The Presumptive Arrogance Of Studied Christians.

[WIP]

Perhaps we should get back on topic. This thread is not going forward too well.

 

[dadof10]

Revelation 2:14

“But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.â€

　

If we are talking about whether it’s wrong to eat things offered to idols, this verse comes up. It was not the eating of things sacrificed unto idols that was the problem. It was a symptom of a real problem. The real problem was the doctrine of Balaam.

If you have a cold, you might have a stuffy nose. Yet, when you go to the doctor, he’s not going to tell you that you suffer from a stuffy nose. The problem is that you have a common cold. The stuffy nose is just a symptom of it. It is the same thing here. Those at Pergamos were eating meats offered to idols, but that was not the problem. Paul didn’t have a problem with that in his writings. The Doctrine of Balaam, was the problem.

You have to understand what the doctrine of Balaam is. Balaam is most remembered for having a talking “donkey†that prevented him from cursing Israel. That was the error of Balaam in Jude 1:11. It is not the doctrine of Balaam, which can be found in Numbers 31:16 and the preceding chapters. As Israel was passing through Moab, they took in wives and allowed heathen customs into their worship.

So the problem was not eating the meat which was offered to idols that bothered the Lord in Pergamos. It was integrating false religion with Truth that was the problem. One of those items was eating meats offered to idols; the other was fornication (this time, both literal and spiritual fornication).

Now, just in case you want to say that eating meats offered to idols was a completely different problem, we still have to look at what Paul was talking about and what John was talking about.

So, it was wrong to eat meats offered to idols in Revelations, but Paul said it was ok? It does sound like a contradiction (and Paul DID say it was ok). But you have to understand that they weren’t talking about the exact same thing.

Paul was definitely against offering meats to idols and then eating that meat. There is no question there. He preached against it, but he was not against eating meats that had been offered to idols. When a heathen killed a cow or whatever animal in honor of a god, they then took the meat and gave it to charity, took it for themselves or sold the beef to a market. Paul is not saying partake in the ritual, but the meat is ok to eat. He is saying it doesn't matter where the meat came from as long as you don't actually sacrific it to idols. What they were doing at Pergamos was partaking in the ritual and mixing it with Christianity. Paul was against that.

The Biblical reference that backs this up is 1 Corinthians 10:25-33. Paul said if you by something from the market, don’t question where it came from – it doesn’t matter if it was formally offered to an idol. If someone invites you to dinner, don’t question about the meat's past history. Eat it. However, if someone objects and says it was offered to an idol, then for their sake – not your own – don’t eat it.

So again, the problem was the Doctrine of Balaam. You may not agree with me on what the Doctrine of Balaam is, but it is sufficient to say that no matter what it is, the problem was that they were allowing it in the first place. You can’t integrate pagan customs with God’s Word. You buy a steak at the supermarket, then it doesn’t matter where it came from or what its history was. Have it to thyself before God and have it to HIS glory. If you actually took part in the sacrifice ritual of that animal, then there is a problem.

I don't agree, but this wasn't the verse from Revelation I was referring to. Verse 20:

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. (Revelation (RSV) 2)

Your argument above doesn't apply because Jesus says "Jezebel" teaches the BEHAVIOR of eating meat sacrificed to idols, and condemns it. This is what you have to reconcile.

I don't have much time lately, so my responses will be a little more tardy than they have been in the past.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There is nothing wrong, in and of itself, in eating meat sacrificed to an idol. The sin committed was instructing them to violate their conscience about eating meats sacrificed to an idol.

 

[dadof10]

Revelation 2:14

“But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.”

　

If we are talking about whether it’s wrong to eat things offered to idols, this verse comes up. It was not the eating of things sacrificed unto idols that was the problem. It was a symptom of a real problem. The real problem was the doctrine of Balaam.

If you have a cold, you might have a stuffy nose. Yet, when you go to the doctor, he’s not going to tell you that you suffer from a stuffy nose. The problem is that you have a common cold. The stuffy nose is just a symptom of it. It is the same thing here. Those at Pergamos were eating meats offered to idols, but that was not the problem. Paul didn’t have a problem with that in his writings. The Doctrine of Balaam, was the problem.

You have to understand what the doctrine of Balaam is. Balaam is most remembered for having a talking “donkey” that prevented him from cursing Israel. That was the error of Balaam in Jude 1:11. It is not the doctrine of Balaam, which can be found in Numbers 31:16 and the preceding chapters. As Israel was passing through Moab, they took in wives and allowed heathen customs into their worship.

So the problem was not eating the meat which was offered to idols that bothered the Lord in Pergamos. It was integrating false religion with Truth that was the problem. One of those items was eating meats offered to idols; the other was fornication (this time, both literal and spiritual fornication).

Now, just in case you want to say that eating meats offered to idols was a completely different problem, we still have to look at what Paul was talking about and what John was talking about.

