So first off, I do apologise for me fellow atheists being so spiteful during the Easter season. I celibate Easter - I only eat fish on Good Friday and enjoy spending the time with family and friends.
Thus I didn't want to pose this question during a time that our Christian friends might find confrontational. But my question is simple. In Acts 15 the Jerusalem Council is held. The first known recorded Christian council of its kind. And they debate whether converts to first century Christianity need to follow traditional Jewish customs and the Mosaic Law.
Circumcision pertained to an unconditional covenant that Jehovah made with Abraham: it was a seal of the said covenant. But to the gentile Christian converts, ancient land promises in the Levant had little meaning. Most of them by now (50 AD that is) live outside of it, and wouldn't have viewed living within it any more desirable. The council came to a decision. Non-Jew Christians wouldn't be bound by the Mosaic Law, nor Circumcision, but they would still be required to abstain from meat sacrificed to the Roman gods and meat that was strangled and "sexual immorality".
Paul and Barnabas travelled from Antioch to attend the council and then returned to it after it was concluded (modern Turkey). Luke tells us in Acts 15:27 that the council sent two men with Paul and Barnabas named Judas and Silas to go with them and see that the letters were sent according to the council decision. Yet in Galatians and 1 Corinthians (both believed to have been the earliest surviving writings of Paul and believed to have been send from Antioch not long after the Council) Paul disobeys this decision.
1 Corinthians 10:25: Eat anything that is sold in the marketplace without questions of conscience,
Now I hear that "well by then they decided differently". Rubbish. This issue was important enough that it had to be decided between a Council of the Church Leaders in 50AD, and we have no evidence whatsoever of another council being held between then and Corinthians. Therefore it seems very clear that Paul was knowingly disobeying the decision made by the Council in Acts 15, at which he attended.
So how do Christians justify following Paul when he clearly went his own way?
Thus I didn't want to pose this question during a time that our Christian friends might find confrontational. But my question is simple. In Acts 15 the Jerusalem Council is held. The first known recorded Christian council of its kind. And they debate whether converts to first century Christianity need to follow traditional Jewish customs and the Mosaic Law.
Circumcision pertained to an unconditional covenant that Jehovah made with Abraham: it was a seal of the said covenant. But to the gentile Christian converts, ancient land promises in the Levant had little meaning. Most of them by now (50 AD that is) live outside of it, and wouldn't have viewed living within it any more desirable. The council came to a decision. Non-Jew Christians wouldn't be bound by the Mosaic Law, nor Circumcision, but they would still be required to abstain from meat sacrificed to the Roman gods and meat that was strangled and "sexual immorality".
Paul and Barnabas travelled from Antioch to attend the council and then returned to it after it was concluded (modern Turkey). Luke tells us in Acts 15:27 that the council sent two men with Paul and Barnabas named Judas and Silas to go with them and see that the letters were sent according to the council decision. Yet in Galatians and 1 Corinthians (both believed to have been the earliest surviving writings of Paul and believed to have been send from Antioch not long after the Council) Paul disobeys this decision.
1 Corinthians 10:25: Eat anything that is sold in the marketplace without questions of conscience,
Now I hear that "well by then they decided differently". Rubbish. This issue was important enough that it had to be decided between a Council of the Church Leaders in 50AD, and we have no evidence whatsoever of another council being held between then and Corinthians. Therefore it seems very clear that Paul was knowingly disobeying the decision made by the Council in Acts 15, at which he attended.
So how do Christians justify following Paul when he clearly went his own way?
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
