bacht

That seems to be Mark's version ("the messianic secret")

aa5874

Chapter 2 of Acts totally contradicts the letter writer called Paul.

According to Acts 2, Peter was filled with the Holy Ghost and preached to people from all over the known world on the day of Pentecost and converted about 3000 people.

Acts 2.8-11 And Peter's gospel did not include one single word about circumcision or eating of foods.

This is Peter in Acts 2.21 And again in Acts 2.38
And even in Acts 15.6-9 It is either the letter writer called Paul or the author of Acts or both are not credible.

No Robots

Paul states specifically that it is a question of fellowship:

For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.

Amaleq13

The quote doesn't actually support your claim or deny Hindley's.

It might be about "fellowship" (whatever you mean by that term) but, as it stands, it appears consistent with the notion that purity as the primary consideration.

No Robots

What I mean by fellowship is the willingness of Jews to eat with non-Jews.

Less than a generation after Jesus' death and before the Gospels were written, the Christian movement, still basically a Jewish sect, would be divided over certain questions of Halakah. The Apostle Paul argued, for example, that Gentile believers did not need to follow the Halakha, while others—known in later times as Judaizers—insisted that new believers must convert to Judaism and accept the full burden of Halakha before being considered as members of the church. According to Acts 15:29, a compromise was worked out in which Gentiles did not have to be circumcised to join the church, but they must follow Noahide commandments such as refraining from idolatry and fornication, and following certain dietary restrictions.

This, solution, however, did not solve the problem of Jewish Christians interacting with Gentile Christians in worship and table fellowship, resulting in a heated disagreement between Paul and Peter at Antioch (Galatians 2), in which Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy for separating himself from the Gentile Christians in order to please certain "men from James." Ultimately, Christianity would reject even some of the commandments specified in Acts 15, while retaining the Ten Commandments and other aspects of early Halakha, especially with regard to moral law.

--"Halakha". New World Encyclopedia

My point is that while issues about what was eaten may have been part of the problem, we know for certain that the problem was about who was doing the eating. This was a big issue of basic cleanliness when everybody was reaching a hand into the same bowl.

Solo

I don't think it was. The cross would not have been foreseen or staged by Jesus. That's Mark applying Paul's teaching to the historical Jesus, that Paul did not want to talk about. Here is a short digest (from another post of mine) of what I believe were the two resurrectional concepts which shaped the Jesus followers' attitude to the crucifixion.

Jiri

Amaleq13

Yes but do you not see that this has a rather obvious connection to Jewish notions of religious purity?

Characterizing it as about "fellowship" doesn't seem to me to negate or contradict the notion that it was about "purity".

It was because of who was eating that what was being served became an issue. Your effort to somehow separate the two does not appear to have merit.

Why should anyone assume that to have been have been a primary consideration over the spiritual cleanliness of the participants? That really doesn't make sense in the context of such a clearly religious issue.