When I saw the thread title "Gifts of the Spirit ceased at end of 1st century?" I was reminded of my surprise in reading Galatians 2:11-15. Here we have a letter from St Paul - at least as preserved for us in the bible - in which he accuses Cephas (which my commentary explains for me is Aramaic for St Peter) - of hypocrisy, in that he is prepared to eat with gentiles until some delegates from St James turn up to observe him doing so. This is of course a big moral question because of jewish dietary laws, and one which is supposed to have been settled by all these parties, because Paul had already been entrusted by James, Peter and John with the mission of spreading the gospel to the gentiles. I presume that I can identify the meeting in Galations 2:1-10 with that in Acts 15, which therefore post-dates the definitive resolution of dietary restrictions in Acts 11.
On the face of it, we cannot have both a believable bible and an infallible guide from the Holy Spirit, even at its height in guiding St Peter and St Paul about matters relevant to doctrine in the 1st century. What should I in fact learn from these passages? -- A.G.McDowell
<mcdowe...@mcdowella.demon.co.uk> wrote: >When I saw the thread title "Gifts of the Spirit ceased at end of 1st >century?" I was reminded of my surprise in reading Galatians 2:11-15. >Here we have a letter from St Paul - at least as preserved for us in the >bible - in which he accuses Cephas (which my commentary explains for me >is Aramaic for St Peter) - of hypocrisy, in that he is prepared to eat >with gentiles until some delegates from St James turn up to observe him >doing so. This is of course a big moral question because of jewish >dietary laws, and one which is supposed to have been settled by all >these parties, because Paul had already been entrusted by James, Peter >and John with the mission of spreading the gospel to the gentiles. I >presume that I can identify the meeting in Galations 2:1-10 with that in >Acts 15, which therefore post-dates the definitive resolution of dietary >restrictions in Acts 11.
Not sure the point you are trying to make here.
Acts 11 is about not calling any animals unclean. Acts 15 is about abstaining from food offered to idols, the meat from strangled animals and blood.
So its still ok to eat pork as long as these conditions are met.
John R (Ripon43) wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:49:53 +0000, "A.G.McDowell" > <mcdowe...@mcdowella.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> When I saw the thread title "Gifts of the Spirit ceased at end of 1st >> century?" I was reminded of my surprise in reading Galatians 2:11-15. >> Here we have a letter from St Paul - at least as preserved for us in >> the bible - in which he accuses Cephas (which my commentary explains >> for me is Aramaic for St Peter) - of hypocrisy, in that he is >> prepared to eat with gentiles until some delegates from St James >> turn up to observe him doing so. This is of course a big moral >> question because of jewish dietary laws, and one which is supposed >> to have been settled by all these parties, because Paul had already >> been entrusted by James, Peter and John with the mission of >> spreading the gospel to the gentiles. I presume that I can identify >> the meeting in Galations 2:1-10 with that in Acts 15, which >> therefore post-dates the definitive resolution of dietary >> restrictions in Acts 11.
> Not sure the point you are trying to make here.
> Acts 11 is about not calling any animals unclean. Acts 15 is about > abstaining from food offered to idols, the meat from strangled animals > and blood.
> So its still ok to eat pork as long as these conditions are met.
> John
What about black pudding? Is that wrong for Christians to eat?
When we transcribed the alien script we found that - .. -- Tim .-. had written:
> What about black pudding? Is that wrong for Christians to eat?
Yum! I really think Peter's vision covers it.
-- I am Robert Billing, Christian, author, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover. "It burned me from within. It quickened; I was with book as a woman is with child." Quality e-books for portable readers: http://www.alex-library.com
> Robert Billing wrote: >> When we transcribed the alien script we found that - .. -- Tim .-. >> had >> written:
>>> What about black pudding? Is that wrong for Christians to eat?
>> Yum! I really think Peter's vision covers it.
> If so, Peter must have been unaware of it, as his vision occurs prior to > the Jerusalem Council.
> Alwyn
Nothing that goes into a man defiles him. Perhaps the apostles forgot but the gospel author did not :-)
This is why the scripture is important, because it shows us that the apostles were not infallible (note to the Pope!) and tells us what the doctrine of the church should be.
Liberals claim to treat the scriptures with respect and yet we have at least one here who has said that he doesn't believe in an interventionist God, doesn't accept that anyone will be condemned and thinks that all the resurection texts were added on later by well meaning but sincerely wrong folks. Of course he also claims that his approach isn't "pick and mix" rotflmao.
<philip.saund...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >"Alwyn" <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message >news:q5bIm.43264$7Y2.2239@newsfe27.ams2... >> Robert Billing wrote: >>> When we transcribed the alien script we found that - .. -- Tim .-. >>> had >>> written:
>>>> What about black pudding? Is that wrong for Christians to eat?
>>> Yum! I really think Peter's vision covers it.
>> If so, Peter must have been unaware of it, as his vision occurs prior to >> the Jerusalem Council.
