Question for conservative Christians

[spirit5er]

You never addressed my point. There were not major conflicts between James and Paul. That is the old Ebionite line that has no real patristic or historical support.

I have given you PLENTY of evidence to show conflict between James and Paul, and I’ve give arguments for the evidence too. Your short-shrifted answer only proves that you are more adept at supplying short-shrifted answers than you are actually dealing with the material.

That “old Ebionite line” has enough evidence in the surviving patristic and biblical literature to justify those who see conflict between Paul and James, calling it an “old Ebionite line” constitutes zero rebuttal. (Edited)

 

[spirit5er]

No. Jews don’t believe in Jesus.

Then how do you explain James, the Lord’s brother, becoming Jewish High priest, according to patristic testimony.

 

[spirit5er]

His info was gotten (possibly) from here:

geocities.com/paulntobin/jamesjew.html

Yet another rabid anti-Christian.

Since the ONLY High Priest is Jesus, after His becoming High Priest, the “High Priestliness” of James is a nonsensical point.
:shamrock2:

You are free to automatically conclude that James must have believed every bit of Christian theology taught in the New Testament, but you aren’t doing apologetics by simply foisting that assumption, unargued, into this debate.

In fact, the portrait of James in the patristic literature keeps the door open to the possibility that what you have in the New Testament might NOT all be entire true as you believe it. To just arbitrarily side with the bible in this matter is your option, but doesn’t go near the purpose of apologetics.

 

[spirit5er]

Based upon your existing presupposition. Luke was under no compulsion to cover any particular event.

False, I have shown that his “coverage” of the Jerusalem Council paints a very different portrait of James than appears in the patristic cites.

In fact, it is interesting in looking the chronology, particularly the “we” passages, to examine what is covered and what is not. It starts with the presupposition that James, Peter, and John (ie the pillars) had different views than Paul.

You have it exactly backwards. I didn’t merely presuppose believe differently than Paul, I provided historical and biblical evidence to support this. If you want to challenge my presupposition against Paul, try answering the arguments I used to get there.

Not at all. Galatians certainly does not. What exactly are you contending it proves?

What is the likelihood that Peter (knew Jesus and James personally on a daily basis) and Barnabas (who knew Paul’s theology by the distinction of intimate assocation with him in his ministry) would mistakenly think that the Judaizer gospel correctly represented James’s views?

That is absurdly unlikely. As long as you preach that James never agreed with the Judaizers, then you make those Judaizers n Galatians 2:12 to misrepresent James. If they misrepresented James, then people who either knew Jesus and James personally (Peter) or people who knew Judaizer arguments and rejected them by conformity with Paul (Barnabas) would definitely NOT give in to the Judaizer’s demands.

So if we assume with Paul that they DID so give in to the demands of the Judaizers who claimed to come from (James), it was more likely because these Judaizers correctly represented James’ views, had better arguments than Paul, and demonstrated linkage to higher authority than Paul.

No. I just think the arguments are so familiar and I believe that is the source. Ebionites love to fixate on those few things and ignore the secular evidence. For example, you said nothing about the Jewish source I used.

Because you never refuted my position that the patristic references to James being a high priest are historically reliable.

I am not a Catholic. You do not even offer people the respect of reading their profiles.

Because your arguments, not you, matter.

But since your arguments are almost cut and paste from the sites I linked, I suppose you fancy yourself a historical argument based upon the few sources you accept and all the others you discount… Kind of like…a Ebionite.

You have not refuted my patristic evidence, and I have not ignored any rebuttal you put forth, so quit lying to save face.

I am assuming you did your own research, based upon the links I provided, I was being generous.

Yes, I did. I pity your critical thinking skills, if you think that finding the wesite of another skeptic who advances the same arguments, suddenly means I must have largely cut and pasted from said website. That is most laughable, given that even a dummy should know that I am not the only person in the world advancing this view of James. There are plenty of scholars that specialize on James, and after doing several months of research at my local bible college and using interlibrary loan, yes, I found their arguments to be compelling.

Either way, you are wasting my time. It doesn’t even matter if I cut and pasted per your lie. you cannot refute the arguments. doesn’t matter if I got them from skeptics or popes or perches.

