Historical Jesus?

[oddbird1963]

What valuable insight do you believe has come from Greek mythology, compared to Christianity?

I'm not interested in getting into a pissing match about which religion is better than another. I no longer have a dog in that hunt. The Greek Mythic system worked for centuries amongst those influenced by Greek culture. They got from it the things worshipers tend to get from religion. To deny this and claim some exclusive status for Christianity is merely special pleading.

 

Insights I got from greek mythology include 1) gods suck 2) life lived in violation of accepted social mores can have tragic consequences. 3) Don't piss off Hera. Not very valuable to me, but just like the bible teaches not to piss off yhwh, the greeks learned not to piss off hera.

 

In there own way, these are pretty much the same gleanings I took away from christianity.

 

The real point is is that christianity is just the preferred religion of the current dominant civilization. Had the Moors conquered Europe, you probably would be arguing for the supremacy of Allah.

[Abiyoyo]

The people that DO this for a living, career, devote their lives to research, study, etc. The reason they don't hold a press conference with CNN, Larry King, etc for this ground breaking news, ...is because their is none really. Just paintings and remnants, and theories.

 

So you agree with the Op that Jesus being a historical figure is just a belief, not fact.

 

The opposite. That Christianity is ,...all made up,...like NonXNonExX gracefully pointed out.

[Shyone]

 

We could go all day with the similarities and comparisons of differences between Jesus and Mithra, but there is one thing that maybe you should consider.

 

The people that DO this for a living, career, devote their lives to research, study, etc. The reason they don't hold a press conference with CNN, Larry King, etc for this ground breaking news, ...is because their is none really. Just paintings and remnants, and theories.

What is the first mention of the word "Christ" in the Bible?

[RationalOkie]

Mark, writing from a location far from where the events actually takes place, pens a crude story loosely based on the legend current in the diaspora buttressed by some twisted references from the OT.

 

Mark's version becomes very popular. It indirectly and allegorically takes swipes at the Romans, appeals to the OT accepted by the "god-fearers" and is comforting to Jews who have just seen their precious temple razed to the ground. ...

 

The Jew's just had their butts kicked and were afraid. As Bart Ehrman points out most of these people, 98% or better, were illiterate and extremely superstitious. From living in the buckle of the bible belt I can tell you that fundamentalism flourishes in such an environment. The Jews were in need of a hero, good news, a promise of good things to come. No wonder they flocked to this narrative.

 

Honestly, education is the only way to turn the tide. It’s occurring via the internet but I also think that American schools do an unbelievably poor job of covering historical figures such as Mithras, Osiris, Adonis, Dionysus and Krishna. After all they are part of world history and no high school in the country is teaching the significance of December 25th & virgin births in the Pagan religions in our public schools.

[qadeshet]

 

 

I had read that the original "Jesus" was a man named Yesu Nazrim who lived about 100BCE.

What read was this from? Just curious. Never heard this one before.

 

 

I read it on a webpage that had sources cited but I do not remember them, and I thought I had the page bookmarked but can't find it right now. So, that's not really helpful. I will try to find it and post it here. Not saying its 'true' or fact, but its an interesting theory that I had not read before either.

 

"Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?"

[Abiyoyo]

 

What is the first mention of the word "Christ" in the Bible?

 

The term Christ is first used in Matthew 1.1. Is this what you are asking? Christ is a Greek word that means anointed.

 

Here is an example of 'anointed' used in the OT.

 

1Sa 2:35 And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever.

 

What is your point?

[Shyone]

 

What is the first mention of the word "Christ" in the Bible?

 

The term Christ is first used in Matthew 1.1. Is this what you are asking? Christ is a Greek word that means anointed.

 

Here is an example of 'anointed' used in the OT.

 

1Sa 2:35 And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever.

 

What is your point?

With respect to early Christianity, there should be little doubt that there was religious syncretism. For the Greeks, "Khristos" or some form thereof was already associated with some beliefs.

 

From http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/chrestos%20christos.htm

The Greeks used both the word Messias (a transliteration) and Christos (a translation) for the Hebrew Mashiach (Anointed). The word Christos was far more acceptable to the pagans who were worshiping Chreston and Chrestos.