So, it was wrong to eat meats offered to idols in Revelations, but Paul said it was ok? It does sound like a contradiction (and Paul DID say it was ok). But you have to understand that they weren’t talking about the exact same thing.

Paul was definitely against offering meats to idols and then eating that meat. There is no question there. He preached against it, but he was not against eating meats that had been offered to idols. When a heathen killed a cow or whatever animal in honor of a god, they then took the meat and gave it to charity, took it for themselves or sold the beef to a market. Paul is not saying partake in the ritual, but the meat is ok to eat. He is saying it doesn't matter where the meat came from as long as you don't actually sacrific it to idols. What they were doing at Pergamos was partaking in the ritual and mixing it with Christianity. Paul was against that.

The Biblical reference that backs this up is 1 Corinthians 10:25-33. Paul said if you by something from the market, don’t question where it came from – it doesn’t matter if it was formally offered to an idol. If someone invites you to dinner, don’t question about the meat's past history. Eat it. However, if someone objects and says it was offered to an idol, then for their sake – not your own – don’t eat it.

So again, the problem was the Doctrine of Balaam. You may not agree with me on what the Doctrine of Balaam is, but it is sufficient to say that no matter what it is, the problem was that they were allowing it in the first place. You can’t integrate pagan customs with God’s Word. You buy a steak at the supermarket, then it doesn’t matter where it came from or what its history was. Have it to thyself before God and have it to HIS glory. If you actually took part in the sacrifice ritual of that animal, then there is a problem.

[Edited by staff]

Your premise is that Paul taught that "it was ok" to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

John obviously does not, because he condemns this practice by putting it on the same level as fornication and portraying both Jezebel and Balaam as
"casting a stumbling block" within the Church by teaching this practice AS YOU CLAIM PAUL DID. Please reread that.

John wrote that there were people within these two Christian communities who were teaching that "it was ok" to eat meat sacrificed to idols. He portrayed the people who were teaching these two things as two of the worst villians of the OT. According to you, John could have been directly referencing PAUL, because he was teaching the same thing.

You have repeatedly pitted Paul against James, Paul teaching Truth and poor old misguided James teaching error. Will you now pit Paul against John?


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[dadof10]

The Holy Ghost and the Council of Jerusalem

Acts 15:28:

“For it seemed good tothe Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than thesenecessary 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 dowell. Fare ye well.”

James and the council wrote this to the gentiles for Pauland Barnabas to relay, which they did. The letter also says that the Jewish Christians would no longer requirecircumcision and the following of the law (or that part of it). But was this decision inspired or endorsed bythe Holy Ghost as James claimed?

Your working hypothesis is wrong. Again, the letter was written by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, not James alone. This is what the plain words of Scripture say. In this letter, is when the Holy Spirit is envolked, and it is not by James alone. Unless you accept this fact OR PROVE DIFFERENT, you will remain in error.

If you want to believe that Paul taught that "its ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols", as you have been claiming, you must pit him against the apostles and elders in Jerusalem and John, not just James. You must believe that he "just went along with the decision", even though everything we read about him screams he was anything but an appeaser. And you must believe that he purposefully handed on a letter which lead people into error.

Your preconceived ideas concerning salvation (ie. the heresy "faith alone") is clouding your proper study of Scripture. I have no doubt that this is where your animosity toward James ("even James") comes from. You can't find a way to reconcile his epistle with what you have been taught about Paul's view on justification, therefore, you have to choose between them, and you choose to believe James is always wrong, and Paul always right, no matter the topic, for no apperant reason, or one you refuse to share.

My question still remains unanswered. If Paul contradicts James, the council and John, why do you come down on the side of Paul? What makes him right and the others wrong? What criteria do you use?

This is the thing that interests me in this discussion. [Edited by staff]

 

[WIP]

I am going to close this thread temporarily until I have time to review it in more detail. Some of these posts are getting too personal. I may reopen it later.

 

[WIP]

I have reopened this thread. Please try to keep things civil.

 

[Slider]

I appreciate WIP closing and reopening this thread. We got way off track and things seemed to get a bit out of hand.... As far as I'm concerned, Dadof10 and I are fine and at peace. I find him to be well studied and a worthy person to talk to.

I want to open the door to discuss things that may not have been answered, however. Perhaps by starting a new thread that is away from the OP.... We did get off the path!

 

[dadof10]

I appreciate WIP closing and reopening this thread. We got way off track and things seemed to get a bit out of hand.... As far as I'm concerned, Dadof10 and I are fine and at peace. I find him to be well studied and a worthy person to talk to.

I want to open the door to discuss things that may not have been answered, however. Perhaps by starting a new thread that is away from the OP.... We did get off the path!

Sure, Slider. Go ahead and start one on the topic of whether James and Paul were at odds over meat sacrificed to idols, or whatever. You can paste my last response, or start from scratch. I'll find it.