[Romans 1:13-16] Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Yes, you are correct. Christianity spread like wildfire after Pentecost and Churches sprang up all over the civilized world as the Gospel spread from brother to uncle to grandmother to niece to neighbor to friend to acquaintance to employee to stranger to child....all without the benefit of clergy or Apostleship.
Paul wrote these words (Romans 1) about 56 A.D., probably from Corinth. He had not yet been to Rome and he speaks of his disappointment in not being able to visit. He does not address Peter nor make mention of him.
In [Acts 28:21-22] Paul is speaking to the assembled Jewish leaders of Rome. He is under house arrest after being forcefully brought to Rome from Jerusalem. It is now about 61/62 A.D. (five or six years later) and the Jewish leaders say "And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against."
On the surface....wouldn't you consider this train of events odd if Peter, commissioned as the Jewish Evangelizer [Galatians 2:7], had been in and about Rome for the last 20/25 years or so....according to your tradition? Paul, being an Evangelizer to both Gentile and Jew, was able to deal with these folks as well as the Gentile Population.
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.
Are you saying that the word "Ethnos" cannot mean Tribe, Nation or People? Are you saying that it must in all cases mean Gentile?
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.
I am sorry for your discomfort and pain. I shall refrain from posting to you regarding these questions until you have recuperated.
The argument was of the "good for the goose -- good for the gander" variety. You're adducing a text which shows Peter had a ministry to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. I'm arguing that Paul expressed an interest in both the Jews and the Gentiles in Rome. I don't need an explicit mention of Peter to say that maybe the division to which you and Galatians refer was NOT a permanent thing.
On the surface....wouldn't you consider this train of events odd if Peter, commissioned as the Jewish Evangelizer [Galatians 2:7], had been in and about Rome for the last 20/25 years or so....according to your tradition?
Because
(a)we not only lack knowledge of how long that commission of Peter to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles was intended to be in effect;
(2)we do have evidence that under some circumstances Paul went to the Jews, so the commission was either impermanent or flexibly interpreted
Therefore no, I don't find it odd.
Are you saying that the word "Ethnos" cannot mean Tribe, Nation or People? Are you saying that it must in all cases mean Gentile?
You repeatedly said that "tribe" was the preferred meaning, and on the basis of that asserted preferred meaning said the great commission was about evangelizing the diaspora, and that therefore other interpretations of other passages must be changed. It is an entirely different proposition whether the word could sometimes mean "Tribe, nation, or people". There's a long distance between "could be" and "must be".
It's the whole problem of "proving" things from Scripture. If we assume certain unusual (not impossible, just unusual) uses of "ethnos", if we interpret the "Greeks" in John 12:20 as the Jews of the diaspora rather than proselytes, if we imagine that the sending of the 12 before the Passion was a mission to which they fixedly adhered for the rest of their natural lives, and if we're comfortable with our using more or less the same data as that available to a lot of people for a long time to come up with a radically different conclusion, if "as many as a million" is insignificantly different from "millions", if we can accept the morphing of Petros, Pater, and Pator into one another, and a lot of other ifs, why then we can present an argument that the Catholic Church is bogus and led by successors of Simon Magus and that there is a more authentic and radically original group of Christians who rightly worship on Saturday.
All the conjectures have their rough spots and their smooth spots. My gang has the fabulously embarrassing Donations of Constantine, for example. You appeal to Strong to say what Strong does not appear to say, then base an argument on that, and then somehow seem to wean the argument from Strong. It's like saying we must read other parts of scripture in the light of what Strong says and the effect what he says has on the great commission. Then it turns out Strong does not say that. So now we have to read the Great Commission in light of our new interpretation of the other scriptures - but the new interpretation was derived from the reading allegedly given by Strong.
I try to maintain some openness to other hypotheses. When I find that many of the supporting assertions are difficult to verify, and that the one that I pursue with intensity turns out to be mistaken, well, it's off-putting.
Actually now that I've seen the doc, and he re-bandaged me the pain is considerably greater, and the punishment for moving furniture and searching for books more severe -- and that's BEFORE my wife finds out! I don't mind it if it's not on a wild goose chase. The assertion that "tribe" was a preferred meaning for ethnos was a wild goose chase. But now the venerable Barco-lounger is almost buried in piles of books. If things get really bad, I'll have a friend come over tomorrow and move my entire Kittel nearby.
And, as one friend to another, if you don't know Kittel and if you do like dictionaries, make sure you get to spend some time with this puppy. It is the most entertaining piece of scholarship I have ever spent any time with.