 

Don't you think it's strange that the early church chose to use a Greek word for Jesus, but when the OT was translated into greek they chose not to use the same word - or the English translation for that word when the bible was translated into English?

 

John, whose writing is distinctly different from the other gospels, is the only one to use Messiah, and he felt the need to mention that it also means "Christ" every time he wrote it.

 

[You know the other indications of syncretism, so there's no need to put "egg" on your face. Ho, Ho, Ho.]

 

The fusion of Greek culture and beliefs with Hebrew required some words and/or phrases that had meaning for the Greeks already. Christ is just another indication of religious syncretism.

[RationalOkie]

With respect to early Christianity, there should be little doubt that there was religious syncretism. For the Greeks, "Khristos" or some form thereof was already associated with some beliefs.

 

From http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/chrestos%20christos.htm

The Greeks used both the word Messias (a transliteration) and Christos (a translation) for the Hebrew Mashiach (Anointed). The word Christos was far more acceptable to the pagans who were worshiping Chreston and Chrestos.

 

Don't you think it's strange that the early church chose to use a Greek word for Jesus, but when the OT was translated into greek they chose not to use the same word - or the English translation for that word when the bible was translated into English?

 

John, whose writing is distinctly different from the other gospels, is the only one to use Messiah, and he felt the need to mention that it also means "Christ" every time he wrote it.

 

[You know the other indications of syncretism, so there's no need to put "egg" on your face. Ho, Ho, Ho.]

 

The fusion of Greek culture and beliefs with Hebrew required some words and/or phrases that had meaning for the Greeks already. Christ is just another indication of religious syncretism.

 

Excellent post. At the risk of sounding lazy...is this summarized anywhere else better? The origins of the words "Christ", "Jesus" or "Messiah"? What I mean is the link mentioned that the "KJV - Jesus (Son of Zeus)" Never heard that before is there any evidence for this?

 

Also the following

According to The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, the word Christos was easily confused with the common Greek proper name Chrestos, meaning "good." According to a French theological dictionary, it is absolutely beyond doubt that Christus and Chrestus, and Christiani and Chrestiani were used indifferently by the profane and Christian authors of the first two centuries A.D. The word Christianos is a Latinism, being contributed neither by the Jews nor by the Christians themselves. The word was introduced from one of three origins: the Roman police, the Roman populace, or an unspecified pagan origin. Its infrequent use in the New Testament suggests a pagan origin.

 

 

Again, Great post Shyone.

[RationalOkie]

I found this

 

It is a blasphemous lie to proclaim that the name "Jesus" is derived from Zeus, or means "son of Zeus." There is absolutely no historical documentation for this claim. It is simply repeated by those who wish to insult Christians and blaspheme the name of our Savior. You should run from any group that promotes this lie of the Devil.

 

http://www.pfrs.org/jewish/hr09.html

 

That last line is pretty funny. Honestly, I just want the truth about this stuff. I can't stand looking like a fool qouting an unreliable source or fabrication. The deal is if one thing on that site is unreliable then I don't trust any of it.

[Shyone]

 

Excellent post. At the risk of sounding lazy...is this summarized anywhere else better? The origins of the words "Christ", "Jesus" or "Messiah"? What I mean is the link mentioned that the "KJV - Jesus (Son of Zeus)" Never heard that before is there any evidence for this?

 

The following link uses the term "mythological mischief" which I think is appropriate:

http://www.alanhorvath.com/bibletools_yhswh.php

 

Unfortunately, the more I look into the Greek interpretations of the Bible, the more I discover mythological mischief; the Greeks were constantly attempting to incorporate their Mythology into Christianity. In terms of our Messiah's name, why do you suppose the Greeks changed Yahshua to Iesous? Many would say it is because the Greek Iesous means Yahshua but that simply is not the case. The literal translation of "Iesous" is "Hail, Zeus!" Tarsus means Sweat of Zeus ... Dionysus, the Son of Zeus ... Ephesus ... Jesus or Iesous ... read this:

 

"It is known that the Greek name endings with sus, seus, and sous [which are phonetic pronunciations for the chief Greek god of Olympus] were attached by the Greeks to names and geographical areas as means to give honour to their supreme deity, Zeus."