Yes, because you disagree with them. You probably even know that new paradigm on Paul clearly shows the old paradigm you are trying to rehash, sells books possibly, gets attention.

Even if that were true, so what? It’s the arguments that count against you, not how many books I sell.

Where do I even begin with this? You create differences and gloss over the fact that Paul and Peter and James were on the same page, a few lines aside.

Let’s guide you into this with baby steps: I do not believe all of the historical information Paul admits in Galatians 2 is truthful, and I can advance arguments to support either my rejection or acceptance of Paul’s claims therein. Ok?

You do ignore it. You claim it is not historical and create additonal differences were there are not any.
Oh yeah, drop the atheist stuff.

You are refuting nothing with these words of opinion. The idea that my claim is not historical makes me wonder whether you even know enough to know when you are wrong. Four major Christian historians of antiquity, choosing to relay for posterity the view that James was a High Priest, and none of them attempting any sort of rebuttal. I guess I understand why you think my position isn’t historical, you don’t know how to apply critiera of historicity to figure out which bits of ancient testimony are more likely true and which are more likely false.

 

[spirit5er]

Since I am not Jewish, culturally or by religious belief, I will answer only the way I think a Jewish High Priest would answer. I imagine you are speaking of an orthodox Jew. I would guess that a Jewish High Priest would deny Jesus as the Messiah and the question would be moot.

That makes perfect sense, except for one thing…

There may have been a form of Christianity during the time of Paul, that WAS perfectly compatible with the continuing divine significance of the Mosaic Law and temple sacrifices/service.

While it is today only expressed in negative terms by the largely pro-Pauline Christian commentators as “Judaizers”, all of my arguments show that James was the leader of the Judaizers.

Most Christians don’t like the idea that James and Paul disagreed on the nature of the gospel, but their not liking this, doesn’t suddenly make my arguments disappear. James continues to speak from the ancient evidence as a very legalistic Christian, a perfect fit for a Judaizer, and the only rebuttal these people on this board have, is swallowing everything Paul says, hook line and sinker, no arguments whatever.

That’s more gullible than my objective approach, which has always been to give arguments for why I accept some information from Paul as accurate, or else give arguments for why I think something he said wasn’t truthful. It is not irrational to think some of an ancient person’s testimony is truthful and the rest of it lies. The key is, can you give arguments for such selectivity of evidence? Yes I can, and already have, repeatedly.

For example, why are the apostles debating with legalists in Acts 15 about what Gentiles must do to be saved? What…did Jesus never make it clear what Gentiles need to do to be saved? Absurd! In the Sermon on the Mount, spoken to general audiences and not merely to Jews, he instructed that anybody who trivilaized the least part of the law, would be called least in the kingdom of heaven:

Matthew 5:17-20
17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Paul annulled the circumcision commandment. “Behold I Paul say to you, that if you recieve circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.” (Galatians 5:2) That’s a very good reason for a Paul-follower to avoid circumcision.

Jesus ends this part of his sermon with a phrase which, when taken in context, is music to the ears of Judaizers:

20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

There is no justification or argument for reading Jesus through the lens of Paul’s theology, so Jesus was demanding very close conformity with the Mosaic Law, there are no two ways about it.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

There may have been a form of Christianity during the time of Paul, that WAS perfectly compatible with the continuing divine significance of the Mosaic Law and temple sacrifices/service.

While it is today only expressed in negative terms by the largely pro-Pauline Christian commentators as “Judaizers”, all of my arguments show that James was the leader of the Judaizers

Hi Spritser, Sorry to butt in but I just have one comment for your consideration:

There was a third opinion that Jewish ritual law was required for Jewish Christians, but not for pagan gentile converts. I believe the term “Judaizer” refers to those who wanted to require the gentiles to be circumcised and accept Jewish law. Peter and James certainly obeyed Jewish laws themselves, but we believe that under the influence of Paul, they agreed to not force the gentiles to do this. The two forms of Christianity existed side by side for centuries.

