Freethought & Rationalism Archive

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

If Paul was of the mind that Christians were not under any of the statutes of the Law, this bit from Acts seems a bit weird,

Quote:

17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

Paul seems to have lost a bit of his fire against the Law here. One would think that Paul would have refused to give an appearance of caring if Jews thought he was contradicting Moses and telling people that "circumcision profits nothing, but only faith in Christ", but here Paul just does what he's told and goes through with the purification. :huh:

This is supposed to be the same Paul who withstood Peter the Rock to his face for vacillating in his behavior when moving between groups of Jews and Gentiles.

Elsewhere Paul wrote about how he went up to Jerusalem to those who were "apostles" and told them how things were going to be concerning the Gospel.

Commence spin in 3...2...1...

Kinda' like the spin the chemistry teacher gives to the students on the table of elements, when they present questions about what they think is a conflict. . .

It's called answering the question. That's what answers do.

There are two issues with Paul:

1) requiring law keeping for righteousness (salvation) in Galations, specifically the law of circumcision, in addition to faith, by free grace. Paul is most emphatic that to add to free grace is to "fall from grace."

2) observing Jewish customs among law keepers for the sake of social acceptance among them in order to give them the gospel. This observance of Jewish customs is not for the sake of righteousness, but for the sake of acceptance among them.

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Is the 'honor the Sabbath' moral, civil, or ceremonial?

It is mankind's duty to God.It matters not. The Christian is under none of them.
The Christian is under only the law of love of God and love of neighbor.The whole NT is consistent with Paul and Hebrews.The "dismissal" is according to what Jesus taught his apostles about the meaning of the Scriptures (Lk 24:44-48). The NT texts,
which are based on Jesus' authoritative understanding of the OT (Lk 24:44-48), authorize the transition from the old covenant to the new covenant.Paul is not the author of Hebrews. So who is this disciple, and of whom? The conflict is between Jewish understanding of the Scriptures and Jesus' authoritative understanding of them,
which he explained to his apostles (Lk 24:44-48), and which are found in the NT writings.

Quote:

Hence my conclusion that the text is not unified on this issue.

Which conclusion is not based in correct understanding of the texts as authoritatively explained by Jesus to his apostles (Lk 24:44-48).

Luke 24:44-48

Quote:

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

Where does it say that the OT commandments are not to be followed in this passage? I see it not.

Read my response above and think. I'm not going to address it again.

Quote:

I'll reiterate: Jesus says 'obey the commandments' many, many times. He didn't rescind those statements with this Luke passage.

Here (again) are some of those passages I am referring to:

Quote:

Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Mat 5:19

Quote:

And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Quote:

14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
John 14:14-15

Quote:

20 In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”

Quote:

10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. 11 These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. John 15:9-11

Note: these passages are found in Matthew, Mark, and John. I tend to appeal to Mark (first written) or John (independently written from the Synoptics). There is a reason that Marcion preferred Luke's.

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Where? That sounds like more writing in between the lines of God's word. I find it fascinating when people so vehemently defend a text as God's word, then add their own meaning between the lines left and right.

That would be Ro 13:8-10.

Are you keeping up? Repeating arguments is tiresome, and I'm not given to doing so.I will not bother to show what is material that you have left out of the verses, and which is a demonstration of insincerity. I've addressed that with you before.

Addressing a point is not the same as overcoming it.

Quote:

Repeating arguments is tiresome, and I will not be doing it.

Quote:

14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

I'm repeating arguments because they haven't been overcome...

I have not signed up to "overcome," only to present.

Quote:

15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. John 14:14-15

20 In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”

10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. 11 These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. John 15:9-11

Quote:

And what are Jesus' commandments?

Quote:

Jesus, according to John 15

9 Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. 11 These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.

As the text isn't crystal clear, I would presume that when Jesus is talking about his 'Father's commandments' he is indeed speaking of those commandments you reject.

Did Jesus not celebrate the Passover? Was Jesus not Jewish?

This has been addressed.

Davka · 07-10-2011, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Repeating arguments is tiresome, and I'm not given to doing so.

:hysterical::rolling:

Go on, pull the other one!

Zenaphobe · 07-10-2011, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

If Paul was of the mind that Christians were not under any of the statutes of the Law, this bit from Acts seems a bit weird,

Quote:

17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

Paul seems to have lost a bit of his fire against the Law here. One would think that Paul would have refused to give an appearance of caring if Jews thought he was contradicting Moses and telling people that "circumcision profits nothing, but only faith in Christ", but here Paul just does what he's told and goes through with the purification. :huh:

This is supposed to be the same Paul who withstood Peter the Rock to his face for vacillating in his behavior when moving between groups of Jews and Gentiles.