 

To save the Christians from having to dig for some stupid apologetic that says, "No, it doesn't!", I present the following poor excuse for an excuse.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7239693/Jesus-and-Zeus

[RationalOkie]

Another nail....Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the [Dead Sea] Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament.

 

This is really interesting because "the scrolls are the oldest group of Old Testament manuscripts ever found. "

 

http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html

[Neon Genesis]

There's one thing I don't get about the argument that Jesus never existed. In Galatians, Paul talks about how he was debating with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem on the issue of circumcision. He accused them both of being false teachers and warned his followers not to believe them. If Paul was in contact with Peter and James, couldn't the Christians in Paul's early church have gone to Jerusalem to investigate whether or not these people really existed and weren't just mythological characters Paul made up? And if it was all just made up with no historical basis, why didn't Paul make it so that he had a good relationship with Peter and James and they agreed with everything he said like how Acts try to cover up the story? I'm not using this as proof that the bible is literally true. I'm just wondering that if they were all just made up fictional characters and so Paul never had any real contact with them, why didn't Paul make himself look better to win favor with the church and why didn't the church send Christians to Jerusalem to investigate the matter themselves?

[Shyone]

There's one thing I don't get about the argument that Jesus never existed. In Galatians, Paul talks about how he was debating with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem on the issue of circumcision. He accused them both of being false teachers and warned his followers not to believe them. If Paul was in contact with Peter and James, couldn't the Christians in Paul's early church have gone to Jerusalem to investigate whether or not these people really existed and weren't just mythological characters Paul made up? And if it was all just made up with no historical basis, why didn't Paul make it so that he had a good relationship with Peter and James and they agreed with everything he said like how Acts try to cover up the story? I'm not using this as proof that the bible is literally true. I'm just wondering that if they were all just made up fictional characters and so Paul never had any real contact with them, why didn't Paul make himself look better to win favor with the church and why didn't the church send Christians to Jerusalem to investigate the matter themselves?

That's a very good point. I doubt that anyone would have travelled far from their home to "investigate" this, but the way it is written does substantiate the existence of at least one apostle - and by inference Jesus or whatever his name really was.

[dagnarus]

There's one thing I don't get about the argument that Jesus never existed. In Galatians, Paul talks about how he was debating with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem on the issue of circumcision. He accused them both of being false teachers and warned his followers not to believe them. If Paul was in contact with Peter and James, couldn't the Christians in Paul's early church have gone to Jerusalem to investigate whether or not these people really existed and weren't just mythological characters Paul made up? And if it was all just made up with no historical basis, why didn't Paul make it so that he had a good relationship with Peter and James and they agreed with everything he said like how Acts try to cover up the story? I'm not using this as proof that the bible is literally true. I'm just wondering that if they were all just made up fictional characters and so Paul never had any real contact with them, why didn't Paul make himself look better to win favor with the church and why didn't the church send Christians to Jerusalem to investigate the matter themselves?

 

I believe that one the arguments for Jesus being a myth is in the idea that Christianity may have started as a mystery religion. The thought here is that the early Christians never even implied that Jesus ever lived as a physical being but that he was to them a mystical being who accomplished the atonement in a purely spiritual realm.

Anyway there's a review of a book which discusses this idea here.

[mwc]

In Galatians, Paul talks about how he was debating with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem on the issue of circumcision.

Really? Where does Paul say that James is the brother of "jesus?" Nowhere? Exactly. He mentions a James, the lord's brother.

 

Now this starts a fun game.

 

Mark 3

17 and

James, the son of Zebedee

, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder ");

18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew , and Thomas, and

James the son of Alphaeus

, and Thaddaeus , and Simon the Zealot;

 

Matthew 10

2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother;

James the son of Zeb'edee

, and John his brother;

3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector;

James the son of Alphaeus

, and Thaddaeus;

 

Luke 6

14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and

James

and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew,

15 and Matthew, and Thomas, and

James the son of Alphaeus

, and Simon who was called the Zealot,

16 and

Judas the son of James

, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

 

Acts 1

13 When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and

James

and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew ,

James the son of Alphaeus

, and Simon the Zealot, and

Judas the son of James.