 

[spirit5er]

Hi Spritser, Sorry to butt in but I just have one comment for your consideration:

There was a third opinion that Jewish ritual law was required for Jewish Christians, but not for pagan gentile converts. I believe the term “Judaizer” refers to those who wanted to require the gentiles to be circumcised and accept Jewish law. Peter and James certainly obeyed Jewish laws themselves, but we believe that under the influence of Paul, they agreed to not force the gentiles to do this. The two forms of Christianity existed side by side for centuries.

Yes, and my contention is that Paul’s gospel CONTRADICTS Jesus’ gospel:

Here’s what Jesus said about how one gets saved:

Matthew 5:17-20
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus would think that Paul is least in the kingdom of heaven, because Paul fully denied the applicability of the law after one becomes a Christian:

Galatians 3:24-25
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Did you catch the problem: Jesus wasn’t just talking to Jews only when he advised against annuling a law. That was from his Sermon on the Mount, which would have been heard by many gentiles in the audience. Jesus says don’t annul the law, Paul says when faith has come, we are no longer under the tutor of the law. The contradiction is plain.

 

[Spirithound]

Matthew 5:17-20
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

One who is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is still in the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes, and my contention is that Paul’s gospel CONTRADICTS Jesus’ gospel:

Here’s what Jesus said about how one gets saved:

Jesus would think that Paul is least in the kingdom of heaven, because Paul fully denied the applicability of the law after one becomes a Christian:

Did you catch the problem: Jesus wasn’t just talking to Jews only when he advised against annuling a law. That was from his Sermon on the Mount, which would have been heard by many gentiles in the audience. Jesus says don’t annul the law, Paul says when faith has come, we are no longer under the tutor of the law. The contradiction is plain.

Yes, I understand the problem you’re pointing out. I struggle with that too… but here are a couple of things from the gospels that helped me understand:

1. Jesus contradicted Moses on the permission to divorce
2. Jesus disobeyed moses by not stoning the adulteress
3. Jesus didn’t follow the sabbath as strictly as required by Moses, in my opinion.

And the clincher for me is that when asked what we must do to inherit eternal life, he listed a few commandments, but they were all natural law commandments. Also I don’t think his apostles would have misunderstood him so much. (But, you’re arguing that in fact, his apostles disagreed with Paul…, so I guess that’s not a valid point).

 

[annem]

1. Jesus contradicted Moses on the permission to divorce
2. Jesus disobeyed moses by not stoning the adulteress
3. Jesus didn’t follow the sabbath as strictly as required by Moses, in my opinion.

Among dozens of other examples of how Jesus changed the religion, most importantly, by insisting that his followers eat his flesh and drink his blood, an idea so anathema to Jews that a great many followers of his left him.

In fact, he actually predicted the end of the temple and the temple religion within one generation. Which happened in 70 Ad with the destruction of the temple. And with the destruction of the temple, the entire sacrificial Jewish religion ended. No more getting rid of sin by burning an animal in the temple. No way of getting rid of sin, unless you believed Jesus when he gave his apostles the capability to “loose and bind” sins. No where for Jews to go on holy days. No priesthood, for the destruction of the temple included the burning of all the elaborate lineages kept in the temple, so there was now no way to guarantee who could be a priest. Everything was altered; everything in chaos.

God bless, Annem

 

[Ruthie]

Matthew 5:17-20
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Until all of **what **is accomplished? Possibly the fulfillment of the Law, which Jesus said in v. 17 that He was come to do?

You are forgetting that the matter of the Law was brought up to the Apostles, by Paul, and that they (who had heard the actual teachings of Christ) said the Law did not apply to Gentiles. (Acts 15:11-29)

Thus we have the Apostles and Paul in agreement. So, unless you believe that the Apostles misunderstood Jesus, your argument that Paul differs from Christ fails.

Also, you are taking those verses out of context. In Mt 5:17, Jesus says He has come to *fulfil *the law. And in from v. 21 to the end of the chapter, He gives examples. He changes the law about divorce: He forbids it. He changes “don’t swear falsely” to “don’t swear at all.”

May God bless you in your studies,

Ruthie

 

[spirit5er]

Until all of **what **is accomplished? Possibly the fulfillment of the Law, which Jesus said in v. 17 that He was come to do?

