Discussing the Ruling of Meats in Acts 15

[dadof10]

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.

What I'm continually trying to say (not very successfully) is that Paul IS telling his readers to abstain, under certain circumstances, and for certain reasons. The council and Paul's letters can be easily reconciled if you will go into Scripture without a "Paul vs. James" bias brought on by a misinterpretation of "faith vs works". When Paul says (as you have summarized above) to ABSTAIN from eating FOR such and such reason, he is BACKING UP THE COUNCIL. The letter sent out by the council was vague, maybe for a reason. Maybe it was up to each individual community to figure out HOW they would enact this ordinance. Maybe Paul was shepherding his readers to enact the ordinance the way HE saw it. I don't know for sure, but this view would harmonize Scripture and give a viable alternative to all the problems you are having.

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.

Rom. 14:22 is not saying to have the meat to yourself, or go eat it in private. We went over this in the last thread, but I will rehash it here. From the KJV (the version which is confusing you):

22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.

Have the FAITH to yourself before God, not the meat.

This is made clearer by the NASB:

"The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves."

And the NIV:

"So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves."

And the RSV:

"The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God; happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves."

And all the other versions...

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

You explained to me??? LOL...Right. Go back and read my post to you on
04-23-2012, 07:23 PM. It was explained to you that you were WRONG about the word "porneuo" in Rev.2:14,20. According to Thayer's, it does NOT mean "metaphorically to be given to idolatry", as you claimed, but "to give one's self to unlawful sexual intercourse". You were asked to do the honorable thing and change your view because the facts changed, and this is what I get? You have explained NOTHING on Rev. 2 and are now trying to just make it go away. Sorry, that's not how it works. You are putting the words "it's OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols" in Paul's mouth, which is CONDEMNED by John in these verses. You are now pitting Paul against John. This is the only way your view can be interpreted.

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.

Then why did he hand on for observance doctrine he disagreed with?

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.

By your "line of thinking" the Holy Spirit "left" the council, even though you admit "He was there"; He led the council into error; the apostles and elders lied about the decision being guided by the HS; Luke recounted this episode without one hint the HS was not involved in the decision; Paul handed on a decision he disagreed with going against everything we have ever read about him and his convictions; John condemns Paul's "doctrine" in Revelation; and, finally, Scripture contradicts itself.

I think you need to "move on" to another topic altogether.

 

[Slider]

What I'm continually trying to say (not very successfully) is that Paul IS telling his readers to abstain, under certain circumstances, and for certain reasons. The council and Paul's letters can be easily reconciled if you will go into Scripture without a "Paul vs. James" bias brought on by a misinterpretation of "faith vs works". When Paul says (as you have summarized above) to ABSTAIN from eating FOR such and such reason, he is BACKING UP THE COUNCIL. The letter sent out by the council was vague, maybe for a reason. Maybe it was up to each individual community to figure out HOW they would enact this ordinance. Maybe Paul was shepherding his readers to enact the ordinance the way HE saw it. I don't know for sure, but this view would harmonize Scripture and give a viable alternative to all the problems you are having.



Rom. 14:22 is not saying to have the meat to yourself, or go eat it in private. We went over this in the last thread, but I will rehash it here. From the KJV (the version which is confusing you):

22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.

Have the FAITH to yourself before God, not the meat.

This is made clearer by the NASB:

"The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves."

And the NIV:

"So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves."

And the RSV:

"The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God; happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves."

And all the other versions...



You explained to me??? LOL...Right. Go back and read my post to you on
04-23-2012, 07:23 PM. It was explained to you that you were WRONG about the word "porneuo" in Rev.2:14,20. According to Thayer's, it does NOT mean "metaphorically to be given to idolatry", as you claimed, but "to give one's self to unlawful sexual intercourse". You were asked to do the honorable thing and change your view because the facts changed, and this is what I get? You have explained NOTHING on Rev. 2 and are now trying to just make it go away. Sorry, that's not how it works. You are putting the words "it's OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols" in Paul's mouth, which is CONDEMNED by John in these verses. You are now pitting Paul against John. This is the only way your view can be interpreted.





