Paul reshaping the church

[Aractus]

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?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wait, who appointed you the spokesman for atheists, that you're empowered to apologize for any actions other than your own?

As for the point of your post, who cares? Believers of all faiths justify their choices by cherry-picking facts, passages, and outlooks which support their own. I don't worry why a believer in sasquatch justifies his belief, either, when the facts are equally against his pet myth.

[athrock]

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.

[Drich]

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.

Lamb was the central part of the Passover meal (which was the 'last supper' meal Jesus ate on the first 'good friday'.)

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".

Ask yourself why... The answer is because Peter Himself in verses 7-17 of Acts 15 says the uncircumcised gentiles (in acts 2/Day of Pentecost) were blessed by the Holy Spirit just as the circumcised Jews were.
Which meant (according to him) 'God made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.'

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.

The decision to tell those of antioch was unique to the situation at Antioch. Because the people of Antioch had such a strong OT/Messianic Church foundation the elders saw fit to saddle the believers their with rules they issued and not give them the freedoms Paul issued in Corinth or Galatia.
Explained here:
19 “So I think we should not make things hard for those who have turned to God from among the non-Jewish people. 20 Instead, we should send a letter telling them only the things they should not do:
Don’t eat food that has been given to idols. This makes the food unclean.

Don’t be involved in sexual sin.

Don’t eat meat from animals that have been strangled or any meat that still has the blood in it.
21 They should not do any of these things, because there are still men in every city who teach the Law of Moses. The words of Moses have been read in the synagogue every Sabbath day for many years.”

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?

Paul 'going his own way' is yet another example of 'denominational freedom' in the church. We/Christianity were never meant to be saddled with one set of rules. In Christ there is freedom, That's why the council said the gentiles should not be 'yoked with the burden of circumcision.' And why at the same time they were yoked with the restrictions of meat while those in Corinth were not.

This principle was first established by Christ when He said "What ever you bind here on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose here on earth will be made free in Heaven." In otherwords what ever you make as a guidline or rule here on earth will be the rule you will be judged by in Heaven. That is why Christ in his ministry told us to take the plank out of our own eye first before we worry about the speck in the eye of our brother. This principle is also what Christ used to judge and label the pharisees 'Hypocrites, and blind guides.' They burdened the people with these laws they held by their traditions yet they themselves could not measure up against them. (kind what I've been doing with my pop morality thread)

Paul further explains/sums up this principle here:1cor8: 7 But not all people know this. Some have had the habit of worshiping idols. So now when they eat meat, they still feel as if it belongs to an idol. They are not sure that it is right to eat this meat. So when they eat it, they feel guilty. 8 But food will not bring us closer to God. Refusing to eat does not make us less pleasing to God, and eating does not make us closer to him.9 But be careful with your freedom. Your freedom to eat anything may make those who have doubts about what they can eat fall into sin. 10 You understand that it’s all right to eat anything, so you can eat even in an idol’s temple. But someone who has doubts might see you eating there, and this might encourage them to eat meat sacrificed to idols too. But they really think it is wrong. 11 So this weak brother or sister—someone Christ died for—is lost because of your better understanding. 12 When you sin against your brothers and sisters in Christ in this way and you hurt them by causing them to do things they feel are wrong, you are also sinning against Christ. 13 So if the food I eat makes another believer fall into sin, I will never eat meat again. I will stop eating meat, so that I will not make my brother or sister sin.

In short with our freedoms we are not to cause others to sin. For the gentiles to eat meat in the church of antioch would have put the Messinic Jews in a position to sin. Because again as it was explained in Acts 15 The church there was strong and steeped in Jewish tradition, and for the Gentiles to not have to follow any rules would cause the jews who have bound themselves to the law of moses to sin.

Do you get what I am saying?

[JuliaL]

So first off, I do apologise for me fellow atheists being so spiteful during the Easter season. I celibate Easter -

Freudian slip?

My view is that since we can't figure out who, if anyone, was on the grassy knoll 50 years ago, there is scant chance of figuring out what actually happened 2000 years ago.  Particularly after history's been layered with the actions of zealots and apostates.  It's fun to watch people try though.

[Minimalist]

Expand your vision.

http://www.egodeath.com/TheFabricatedPaul.htm

[JuliaL]

Expand your vision.

http://www.egodeath.com/TheFabricatedPaul.htm

Life is too short to read all the reference material.
I let the pros handle this.

[Minimalist]

That was really for the OP.

Like any fictional character, "paul" mouths whatever words the author who created him wants him to say.

[Aractus]

That was really for the OP.

Like any fictional character, "paul" mouths whatever words the author who created him wants him to say.

While you continue to quote quacks Min, no one is going to take anything you have to say about history seriously. Just because Richard Carrier shows that it's theoretically possible, doesn't mean it's reality any more than any other convoluted conspiracy theory.

[Minimalist]

We've been down this road before, Danny.  Anyone who studies your bullshit and does not come to the same conclusion as you is a "quack."

This is why I regard you as essentially full of shit.  You have no intellectual curiosity at all.