You are forgetting that the matter of the Law was brought up to the Apostles, by Paul, and that they (who had heard the actual teachings of Christ) said the Law did not apply to Gentiles. (Acts 15:11-29)

The “Council in Jerusalem” seems to be a lie created by the Acts-author to make the original apostles seem more in agreement with Paul than they actually were. How do I know it’s a lie?

The absurdity of it all. What…Jesus never made clear what Gentiles need to do to be saved?

Also, none of the apostles are quoting Jesus as their final authority on this salvation question!

Also, while the Acts author spills much ink recording the speeches of Paul, Peter and James, he only allows the Judaizers to be represented by a single summary statement. If you ordered a tape of a debate between an atheist and a Christian, and discovered that the atheists making the recording, recorded all of the atheist speech, but shut the recorder off after the Christian spoke his first sentence, because they didn’t want his words recorded, you’d immediately recognize that level of prejudice as fatal to the atheists’ honesty. Luke’s trivialization of the Judaizer speeches while devoting far more ink to recording the speeches of the apostles, is fatal to his own honesty. He is obviously attempting to give the reader an unfair portrait of the Judaizers.

Thus we have the Apostles and Paul in agreement. So, unless you believe that the Apostles misunderstood Jesus, your argument that Paul differs from Christ fails.

On the contrary, I believe Peter and James were leaders of the Judaizers, who hated Paul. I do not share your presupposition that everything in the bible happened exactly as written, and I’ve given reasons why.

No historian believes either everything or else nothing in an ancient historical source, but rather stays open to the possibility that the account contains both truth and error.

Also, you are taking those verses out of context. In Mt 5:17, Jesus says He has come to *fulfil *the law. And in from v. 21 to the end of the chapter, He gives examples. He changes the law about divorce: He forbids it. He changes “don’t swear falsely” to “don’t swear at all.”

First, many Christians would disagree with you and say that Jesus’ explanations of the Law do not change, but only expound the real meaning of them. There are many protestant and catholic commentaries which attempt to “reconcile” the Mosaic Law with Jesus’ understanding of it, in their quest to avoid criticism.

Second, Yes, I have no problems with the idea that Jesus both changed and/or misunderstood the OT, given I view him is a regular non-supernatural man. The first clue is his promise to fulfill the law, then later in the same context, changing some of the law. You cannot fulfil the law by CHANGING it.

Can you fulfill the speed limit law of 70 mph, by CHANGING it? No, so Jesus’ idea about what constitutes “fulfillment” makes little sense.

 

[spirit5er]

Among dozens of other examples of how Jesus changed the religion, most importantly, by insisting that his followers eat his flesh and drink his blood, an idea so anathema to Jews that a great many followers of his left him.

You do of course realize the protestant position, which says that the last supper proves that Jesus was only speaking symbolically about drinking his blood? The cup they passed around did NOT have Jesus’ real blood, but he still said it was his blood, clear symbolic intent.

In fact, he actually predicted the end of the temple and the temple religion within one generation.

Or, the gospels with that prediction weren’t written until after the temple was destroyed, in 70 a.d.

Jesus also swore he’d come back before the death of some people standing right there with him (Matthew 16:27-28). However, there was no second-coming within that time frame, and every man was not judged according to his works, which Jesus said would follow this first-century return. So his prophecy failed. No, it isn’t about the Mt. of Transfiguration, unless Jesus meant that some standing there with him would not taste death for another 6 days.

Either way, mankind was not judged according to their works at the Transfiguration, so unless Jesus was lying or mistaken, he cannot have meant the Transfiguration as a fulfillment of his words.

 

[annem]

You do of course realize the protestant position, which says that the last supper proves that Jesus was only speaking symbolically about drinking his blood? The cup they passed around did NOT have Jesus’ real blood, but he still said it was his blood, clear symbolic intent.

The Protestant position is very weak. Jesus insisted on the reality of eating his flesh and blood and when asked if this was symbolic he again insisted on the literal meaning; and allowed followers to leave based on that. Or are you suggesting that Jesus lied? Furthermore, all the evidence from the early church, and certainly from Paul, and for the first 1,500 years of Christianity, indicates the reality of the Jesus in the Eucharist.