...

23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus ), and Matthias .

26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias ; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

 

John has no formal list but according to wikipedia (and a quick scan of the text) never lists James by name as an apostle.

 

So with that out of the way let's look at Paul's words:

 

Galatians 1

19 But I did not see any other of the

apostles except James, the Lord's brother

.

20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.)

He swears to GOD that he saw no other APOSTLES except for James, the lord's brother. The only problem with that is this James isn't an apostle according to the known lists.

 

How very odd. It makes you wonder if the lists were contrived or if Paul's concept of apostle was something different than those of the gospel authors. Or both? Or something else? Who knows? It seems that there's no need to make anything up if the concepts simply don't mesh to begin with.

 

He accused them both of being false teachers and warned his followers not to believe them. If Paul was in contact with Peter and James, couldn't the Christians in Paul's early church have gone to Jerusalem to investigate whether or not these people really existed and weren't just mythological characters Paul made up?

They could have. Who's to say they didn't? We don't have any of that. Let's say someone did go and found a big steaming pile of nothing? When they returned what would you expect? That they'd write a huge document on what they didn't find? Then preserve this document for all time as something sacred? Or would they just ignore silly old Paul and go back to their former ways forcing Paul to move on and possibly step-up his game?

 

And if it was all just made up with no historical basis, why didn't Paul make it so that he had a good relationship with Peter and James and they agreed with everything he said like how Acts try to cover up the story?

Because it's about authority. Paul needs authority over his disciples and for that he doesn't need to be submissive to those in Jerusalem but at the very least equals. In Acts the author wants Paul to be submissive to the larger church and their was and makes him that way. Paul, in his letters, wants his gospel to be dominant. There's no reason to paint a picture of cooperation and weakness. If Paul is submissive then these people may as well listen to the Jerusalem disciples and ignore Paul. That's not desirable. Even Cephas was submissive to James and Paul used that to show how he was weak and hypocritical at times. This was something Paul would not do. It was something the author of Acts made him do (which, if it was truly his friend that wrote the Acts, he wasn't much of a friend because he effectively betrayed him by making him submissive to the Jerusalem church when he did nothing but oppose it in his letters).

 

I'm not using this as proof that the bible is literally true. I'm just wondering that if they were all just made up fictional characters and so Paul never had any real contact with them, why didn't Paul make himself look better to win favor with the church and why didn't the church send Christians to Jerusalem to investigate the matter themselves?

The problem is that the church essentially "invented" its own history so it probably didn't have the means or desire to do any "investigating" of anything. Essentially like how does one know when a "prophecy" is fulfilled and it's always after the fact. So the church "came into being" sometime after the fact. They didn't know they were "creating" the church until long after it came to exist and by then there was nothing to investigate. It simply was all said and done by then. Of course those that came later and looked back decided to "investigate" and "fill in the blanks" so that something magical happened but they were simply looking back and deciding "prophecy" had been fulfilled as it were. Those who lived it simply lived it. I can't say there weren't some part of them, like now, trying to fulfill prophecy (like bring out end times) or the like but unless something extraordinary happens it's still only by looking back that anyone can see if something can be picked out and considered special.

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

 

He swears to GOD that he saw no other APOSTLES except for James, the lord's brother. The only problem with that is this James isn't an apostle according to the known lists.

 

How very odd. It makes you wonder if the lists were contrived or if Paul's concept of apostle was something different than those of the gospel authors. Or both? Or something else? Who knows? It seems that there's no need to make anything up if the concepts simply don't mesh to begin with.

I was reading the book The First Paul by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan and they point out that Paul and Luke have different ideas as to what count as an apostle. Luke only uses the term apostle to refer to the original 12 whereas Paul has a broader definition that seems to refer to any missionary leader in general. For example, in Romans 16, one of Paul's apostles, Junia, is an apostle that's a woman.

