholomewB]

Galatians spells out that Paul was in Damascus only one time. But you are correct that the incident is referenced in Corinthians. However, no matter what, the issue of who was Paul escaping remains. According to Paul, the incident could only have occurred one time and Jews and Arabs were not going to cooperate. If you do not know the circumstances, which I am sure you do not, it is also related to why Antipas went to the Euphrates.

“Jews and Arabs were not going to cooperate.” Why not? Why can’t we go along with Hengel’s view that “the influential and politically powerful Jews of Damascus [probably] had a hand in this affair, rightly disappointed at the transformation of Saul the Pharisee into a Christian missionary”? (Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, p. 85.)

Hengel continues, “We should not play off II Cor 11:32f and Acts 9:23ff in this connection. Presumably they simply depict the same development from different perspectives.”

There had been, and there were to be again, recurring conflicts between Judea and Nabatea, Hostilities of that kind are often seen where two neighboring countries have an unsettled border dispute. Antipas’ marriage to Aretas’ daughter had presumably been a political arrangement in the interests of keeping the peace but, as we know, that marriage broke down when she found out about his Roman adventure with his half-brother’s wife Herodias.

 

[Musicmaster]

Good attempt to dodge and deflect when you do not know the history. That is unless you know more than seminary professors in the NT. Antipas going to the Euphrates was not by his choice, he was compelled. His going back to Jerusalem alone was not his choice, he was merely released from custody and left to fend for himself. He was taken back into custody in 39, Josephus invents a reason, but the timing suggests something far different, pardons were issued in 37, when Antipas returned from the Euphrates, and revoked in 39 when Antipas was arrested and exiled.

Not all history is recorded in scripture, sometimes you simply need to look outside scripture to know what the original readers would have known without being told.

You can falsely accuse all you want. You have that freedom but it only demonstrates to us all how pathetic your use of tactics really are to try and smear others while trying to make yourself look superior, which you aren't. Your snideness gives ample reason to ignore you entirely.

MM

 

[Soyeong]

I recently heard a popular theory among some who believe in Law-keeping stating that early Christians attended synagogues for their leaning in the midst of their discipleship.

In Acts 15:21, they expected that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.

This is untenable, as it directly contradicts the scriptural record of systematic expulsion from Synagogues. Evidence from the Gospel of John shows that even during Jesus' ministry, Jewish leaders had already formalized a policy to cast out anyone confessing Jesus as the Christ, including natural born Jews and Proselyte Gentiles...especially us Messianic Jews.

This wasn't an unforeseen outcome. Jesus himself repeatedly warned his disciples they would be put out of synagogues, persecuted and flogged. The practical absurdity of a synagogue leader welcoming Gentile followers of a Man they deemed a heretic, combined with the Book of Acts documenting these very expulsions, dismantles the "synagogue as a school" model that my Hebrew Roots friends and others who claim, as biblical fact, the idea that those early members of the body of Christ under Paul's Gospel of Grace attended Synagogue to learn the scriptures.

The textual evidence points not to a cooperative educational program but to a definitive and often violent schism.

The Case Against Synagogue Discipleship

The Primary Contradiction

The arguments I've seen some present refutes the theory that early Christians, particularly Gentiles, attended synagogue weekly to learn the scriptures. The core refutation rests on a simple premise: The theory is not only absent from scripture but is actively contradicted by it.

Scriptural Evidence of Expulsion

There are specific biblical passages to build a case for an early and hostile separation, such as John 9:22. During Jesus' lifetime, the parents of the man born blind refused to comment on his healing because they "feared the Jews," who had already decreed that confessing Jesus as Christ would result in being "put out of the synagogue." This establishes a pre-crucifixion policy of excommunication.

Jesus's Prophecies: Christ explicitly forewarned his disciples about this persecution, stating, "They will put you out of the synagogues," and that they would be beaten, flogged, and delivered to authorities *within* these same synagogues.

Acts of the Apostles: The narrative shows these prophecies fulfilled. Paul's missionary strategy often involved entering a synagogue, preaching that Jesus is the Messiah, and subsequently being chased out by hostile leadership and members.

The Practicality Test

Beyond direct textual evidence, let me highlight the logical and social implausibility of the theory: A scenario where a synagogue leader ever welcomed new Gentile converts to the "heretical" Jesus movement into the Synagogue is nonsensical. The reality of what happened to those people back then and even today dare Christians begin attending Synagogues who believe in Christ Jesus as Messiah, that clearly would not be seen by the Synagogue leadership as a peaceful interfaith dialogue but as a clash between an established religious authority and a movement it actively sought to suppress and destroy in NT times.

I've been there and done that. We of Christ Jesus aren't welcome in Synagogues, even those of us who are of Jewish descent. We're as anathema to the rabbis as those others are who believe in faith alone in Christ alone for salvation are to the Roman Catholic religion.

MM

It was certainly a controversial issue, though someone came to the defense of Christians, such as with Gamaliel (Acts 5:32). In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousands of Jews were coming to faith in Jesus who were all zealous for the Torah, so it is not as though believers in Jesus who were accepting of Gentiles could not have formed their own synagogues.

I attend a synagogue where approximately 1/3 of its members are Jews with the rest being Gentiles and we have had an Orthodox rabbi lead our prayer service a few times, so it is certainly possible for Gentiles to learn at a synagogue.