Then why did he hand on for observance doctrine he disagreed with?



By your "line of thinking" the Holy Spirit "left" the council, even though you admit "He was there"; He led the council into error; the apostles and elders lied about the decision being guided by the HS; Luke recounted this episode without one hint the HS was not involved in the decision; Paul handed on a decision he disagreed with going against everything we have ever read about him and his convictions; John condemns Paul's "doctrine" in Revelation; and, finally, Scripture contradicts itself.

I think you need to "move on" to another topic altogether.

I wholeheartedly agree that you haven't been successful in your quest to prove that Paul is telling them to abstain under certain conditions and for certain reasons. Your problem is that I don't think you it. Yes, he absolutely did tell them to abstain under certain conditions and for certain reasons. I am happy you realize that. Yet, he did not tell them to abstain under ALL conditions. Yet, the council did.

You want to say the council's decision was unclear? Well, it was pretty clear to me. "Don't do it!" I am going by what it says, and you is clouding the issue and giving a bunch of "maybe's".

The council said don't do it, and like you said, you can't successfully say Paul supported that decision, because he didn't. He called them weak Christians. He advised them to have it to thyself before God. That refers to the belief and not the practice? come on! What good is it then? "Oh, understand that it is not a big deal, but still don't do it!" Really? Sounds like Grace plus works to me!

But he also said, whatever is set before you, ask no questions, just eat it.

You are claiming the Council's decision was vague, and claiming a lot of maybe's. I'm going on the facts. If you can prove your maybes, then perhaps you will have a point. Until then....Well, just get back to me when you can prove it.

And are you ready to admit that Paul didn't say never eat meats offered to idols yet?

As for Romans 14:22.... The KJV says what it says. This is why I stick to one Bible. I don't need to go on my bookshelf to find a version that agrees with my belief. I go by the KJV and if you can prove me wrong with it, fine.... I have no problem changing my belief. Now tell me which version of the Bible I should go by and I'll go with it. Because I will prove you wrong with whatever version you go by, if you can stick with one.

Furthermore, I'm not the one bringing forth a "Paul vs. James" thing. Yes, I have an opinion. However, I appeased you and let it be the Council vs. Paul, because you were so insistant on it. It was the council's decision, as you were so insistant on saying, so I am going with that. So you tell me, is this Paul vs. James or Paul vs. the council?

As for your post on Rev... I did read it and I reject your reasoning. John was clearly speaking as a prophet and every time without fail, when the prophets spoke of fornication, they were speaking of idol worship.

It's about following a pattern. The only ones having councils at any time in the Bible were Pharisees. Yet, out of the blue, the council in Acts 15 is valid! Wow! OK! Paul was preaching his doctrine before that council, and continued to preach it after. Likewise, every single time a man of God spoke of Fornincation in the mode of a prophet, they spoke of idol worship. Yet this is the lone exception?

Here are the facts. The council said abstain from meats offered to idols. They didn't give conditions, they didn't give maybe's. They said what they said. Paul said don't worry about it unless it offends weak Christians. It's pretty clear!

 

[dadof10]

I wholeheartedly agree that you haven't been successful in your quest to prove that Paul is telling them to abstain under certain conditions and for certain reasons.

That's not what I said, and you know it. More straw man argumentation to distract from the fact you have no answers for the problems your preconceived notions create.

Your problem is that I don't think you it. Yes, he absolutely did tell them to abstain under certain conditions and for certain reasons. I am happy you realize that. Yet, he did not tell them to abstain under ALL conditions. Yet, the council did.

So, Paul DID tell them to abstain. That was my point. You have claimed from the beginning of this that Paul NEVER said to abstain. That's just not true.

You want to say the council's decision was unclear? Well, it was pretty clear to me. "Don't do it!"

Really? Here is the decision: "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. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

It's crystal clear who made the decision, but the nuances and how the early Church was to enact it, was not.

What Paul was doing in his letters was explaining the nuances. If he said to abstain, then he was upholding the decision, and not contradicting John.

I am going by what it says, and you is clouding the issue and giving a bunch of "maybe's".

