Part II --In another forum there's been a very good discussion about Jewish theology in Christianity. In this thread, share with me if you think that out far away from Jerusalem in the first century, Jewish believers and gentile believers went to the same fellowship meetings, and if or how the differences may have looked in those early churches. Were they segregated or together? We know Paul ministered to the gentiles primarily, but he himself was a practicing Jewish man. Did he follow two different lifestyles depending on who he was with?
First off all Paul with others decided who true christians where. Just like most other groups who had their dogma's. That Pauls letters came in the NewTestament is mainly thanks to the Katholic Church...
Besides that Paul never met Jesus in the times he might have walked on earth... Paul mainly in the beginning met Christians in Turkey who had allready different traditions. Some where Celtic Christians, and Paul might have written some anti-Law statements, against the Celtic Laws within Galatian society.
Like the idea that if you crowl through a stone with a hole in it, you are reborn etc.
It's logicall that Paul, who was from fathers side Roman also had other rights than most Jews.
When Paul came to Jerusalem he learned to obey some Jewish rules again. And even went to sacrifice animals...
There are all kind of discussions about if Paul ate unkosher with the Gentiles etc.
These kind of things often happen with people who change their religious idea's... they move a bit more back and forth in their idea's
Rom 11:24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
This (to me, positively) identifies Jews as cultivated and Gentiles as wild.
You cannot be both, but by the same token (G.I. - gentile idiom) you must learn from either - see Galations 2:11-12 for a brief look at Paul's response to the hypocrisy of learning from both and neither if you are still too curious.
What do you mean...
I have other things to do (also) than reading the complete book of Acts.
Besides that Acts is thought to be written by Luke. It seems to hide historicall things, for all kind of reasons. It writes a lot of details about places in Israel, and not about the places in Italy, nor the supression of Christians by Nero.
There is hardly a connection between Acts, and the letters of Paul. According to Bible-critics...
I think to know Paul himself it's better to read the letters of Paul.
But pleace explain your point