Discussing the Ruling of Meats in Acts 15

[Slider]

Recently in another thread I was in a discussion withDadof10 on the Council at Jerusalem and the eating of meats. Since the original intent of the thread wasnot on this, as well as the thread being temporarily shut down, I offered to start a new thread on any thing that may have not been cleared up. The topic of meats offered to idols wassuggested.

I’d like to clearly state my position as this: Paul did not preach, nor agree with, theCouncil’s decision concerning what meats should not be eaten. James was the spokesman or head of that Council, so – while I will try not to – I may use James’ name in place of “The Council”.

Before we look at the council’s decision, let’s review theevents leading up to it. Paul traveledto Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus, and those in Jerusalem (Paul called them “falsebrethren”) tried to enforce the law of circumcision on Titus (Gal 2:1-4, Acts15:1-2). The issue was debated withJames, Peter, Paul, John and the rest of the council present. With that being said, here is the decision of the Council as presented by James:

Acts 15:19-21 (KJV):

“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, whichfrom among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and fromthings strangled, and from blood.”

Those were the words James – as the spokesman – said. Here is the written form to be delivered:

Acts 15:23-29 (KJV):

“….For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to layupon you no greater burden than these necessary things: Thatye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from thingsstrangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall dowell, Fare ye well.”

First, it goes without saying I didn’t include all that waswritten (in the interest of brevity). Please feel free to refer to those verses. But it is the question of meats I’m concernedwith. I have put two portions in boldprint. One says to abstain frompollutions of idols, the other says to abstain from meats offered to idols. I will say if the Council’s decision was aboutnot participating in offering meats to idols (as the verse 20 says), then Paul agrees. However, if the issue is abstaining frommeats that were offered to idols, he does not. In fact, he clearly says it doesn’t matter UNLESS it offends a weak brother.

Furthermore, Paul never wrote about abstaining from blood orfrom things strangled. I’d like to put these aside for now because we must explore the reasons why the Council decided to include these. I’d also like to put aside “fornication” temporarily (and I know the question of Rev 2:20 will come up, but I will deal with that later). For now, Paul did speak against “fornication”. For now, I’d like to just deal with meatsoffered to idols.

Again, if the Council’s decision was to not allow ChristianGentiles to participate in idol worship and sacrificing animals to false gods,I submit that Paul was against that. But Paul was not against eating meat that had been offered to idols if you didn’t participate in the worship. The only exception to that was if a weak [young, ignorant, unknowledgeable] brother was offended by it.

The basis for my argument of Paul’s statements are fromRomans 14 as well as 1 Cor 8. I haven’t broken these chapters down verse by verse, but again, in the interest of brevity, I will simply refer to them for now.

 

[felix]

Slider, if you go to a Muslim country, every meat is halal, meaning, the animal is killed in the name of their god, allah - which is same as offered to idol. In India, during Hindu festivals, every sweet and other foods will be offered to idols first before distributing and you will not even know this.

The situations exist in those days as well in some cities and towns where everything including food will be dedicated to that idol before using or available to public.

You aren't living in those lands (or during those days), so you will not understand this. Consider every food - from supermarkets, farmers to restaurants - all are first offered to an idol in your city before selling to people... what will you eat? This is where Paul comes into picture explaining the inspired Words of God.

 

[Slider]

Felix,

I absolutely agree. I wasn't thinking of the countries you mentioned, but I was thinking of some African and Carabean Islands where (according to my understanding) Christianity is mixed with regional beliefs. However, your mentioning of Muslim and Hindu countries is valid, and probably a better example.

 

[dadof10]

Recently in another thread I was in a discussion withDadof10 on the Council at Jerusalem and the eating of meats. Since the original intent of the thread wasnot on this, as well as the thread being temporarily shut down, I offered to start a new thread on any thing that may have not been cleared up. The topic of meats offered to idols wassuggested.

I’d like to clearly state my position as this: Paul did not preach, nor agree with, theCouncil’s decision concerning what meats should not be eaten.

If Paul disagreed with the council, he disagreed with the Holy Spirit.