It's called thinking, Slider. You have no problem with contradiction, I do. When confronted with Biblical text that seems to contradict, I attempt to reconcile them instead of coming to the conclusion that the authors were at odds and there was not harmony in the Church that Jesus founded. It's easy, in this case because, again, you have to believe Paul (who was filled with the Holy Spirit) contradicted John (who was too) and the council (who Scripture point blank says was filled with the Holy Spirit). See the convoluted mess you get yourself into because you allow yourself to believe the heresy that "James and Paul disagreed"?

The council said don't do it, and like you said, you can't successfully say Paul supported that decision, because he didn't.

Did Paul say to abstain, in certain circumstances, yes or no? If yes, then he did support the decision. Did he hand on the decision for observance as he traveled, yes or no? If yes, then he did support the decision. Pretty clear.

He called them weak Christians.

He called who weak Christians, the apostles and elders who made up the council?

He advised them to have it to thyself before God. That refers to the belief and not the practice? come on! What good is it then? "Oh, understand that it is not a big deal, but still don't do it!" Really? Sounds like Grace plus works to me!

All I'm doing is reading Scripture to you. You disagree with the FACT that Biblical scholars, ALL OF THEM, translate Romans 14:22 as an appeal to keep the "faith you have" or their feelings about eating or not eating between them and God. It's not me you have a problem with, it's every Greek scholar on the planet.

But he also said, whatever is set before you, ask no questions, just eat it.

Yes he did. If you don't know where the meat came from, don't ask. If you find out it was sacrificed to idols and it affects someone's conscience, do what, Slider? Abstain. Paul upholding the decision of the council in a practical way.

You are claiming the Council's decision was vague, and claiming a lot of maybe's. I'm going on the facts. If you can prove your maybes, then perhaps you will have a point. Until then....Well, just get back to me when you can prove it.

And are you ready to admit that Paul didn't say never eat meats offered to idols yet?

Is that what this is about to you, Slider, winning? Getting me to admit your side?

As for Romans 14:22.... The KJV says what it says. This is why I stick to one Bible. I don't need to go on my bookshelf to find a version that agrees with my belief. I go by the KJV and if you can prove me wrong with it, fine.... I have no problem changing my belief.

The KJV says the decision was made by the Holy Spirit, that eating meat sacrificed to idols is condemned in Rev 2 and that "the faith you have" is what you are to keep between you and God, not the meat itself. I have a really hard time believing your last sentence.

Now tell me which version of the Bible I should go by and I'll go with it. Because I will prove you wrong with whatever version you go by, if you can stick with one.

:biglol

Furthermore, I'm not the one bringing forth a "Paul vs. James" thing. Yes, I have an opinion. However, I appeased you and let it be the Council vs. Paul, because you were so insistant on it. It was the council's decision, as you were so insistant on saying, so I am going with that. So you tell me, is this Paul vs. James or Paul vs. the council?

You "appeased" me because you agreed with James' declaration (remember "abstain from the pollutions of idols"), and DISAGREED with the council ("abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols"). If this had not been brought to your attention, you would probably still be beating the dead horse of "James wrote the decision". Please don't try and act like a martyr, you were dragged kicking and screaming...

As for your post on Rev... I did read it and I reject your reasoning. John was clearly speaking as a prophet and every time without fail, when the prophets spoke of fornication, they were speaking of idol worship.

Again, you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Strong's, which is the standard for Greek translation. I choose to agree with them and not you.

It's about following a pattern. The only ones having councils at any time in the Bible were Pharisees.

Says who? Who said anything about a pattern, and who said councils were bad? If this is the case, why did the apostles and elders in Jerusalem AND PAUL call one? Why did Paul take his concerns to the council instead of settling the matter himself? This is a ridiculous argument proved by the mere fact that the apostles CALLED ONE.

Yet, out of the blue, the council in Acts 15 is valid! Wow!

You are disagreeing with Luke, not me. He's the one who wrote "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." Take it up with Strong's, maybe they'll see your point and remove this part. LOL....