Elsewhere Paul wrote about how he went up to Jerusalem to those who were "apostles" and told them how things were going to be concerning the Gospel.

Commence spin in 3...2...1...

Kinda' like the spin the chemistry teacher gives to the students on the table of elements, when they present questions about what they think is a conflict. . .

It's called answering the question. That's what answers do.

There are two issues with Paul:

1) requiring law keeping for righteousness (salvation) in Galations, specifically the law of circumcision, in addition to faith, by free grace. Paul is most emphatic that to add to free grace is to "fall from grace."

2) observing Jewish customs among law keepers for the sake of social acceptance among them in order to give them the gospel. This observance of Jewish customs is not for the sake of righteousness, but for the sake of acceptance among them.

That's all well and good, but Acts isn't just talking about some "law keepers" who wouldn't know any better about the teachings of Jesus, we're talking about James, who we would assume would have known that Jesus did away with the Law altogether.

So, if Jesus did away with the Law and let his disciples know about it when he was making known the secrets of the gospel, why would they still communicate to the Gentile converts -

Quote:

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Why would Gentiles saved through faith in Jesus need to eat Kosher meats? There seems to be some confusion on the part of those who were closest to Jesus on the super-cession of the Law by the death of Jesus.

Do you adhere to Kosher dietary laws as a Gentile believer in Jesus? Were you to be instrumental in converting a Jew to Christianity would you advise them to jettison all semblance of obedience to observing these things or would you think it acceptable to continue these observances of the Law?

Perspicuo · 07-10-2011, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

when the purpose for which the Levitical priesthood and the laws based on it were given is accomplished, they are set aside.

This is a Christian pretext, and addresses the fact of why the Law has been dumped for an amendment.

Does the OT contain an article for amendments? Even if it did, which I am unaware of, still it would be a logical inconsistency to have a loophole for amendment or even radical substitution, alongside "my law is eternal".

So it is clear to you too that the Law is not eternal, you just give a pretext, but then again, it is not eternal, it has been abrogated (discontinuated with authority). Even if God has the authority to do so (and the main thread of the whole Bible is he can do anything he wants), what he said was not true. God is a liar.

Let God be true, and every man a liar.

Quote:

Another inconsistency, this time with a attribute of God.

"Read my lips: my law is eternal"

Read my lips, the Sinaitic covenant, which God promised in Jer 31:31-32 would be replaced, was not an eternal covenant, it was a conditional covenant (Ex 19:5).

Oh alright I stand corrected. Then the jerk was this guy:

Psalm 111:7-8: "The works of His hands are verity and judgment; all His commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness."

(BTW: Ex19:5 "Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession." doesn't say, "If not, I will change it" and enters in contradiction with the psalmist).

1) You will find in Lev 26:14-45 what occurs when "if not" occurs.

2) The Levitical law was set aside because the Levitical priesthood, which was instituted to execute and enforce it, was set aside, as was announced the priesthood would be in Ps 110:4, and would be replaced with a new priest forever.

Logically inconsistent.

Quote:

God isn't overly concerned with your notion of "logic," but with the execution of his plan which he set in place from all eternity.

Quote:

His plan is being a trickster?

Because the moment he uses human language, he abides by its rules. If I say, "If you give me $5000 I will give you a house", you think 'What a deal!', give me $5000 and ask 'Where's my house?', and I give you a pencil... then I have tricked you. I can say all along "I had a plan", I still knew what "If you give me $5000 I will give you a house" would mean to you and motivate you to do. I therefore would be a prankster.
------
1) Those rules are not priestly rules, they are rules for the people, they are rules they must comply, priest or no priest.

2) I understand the Christian explanation for not obeying YHWH's law, but that is a Christian thing, it is not Jewish, what you say is not found in Leviticus.

Jesus explained to the apostles the meaning of all the Scriptures which related to him (Lk 24:44-48).
It is that meaning which is found in the NT writings.

The conflict is between Jewish understanding of the Scriptures and Jesus' authoritative understanding of them,
which is contained in the NT writings.

Quote:

3) If it is not in Leviticus but instead meant to be there, YHWH is a bad legislator compared to humans, he can't write or dictate his will clearly. Things had to wait for Christian theologians to come up with stuff Jewish rabbis had no idea of. Plain and simple, what you say, was not there, it's a mere excuse so Christians will not be bothered by God's law spelled out in OT.

If you don't like YHWH's revealed plan, take it up with him.

Jesus, not Christian theologians, is the one who authoritatively explained it all to his apostles
from the OT Scriptures (Lk 24:44-48), and which understanding is found in the NT writings.