>> Alwyn
>Nothing that goes into a man defiles him. Perhaps the apostles forgot but >the gospel author did not :-)
>This is why the scripture is important, because it shows us that the >apostles were not infallible (note to the Pope!) and tells us what the >doctrine of the church should be.
Are you saying that James was wrong to say
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
Paul was present at that meeting and he didn't raise any objection.
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:47:51 GMT, "Phil Saunders" > <philip.saund...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>"Alwyn" <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:q5bIm.43264$7Y2.2239@newsfe27.ams2... >>> Robert Billing wrote: >>>> When we transcribed the alien script we found that - .. -- Tim .-. >>>> had >>>> written:
>>>>> What about black pudding? Is that wrong for Christians to eat?
>>>> Yum! I really think Peter's vision covers it.
>>> If so, Peter must have been unaware of it, as his vision occurs prior to >>> the Jerusalem Council.
>>> Alwyn
>>Nothing that goes into a man defiles him. Perhaps the apostles forgot but >>the gospel author did not :-)
>>This is why the scripture is important, because it shows us that the >>apostles were not infallible (note to the Pope!) and tells us what the >>doctrine of the church should be.
> Are you saying that James was wrong to say
> "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult > for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to > them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual > immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
> Paul was present at that meeting and he didn't raise any objection.
I am saying that James said it but it was not and is not a proper understanding or explanation of why one should abstain, as is later explained by Paul.
>Nothing that goes into a man defiles him. Perhaps the apostles forgot but >the gospel author did not :-)
>This is why the scripture is important, because it shows us that the >apostles were not infallible (note to the Pope!) and tells us what the >doctrine of the church should be.
To also answer another response, yes it is the admitted lack of infallibility that interests me - not so much with reference to the Pope in particular, but to the idea common to many varieties of Christianity that the Holy Spirit guides both individual believers and, in a more reliable fashion, the church as a whole. The behaviour of an apostle exercising influence over others in doctrinal matters seems to be to be as good a candidate for the influence of the Holy Spirit as possible, but here we have a failure.
>Liberals claim to treat the scriptures with respect and yet we have at least >one here who has said that he doesn't believe in an interventionist God, >doesn't accept that anyone will be condemned and thinks that all the >resurection texts were added on later by well meaning but sincerely wrong >folks. Of course he also claims that his approach isn't "pick and mix" >rotflmao.
>Phil
Here we can presume that a single failure was corrected, but a double failure would have led to an uncorrected error, preserved in scripture, and presumably in this case two different classes of Christian. This lends plausibility to the idea that e.g. resurrection texts could be the product of uncorrected errors. -- A.G.McDowell
>> "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult >> for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to >> them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual >> immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
>> Paul was present at that meeting and he didn't raise any objection.
>I am saying that James said it but it was not and is not a proper >understanding or explanation of why one should abstain, as is later >explained by Paul.
The difficulty I have is that In Acts 15:28 the letter said "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us...." but in Timothy 1 Timothy 4:3-4 Paul says what you have stated. Also Jesus said something similar in Matthew 15:11
The question is, was James wrong to say it, was it good to the Holy Spirit, and if not why is it in the bible?
>>> "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult >>> for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to >>> them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual >>> immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
>>> Paul was present at that meeting and he didn't raise any objection.
>>I am saying that James said it but it was not and is not a proper >>understanding or explanation of why one should abstain, as is later >>explained by Paul.
> The difficulty I have is that In Acts 15:28 the letter said "It seemed > good to the Holy Spirit and us...." but in Timothy 1 Timothy 4:3-4 > Paul says what you have stated. Also Jesus said something similar in > Matthew 15:11
> The question is, was James wrong to say it, was it good to the Holy > Spirit, and if not why is it in the bible?
It was an accomodation, ordained of God, to allow time for the Jews and the Gentiles to come together in the church.
However it was not a permanent accomodation.
In the same way one does not eat meat when one has a vegetarian brother to dinner, that does not mean that one never eats meat.
In message <VyhpoXAhlI8KF...@mcdowella.demon.co.uk> "A.G.McDowell" <mcdowe...@mcdowella.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On the face of it, we cannot have both a believable bible and an > infallible guide from the Holy Spirit, even at its height in guiding St > Peter and St Paul about matters relevant to doctrine in the 1st century. > What should I in fact learn from these passages?
That the first pope was not infallible, so his successors are even less likely to be so.
In message <4hk5f5d1rcp0abth5uj79udid0tmo76...@4ax.com> "John R (Ripon43)" <ripo...@spam.net> wrote:
> The question is, was James wrong to say it, was it good to the Holy > Spirit, and if not why is it in the bible?
I think you're getting a trifle muddled. In Acts the question was "What can Christians eat?" whereas in Galatians the question was "With whom can Christians eat?" Two different questions, so it is hardly surprising if there are two different answers.
Paul did not upbraid Peter for suddenly refusing to eat meats offered to idols, but for refusing to eat anything at all with Gentile Christians. Both James and Paul were right and were led by the Holy Spirit: James was right to impose certain restrictions on *what* Christians could eat or do, Paul was right to insist that Christians, whatever their race, can eat together.
|