OK! Paul was preaching his doctrine before that council, and continued to preach it after. Likewise, every single time a man of God spoke of Fornincation in the mode of a prophet, they spoke of idol worship. Yet this is the lone exception?

You are rambling and desperate. What lone exception? First you are referencing the council, then Revelation. You need to take a break and regroup.

Here are the facts. The council said abstain from meats offered to idols. They didn't give conditions, they didn't give maybe's. They said what they said. Paul said don't worry about it unless it offends weak Christians. It's pretty clear!

Until some Christians in the communities Paul visited started asking questions about how it worked and why this decision is being handed on by him when "idols are nothing". Paul is practically applying the decision. That's all. Not rejecting it.

 

[Slider]

So, Paul DID tell them to abstain. That was my point. You have claimed from the beginning of this that Paul NEVER said to abstain. That's just not true.

This is untrue. It has been my point from the beginning that:

1. Paul never followed the council's decisions to abstain completely (as that is what the council's wording says)
2. Paul wrote that Christians don't need to abstain unless it offends weak brethren.

There still is no vagueness in the council's decision. As for nuances... They are never mentioned. They laid down their ruling and didn't suggest to anyone how they should interpret it. They simply gave it. You asked if Paul said to abstain in certain circumstances. The answer is yes. Now I ask you did the council say to abstain in certain circumstances? That answer is no. They said to abstain. They didn't give any circumstances where Christian were not to abstain.

There is the question of contradictions in the Bible. No, the Bible doesn't contradict itself. However, when the Bible gives an account of two parties disagreeing, there is not a contradiction in the Bible, but an account of a disagreement.

I don't try to reconcile accounts in the Bible where there was conflict. In other words, I don't try to say Paul didn't publically confront Peter and blame him. I don't try to say Paul didn't have contention with John and Barnabas. Nor do I with what the council said and what Paul wrote. I don't try to think of a way to make everything hunky dorry. I don't try to make the clear seem vague and insert a bunch of maybe's into the equation.

So who did Paul call "weak"? He certainly called someone weak? When we look at Romans 14, we see that those who are weak in the faith are offended by eating meats offered to idols. Was the council offended by it? Why, I'll do even better than that: Paul called some of them FALSE BRETHREN!

Another point on Romans 14: Letting the Bible interpret the Bible, Paul clearly says that having it before God is referring to the meat. The entire chapter as well as the one in Corinthians shows that.

While I am interested in your reply, Dadof10, I have decided not to participate in this thread any longer unless we can stick to the issues. I believe it is a good topic to discuss, but there is too much time being spent on what the other person said, what the other person's personal beliefs are in an accusatory manner (instead of allowing the other person to explain what they are) and other things not related to the issue at hand.

 

[dadof10]

This is untrue. It has been my point from the beginning that:

1. Paul never followed the council's decisions to abstain completely (as that is what the council's wording says)
2. Paul wrote that Christians don't need to abstain unless it offends weak brethren.

I went back and looked and I couldn't find a place where you said "Paul said never to abstain". I stand corrected and I apologize.

There still is no vagueness in the council's decision. As for nuances... They are never mentioned. They laid down their ruling and didn't suggest to anyone how they should interpret it.

LOL....Isnt that the definition of vagueness. We have entire court systems for INTERPRETING laws. If there is a decision in court, there will invariably be challenges to the decision because circumstances arise that are not covered in the decision. It's the same here. Paul is dealing with all the different circumstances that the vagueness of the decision left.

They simply gave it. You asked if Paul said to abstain in certain circumstances. The answer is yes. Now I ask you did the council say to abstain in certain circumstances? That answer is no. They said to abstain. They didn't give any circumstances where Christian were not to abstain.

No, they didn't. Many times when a ruling is made on ANY subject, there are questions that arise and clarifications are made. That is what's happening here. Paul is clarifying what are obviously questions that have come up within the communities.

There is the question of contradictions in the Bible. No, the Bible doesn't contradict itself. However, when the Bible gives an account of two parties disagreeing, there is not a contradiction in the Bible, but an account of a disagreement.

