What then, would be your response to Paul? [Galatians 2:7] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.
Rom 1:13-16 -- Paul seems to say he'd like to work with ALL the Christians in Rome, not just the gentile ones. Things moved quickly in the decades after the Resurrection.
Sorry, I am not going to work that way with you.
You have put a unique and controversial proposition under examination. You claim that your research and study show that the vast majority of Christians are just as wrong as can be about the early church, and that MY church especially is actually made up of followers of a bogus Apostle who was actually a gnostic magician or somesuch, and is wrong aboute nearly everything, from t he day of the week on which we worship on down.
As just ONE example, to support your argument you make a claim about the word Ethnos, which seems to involve an unexplicable misreading of what Strong says, and for which I can find no other scholarly confirmation.
Your interpretation of Strong's entry on Ethnos calls into question everything you say. I, personally, feel suckered because I hobbled over to THIS bookcase for my Youngs, to THAT one for my Bauer Arndt and Gingrich, to yet another to find Kittel. Then I pushed a temporary bookcase over to where I can reach it from my bed of alleged pain, and made sure I could get a couple of translations of Scripture and had my Greek Testament nearby.
Then I hacked my way through the research and find that there just isn't support in my materials for what you assert. It was a wild goose chase!
All that work to learnI was right all along! What a PAIN! And now you want me to go research something else?
I think that the Great Commission is still plausibly understood as a commission to go to the Gentiles and that the construction of it as a commissioning to the Diaspora only is not born out linguistically nor any other way. The rules of the game have changed radically. I think Acts portrays Paul as going to the diaspora and going first to Synagogues and then to Gentiles. I think the writings of Paul indicate that "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, (and so forth)", that, in other words as the meaning of the Resurrection sunk in, and as the situation changed (and lots and lots of Jews converted), the Church distinguished less and less between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.
To say that the church's interpretation is invalid, you have to make a positive argument that the Church is invalid. But to make that argument you have to chip at the Church's interpretation. That's circular. You tried to break the circle with the ethnos word study, but that just couldn't make the case.
I'd suggest making your case in a straight-forward manner.