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." (Acts (RSV) 15)

If Paul disagreed with the council, why did he pass on the decisions reached in Jerusalem as binding?

"Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem." (Acts (RSV) 16)

James was the spokesman or head of that Council, so – while I will try not to – I may use James’ name in place of “The Council”.

You AGREE with what James said, so it should be pretty easy. What you think Paul DISAGREED with, was what the council said.

I have put two portions in boldprint. One says to abstain frompollutions of idols, the other says to abstain from meats offered to idols. I will say if the Council’s decision was aboutnot participating in offering meats to idols (as the verse 20 says), then Paul agrees. However, if the issue is abstaining frommeats that were offered to idols, he does not. In fact, he clearly says it doesn’t matter UNLESS it offends a weak brother.

James was the one who put in the caveat that you think Paul agrees with. The entire council changed or updated it with the words "abstain from meats offered to idols". Paul and James are in agreement, then. You think Paul disagrees with the entire council's decision to change the wording of the letter, not James wording alone.

I’d also like to put aside “fornication” temporarily (and I know the question of Rev 2:20 will come up, but I will deal with that later). For now, Paul did speak against “fornication”. For now, I’d like to just deal with meatsoffered to idols.

Again, if the Council’s decision was to not allow ChristianGentiles to participate in idol worship and sacrificing animals to false gods,I submit that Paul was against that. But Paul was not against eating meat that had been offered to idols if you didn’t participate in the worship. The only exception to that was if a weak [young, ignorant, unknowledgeable] brother was offended by it.

Here is what Rev. 2:20 say:

But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her immorality. (Revelation (RSV) 2)

Isn't it your contention that Paul is teaching that it's OK to eat meats sacrificed to idols? In Thyatira there was someone who was teaching the same thing you believe Paul taught. John calls this person a "Jezebel", and compares this behavior to "immorality". I submit that, according to your view, John could have been talking about Paul.

The basis for my argument of Paul’s statements are fromRomans 14 as well as 1 Cor 8. I haven’t broken these chapters down verse by verse, but again, in the interest of brevity, I will simply refer to them for now.

These verses deal with WHY the council taught what they did, otherwise Paul is portrayed as rebelling against the council and the Holy Spirit, passing on doctrine that he disagreed with and being a "Jezebel" type figure according to John. This can't be your view of Paul.

 

[dadof10]

Slider, if you go to a Muslim country, every meat is halal, meaning, the animal is killed in the name of their god, allah - which is same as offered to idol. In India, during Hindu festivals, every sweet and other foods will be offered to idols first before distributing and you will not even know this.

The situations exist in those days as well in some cities and towns where everything including food will be dedicated to that idol before using or available to public.

You aren't living in those lands (or during those days), so you will not understand this. Consider every food - from supermarkets, farmers to restaurants - all are first offered to an idol in your city before selling to people... what will you eat? This is where Paul comes into picture explaining the inspired Words of God.

I think this might be the situation Paul is speaking of when he said: "If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 (But if some one says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then out of consideration for the man who informed you, and for conscience' sake -- 29 I mean his conscience, not yours -- do not eat it.) For why should my liberty be determined by another man's scruples? (1Corinthians (RSV) 10)

Assume the meat is clean, unless told otherwise, because the actual ingesting of the meat is neither here nor there. The only reason it was forbidden by the council (and Paul) is on the grounds of conscience. The first instance of "don't ask, don't tell" ;)

 

[Slider]

Let me deal with the Rev 2:20 question first, because it is pretty easy, and I know you want it answered pretty quick, Dadof10.

The KJV says:

"Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols."

The RSV version doesn't use the word fornication, but "immorality".

Let's look at the word "fornication". the Greek word for this is "proneuo" Strong's definition is, "to act the harlot, that is, (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry". Thayer's definition is about the same.

That being said, "fornication" means either to engage in sexual lust or commit idolatry. We should try to figure out which definition is used in Rev 2:20. In the Bible, both definitions are used. However, not when prophecy is involved. According to esword, fornication is in the KJV 32 times. Once in Isaiah, twice in Ezekeiel and 10 times in Revelation. Obviously, these are prophetic books in nature. When you read these verses, it's pretty clear which definition to use, and that is of practicing idolatry.

