Dear Carol
I read your reply about "preaching in Asia" and i think you're right.
However, another greater problem is encountered:
Jesus' closest disciples do not agree that it is correct to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. This is evident when we read in Acts 11:19:
"Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only."
When the other disciples heard that Peter was preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, they were upset with him.
"And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him. Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." (Acts 11:1 - 3)
However Peter explained his action with a dream
That's why the Council of Jerusalem was held to solve these problems. This council itself had many gaps:
Acts 15:1-29 is to be identified with Galatians 2:1-10. It does contain elements not found in the latter. These include the speeches of Peter (Acts 15:7-11) and James (Acts 15:13-21) and the so-called Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:29).
However the speeches in acts are unhistorical and a rethe free literary inventions of Luke. Examples:
The speech of Peter is given in Acts 15:7-11. As a prelude to Peter's speech there was according to Acts 15:7 "much debate" about the issue of Gentile conversion without the requirement of circumcision. Yet Acts 10 already narrated the conversion of Cornelius, an uncircumcised Gentile by Peter himself! This makes the whole idea of the "debate" quite pointless and completely irrelevant.
James' speech given in Acts 15:13-21: Here Luke had James quote a text (Acts 15:16-18) from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible, instead of the original Hebrew one. In this text (Amos 9:12), the original Hebrew had Edom which the Septuagint translators mistook for adam (i.e. Man). Now the point of James' speech only works if the Septuagint version was used, i.e. that the "remnants of men may seek the Lord". The original Hebrew would not only not support it but would have even contradicted his point for it mentioned that the Israelites will possess "the remnants of Edom". That James, a devout Palestinian Jew, would quote an erroneous translation of the Bible to make an important point, at a meeting in Jerusalem is simply beyond historical possibility.
Peace
Alexei