CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORY

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

The question is, the Bible is either anti-Semitic, or it is not. The presenter concluded that it was anti-Semitic even when there is nothing Biblical to support anti-Semitism within the Bible. .

..if its read in context.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Gospels make clear that Jesus was born of a Jewish mother, into the Jewish people, and had Jewish rites carried out namely circumcision, and Bar Mitzvah and had a strong knowledge of the Jewish scriptures to be able to question the Pharisees. How could Jesus not be Jewish, unless the Church who had the Bible only avaliable in Latin told the unknowing masses that the Jews were "Christ-killers" and the like. I personally think it was due to congregations being kept in the dark and not being able to understand the light that is the Biblical texts due to it not being in the common language, that anti-Semitism sprung up in Europe.

Because of what you mentioned, and the fact that people are remarkably obtuse when it suits them. If culturally the Jews become killers of Christ then evidence of Christ killing and the assumed peridious nature that would cause it will be found. Certainly Luther and other church men (Catholic & Protestant) became/were rabid haters of Jews, despite being far more conversant with the texts than could be expected of the semi-literate peasantry.

Jakkass wrote: »

How did they change it? Do you understand, the writers of the Gospels were themselves Jews? Why is the first suggestion to claim that the Gospels have been altered?

Going on memory - the entry to the Temple, the whole washing of hands episode, the manner of death (crucifiction as oppossed to stoning). There is the suspicion that Jesus was far more of a firebrand Rabbi than shown in the Gospels, and that certain elements of this were trimmed to avoid appearing anti-Roman.

Jakkass wrote: »

No matter how much different readings they may have, nearly all if not all of the Bible was written by Jews.

Facts do not cancel belief, as you may have noted the odd time.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

..if its read in context.

If it's read in the context of it's original time, then it is impossible that the Bible is an anti-Semitic text. I can think of no quotation in the New Testament that could be considered to be promoting hatred of the Jewish people.

Nodin wrote: »

Because of what you mentioned, and the fact that people are remarkably obtuse when it suits them. If culturally the Jews become killers of Christ then evidence of Christ killing and the assumed peridious nature that would cause it will be found. Certainly Luther and other church men (Catholic & Protestant) became/were rabid haters of Jews, despite being far more conversant with the texts than could be expected of the semi-literate peasantry.

Obtuse, when it suits them, is the equivalent of twisting the Bible to suit ones own ends. Now this isn't Christianity, this is the manipulation of man on the Biblical teaching. There is a difference. However we have discussed Luther's anti-Semitism on another thread, and Protestants never claim that Luther was perfect.

Nodin wrote: »

Going on memory - the entry to the Temple, the whole washing of hands episode, the manner of death (crucifiction as oppossed to stoning). There is the suspicion that Jesus was far more of a firebrand Rabbi than shown in the Gospels, and that certain elements of this were trimmed to avoid appearing anti-Roman.

How can you show that things were trimmed? See, we can make up anything we want about Jesus that isn't in the Gospels, you can say that he was more critical of the Romans, and I could say that John the Baptist slipped out of captivity and that his death was a myth. Both aren't substantiated in reality.

Nodin wrote: »

Facts do not cancel belief, as you may have noted the odd time.

Yes, but it isn't Christian belief, it's essentially nothing more than folklore that people attach to it.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

How can you show that things were trimmed? See, we can make up anything we want about Jesus that isn't in the Gospels, you can say that he was more critical of the Romans, and I could say that John the Baptist slipped out of captivity and that his death was a myth. Both aren't substantiated in reality.
.

....can't be. Whether they are or not is unknown, as all we have to go on are the Gospels.

wolfsbane

Nodin said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
. Judea was not an independant state, but ruled by Herod as a local king owing all to Rome. It even had local governors like Pilate, and large Roman garrisons.
Rather missing the point. It was run as a Kingdom subervient to Rome, with a large degree of independence in local matters. That was the way Rome often did things.

Yes, the Jewish leaders had independence in religious practice. They did not in the matter of captital punishment, for example. Nor were they exempt from paying tax to Rome. Even the coinage had Caesar's portrait.

