There are a few things here that are seeming errors, maybe you can clarify for me.
1. As I referenced in another thread and provided secular source supporting, Paul passed on what he received from Judean apostles. He did not allow them to keep their customs and in fact listed the very practices the so called pagan world had and then commended his Ephesian congregation for abandoning those practices.
The real origin of the adoption of gentile customs into Christianity was a papal decree by pope Gregory 1st called, Epistola ad Mellitum which reads as follows:
Gregory I, Letter to Abbot Mellitus, Epsitola 76, PL 77: 1215-1216
Intro: Mellitus was about to join St. Augustine of Canterbury on the mission to England. How to deal with a pagan culture, and its symbols. Gregory I (590-604) recommends a policy of acculturation.
****
Tell Augustine that he should be no means destroy the temples of the gods but rather the idols within those temples. Let him, after he has purified them with holy water, place altars and relics of the saints in them. For, if those temples are well built, they should be converted from the worship of demons to the service of the true God. Thus, seeing that their places of worship are not destroyed, the people will banish error from their hearts and come to places familiar and dear to them in acknowledgement and worship of the true God.
Further, since it has been their custom to slaughter oxen in sacrifice, they should receive some solemnity in exchange. Let them therefore, on the day of the dedication of their churches, or on the feast of the martyrs whose relics are preserved in them, build themselves huts around their one-time temples and celebrate the occasion with religious feasting. They will sacrifice and eat the animals not any more as an offering to the devil, but for the glory of God to whom, as the giver of all things, they will give thanks for having been satiated. Thus, if they are not deprived of all exterior joys, they will more easily taste the interior ones. For surely it is impossible to efface all at once everything from their strong minds, just as, when one wishes to reach the top of a mountain, he must climb by stages and step by step, not by leaps and bounds....
Mention this to our brother the bishop, that he may dispose of the matter as he sees fit according to the conditions of time and place
2. Also as I pointed out, the bible and history testifies that Christianity was standardized before Paul's conversion. I also provided the source and scriptures testifying to this fact in the other thread. This source also addressed the fact that the Gentiles had no affect on christisnity. At least not until the pope issued that epistle several hundred years later. My post read as follows, quoting the reference used:
I can certainly do that, I'll provide a few quotes from the book I'm currently reading. I just read a rather large chapter in which was the subject of the plausibility of hellenization of culture explaining the view of Christ. The full title of the book is, "Lord Jesus Christ | Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity" by Larry W. Hurtado. I'm not done with it yet but I'm enjoying it.
Anyway, on beginning on page 230 it states:
"To Repeat an earlier emphasis: the interpretation of Jesus' death attested in Paul's letters, by all accounts, derive from his "predecessors," including Judean circles such as the Jerusalem church. Moreover, as also previously noted, Paul's acquaintance with Jewish Christian beliefs began in the very first few years (ca 30-35 C.E). The only meaningful period of Christian development "before" Paul is at most the very first few months or perhaps years. But Paul's introduction to Jewish Christian beliefs must even be dated prior to his conversion, for his opposition could have been directed only against a prior Jewish Christian phenomenon.Furthermore, Paul claims that the traditions such as he repeats in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 represent not only his own prior missionary message but also the proclamation of Judean leaders (15:11). Scholars may dispute the validity of Paul's claim, of course. But we must also note that those to whom he attributed these traditions (e.g., Peter/Cephas and James) were still very much active and able to speak for themselves. He was not as much at liberty to make specious attributions and claims about the origins of Christian traditions as we modern scholars!"
It should be noted that the above quote is taken from a page where he's addressing the treatment of the Q material toward Christs death. However as the quote itself states he elsewhere made this same assertion in addressing the hellenization issue, which I'm still trying to find in the book.... (It's rather large)
Found it. Okay so he addresses the Hellenists starting on page 206 and there is a great deal of information. Such as the first instance of the above quoted information can be found somewhere here. So what I'm going to do is type out the last paragraph leading up to the summary of the chapter and then some of the summary itself. But remember all the things he asserts up to this point has his references in the footnotes and very detailed reasons for why the assertion is made. What I'm going to put here is a summary, because otherwise I'd be typing all day long.
"Whatever one thinks of the idea that the Hellenist believers of Jerusalem had developed a distinctly radical view of Torah and temple, however, for my purposes here the key question is whether they dissented from the sorts of christological categories and devotional practice that came to expression initially among Judean circles of the early Christian movement. The answer: there is no evidence that the Hellenists as a group had a distinctive Christology, or that they collectively rejected the sort of reverential practices studied in this chapter. But, even if one prefers to think of the Hellenists as some sort of proto-Pauline group that was critical of "the ritual law" and the Jerusalem temple, this does not in itself provide any basis for thinking they also developed a significantly different view of Jesus or a distinctive pattern of devotional practice. Within the limits of our evidence (secondhand reports of Acts and traditions in Paul's letters), it appears that the "Hebrews" and the "Hellenists" in Jerusalem made similar christological statements and engaged in similar devotional practices."
Following this statement is the summary, which is quite lengthy, but on page 215 he says this:
"The most important points to make here are these, by way of summary: The high place of Jesus in the beliefs and religious practice of Judean Christianity that comes across in this evidence confirms how astonishingly early and quickly an impressive devotion to Jesus appeared. This in turn helps to explain why and how it all seems to have been so conventionalized and uncontroversial already by the time of the Pauline mission to the Gentiles in the 50's. As Bengt Holmberg notes, when Paul visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (or perhaps about five years after Jesus' execution), "he there encountered a religious group which had reached a fairly high degree of development in doctrinal tradition, teaching, cultic practice, common life and internal organization."
He then cites his reference in the footnotes.
He goes on to further assert in a few lines that Jesus place in Christian worship was very early, and as we can see from their practices developed prior to the Gentile mission of Paul.