Quote:

Also...

Quote:

Originally Posted by You

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me

Logically inconsistent.

God isn't overly concerned with your notion of "logic," but with the execution of his plan which he set in place from all eternity.

... means you accept what the Original Post of the thread claimed all along, and you depreciate it as unimportant because there was, supposedly, a plan. It would be a con plan, because God (as you admit) does not care about setting things straight but provoking an action and then excusing himself with "I had a plan behind scenes all along", which is not a valid excuse but an admission of intentional misleading with an ulterior motive.

Your disagreement is with what Jesus authoritatively explained to the apostles about what it all means.

Mr Kole, for Nth time:

For you it is authoritative, but for those who don't already believe it is not. You are trapped in a logical loop whose bottom line is: the Christian Bible is true because the Christian Bible says it's true.

What you say is meaningless gibberish to the Muslim, the Jew and the atheist... basically for everyone who does not take your sect's views at face value, as an already believed truth.

You Christians have disauthorized (by turning the older scriptures inside out) the OT because your religion came after it. Then Islam disauthorized (again, by the same method) the OT and NT; and Baha'i disauthorized all those, including Islam.

You don't believe the OT & NT have been disauthorized? Maybe because you don't have their faith (belief without evidence ["the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"]) but another? Of course. Faith makes people accept inconsistent doctrines and justifiy them, even if these doctrines contradict reality (such as thing that have good evidence, like evolution or cosmology [when it has determined the universe was not created in 6 days 6000-12000 years ago, but instead 13 billion.... which doesn't seem to bother YECs, thanks to what? Blind faith]).

But it is illogical to the rest of humanity, those whose rationality is not compromised by the emotional need to believe unsupported and inconsistent rubbish.

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Simon, I should re-outline my position, because it seems to have been lost in the shuffle, based upon your responses as of late.

Back in post 94 of this thread, I established the position that Paul* seems at odds with the OT, as well as the gospels.

I have cited several OT verses (as others have as well) that indicate that the covenant with the Israelites was described as everlasting, or permanent, or throughout the generations, etc.

I have cited several NT verses where Jesus (allegedly) made statements that would re-iterate that the OT commands should be followed.

You have cited a lot of the book of Hebrews and Paul's writings that disagree with the gospels and OT citations. I call these contradictions and an example of a lack of consistency (indeed that was my point in bringing it up). You call it 'progressive revelation'. Until you support with a rational argument why progressive revelation (especially revelation that directly contradicts earlier revelation that was asserted at that time to be everlasting/permanent) is a reasonable position, I don't see this discussion moving anywhere.

Jesus is the author of the NT understanding which you find contradictory to the OT.

He gave that understanding to his apostles before he ascended (Lk 24;44-48), and it is found in the NT writings on the issue.

Quote:

Justification for the 'progressive revelation' claim certainly is in my purview as it is central to the discussion.

I don't justify what the NT reports that Jesus said and did. I simply report it.

Jesus explained the OT Scriptures and their meaning regarding him, which is what you find contradictory to the OT.
Jesus said they were fulfilled, not "contradicted."

Quote:

*I should have grouped Hebrews with Paul's writings as well, as they share a lot of theology.

Davka · 07-10-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Jesus is the author of the NT understanding which you find contradictory to the OT.

You really don't get it, do you?

You haven't even established that Jesus existed, let alone that he (or any real person) said or did any of the things written in the gospels. We don't know who wrote any of the NT stories, or when, or how changed they were before they were codified circa 400 CE.

We do know that the writings were changed many times, and that there was bitter controversy as to what was 'scripture' and what was not. So your absurd contention that "Jesus" was the author of anything is utterly without foundation.

schriverja · 07-10-2011, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Simon, I should re-outline my position, because it seems to have been lost in the shuffle, based upon your responses as of late.

Back in post 94 of this thread, I established the position that Paul* seems at odds with the OT, as well as the gospels.

I have cited several OT verses (as others have as well) that indicate that the covenant with the Israelites was described as everlasting, or permanent, or throughout the generations, etc.

I have cited several NT verses where Jesus (allegedly) made statements that would re-iterate that the OT commands should be followed.

You have cited a lot of the book of Hebrews and Paul's writings that disagree with the gospels and OT citations. I call these contradictions and an example of a lack of consistency (indeed that was my point in bringing it up). You call it 'progressive revelation'. Until you support with a rational argument why progressive revelation (especially revelation that directly contradicts earlier revelation that was asserted at that time to be everlasting/permanent) is a reasonable position, I don't see this discussion moving anywhere.

Jesus is the author of the NT understanding which you find contradictory to the OT.