In addition, theres a record of what was carried out, and the dates don't match, nor was there this requirement to travel, as mentioned in the Bible.

The date of this census is debated, but it seems the most likely way to resolve the census of 8BC with the birth of Christ (probably 5BC) is the time it would take to implement such a contentious decree in Israel. The later census, in AD6, led to a great rebellion among the Jews. So some delay in implementing the 8BC decree, allowing the local authorities to negotiate its time but not its outcome, is possible.

As to the requirement to travel, that would vary from place to place: in Egypt in AD104, the governor, G. Vibius Maximus, made such an edict. So no reason a similiar one was not given in Israel a century before.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

The date of this census is debated, but it seems the most likely way to resolve the census of 8BC with the birth of Christ (probably 5BC) is the time it would take to implement such a contentious decree in Israel. The later census, in AD6, led to a great rebellion among the Jews. So some delay in implementing the 8BC decree, allowing the local authorities to negotiate its time but not its outcome, is possible.

As to the requirement to travel, that would vary from place to place: in Egypt in AD104, the governor, G. Vibius Maximus, made such an edict. So no reason a similiar one was not given in Israel a century before.

The majority view is that there was only one census and the author of the Gospel of Luke misidentified it with the reign of Herod the Great. If as you suggest that a census would take up to 3 years to organize it's hardly likely that another one would be arragned just 14 years later. Also considering there are no records of census in the preceding or following 14 years more than one census is unlikely.

Geza Vermes comments, "from whatever angle one looks at it, the census referred to by Luke conflicts with historical reality".
The Nativity, Penguin 2006,


The papyrus from Egypt dated AD 104 requiring people to return to their homes for a census is not evidence of a requirement to travel; this refers only to migrant workers returning to their family home, not their ancestral home.

James Dunn wrote: "the idea of a census requiring individuals to move to the native town of long dead ancestors is hard to credit".

E. P. Sanders considered it unreasonable there was ever a decree that required people to travel to their ancestral homes to be registered for tax purposes, there are a number of arguments in support.

Nodin

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the Jewish leaders had independence in religious practice. They did not in the matter of captital punishment, for example..

That would depend on the period. Herod the Great was a notoriously paranoid and dangerous ruler who bumped off anyone who got in his way or who he thought might. He did not send for permission.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Nor were they exempt from paying tax to Rome. Even the coinage had Caesar's portrait...

I aluded to Rome getting their cut earlier.

wolfsbane wrote: »

.The date of this census is debated, but it seems the most likely way to resolve the census of 8BC with the birth of Christ (probably 5BC) is the time it would take to implement such a contentious decree in Israel. The later census, in AD6, led to a great rebellion among the Jews. So some delay in implementing the 8BC decree, allowing the local authorities to negotiate its time but not its outcome, is possible.

....bit like moving the goalposts there.....

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to the requirement to travel, that would vary from place to place: in Egypt in AD104, the governor, G. Vibius Maximus, made such an edict. So no reason a similiar one was not given in Israel a century before.

....but that would require a requirement to have been ordered, but not recorded, even though a record of the order for the census survives. Studiorats reply there raises a number of valid objections to the rest.

wolfsbane

studiorat said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The date of this census is debated, but it seems the most likely way to resolve the census of 8BC with the birth of Christ (probably 5BC) is the time it would take to implement such a contentious decree in Israel. The later census, in AD6, led to a great rebellion among the Jews. So some delay in implementing the 8BC decree, allowing the local authorities to negotiate its time but not its outcome, is possible.

As to the requirement to travel, that would vary from place to place: in Egypt in AD104, the governor, G. Vibius Maximus, made such an edict. So no reason a similiar one was not given in Israel a century before.
The majority view is that there was only one census and the author of the Gospel of Luke misidentified it with the reign of Herod the Great. If as you suggest that a census would take up to 3 years to organize it's hardly likely that another one would be arragned just 14 years later. Also considering there are no records of census in the preceding or following 14 years more than one census is unlikely.