 

They could have. Who's to say they didn't? We don't have any of that. Let's say someone did go and found a big steaming pile of nothing? When they returned what would you expect? That they'd write a huge document on what they didn't find? Then preserve this document for all time as something sacred? Or would they just ignore silly old Paul and go back to their former ways forcing Paul to move on and possibly step-up his game?

But even if they didn't convince Paul's church, wouldn't they have at least left evidence behind that Jesus was a made up character to warn their fellow pagans to avoid Paul's cult? The Jesus myth hypothesis argues that Jesus isn't a historical figure because there's no non-scriptural contemporary evidence other than some vague writings of Josephus that aren't contemporary but then you would think some pagan or Jew who was alive during the time when the Christian movement got started would have written that Jesus was no more historical than Zeus or Hercules in order to stop the Christian movement but there doesn't seem to be anything other than some equally vague writings by Justin Martyr that suggests he was aware of similarities.

 

 

 

The problem is that the church essentially "invented" its own history so it probably didn't have the means or desire to do any "investigating" of anything. Essentially like how does one know when a "prophecy" is fulfilled and it's always after the fact. So the church "came into being" sometime after the fact. They didn't know they were "creating" the church until long after it came to exist and by then there was nothing to investigate. It simply was all said and done by then. Of course those that came later and looked back decided to "investigate" and "fill in the blanks" so that something magical happened but they were simply looking back and deciding "prophecy" had been fulfilled as it were.

 

But then why didn't any of their pagan enemies use Jesus' lack of existence in order to argue against the Christian movement? There's a lot of writings of pagans where they ridicule the Christians for their strange beliefs so why would they not use this to their advantage? Also, if Jesus was just made up, why would the gospels go out of their way to write two completely contradictory genealogies of Jesus? If it was all a conspiracy among the gospel authors, wouldn't they have just copied each other's genealogies?

[RationalOkie]

But then why didn't any of their pagan enemies use Jesus' lack of existence in order to argue against the Christian movement? There's a lot of writings of pagans where they ridicule the Christians for their strange beliefs so why would they not use this to their advantage? Also, if Jesus was just made up, why would the gospels go out of their way to write two completely contradictory genealogies of Jesus? If it was all a conspiracy among the gospel authors, wouldn't they have just copied each other's genealogies?

 

Wouldn't the pagans have been repressed by the Constantine conversion? On your second point the genealogies were screwed up because Mark was the first source and he clearly was not a Jew and was not familiar with Jewish customs. To fix his errors subsequent Jewish authors used most of what he wrote as a source and then fixed his errors of geneology, geology, and other jewish customs that weren't correct in his version. Here's an excellent source on Mark's screw up: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/mark.html

[mwc]

I was reading the book The First Paul by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan and they point out that Paul and Luke have different ideas as to what count as an apostle. Luke only uses the term apostle to refer to the original 12 whereas Paul has a broader definition that seems to refer to any missionary leader in general. For example, in Romans 16, one of Paul's apostles, Junia, is an apostle that's a woman.

So if we don't agree we're at least close on this. There isn't a unified concept of "apostle" here. Paul and Luke, who we're told were friends (and supposedly Luke got his info from Paul), apparently differ on this. Luke follows the other synoptics.

 

So then who was Paul's "James?" If "apostle" doesn't have to mean "apostle" in the same sense as the other gospels does "brother" mean what we thing? How about "lord?" Essentially the whole phrase needs to be examined in to see how Paul may use those terms. We may need to consider that this "James" may be someone that is only known to Paul and not to us at all (except through Paul of course).

 

But even if they didn't convince Paul's church, wouldn't they have at least left evidence behind that Jesus was a made up character to warn their fellow pagans to avoid Paul's cult? The Jesus myth hypothesis argues that Jesus isn't a historical figure because there's no non-scriptural contemporary evidence other than some vague writings of Josephus that aren't contemporary but then you would think some pagan or Jew who was alive during the time when the Christian movement got started would have written that Jesus was no more historical than Zeus or Hercules in order to stop the Christian movement but there doesn't seem to be anything other than some equally vague writings by Justin Martyr that suggests he was aware of similarities.