I don't try to reconcile accounts in the Bible where there was conflict. In other words, I don't try to say Paul didn't publically confront Peter and blame him. I don't try to say Paul didn't have contention with John and Barnabas. Nor do I with what the council said and what Paul wrote. I don't try to think of a way to make everything hunky dorry. I don't try to make the clear seem vague and insert a bunch of maybe's into the equation.

You are missing the MAJOR point that the two or three people who were disagreeing were ALL GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. You look at Paul chastising Peter about about his BEHAVIOR as equivalent to Paul disagreeing about the decision. The two are apples and oranges because Peter's behavior was NEVER portrayed as Spirit led, (in fact it is portrayed as the opposite) whereas Scripture actually calls the decision led by the HS. To claim that Paul disagreed with the decision and taught a practice condemned by John in Revelation, is to claim he contradicts the HS.

So who did Paul call "weak"? He certainly called someone weak? When we look at Romans 14, we see that those who are weak in the faith are offended by eating meats offered to idols. Was the council offended by it? Why, I'll do even better than that: Paul called some of them FALSE BRETHREN!

I don't see where any members of the council were "offended" by the practice. You are reading this into the text. Certainly the members wanted people to abstain due to the Jewish converts reaction, but their personal views are unknown.

Do you think this verses applies to Peter, James, etc. the members of the council?

But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage -- 5 to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. (Galatians (RSV) 2)

This obviously refers to people who were not from Jerusalem, which would rule out the members of the council.

Another point on Romans 14: Letting the Bible interpret the Bible, Paul clearly says that having it before God is referring to the meat. The entire chapter as well as the one in Corinthians shows that.

This is the verse you are SO wrong about:

"Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God." How can this mean anything else but have the "faith" before God? I have given you multiple versions of the same verse and you continue to ignore the translation of EVERY Bible scholar in the world. I guess you can believe anything as long as it "backs up" what YOU personally think.

Can you please give me the verses that back up you contention that Paul said it was OK to eat the meat IF it doesn't offend weak Christians?

While I am interested in your reply, Dadof10, I have decided not to participate in this thread any longer unless we can stick to the issues. I believe it is a good topic to discuss, but there is too much time being spent on what the other person said, what the other person's personal beliefs are in an accusatory manner (instead of allowing the other person to explain what they are) and other things not related to the issue at hand.

I'm sorry you feel this way, Slider. This is just the way it goes on forums sometimes. If people try to sway the argument by means other that good, solid arguments, they will be called out. It's nothing personal.

 

[Slider]

I went back and looked and I couldn't find a place where you said "Paul said never to abstain". I stand corrected and I apologize.

I accept your apology. Knowing this, does it change your stance or at least change the approach you will make?

LOL....Isnt that the definition of vagueness. We have entire court systems for INTERPRETING laws. If there is a decision in court, there will invariably be challenges to the decision because circumstances arise that are not covered in the decision. It's the same here. Paul is dealing with all the different circumstances that the vagueness of the decision left.

Well see.... That is the difference between you and me, as I perceive it. I see "abstain from meats offered to idols" and I get the picture.... Don't do it! It'd be funny if I could turn that ruling into a Dr. Seuss ryme. But I either can't or don't have the energy to try. But when someone says, "don't", I apply it to all situations if no exceptions are given. It seems to me that you believe there is "vaugness" over it, and that this rule was to be questioned and applied only in certain circumstances. Maybe I'm wrong on your stance... I don't know.

You are missing the MAJOR point that the two or three people who were disagreeing were ALL GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. You look at Paul chastising Peter about about his BEHAVIOR as equivalent to Paul disagreeing about the decision. The two are apples and oranges because Peter's behavior was NEVER portrayed as Spirit led, (in fact it is portrayed as the opposite) whereas Scripture actually calls the decision led by the HS. To claim that Paul disagreed with the decision and taught a practice condemned by John in Revelation, is to claim he contradicts the HS.

No, you are missing the point that I view Acts as an account. Luke wrote down what he saw and heard of. He didn't give his opinion, he just reported what happened. That was my point.