Certainly many liberal scholars have poo-pooed Luke's reliability. But other fine scholars have not. It used to be asserted that he was mistaken about the date of Quirinius' rule in Syria - but subsequent evidence has shown Quirinius governed on two occasions.

14 years was the space between each census in Egypt, starting around 10-9 BC. No surprise if the same happened in Israel.

Are you saying there is no record of a census in AD 6?

Geza Vermes comments, "from whatever angle one looks at it, the census referred to by Luke conflicts with historical reality".
The Nativity, Penguin 2006,


The papyrus from Egypt dated AD 104 requiring people to return to their homes for a census is not evidence of a requirement to travel; this refers only to migrant workers returning to their family home, not their ancestral home.

James Dunn wrote: "the idea of a census requiring individuals to move to the native town of long dead ancestors is hard to credit".

E. P. Sanders considered it unreasonable there was ever a decree that required people to travel to their ancestral homes to be registered for tax purposes, there are a number of arguments in support.

Despite the opinions of these modern 'experts', Luke wrote in the time when fathers/grandfathers would have been able to say for sure. What might be hard for Dunn to credit might not be so for an Imperial ruler.

wolfsbane

Nodin said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, the Jewish leaders had independence in religious practice. They did not in the matter of captital punishment, for example..

That would depend on the period. Herod the Great was a notoriously paranoid and dangerous ruler who bumped off anyone who got in his way or who he thought might. He did not send for permission.

Quite so. I meant the religious leaders - the Sanhedrin. But even Herod lived by Caesar's grace - toward the end of his reign he was very much the subject. Josephus tells us that all Judaea had to take an oath of loyalty to Augustus as well as Herod at that time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
.The date of this census is debated, but it seems the most likely way to resolve the census of 8BC with the birth of Christ (probably 5BC) is the time it would take to implement such a contentious decree in Israel. The later census, in AD6, led to a great rebellion among the Jews. So some delay in implementing the 8BC decree, allowing the local authorities to negotiate its time but not its outcome, is possible.
....bit like moving the goalposts there.....

Not at all - the goalposts are the fact of the census in the time of Herod plus the birth of Christ at that time. The only thing moving is the possible date of the initial command for a census.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As to the requirement to travel, that would vary from place to place: in Egypt in AD104, the governor, G. Vibius Maximus, made such an edict. So no reason a similiar one was not given in Israel a century before.
....but that would require a requirement to have been ordered, but not recorded, even though a record of the order for the census survives.

I thought you said there was no record of Luke's census?

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

said:

Certainly many liberal scholars have poo-pooed Luke's reliability. But other fine scholars have not. It used to be asserted that he was mistaken about the date of Quirinius' rule in Syria - but subsequent evidence has shown Quirinius governed on two occasions.

If Census was in 6 AD Herod the Great still died in 4 BC.
Matthew alone poo-poo's Luke's reliability, that's before you even look outside the bible.

So what fantastic evidence are you talking about regarding Qurinius' twice governship? The only evidence I know of regarding that claim is extremely outdated. I hope you aren't going to keep these "fine scholars" to yourself.

Are any of these in your evidence?
The Lapis Tiburtinus? That doesn't even have anybody's name on it...
I'll type out the translation if you'd like to read it.

There's no date to the can be effectively found for the Aemilius Secundus.

Or the Antihoch Stones? That mention the governship of Caristanius and not of Quirinius.

Would you care to mention where this fantastic claim comes from.
There are 3 tablets and a coin which have been used to imply Quirinus was governer twice. I've mentioned the stones above, the claim of the coin (with it's "micro etchings") is so laughable I'm not even going to bother.

That's before we look at confusing Quintilius Varus with Quirinus and the rest of the Christian apologetica.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

said:

Despite the opinions of these modern 'experts', Luke wrote in the time when fathers/grandfathers would have been able to say for sure. What might be hard for Dunn to credit might not be so for an Imperial ruler.

Fathers and Grandfathers of the time would not have known or had very much interest in where or when Jesus was born apart from Nazareth maybe. The details of the Nativity would certainly not have been common knowledge as they are today. Not to mention the problems encountered with translation of the Oral stories to Greek in which the Gospels were written.*

Luke was written for a non-Jewish audience and thus the autograph copy was most likely written in Greek.