He gave that understanding to his apostles before he ascended (Lk 24;44-48), and it is found in the NT writings on the issue.

Then why all the confusion over circumcision and the other parts of the Jewish Law in Acts 21?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acts

[James and other leaders in Jerusalem, speaking to Paul] 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. Acts 21:21-24

I guess Jesus wasn't clear enough?

Quote:

I don't justify what the NT reports that Jesus said and did. I simply report it.

Jesus explained the OT Scriptures and their meaning regarding him, which is what you find contradictory to the OT.
Jesus said they were fulfilled, not "contradicted."

Quote:

*I should have grouped Hebrews with Paul's writings as well, as they share a lot of theology.

Jesus didn't write a word of the NT, dude. We have accounts of what he said, but they weren't written by people who were there.

The Luke passage doesn't support your case that Jesus intended everyone to stop being Jewish, honoring the Jewish traditions, etc. Jesus himself observed them (at least the Passover, and apparently the Sabbath unless he had a healing to do). Luke was at least the 2nd revision of Mark, and the passage you cite isn't found in any other gospel. It didn't show up until at least 55 years after Jesus walked the earth). There is a reason that Luke, the least Jewish of the gospels, was so heavily used by the Marcionites. (I myself think the most consistent early form of Christianity was probably the Ebionites, as they at least tried to reconcile the Hebrew Scriptures with the teaching of the Jewish Jesus). I have supplied several statements attributed to Jesus that say the commandments of the OT should be kept. You have yet to cite a statement by Jesus that supports an alternate interpretation, as at most the Luke 24 passage points to Jesus showing the disciples he was the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies, not a new covenant himself.

I don't buy Paul's claim of special revelation, precisely because it doesn't match what is found in Gospels or the OT. I also don't buy the similar statements in Hebrews, as the theology clearly seems to follow in Paul's school of thought.

simon kole · 07-10-2011, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

If Paul was of the mind that Christians were not under any of the statutes of the Law, this bit from Acts seems a bit weird,

Quote:

17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

Paul seems to have lost a bit of his fire against the Law here. One would think that Paul would have refused to give an appearance of caring if Jews thought he was contradicting Moses and telling people that "circumcision profits nothing, but only faith in Christ", but here Paul just does what he's told and goes through with the purification. :huh:

This is supposed to be the same Paul who withstood Peter the Rock to his face for vacillating in his behavior when moving between groups of Jews and Gentiles.

Elsewhere Paul wrote about how he went up to Jerusalem to those who were "apostles" and told them how things were going to be concerning the Gospel.

Commence spin in 3...2...1...

Kinda' like the spin the chemistry teacher gives to the students on the table of elements, when they present questions about what they think is a conflict. . .

It's called answering the question. That's what answers do.

There are two issues with Paul:

1) requiring law keeping for righteousness (salvation) in Galations, specifically the law of circumcision, in addition to faith, by free grace. Paul is most emphatic that to add to free grace is to "fall from grace."

2) observing Jewish customs among law keepers for the sake of social acceptance among them in order to give them the gospel. This observance of Jewish customs is not for the sake of righteousness, but for the sake of acceptance among them.

That's all well and good, but Acts isn't just talking about some "law keepers" who wouldn't know any better about the teachings of Jesus, we're talking about James, who we would assume would have known that Jesus did away with the Law altogether.

So, if Jesus did away with the Law and let his disciples know about it when he was making known the secrets of the gospel, why would they still communicate to the Gentile converts -

Quote:

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Why would Gentiles saved through faith in Jesus need to eat Kosher meats? There seems to be some confusion on the part of those who were closest to Jesus on the super-cession of the Law by the death of Jesus.

Do you adhere to Kosher dietary laws as a Gentile believer in Jesus? Were you to be instrumental in converting a Jew to Christianity would you advise them to jettison all semblance of obedience to observing these things or would you think it acceptable to continue these observances of the Law?

The Gentiles didn't "need to" follow the decisions reached in Jerusalem anymore than Paul "needed to" observe Jewish custom while in Jerusalem. It was not about requirements "needed" for righteousness (salvation). It was about the "need" for two extremely different cultures in the local Christian churches to get along with each other.

Both Paul's practice of Jewish custom, as well as the Jerusalem leaders' decision, were about accommodation. Gentiles were weak in sexual morality, and the Jews were particularly repulsed by Gentile violations. Spiritual wisdom and spiritual expediency led the leaders and elders in Jerusalem to make these stipulations, for the sake of both the individual and the relationship between Gentile and Jew.

These were stipulations of expediency, which the leaders of the church had the authority to make, and likewise the authority to change. With time, these stipulations were no longer needed and were dropped.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.