Paul agreed with much of the decision, I don't deny that. The major point was circumcision. Paul liked the decision. Meats offered to idols... Well, he just didn't teach that. He said don't offend weak (unknowledgable) Christians, but he did not support it outright. There was also fornication. Paul supported the ruling. There was also things strangled and blood. Paul was totally silent at first glance on that. However, if we can progress, I can show he was totally against this ruling.

I don't see where any members of the council were "offended" by the practice. You are reading this into the text. Certainly the members wanted people to abstain due to the Jewish converts reaction, but their personal views are unknown.

It's called thinking! LOL! Let me ask you why they included it then? The answer is one of many possibilities:

A. They, being Jews, and new to Christianity, were offended.
B. They worried about the Jews in far reaching places like Rome and Corinth and other places. They understood it didn't matter, but for their sake, they included it.
C. They knew Slider and Dadof10 would argue about it!

Now which is the more likely answer?

But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage -- 5 to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. (Galatians (RSV) 2)

This obviously refers to people who were not from Jerusalem, which would rule out the members of the council.

My turn to apologize.... They weren't from Jerusalem, but they were obviously at the council.

This is the verse you are SO wrong about:

"Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God." How can this mean anything else but have the "faith" before God? I have given you multiple versions of the same verse and you continue to ignore the translation of EVERY Bible scholar in the world. I guess you can believe anything as long as it "backs up" what YOU personally think.

I am not wrong about it. What you, and so many of the Biblical scholars do that is in error is to read this one verse alone without it in context with the entire discussion. I have checked what the scholars say, and when you read their overview of the entire chapter, they agree with my overall stance. It's only when the pigeon hole a verse that they come up with that thought process.

Much in the same way you fail to understand what "fornication" is in Revations. Depsite the fact that everytime a prophecy preacher spoke this word he was talking about false worship, you still seem to isolate it and separate it from context. It is not that this "woman" taught men to do sexual immorality THEN also taught them to eat meats offered to idols. It was one of the same thing.

Can you please give me the verses that back up you contention that Paul said it was OK to eat the meat IF it doesn't offend weak Christians?

I refer back to my original post. I listed several verses.

I guess you can believe anything as long as it "backs up" what YOU personally think.

I'm sorry you feel this way, Slider. This is just the way it goes on forums sometimes. If people try to sway the argument by means other that good, solid arguments, they will be called out. It's nothing personal.

I merged two parts of your post.... But this is why I don't want to discuss this with you.... You simply don't seem to be able to help yourself in making this personal. Yet you can't step back and ask yourself if you are doing the same.

I ain't going to sink to this level. I have given you good solid arguements. I've given you the Scripture. Never a maybe... Never a nuance. Never a private interpretation that wasn't backed by scripture (thus, making it not my own, but what the Bible says!)

 

[John 8:32]

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.

Romans 14 is more about vegetarianism and fasting than meats offered to idols, but at any rate let's look at Paul's words and I think we will find they are consistent with James in Acts 15.

1Co 8:7 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.

There are those who cannot let go of the meat to idols idea.

1Co 8:8 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.

Paul had no trouble with this, he understood a piece of meat is a piece of meat.

1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

Here we are, Paul says that if someone sits at meat with you and has a problem with it, then just as James says, abstain. Do not eat meat with someone who really believes that piece of meat was offered to an idol.

1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Circumstances dictate how to handle this.

 

[Slider]

Romans 14 is more about vegetarianism and fasting than meats offered to idols, but at any rate let's look at Paul's words and I think we will find they are consistent with James in Acts 15.

Circumstances dictate how to handle this.

I appreciate your responding John 8:32. I cut out scriptural reference and commentary 1. for brevity's sake and 2. because I agree with it. It's extremely clear what Paul is saying.

As for Romans 14, I can see your point about vegetarianism. I would also add that IT COULD (I hate to say that because I don't like to discern what it means when it is plainly written) also mean unclean meats (like pork, shrimp, etc). However, in verse 2 it says "all things" and in verse 20 it says all things are pure. That includes clean meats, unclean meats, meats offered to idols, meats strangled and meats that were improperly drained of blood.

Still, a very astute observation on your part.

