Now that Im actually awake, Id like to hit on this post again, A.
HM, you are missing the entire point of Acts.
This seems to be your patent response any time I disagree with you. While I know that things ARENT always as they seem in scripture, Marks showing that Jesus said NO SIGN would be given that generation for example which doesnt give all of the relevant information, I also know that UNLESS there is a very good reason to question what is presented, that its typically presented just as things are intended.
One must understand another matter that troubled the early church-Gentiles were being confronted with keeping the Jewish law. Works of the law, the keeping of Sabbaths, dietary restrictions, the feasts, the cleansing rituals, circumcision, etc., were still permissible to the Jewish Christians who still wished to keep them. They had the freedom to do so. But trouble arose when these rituals were being forced on Gentile converts to Christianity.
So far, so good...we can easily conclude based on ALL of the relevant data, including Paul getting on Peter for his behavior concerning the Jews and gentiles, that there were issues like this.
"There rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them [Gentile Christians], and to command them to keep the Law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). The occasion for these words was the conference at the Church in Jerusalem. Some were saying Gentile Christians had to keep certain features of the Jewish law, and others were saying, not so."
ahhhh...NO. Not even a good try.
It doesnt say, A, 'keep certain features' of...it says 'keep the law'.
Lets NOT insert what ISNT present in the text.
Later in Acts 15 it is confirmed..."
saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law"
These believing pharisees were insisting that the gentiles obey the law....not tiny bits a pieces of it...and CERTAINLY not just the tidbits that ARMISTEAD needs for it to be.
Meanwhile, the controversy caused whiplash to those who were being yanked from one direction to another. The Jerusalem Conference was called by the Apostles to settle this controversy in clear, understandable terms for everyone. The conference ended with this message to all the churches: "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well" (Acts 15:29).
This part is in line with scripture. When hearing that some
believing pharisees were saying that the gentiles were to obey the LAW of Moses, the council decided, with the dirction of the Holy Spirit based on the later evidence, that only these FOUR things were to be observed instead.
Eating meat sold in the market place which had been offered to idols would not harm the individual in itself. However, if it offended another, it would be wrong to do. Paul clarifies the matter saying: "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. … Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh" (1 Cor. 8:4, 13).
1 Cor 10 has more evidence to consider on the topic...
Eat everything being sold in the meat market, questioning nothing, for conscience' sake; for "The earth is the LORD's, and all its fullness." And if any of the unbelievers invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, questioning nothing, for conscience' sake.
But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for his conscience' sake; for "The earth is the LORD's, and all its fullness." "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my freedom judged by another man's conscience?
(1Co 10:25-29 EMTV)
We are shown more here that
we arent to even ask about it.
If we know that it was offered to an idol then we arent to eat...if we are oblivious to it then it simply doesnt matter.
So we do understand that Acts 15 and the command to abstain from foods offered to idols is more about the other guy than ourselves, but we also NEED to obey the instruction.
This particular instruction is the ONLY one of the four given that seems to be strictly about the conscious of others.
But THAT is what the REST of the relevant data shows on this item.
"But that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood: James’ decision that Gentile believers should not be under the Mosaic Law is also tempered by practical instruction. The idea was that it was important that Gentile believers not act in a way that would antagonize the Jewish community in every city and destroy the church’s witness among Jews.
Im sorry, but this isnt entirely accurate.
Youre taking ONE point of the four and then interpreting the WHOLE of instruction based on that one....that isnt the whole picture here....blood has been forbidden the ENTIRE TIME that man has been allowed to eat meat. When God told Noah he could eat animals it was IMMEDIATELY commanded that we are NOT to eat the blood of the animal...this did not just come into place with the Law...
this command PREdates the law and thus isnt just about obedience TO the law.
" To abstain from things polluted by idols . . . from things strangled, and from blood: These three commands have to do with the eating habits of Gentile Christians. Though they were not bound under the Law of Moses, they were bound under the Law of Love. The Law of Love tells them, “don’t unnecessarily antagonize your Jewish neighbors, both in and out of the church. That is the message..it connects with the law of love.
Now youre trying to combine two entirely different issues to smokescreen the issue.
Foods offered to idols is CLEARLY about the other guys conscience.
