Paul reshaping the church

[Wyrd of Gawd]

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?

Aractus-

I hope you had a blessed Easter with your family.

You raise an interesting question, and I believe the answer is found in the subsequent verses of ch. 10 which I will highlight in red:

1 Corinthians 10:25-33
25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience?30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

Paul is basicially saying, "Don't be legalistic about the meat that comes from the marketplace...give thanks to God for all that is good. HOWEVER, if you KNOW that the meat has been sacrificed, then do not eat it."

This instruction is in line with the letter from the Council of Jerusalem which read in part:

Acts 15:29
You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.

And by the way, Paul was known to go the other way, also...by fulfilling the requirements of the Law even though the Council had decided it was not necessary to do so. When? One such measure is found in the following passage:
 
Acts 16:1-3
1He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
 
Paul wrote that “circumcision means nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15), but almost immediately after the Council (Acts 15), he circumcised Timothy (Acts 16)! And this despite these strong words:
 
Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

Kinda makes you wonder what Timothy thought of all this!

Paul understood that while circumcision and eating meat sacrificed to idols meant nothing (since idols are nothing), he recognized that it was prudent to go against the grain of his own theology when circumstances required him to do so.

Paul and Timothy were going among the Jews and part of the meet and great ritual was for the guys to whip out their dicks and show that they were circumcised to that they could hobnob with the local Jews.  So Paul had to do some slicing on Timothy in order for them to get into the clique. After sucking on Timothy's bloody penis Paul said to hell with that and he dropped circumcision requirement.  It was a big break with the Jewish faction but he didn't give a damn.