As for Paul's words in I Cor 8 being consistent with those of the council: While I agree with your commentary on Corinthians, could you please show me where the council ever said or hinted to let circumstances dictate how to handle this? From what I see, they didn't. They said, "don't do it".

In other words, Paul DID say certain circumstances dictate how to handle this, but the council did not.

 

[John 8:32]

I appreciate your responding John 8:32. I cut out scriptural reference and commentary 1. for brevity's sake and 2. because I agree with it. It's extremely clear what Paul is saying.

As for Romans 14, I can see your point about vegetarianism. I would also add that IT COULD (I hate to say that because I don't like to discern what it means when it is plainly written) also mean unclean meats (like pork, shrimp, etc). However, in verse 2 it says "all things" and in verse 20 it says all things are pure. That includes clean meats, unclean meats, meats offered to idols, meats strangled and meats that were improperly drained of blood.

Still, a very astute observation on your part.

As for Paul's words in I Cor 8 being consistent with those of the council: While I agree with your commentary on Corinthians, could you please show me where the council ever said or hinted to let circumstances dictate how to handle this? From what I see, they didn't. They said, "don't do it".

In other words, Paul DID say certain circumstances dictate how to handle this, but the council did not.

I believe that it is a matter of intent and the heart. The council of Acts 15 was addresssing the subject of "meats offered to idols". This means a meat that was offered to an idol and the gentile involved actually considers this to be the case. On the otherhand, Paul was addressing those who knew in their heart that it was inconsequential, it was just a piece of meat...

1Co 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

Of course you know that the shambles was simply the meat market that the meat was sold in. Paul also addressed the matter of conscience and heart...

1Co 8:6 But 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.
1Co 8:7 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.
1Co 8:8 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.

Then he goes on to teach about not offending a brother. I don't think there is a contrast here. The council of Acts 15 was addressing those mentioned in 1 Cor 8:7. Those who still had some twinge of conscience about the idols and the worship they had come out of.

 

[dadof10]

Wow. I didn't even see this. Thanks, John for bumping it to the top.

I accept your apology. Knowing this, does it change your stance or at least change the approach you will make?

No.

Well see.... That is the difference between you and me, as I perceive it. I see "abstain from meats offered to idols" and I get the picture.... Don't do it! It'd be funny if I could turn that ruling into a Dr. Seuss ryme. But I either can't or don't have the energy to try. But when someone says, "don't", I apply it to all situations if no exceptions are given.

This is what I would like to fucus on.

It seems to me that you believe there is "vaugness" over it, and that this rule was to be questioned and applied only in certain circumstances. Maybe I'm wrong on your stance... I don't know.

You are partially right. There was vagueness and the ruling was questioned. This is what Paul was reacting to when he explained why the ruling. As in most things in his letters, it was a reaction to questions or disputes within Church communities.

No, you are missing the point that I view Acts as an account. Luke wrote down what he saw and heard of. He didn't give his opinion, he just reported what happened. That was my point.

He reported the Holy Spirit guided the council with no evidence whatsoever there was any question about it. Acts is Scripture, not just some historical account.

Paul agreed with much of the decision, I don't deny that. The major point was circumcision. Paul liked the decision. Meats offered to idols... Well, he just didn't teach that. He said don't offend weak (unknowledgable) Christians, but he did not support it outright.

Then why did he hand it on for observance?

There was also fornication. Paul supported the ruling. There was also things strangled and blood. Paul was totally silent at first glance on that. However, if we can progress, I can show he was totally against this ruling.

Then why did he hand it on for observance? Here is where you are inconsistent. you said above "But when someone says, "don't", I apply it to all situations if no exceptions are given," yet you think there are eceptions to Acts 16, even though there are none given.

"As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey."

"As they (Paul included, no exception) traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions (all the decisions, no exceptions given) reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey."

You see exceptions when it bolsters your case, but not when it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

It's called thinking! LOL! Let me ask you why they included it then? The answer is one of many possibilities:

A. They, being Jews, and new to Christianity, were offended.
B. They worried about the Jews in far reaching places like Rome and Corinth and other places. They understood it didn't matter, but for their sake, they included it.
C. They knew Slider and Dadof10 would argue about it!