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

If Census was in 6 AD Herod the Great still died in 4 BC.
Matthew alone poo-poo's Luke's reliability, that's before you even look outside the bible.

So what fantastic evidence are you talking about regarding Qurinius' twice governship? The only evidence I know of regarding that claim is extremely outdated. I hope you aren't going to keep these "fine scholars" to yourself.

Are any of these in your evidence?
The Lapis Tiburtinus? That doesn't even have anybody's name on it...
I'll type out the translation if you'd like to read it.

There's no date to the can be effectively found for the Aemilius Secundus.

Or the Antihoch Stones? That mention the governship of Caristanius and not of Quirinius.

Would you care to mention where this fantastic claim comes from.
There are 3 tablets and a coin which have been used to imply Quirinus was governer twice. I've mentioned the stones above, the claim of the coin (with it's "micro etchings") is so laughable I'm not even going to bother.

That's before we look at confusing Quintilius Varus with Quirinus and the rest of the Christian apologetica.

The whole Luke census thing has been debated by scholars for a long time - and still is. The issue comes down to this, in my opinion: can we prove Luke was in error when he linked Qurinius with the census at Christ's birth? The opponents of the gospel raise objections that tend to suggest Luke's account is unlikely. But none of them are conclusive. There remains then the possibility that Luke is correct. Scholars supporting Luke suggest several alternate explanations for the objections, and there doubtless some we haven't thought of.

Some scholars who point this out:
I. Howard Marshall, Professor emeritus of New Testament exegesis at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, in his commentary on Luke in:
http://www.logos.com/products/details/2109

John Nolland, academic dean and lecturer in New Testament studies at Trinity College, Bristol, England, in his commentary on Luke in:
http://www.logos.com/products/details/1991

Darrell L. Bock, professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, in his commentary on Luke in:
http://www.logos.com/products/details/2603

H. W. Hoehner, “Chronology,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. J. B. Green, S. McKnight, and I. H. Marshall; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 118–22.

http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/hhoehner/

Hayles, D. J. “The Roman Census and Jesus‘ Birth: Was Luke Correct?, Part 1: The Roman Census System.” Buried History 9 (1973): 113-32.

Hayles, D. J. “The Roman Census and Jesus‘ Birth: Was Luke Correct?, Part 2: Quirinius’ Career and a Census in Herod‘s Day.” Buried History 10 (1974): 16-31.

I'll stick with the Spirit's witness to His truth, though it is good to have it pointed out that scholarship lined up against it.

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

Fathers and Grandfathers of the time would not have known or had very much interest in where or when Jesus was born apart from Nazareth maybe. The details of the Nativity would certainly not have been common knowledge as they are today. Not to mention the problems encountered with translation of the Oral stories to Greek in which the Gospels were written.*

Luke was written for a non-Jewish audience and thus the autograph copy was most likely written in Greek.

The gospel story was heard and believed by tens of thousands in Israel in that generation.

What translation problem exists in telling the account of the birth of Christ?

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

If Census was in 6 AD Herod the Great still died in 4 BC.
Matthew alone poo-poo's Luke's reliability, that's before you even look outside the bible.

Luke's census was not the later one in AD 6, so Matthew does not contradict Luke.

Húrin

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not what Jesus intended to happen, it goes against everything every religion teaches but it always seems to be the end result. The problem with churches is they get corrupt at the top and it just works it's way down thanks to peoples blind faith.

If you want to make claims about what Jesus said, then back it up with quotes.

sorella

See my posting of the didache... Blessings

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

The gospel story was heard and believed by tens of thousands in Israel in that generation.

What translation problem exists in telling the account of the birth of Christ?

From the language of those thousands of Hewbrews to Greek...

Gregory J. Riley

Even in the same geographical area and sometimes in the same cities, different Christian teachers taught quite different gospels and had quite different views of who Jesus was and what he did.

W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders:

on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could

Karen Armstrong.