Jesus also swore he’d come back before the death of some people standing right there with him (Matthew 16:27-28). However, there was no second-coming within that time frame

Apparently you have never heard the Catholic explanation for this. I don’t want to waste a lot of space on it, so if you are interested, ask for the explanation.

At any rate, you missed my point. You are arguing for a party of Judaizers who wanted to continue to follow ancient Jewish traditions (by the way, the Torah as such did not exist yet). You claim there was a conspiracy to hide this party. That part of Acts is a lie. Yet you do not take into consideration the fact that the old Jewish covenant ended in 70 AD, or at least gave a great impression of doing so. Gone was the temple, gone were all the sacrifices, and gone were the priests. Some historians have argued that the Jewish population in 1 AD was anywhere from 6-8 million. And that it was done to about 1 million by the start of the Dark Ages. A goodly number of those Jews became Christians.

God bless, Annem

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The absurdity of it all. What…Jesus never made clear what Gentiles need to do to be saved?

Your questions make me wonder if you have ever actually read the gospels, or do you just read snippets that are supposed to be good for “debunking” Christianity?

Jesus stated clearly that his mission was to the Jews, not to gentiles.

Is there some version of Christianity or Judaism you’re trying to defend, or are you just looking for possible contradictions to try to introduce doubt?

 

[spirit5er]

Your questions make me wonder if you have ever actually read the gospels, or do you just read snippets that are supposed to be good for “debunking” Christianity?

Jesus stated clearly that his mission was to the Jews, not to gentiles.

First, there is enough positive interaction between Jesus and Gentiles in the gospels to justify my criticism. His statement that was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel was made in the context of a Gentile woman calling him Lord and recieving his help. Unless you think the sermon on the mount was restricted to an audience of Jews, his comments on following the law closely in order to be saved apply therefore to Gentiles too, which means there is no difficulty with whether Gentiles need to be circumcised, as the Law Jesus told them to obey clearly requires such, Exodus 12. If Jesus paraded himself as the “Lamb” of God, which must be “eaten”, then Gentiles are commanded in the Law to be circumcised before they partake of the passover lamb with the Jews. There is no controversy whatsoever, except in the eyes of one first-century businessman who knew perfectly well that turning the Jewish Christianity into a Gentile Christianity would not work very well without getting rid of the circumcision requirement. All Paul did was relax a rule Jesus supported, it’s real simple. So the problem of why nobody in Acts 15 quoted Jesus remains, and screams out for non-orthodox explanation. Then again, James and Peter may have quoted Jesus to end the arguments immediately, and Paul’s propagandist simply twisted what really happened to make them appear to support Paul’s theology more than they really did. I’ve already presented reasons why Acts is little more than Pauline propaganda which spin-doctors history in favor of Paul’s beliefs. Your own Christian historical church preserved NOTHING of the theological expositions of most of the 12 disciples, the book of James doesn’t delve into salvation doctrine nearly as much as Paul, and the case against Petrine authorship of 1st and 2nd Peter is powerful, leaving us with a story of 12 disciples, whose theological expositions disappeared, allowing the controversial Paul to dominate the New Testament.

Second, Jesus’ claim to be sent only to the Jews, could just as easily mean that he never intended his gospel to be expanded into a Gentile mission. His promise in Matthew 10:23 makes no sense if he truly foreknew Paul’s ministry would occur before his second coming.

Is there some version of Christianity or Judaism you’re trying to defend, or are you just looking for possible contradictions to try to introduce doubt?

FYI, I am an atheist, and I find F.C. Baur’s hypothesis of two competing forms of Christianity in the first century, which is what I defend here, compelling. The fact that what I say tends to hurt the doctrine of the inspiration of Paul, does NOT suddenly mean something must be wrong with my critique. I might very well have something that is a solid argument against one of your beliefs. I’m willing to debate specifics with you, if you wish to see how far Baur’s hypothesis can be pushed without breaching rational reasonable limits.

 

[JRKH]

FYI, I am an atheist, and I find F.C. Baur’s hypothesis of two competing forms of Christianity in the first century, which is what I defend here, compelling. The fact that what I say tends to hurt the doctrine of the inspiration of Paul, does NOT suddenly mean something must be wrong with my critique. I might very well have something that is a solid argument against something you believe. I’m willing to debate specifics with you, if you wish to see how far Baur’s hypothesis can be pushed.