Who was Paul? How big was his church? How important was it to write against it? How important was it to maintain these documents over time?

 

I can ask all of these questions knowing there is no answer. I can't tell you why. Maybe people did this or maybe they did not.

 

I don't know why anyone would write that "jesus" was mythical. That wasn't how people did things. As I'm sure you're well aware of people accepted that Caesar was deified in a comet (or star of some sort). This wasn't a unique thing. So if I saw a shooting star or comet, pointed to it, and said "There's Jesus! He's come as foretold by the prophets!" you may very well agree with me and we could have claimed to have seen "jesus." This is one way "sightings" were done (one of these days I'll collect this info so I don't have to do it each time I try to think of an example...I can't think of one). Anyway, it's not hard to imagine why mythical is different for us today. Keep this in mind when you read that Paul and that 500 people "saw" "jesus." It's possible. Just not in the sense anyone will accept as a "risen" dead guy (which is why I argue it down...no one means it the way I tend to think of it and explaining takes too long).

 

But then why didn't any of their pagan enemies use Jesus' lack of existence in order to argue against the Christian movement? There's a lot of writings of pagans where they ridicule the Christians for their strange beliefs so why would they not use this to their advantage? Also, if Jesus was just made up, why would the gospels go out of their way to write two completely contradictory genealogies of Jesus? If it was all a conspiracy among the gospel authors, wouldn't they have just copied each other's genealogies?

Because being totally and absolutely imaginary and being "mythical" are quite different things.

 

No matter which xian texts you read there is always something "created" from the "prophecies" of the Hebrews (and it's always the LXX or Greek versions and they frequently include Greek oracles, the xian Sybillines(sp?), later on). Is this mythical? Considering a known xian "christ" is "the word" this construct is not invalid in the slightest. G.John goes through great lengths to validate this right at the start of his gospel.

 

So does a real person need to be at the center of any of this? No. Does it preclude a real person from being at the center of any of this? No. Does it preclude more than one person? No.

 

What it does mean is that it simply could not pop into existence for no reason at all at some given date and time simply out of the blue. That's how this position is usually perceived. That a cabal of guys went into a room one night, thought up "Jesus the Christ," wrote it all down and walked back out the next day. And they did it with some unknown purpose in mind. That didn't happen.

 

mwc

[NonXNonExX]

What always impressed me about the Gospel stories and made me think that if there is a core of truth it is too deeply buried to ever recover is the relationship between Paul and the disciples. For one, he never refers to them as disciples and never acknowledges that they even knew a Jesus in the flesh. If the disciples actually saw him in the flesh, wouldn't Paul, or anyone else for that matter, want to ask his disciples about him? Why would anyone defer to someone who only saw him in a vision?

 

For me, there are just too many inconsistencies for the Gospels to hold any discernible truth at all and Paul comes off as an egotistical megalomaniac, liar and control freak trying to take over an existing movement. Ever notice how, even in his own writings, he often goes to a location where others have already established some kind of church?

[Neon Genesis]

What always impressed me about the Gospel stories and made me think that if there is a core of truth it is too deeply buried to ever recover is the relationship between Paul and the disciples. For one, he never refers to them as disciples and never acknowledges that they even knew a Jesus in the flesh. If the disciples actually saw him in the flesh, wouldn't Paul, or anyone else for that matter, want to ask his disciples about him? Why would anyone defer to someone who only saw him in a vision?

It could also be though that Paul never writes about Jesus' actual life because his writings are being addressed to churches who are already converts and so they already know the details of Jesus' life. Surely Paul would have to have known something about Jesus' life to win converts? I mean, how could Paul win converts from the Gentiles by simply going up to the Gentiles and telling them that somebody they don't know anything about died for their sins without explaining to them about this person's life first. It's sort of like how the gospels never go into details about the crucifixion of Jesus. It's not because crucifixions didn't exist but because the authors are assuming the audience already knows the details of the crucifixion because they already know how the process worked.