So through was the Christians' persher exegesis that there is scarcely a verse in the New Testament that did not refer to the older scriptures. The four evangelists seemed to use the Septuagint as another source for the biography of Jesus. As a result it is difficult to dis-entangle fact from exegesis.

philologos

To keep this thread on topic somewhat did anyone see the episodes of this on Constantine's impact on Christianity, The Dark Ages and Christianity being the founding ideology of England uniting formerly warring tribes, and the episode of the Crusades and the ideology of Pope Urban II to holy war. These three have been brilliant. Portillo, Beckford and Rageh Omaar left their conclusions to the end. Rageh Omaar suggested that it is the Crusader ideology that has spurred on Al Quedas acts against the West, very interesting stuff.

studiorat

I believe he said it was a reaction to the Crusader idelolgy. After all, George W. actually called the War on Terror a Crusade against Evil. I'm sure there are plenty of Evenglists out there who see their work as a Crusade and not a million miles away from the idelogy of the historical Crusades, ie. to spread christianity through out the world...

philologos

Indeed, but I don't think many have Pope Urban II's ideology on holy war.

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

From the language of those thousands of Hewbrews to Greek...

Gregory J. Riley


W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders:


Karen Armstrong.

My, it is wonderful how these commentators know so much of what happened nearly 2000 years before they lived. Did God reveal it to them? Surely not, since they seem to discount that as a source for the authors of the Bible. Have they written records that tell them of the ignorance of the authors? No, all they have are their imaginations.

As to Hebrew into Greek, Luke would have been writing in Greek and getting his information from the eye-witnesses.

The other evangelists would have access to those fluent in both. And of course the Holy Spirit to infallibly direct their work.

ckristo2

We'll have to take a good look at the world of Jesus and his immediate successors i.e. Cephas or Peter, Yahob or his kid brother James and Yohanan or John the big three who took over the "Jerusalem Church" after the crucifixion and then comes along the "Greek Jew" from Tarsus who gave them all a headache...and the hissy spat between Peter and Paul over territory in Antioch.
I tell you the Sopranos had nothing on those tough men who "invented" early Christianity.

hivizman

Jakkass wrote: »

To keep this thread on topic somewhat did anyone see the episodes of this on Constantine's impact on Christianity, The Dark Ages and Christianity being the founding ideology of England uniting formerly warring tribes, and the episode of the Crusades and the ideology of Pope Urban II to holy war. These three have been brilliant. Portillo, Beckford and Rageh Omaar left their conclusions to the end. Rageh Omaar suggested that it is the Crusader ideology that has spurred on Al Quedas acts against the West, very interesting stuff.

Unfortunately, having seen the first part, with Howard Jacobson, and the second part, with Michael Portillo, I missed the next two parts - I need to catch up on the internet. However, I saw Anne Widdecombe on the Reformation tonight. A bit simplistic, with an overconcentration on Martin Luther and no mention of precursors such as Hus or contemporaries such as Calvin. Widdecombe conceded that the medieval catholic church needed reforming, but put a lot of stress on the wars of religion and managed to tie Northern Ireland into her story, with an interview with Ian Paisley at the end. I thought that this was less convincing than the Portillo episode. As always, some nice travel pictures, but I see that next week the actor and playwright Kwame Kwei-Armah will be going to Mexico and Africa, so I'm expecting a lot of colourful film in that episode.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

The other evangelists would have access to those fluent in both. And of course the Holy Spirit to infallibly direct their work.

fixed!

ckristo2

With regard to the Crusades it has been suggested that they were originally so popular in Europe because they gave some of the warlike landless knights and barons someone else to fight (apart from their fellow European knights and barons) it must have been so peaceful and quiet in Europe with all those fighters making war in someone else's land. Didn't the Saudis send their ultra jihadist young men to fight the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980's to get them out of their hair....One of them was called Osama Bin Laden.

wolfsbane

ckristo2 wrote: »

We'll have to take a good look at the world of Jesus and his immediate successors i.e. Cephas or Peter, Yahob or his kid brother James and Yohanan or John the big three who took over the "Jerusalem Church" after the crucifixion and then comes along the "Greek Jew" from Tarsus who gave them all a headache...and the hissy spat between Peter and Paul over territory in Antioch.
I tell you the Sopranos had nothing on those tough men who "invented" early Christianity.