Thus, when the RSV uses the word "immorality", sure... it could fit (because idolatry is pretty immoral in God's eyes) but it tends to put the emphasis on sexual immorality instead of idolatry. Just to be sure, check all the other uses of the word "fornication in Revelation, and it clearly is talking about idolatry.

Next, we look at the woman "Jezebel". I don't believe (and would be surprised if anyone believes) that there was an actual woman named Jezebel doing this. There might have been a woman, but when John uses the name, he's talking about her attitude and practices. Rumor has it that she was a very sensual woman, but the Bible never says that. She could have been, but her problem was controlling her king husband, and allowing idolatry into the kingdom.

I question whether there was a single woman at all doing this in Thyatira (just questioning without stating). Perhaps it was just the overall direction the Church was going in. If you believe (not saying you do; in fact some things you -- Dadof10 -- say makes me think that you agree with me) that there was an actual woman and she was teaching sexual immorality, then the rest of the sentance is pretty startling. God said he would cast her into a bed, and those that are with her would be in tribulation, and her children would be killed with death. So if there was a literal woman, committing literal fornication (sexual immorality), then her literal offspring were going to die and God is going to do the killing.

However, if this were about a particular doctrine Thyatira had, and not a literal woman (or even if there was one, but she was teaching idolatry) then it makes a little more sense. Her children then would be the works or outcomes of the idolatry. And... Rev 2:24 even refers to it as a doctrine.

So, with that being said. The correct reading of Rev 2:20 is not immorality (in a sexual content) but false worship (yes, still immorality in God's eyes). They were committing idolatry and sacrificing meats unto idols. We don't have two problems here, but one problem. Idolatry. Sacrificing meats unto idols is wrong. And eating them in honor of false gods is wrong. Two parts of one problem.

Paul clearly said not to participate in idol worship, including the offering of meats unto idols. He also was against the eating of them in honor of those idols. Paul's position was not against eating meats that were offered unto idols, as Felix discussed and I agreed, and you seem to agree as well (the first "don't ask, don't tell policy".... Yea... I thought of that phrase too when I started re-reading it!)

If you are going to submit that John was talking about Paul, that would be incorrect. John was talking about folks who participated in false worship. Paul agreed with John.

Next, I will go through Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8. Clearly, Paul wasn't against a total ban on eating meats offered to idols. I don't think I really need to, though... Felix summed it up pretty well, and I agree with him... And it seems you (dadof10) do to. So, it'll be brief.

 

[dadof10]

Let me deal with the Rev 2:20 question first, because it is pretty easy, and I know you want it answered pretty quick, Dadof10.

The KJV says:

"Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols."

The RSV version doesn't use the word fornication, but "immorality".

Let's look at the word "fornication". the Greek word for this is "proneuo" Strong's definition is, "to act the harlot, that is, (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry". Thayer's definition is about the same.

That being said, "fornication" means either to engage in sexual lust or commit idolatry. We should try to figure out which definition is used in Rev 2:20. In the Bible, both definitions are used. However, not when prophecy is involved. According to esword, fornication is in the KJV 32 times. Once in Isaiah, twice in Ezekeiel and 10 times in Revelation. Obviously, these are prophetic books in nature. When you read these verses, it's pretty clear which definition to use, and that is of practicing idolatry.

Thus, when the RSV uses the word "immorality", sure... it could fit (because idolatry is pretty immoral in God's eyes) but it tends to put the emphasis on sexual immorality instead of idolatry. Just to be sure, check all the other uses of the word "fornication in Revelation, and it clearly is talking about idolatry.

Next, we look at the woman "Jezebel". I don't believe (and would be surprised if anyone believes) that there was an actual woman named Jezebel doing this. There might have been a woman, but when John uses the name, he's talking about her attitude and practices. Rumor has it that she was a very sensual woman, but the Bible never says that. She could have been, but her problem was controlling her king husband, and allowing idolatry into the kingdom.