Things strangled and the blood left in them has been FORBIDDEN for the ENTIRE TIME that man has been eating animals.
While the two are BOTH instructed to be abstain from, it isnt and doesnt have to be for the SAME EXACT sort of reasoning that they are.
One is about the other guys conscience...the OTHER is about a perpetual, ongoing COMMAND that predates the law to NOT eat BLOOD.
" To abstain from . . . sexual immorality: When James declares that they forbid the Gentile Christians to abstain from . . . sexual immorality, James is directing these Gentiles living in such close fellowship with the Jewish believers to observe the specific marriage regulations required by Leviticus 18, which prohibited marriages between most family relations. This was something that Jews would abhor, but most Gentiles would think little of."
Now this was where things got a bit funny for me.
*I* have been whining for days now that FORNICATION (Porneia/sexual immorality) is DEFINED in part BY the sexual prohibitions outlined in LEVITICUS and Im pretty sure that in at least one of your posts you tried to shoot that idea down...then you turn around and write this really long, somewhat inaccurate essay where YOU SHOW that fornication (porneia/sexual immorality) in Acts 15 IS DEFINED by the Levitical law !
YES, fornication/porneia/sexual immorality is DEFINED in part by the sexual prohibitions in the Mosaic code....but its humorous to see you try to LIMIT these to those YOU want to present from Lev 18, while you argue elsewhere that fornication DOESNT include the OTHER prohibition in that SAME chapter that men having sex with men is also sinful.
Can you show us just how you came to make this disctinction, armistead ?
Why is it that fornication in Acts 15 there includes SOME of the sexual restrictions in Lev 18 and not ALL of the prohibitions presented therein ?
Gentile Christians had the “right” to eat meat sacrificed to idols,
Please show evidence to support this 'right'.
to continue their marriage practices,
And this as well.
They had right to marry. They did not have Gods approval to marry unlawfully.
and to eat food without a kosher bleeding,
Eating blood has ALWAYS been forbidden since God told Noah we could eat meat.
And again I demand that you show us EVIDENCE for this assertion.
because these were aspects of the Mosaic law they definitely were not under.
Pretty funny.
The gentiles were under no compulsion to obey ANYTHING of God UNTIL they became followers. At that point they would have had to set ungodly things aside. Some of those things clearly are presented in Acts 15 to the YOUNG church.
However, they are encouraged to law down their “rights” in these matters as a display of love to their Jewish brethren.
In this they were keeping the law of love.
Their 'rights' ?
So based on your view of fornication/sexual immorality it was a 'right' of all gentiles to inbreed...to marry incestuously ?
That hardly sounds like a 'right' given by the church, A....especially seeing that the church was pretty young at this point.
I VERY seriously doubt that the previous thought was that the gentiles had a 'right' to marry their sisters.
Gentiles were not being told to follow the laws and customs of Jewish Christians who still chose to follow these commands. The goal was to encourage community between Jews and Gentiles, so they could worship together. Simply, they were told, out of love and peace, follow these things.
This is the one that kills me where the fornication/immorality point is concerned, but lets itemize the list....
-pollutions of idols
Foods offered to Idols is a no brainer...we can see in scripture that its about the other guys conscience. we can see how this one can be shown as being for 'getting along'...not only with Jews but with ANYONE whos conscience would be damaged by our eating these foods.
-things strangled
-blood
These two are absolutely based on different reasoning than the above and predate the law because eating meat with the blood in it has been forbidden the ENTIRE time man has been allowed to eat meat. Even tho many HAVE done so...that does NOT mean that they were doing it with GODS blessing. MANY godless men do MANY godless things...when they come TO God they have to lay those godless things aside.
This one has nothing to do with getting along but is a perpetual 'law' that goes along with eating meat from the very start.
-fornication
fornication is a 'right' of no one. GOD created marriage in the beginning and HE is the final authority on that union.
Using THIS one to 'get along' is absolutely absurd.
So...what...I cant marry or have sex with my mother or sister just to 'get along' with the Jews? 
Thats about as twisted as it gets. We dont commit fornication because it OFFENDS GOD.
I dont see any need to respond to the rest of the post at this point as Id just be repeating what Ive already said.