Now which is the more likely answer?

The most likely answer is that they put it in there because it offended some Jewish converts, because eating meat sacrificed to idols was abhorrent to them. It doesn't say whether the apostles and elders were offended also.

I am not wrong about it. What you, and so many of the Biblical scholars do that is in error is to read this one verse alone without it in context with the entire discussion.

We (the Biblical scholars and I) aren't taking anything out of context. This isn't about your "interpretation" vs. ours. It's simply about translation, not interpretation. ""Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God." The "it" here is faith the person has about his own eating habits, not the meat. In every version of Scripture, the words are "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God", or some variation of these words. I don't know what else to say. You are denying that the actual words mean what they say.

I have checked what the scholars say, and when you read their overview of the entire chapter, they agree with my overall stance. It's only when the pigeon hole a verse that they come up with that thought process.

Which scholars and what stance?

Much in the same way you fail to understand what "fornication" is in Revations. Depsite the fact that everytime a prophecy preacher spoke this word he was talking about false worship, you still seem to isolate it and separate it from context. It is not that this "woman" taught men to do sexual immorality THEN also taught them to eat meats offered to idols. It was one of the same thing.

This is ridiculous. Then John was saying: "By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and sexual immorality"? Please. you are really reaching.

I refer back to my original post. I listed several verses.

Plese re-post them. Remember, I am looking for verses that back up your contention: "Paul said it was OK to eat the meat IF it doesn't offend weak Christians?" Where does he say this?

I merged two parts of your post.... But this is why I don't want to discuss this with you.... You simply don't seem to be able to help yourself in making this personal. Yet you can't step back and ask yourself if you are doing the same.

You were using straw man argumentation and I'm not letting you get away with it. If that offends you, so what? Respond to what I'm actually saying instead of what you WANT me to say and everything will be just fine. Did it ever occur to you that I'm offrended by your straw man arguments and I'm merely reacting to a wrong done to me? There are two sides to every argument, you are not the innocent here.

I ain't going to sink to this level. I have given you good solid arguements.

Some, yes. But straw man arguments are neither good or solid, and they usually upset people.

 

[dadof10]

Much in the same way you fail to understand what "fornication" is in Revations. Depsite the fact that everytime a prophecy preacher spoke this word he was talking about false worship, you still seem to isolate it and separate it from context. It is not that this "woman" taught men to do sexual immorality THEN also taught them to eat meats offered to idols. It was one of the same thing.

I misunderstood your take here because I don't really see how it bolsters your case. If John is talking about "fornication" as being "false worship", doesn't that correspond with eating meat sacrificed to idols as being taken literally? He is saying, then, the woman was teaching people to worship idols and eat meat sacrificed to them, right?



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Slider]

I believe that it is a matter of intent and the heart. The council of Acts 15 was addresssing the subject of "meats offered to idols". This means a meat that was offered to an idol and the gentile involved actually considers this to be the case. On the otherhand, Paul was addressing those who knew in their heart that it was inconsequential, it was just a piece of meat...

1Co 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

Of course you know that the shambles was simply the meat market that the meat was sold in. Paul also addressed the matter of conscience and heart...

1Co 8:6 But 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.
1Co 8:7 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.
1Co 8:8 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.

Then he goes on to teach about not offending a brother. I don't think there is a contrast here. The council of Acts 15 was addressing those mentioned in 1 Cor 8:7. Those who still had some twinge of conscience about the idols and the worship they had come out of.

Again, there is no telling who the council was intending to address or who they actually were addressing. It is speculating whether they added it for the sake of those like in I cor 8.

It makes more sense to actually believe that they too were like those in I cor 8, however.... They made the ruling, were reportedly zealous for the law, and were most likely offended by it themselves.

Dadof10... Once again you bring nothing new to the discussion other than asking questions which have already been answered. But thank you for your opinion on these matters.

 

[dadof10]

.

Dadof10... Once again you bring nothing new to the discussion other than asking questions which have already been answered. But thank you for your opinion on these matters.

OK, Slider. I'll go away now.