I question whether there was a single woman at all doing this in Thyatira (just questioning without stating). Perhaps it was just the overall direction the Church was going in. If you believe (not saying you do; in fact some things you -- Dadof10 -- say makes me think that you agree with me) that there was an actual woman and she was teaching sexual immorality, then the rest of the sentance is pretty startling. God said he would cast her into a bed, and those that are with her would be in tribulation, and her children would be killed with death. So if there was a literal woman, committing literal fornication (sexual immorality), then her literal offspring were going to die and God is going to do the killing.

However, if this were about a particular doctrine Thyatira had, and not a literal woman (or even if there was one, but she was teaching idolatry) then it makes a little more sense. Her children then would be the works or outcomes of the idolatry. And... Rev 2:24 even refers to it as a doctrine.

So, with that being said. The correct reading of Rev 2:20 is not immorality (in a sexual content) but false worship (yes, still immorality in God's eyes). They were committing idolatry and sacrificing meats unto idols. We don't have two problems here, but one problem. Idolatry. Sacrificing meats unto idols is wrong. And eating them in honor of false gods is wrong. Two parts of one problem.

Paul clearly said not to participate in idol worship, including the offering of meats unto idols. He also was against the eating of them in honor of those idols. Paul's position was not against eating meats that were offered unto idols, as Felix discussed and I agreed, and you seem to agree as well (the first "don't ask, don't tell policy".... Yea... I thought of that phrase too when I started re-reading it!)

If you are going to submit that John was talking about Paul, that would be incorrect. John was talking about folks who participated in false worship. Paul agreed with John.

Next, I will go through Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8. Clearly, Paul wasn't against a total ban on eating meats offered to idols. I don't think I really need to, though... Felix summed it up pretty well, and I agree with him... And it seems you (dadof10) do to. So, it'll be brief.

Sorry, no. According to Thayer's the definition ofporneuō in verses 14 and 20 is

2) to give one's self to unlawful sexual intercourse
a) to commit fornication


http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4203&t=KJV



The sentence reads in the KJV: "to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols."


The NKJV: "to teach and seduce[e] My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols."


Would you like to try again?


I never said John was talking about Paul. I said John was condemning the "teaching" you are putting in Paul's mouth.

 

[Slider]

If Paul disagreed with the council, he disagreed with the Holy Spirit.

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." (Acts (RSV) 15)

Dadof10, I will not be bogged down by this arguement. That is, your assertation that if paul disagreed with the Council, he disagreed with the Holy Spirit. Paul HAD the Holy Spirit with him in his teachings. I am convinced that is the truth. I am not convinced that the Council did. Yes, the Holy Ghost was there, and he made it happen. He also made Paul to say otherwise. If you prove to me that Paul and the Council taught the same thing, then maybe I will submit. Until then, Paul said flat out the Holy Ghost and Jesus brought his teachings to him. The council pondered and said, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost." They didn't know....

 

[Slider]

Sorry, no. According to Thayer's the definition ofporneuō in verses 14 and 20 is

2) to give one's self to unlawful sexual intercourse
a) to commit fornication


http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4203&t=KJV

I use esword, which is a free downloadable program available at www.esword.com. According to that program, when I use the Stongs/Thayer's function, I come up with this definition:

G4203

porneuo

Thayer Definition:

1) to prostitute one's body to the lust of another
2) to give one's self to unlawful sexual intercourse
2a) to commit fornication
3) metaphorically to be given to idolatry, to worship idols
3a) to permit one's self to be drawn away by another into idolatry

Would you like to try again?

No. I think I will stand my ground on this one. You can note the comma, and note the "and", but they were still part of the same problem.

I never said John was talking about Paul. I said John was condemning the "teaching" you are putting in Paul's mouth.

I never said you said that. Furthermore, I am not putting teaching in Paul's mouth. I am reporting what he said. What EXACTLY do you believe is a doctrine I am attributing to Paul that isn't Truth?

 

[farouk]

I think it's all part of the transition between the Old Testament and the New. So often, misunderstanding occur when this transition isn't taken account of.