I'm afraid you have been mis-reading the script if you think Peter and Paul had a territorial dispute in Antioch.

Peter had a courage-wobble, and Paul rebuked him for it. Peter recovered and both went on to serve the Lord faithfully.

Galatians 2:11-21
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians%202:11-21%20;&version=50;

philologos

hivizman wrote: »

Unfortunately, having seen the first part, with Howard Jacobson, and the second part, with Michael Portillo, I missed the next two parts - I need to catch up on the internet. However, I saw Anne Widdecombe on the Reformation tonight. A bit simplistic, with an overconcentration on Martin Luther and no mention of precursors such as Hus or contemporaries such as Calvin. Widdecombe conceded that the medieval catholic church needed reforming, but put a lot of stress on the wars of religion and managed to tie Northern Ireland into her story, with an interview with Ian Paisley at the end. I thought that this was less convincing than the Portillo episode. As always, some nice travel pictures, but I see that next week the actor and playwright Kwame Kwei-Armah will be going to Mexico and Africa, so I'm expecting a lot of colourful film in that episode.

In full agreement with you on this. She was interesting all the same, and I found what she did say about secret Catholic churches in Britain and Holland to be interesting, however the English Reformers such as Cranmer, Tyndale and so on were shoved to the side in favour of discussing purely about the Tudors.

The lowest point of her take was when she started reading out hate mail concerning her conversion to Catholicism, I fail to see what this has to do with the Reformation other than that the people who wrote said hatemail were belonging to Reformed churches.

As for Paisley I did find that kind of interesting. However although Paisleys views are rather extreme he did conduct himself in a reasonable manner with Widdecombe.

ckristo2

Hi,
I suppose some of the fun of scripture is interpreting it. From my reading of Acts 15:20-22 and Galatians 2:7-9 is that The "Jerusalem Church" (James, Peter and John) agreed with Paul that gentiles wishing to follow the Gospel need not undergoe circumcision but must observe the Jewish dietary laws. And that Paul is to be the Apostle of the gentiles and Peter the Apostle of the Jews. Paul is very hostile toward circumcision and ambivalent about the dietary laws Collosians 2:11-15, but adamant about which Apostle should preach to the gentiles and which to the Jews so that's why he was angry that Peter had strayed into "His territory" of Antioch to "poach" some non Jews himself. I am very interested in the period when the new faith of Christianity sheered off from Judaism. Saint Paul was one of the major figures who played a part in this event. All the best John

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

As for Paisley I did find that kind of interesting. However although Paisleys views are rather extreme he did conduct himself in a reasonable manner with Widdecombe.

The mystery of the 5 Ian Paisleys. Two are very very nice, two are very, very bad and and the fifth can go either way.

wolfsbane

Nodin wrote: »

The mystery of the 5 Ian Paisleys. Two are very very nice, two are very, very bad and and the fifth can go either way.

Yes, a real puzzle to me too. I'm glad to see his Christian attitude of late, but still bothered by grave lapses in it earlier.

wolfsbane

ckristo2 said:

Paul is very hostile toward circumcision and ambivalent about the dietary laws Collosians 2:11-15, but adamant about which Apostle should preach to the gentiles and which to the Jews so that's why he was angry that Peter had strayed into "His territory" of Antioch to "poach" some non Jews himself. I am very interested in the period when the new faith of Christianity sheered off from Judaism. Saint Paul was one of the major figures who played a part in this event. All the best John

Hi, John.

It is wrong to say Paul is very hostile toward circumcision and ambivalent about the dietary laws. He is only so in regard to Gentiles being induced into them. Jews are free to maintain their practice if they wish.

As to the incident at Antioch: it was not a territorial dispute, but a failure of Peter's courage in the face of those who wished to rebuild the wall of separation between Gentile and Jew that the gospel had broken down. Peter did not teach such a wicked error, but his action in not eating with the Gentiles (when the Judaizers arrived) sent out that message and made him a hypocrite. Thus the public rebuke by Paul.