I have not read fully through the thread here and am not sufficiently learned to discuss specifics but do have a comment or two I’d like to make.
First, is that I think there might very well have been 2 or even more “competing” forms of Christianity in the Fisrt century. I say this, not from any feel for dissention among the Apostles but rather due to the logistics involved in dealing with such a new and widespread Church. Certainly the Early heresies are testimony to this.
Second, as to the idea of whether “The Law” remained in force after the resurection, certainly there were various aspects of this that needed to be worked out. However this does not mean that the Church, under the true and correct guidance of Christ through the Holy Spirit was not able to resolve these issues.
Third, earlier you had posted something to the effect that you thought the recording of the council of Jerusalem to be “a lie”, or some such fabrication to discredit the “Judiasers”. (I disremember the exact terms you used.) This I find to be somewhat disturbing. Certainly ANY presupposition can be proved if one simply chooses to deny the documented evidence, or some portion thereof.
Finally I would like to add that, in discussing matters of faith and the development of Christianity, it is dangerous to do so from the athiestic perspective simply because that perspective denys or minimizes certain critical aspects of the Church’s development in those early days. Those elements are the ones that are highly spiritual, mystical, and Spirit Guided.

Just my 2cents

Peace
James

 

[Dauphin]

The only thing more unbelievable than Acts 15, is Acts 10, where your first pope needed a divine vision to be told something Jesus had already made clear to him for the last three years: that Gentiles recieve salvation just as much as Jews.

Peter needed a vision to know that Gentiles can get saved too? Yeah right! This too sounds like a false story created by the pro-Paul author of Acts to make Peter appear to more in agreement with Paul’s thoroughly Gentile ministry.

I don’t want to be rude, but I don’t think you’ve read Acts 10. What you’ve written is complete garbage and has nothing to do with the vision St. Peter actually received (hint: he wasn’t told the gentiles can be saved).

 

[Dauphin]

I’m having difficulty seeing the purpose of this thread.

Nowhere does St. Paul object to the observance of the Mosaic Law - he simply denies its necessity for justification.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

First, there is enough positive interaction between Jesus and Gentiles in the gospels to justify my criticism. His statement that was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel was made in the context of a Gentile woman calling him Lord and recieving his help.

Well… perhaps. But I can’t think of a single situation where Jesus went out of his way to tell people to follow the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law.

Every time Jesus preaches, he is reminding people that the law rests on the two commandments love God and love Neighbour.

Can you think of a single example of Jesus ever specifically reminding someone Jew or gentile, to follow a ceremonial law, that is, a law that isn’t clearly derived from the law of love?

Unless you think the sermon on the mount was restricted to an audience of Jews, his comments on following the law closely in order to be saved apply therefore to Gentiles too, which means there is no difficulty with whether Gentiles need to be circumcised, as the Law Jesus told them to obey clearly requires such, Exodus 12. If Jesus paraded himself as the “Lamb” of God, which must be “eaten”, then Gentiles are commanded in the Law to be circumcised before they partake of the passover lamb with the Jews.

When did Jesus tell anyone that it is important to be circumcised?

In the sermon on the mount, Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the law. This should get us thinking what was going on between the lines. Why did he have to say that? Why was this question even on the table? Obviously, someone was accusing Jesus of trying to abolish the law.

FYI, I am an atheist, and I find F.C. Baur’s hypothesis of two competing forms of Christianity in the first century, which is what I defend here, compelling. The fact that what I say tends to hurt the doctrine of the inspiration of Paul, does NOT suddenly mean something must be wrong with my critique. I might very well have something that is a solid argument against one of your beliefs. I’m willing to debate specifics with you, if you wish to see how far Baur’s hypothesis can be pushed without breaching rational reasonable limits.

Clearly there were two Christianities, Jewish and Christian in the first century, and we see that in Acts, like you said. But where is your evidence that Jesus ever wanted gentiles to get circumcised or follow any ceremonial law? I think Jesus never talked about what to do when bringing the gospel to gentiles, which is why it caused a controversy.