 

[Sinthesis]

I think it's all part of the transition between the Old Testament and the New. So often, misunderstanding occur when this transition isn't taken account of.

Yep, but the misunderstanding is Slider's. Paul's teachings are consistent with the ruling of the council. The Holy Spirit did not tell Paul to lie just to get along with the Spirit-lead council, and Paul's personality would not have condoned that. Essentially, what was being reasoned out was how Christians should be mindful of any particular weakness in the faith of other Christians. This is difficult to do because we all believe we're right, so it's easy to appear a haughty jerk.

 

[Slider]

I think it's all part of the transition between the Old Testament and the New. So often, misunderstanding occur when this transition isn't taken account of.

Would you explain why you believe this?

 

[dadof10]

Dadof10, I will not be bogged down by this arguement That is, your assertation that if paul disagreed with the Council, he disagreed with the Holy Spirit.

What??? You won't be "bogged down" by the actual words of Scripture? That's my argument, that when Scripture says "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." it means that what follows actually seems good to the Holy Spirit. To disagree with what followed, is to disagree with what "seems good to the Holy Spirit". This is just common sense.

Are you the only one who's allowed to lay out your argument here? You wrote the OP, which was a rehash of our previous conversation. So did I. And now you're complaining that it's bogging you down?

Paul HAD the Holy Spirit with him in his teachings. I am convinced that is the truth.

So am I. I believe the words of Scripture, all of them.

I am not convinced that the Council did.

Scripture says it did. You need to prove that when Luke recounts the writing of the letter, he is trying to relay that the HS really WASN'T involved in the decision. There is absolutely no evidence to back this up. You just keep harping on what Paul says, ignoring this whole episode to bolster your a'priori conclusions.

Yes, the Holy Ghost was there, and he made it happen.

HUH??? So, how does this work? The HS is at the council, guiding the apostles and elders to....error?

He also made Paul to say otherwise. If you prove to me that Paul and the Council taught the same thing, then maybe I will submit. Until then, Paul said flat out the Holy Ghost and Jesus brought his teachings to him. The council pondered and said, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost." They didn't know....

LOL....So the word "seems" means they were unsure if the HS was guiding them??? You can't be serious.

 

[dadof10]

I use esword, which is a free downloadable program available at www.esword.com. According to that program, when I use the Stongs/Thayer's function, I come up with this definition:

G4203

porneuo

Thayer Definition:

1) to prostitute one's body to the lust of another
2) to give one's self to unlawful sexual intercourse
2a) to commit fornication
3) metaphorically to be given to idolatry, to worship idols
3a) to permit one's self to be drawn away by another into idolatry

Did you look at the link I posted from BLB.com? What you have posted above is the entire definition of the word from the entirety of Scripture. BLB gives a breakdown of which definitions refer to which verses (in image format, so you can't copy and paste). Here is the relevant definition:

2. To give one's self to unlawful sexual intercourse; to commit fornication (Vulg. fornicor): 1Cor. vi.18; x.8; Rev. ii. 14,20 [Mk. x.19 WH (rejected) Mrg.].

So, according to Thayer's, the word "porneuo" in Rev.2:14,20 means "To give one's self to unlawful sexual intercourse; to commit fornication", not #3 above.

No. I think I will stand my ground on this one. You can note the comma, and note the "and", but they were still part of the same problem.

I hope you will reconsider in light of the above proof to the contrary.

Originally Posted by dadof10
I never said John was talking about Paul. I said John was condemning the "teaching" you are putting in Paul's mouth.

I never said you said that. Furthermore, I am not putting teaching in Paul's mouth. I am reporting what he said. What EXACTLY do you believe is a doctrine I am attributing to Paul that isn't Truth?

Then what did you mean by this:

"If you are going to submit that John was talking about Paul, that would be incorrect. John was talking about folks who participated in false worship. Paul agreed with John."

What I keep saying is that in Rev. 2 John is reacting negatively to people (or groups) in Pergamum and Thyatira who were teaching Jesus' "servants" to eat meat sacrificed to idols. This teaching is what you think Paul is teaching, therefore, YOU are putting "Jezebel's" words (teachings) in Paul's mouth. John says these teachings are repulsive with serious consequences, therefore, John disagrees with what YOU think Paul is teaching. Again, common sense.

 

[dadof10]

Yep, but the misunderstanding is Slider's. Paul's teachings are consistent with the ruling of the council. The Holy Spirit did not tell Paul to lie just to get along with the Spirit-lead council, and Paul's personality would not have condoned that.

Amen. I know, from what Scripture says about Paul and he says about himself, if he would have disagreed with any aspect of the councils decision, he certainly would not have passed it on "for observance" as he traveled.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Slider]

I’d like to compare what Paul said to what the council’s decision was. The evidence will show that what he said isn’t what the council requested or demanded. First, let’s start with the council’s decision:

Acts 15:28-29 (KJV):

“For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.â€

As I mentioned before, James initially said, “abstain from pollutions of idols†(Acts 15:20). However in 21:25 he (James) affirms the council’s decision as “things offered to idolsâ€.

Here is what Paul instructed:

Romans 14:21-23 (KJV):

“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or made weak. Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faithL for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.â€

You should read the whole chapter as well as the first part of chapter 15, because he deals with this issue throughout. I picked these verses because they sum up what he was saying.

Paul also touches on it in 1 Cor 8:4-0 (KJV):

“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods, many, and lords many,) Butt to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.â€

He actually is still talking about this into the 10th chapter, when he further verifies this:

1 Cor 10:20-21;

　

“But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink th cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devilsâ€

So absolutely Paul was against sacrificing to idols. But what of the actual meat that was sacrificed? He goes on:

“All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that sheed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscienceâ€

Now, what was Paul saying? Felix said it best. It’s pretty clear. Paul is saying it doesn’t matter that it was sacrificed to idols if you have faith. But if someone is weak in faith, don’t do it around them. Not for your sakes, but theirs! Don’t offend them. They are weak in faith, they don’t have the understanding you do, but don’t offend them! It’s pretty simple to understand.

What did the council say? “Don’t eat meats offered to idolsâ€. What did Paul say? “Don’t offend weak Christians by eating meats offered to idols.â€

How anyone can not see a difference in these two verdicts is beyond me.

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

 

[dadof10]

As I mentioned before, James initially said, “abstain from pollutions of idols†(Acts 15:20). However in 21:25 he (James) affirms the council’s decision as “things offered to idolsâ€.

LOL...No matter the evidence, you are still trying to make this into a "Paul vs. James" thing, like "faith alone". THE COUNCIL wrote the letter, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

Here is what Paul instructed:

Romans 14:21-23 (KJV):

“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or made weak. Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faithL for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.â€

You should read the whole chapter as well as the first part of chapter 15, because he deals with this issue throughout. I picked these verses because they sum up what he was saying.

Paul also touches on it in 1 Cor 8:4-0 (KJV):

“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods, many, and lords many,) Butt to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.â€

He actually is still talking about this into the 10th chapter, when he further verifies this:

1 Cor 10:20-21;

　

“But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink th cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devilsâ€

So absolutely Paul was against sacrificing to idols. But what of the actual meat that was sacrificed? He goes on:

“All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that sheed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscienceâ€

Now, what was Paul saying? Felix said it best. It’s pretty clear. Paul is saying it doesn’t matter that it was sacrificed to idols if you have faith. But if someone is weak in faith, don’t do it around them. Not for your sakes, but theirs! Don’t offend them. They are weak in faith, they don’t have the understanding you do, but don’t offend them! It’s pretty simple to understand.

What did the council say? “Don’t eat meats offered to idolsâ€. What did Paul say? “Don’t offend weak Christians by eating meats offered to idols.â€

How anyone can not see a difference in these two verdicts is beyond me.

There is a difference, just not a contradiction. Paul is giving the REASON why Gentile converts were to abstain. He was not contradicting the council or Revelation. To believe what you do about Paul's teaching, he would have to be pitted against the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, the Holy Spirit and John (not James only). He would also have to be a wimp, because he passed along "for observance" a discipline which he disagreed with. That's a lot to swallow, not to mention Paul's letters, Revelation and Acts are sacred Scripture, and to believe what you do, demands belief that Scripture contradicts. I think you should look for a way to reconcile these two "verdicts", unless you think Scriptural contradiction is OK. It really isn't that hard, because Paul says in more than one place to NOT EAT this meat.

 

[Slider]

Dadof10,

I am happy that you understand that there is a difference; however, I don't know if you see what that difference is.

What did the council say? ABSTAIN FROM MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS.

What did Paul say? "EAT IT, BUT NOT IF IT OFFENDS WEAK BRETHREN". Paul never said to abstain from meats offered to idols, as you continually try to make him say. he only said don't eat it if it offends someone.

Let me put it another way. The council said do not eat any meat that has been offered to idols. ON THE CONTRARY, Paul said it was ok because idols are nothing and all things of God are pure. However, if it offends a weak brethren, for his conscience sake, don't eat it in his presence. Instead, have it to yourself before God.

As for Revelations... I've already explained that to you, so that issue is no longer on the table.

Paul was very strong in character. he argued with the council of Jerusalem, he argued with Barnabas and John, and he argued with Peter. He was very strong in his convictions and what the Holy Spirit told him. he was going to carry on the gospel of Grace despite what any council said.

Dadof10... Paul did not teach abstaining from meats. If you can't see that, then fine. by your line of thinking, the Holy Spirit left Paul when he was advising the Romans and Corinthians. I however, am moving on with other points about this topic, whether you see that as truth or not.

 

[Sinthesis]

Dadof10,

I am happy that you understand that there is a difference; however, I don't know if you see what that difference is.

What did the council say? ABSTAIN FROM MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS.

What did Paul say? "EAT IT, BUT NOT IF IT OFFENDS WEAK BRETHREN". Paul never said to abstain from meats offered to idols, as you continually try to make him say. he only said don't eat it if it offends someone.

Let me put it another way. The council said do not eat any meat that has been offered to idols. ON THE CONTRARY, Paul said it was ok because idols are nothing and all things of God are pure. However, if it offends a weak brethren, for his conscience sake, don't eat it in his presence. Instead, have it to yourself before God.

As for Revelations... I've already explained that to you, so that issue is no longer on the table.

Paul was very strong in character. he argued with the council of Jerusalem, he argued with Barnabas and John, and he argued with Peter. He was very strong in his convictions and what the Holy Spirit told him. he was going to carry on the gospel of Grace despite what any council said.

Dadof10... Paul did not teach abstaining from meats. If you can't see that, then fine. by your line of thinking, the Holy Spirit left Paul when he was advising the Romans and Corinthians. I however, am moving on with other points about this topic, whether you see that as truth or not.

Do you know why the council was called?

 

[Slider]

Do you know why the council was called?

Yes, I do.

The council was called because of the question of circumcision. I also know that Paul stood firm on the issue before hand. That's why the council was called. Not because Paul needed confirmation that what he was teaching was correct. He was defending his teaching, and I do not have reason to believe that if the council decided against his teaching, he would've stopped. We wasn't a wimp. The Holy Spirit gave him a message to preach, and he wasn't going to be stopped.

Yet, we are talking about things like meats offered to idols, offering meats unto idols, fornication, meats strangled and blood. The original question was about circumcision, but we have the first case of "pork" added to a bill. The Council agreed to the original charge but added more things to it. That's "pork".

Paul did not say that the gentiles could never eat meats offered to idols. He said the opposite with the addendum that they should not offend weak brethren by doing it. That really should give you a clue. Was Paul calling the council "weak brethren"? It's hard not to come to the conclusion otherwise. He really didn't have much good to say about them in Galatians, did he? He called some of them false brethren, and others he said simply seemed to be something but added nothing to him (Including Peter and John).

The Council's decision meant nothing to Paul. Sure, he used it. but if you think for one minute that Paul would've preached something different other than what the Holy Ghost told him to, I will not believe it.