Acts 15 Noachide Laws (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Bible



Message

Bluethread -> Acts 15 Noachide Laws (9/20/2008 4:23:18 PM)

Acts 15:29 "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."

After hearing testimony regarding the acceptance of gentiles into the community the Jerusalem council gave these instructions to the gentile believers. These instructions have been used to justify any number of views on how we as followers of Yeshua(Jesus) should live. These views are not limited to differences over whether not one should keep Ha Torah(the Mosaic law), but touch on other disagreements. Therefore, it might be best if we discussed the proper interpretation of this verse in it's own thread. Again, we need to focus on this passage and take any extended arguments over keeping Ha Torah to that thread.

Reasonable men have differed on questions regarding; Why these four?, Is this all the gentile must do?, Is this the rule for both Gentile and Jew?, Is this a list of "laws" or just suggestions, etc.



drmark -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/20/2008 10:01:36 PM)

Before we begin, why do you title this OP "Naochide Laws"? When I first saw the title I thought you had misspelled Noachian, but now I suspect this is a technical/historical term of sorts.

I just had another curiosity question. Why did Paul use the specific example of food sacrificed to idols in his discussion of freedom from legalism in 1 Cor chapter 8? Did he write those instructions before the Jerusalem Council or was it a thinly disguised effort to undermine a policy he disagreed with?



LBolt -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/20/2008 10:26:28 PM)

This is a interesting topic amongst Messianics with regards to the non-Jews, drmark. It's very interesting and really needs to be addressed.

With regard to Acts 15, we must remember that these new converts came out of a system of worship which promoted Temple prostitution to the diety and had feasts dedicated to these deities. In order to acclimate them into the kingdom of Elohim they were given some basics (all coming from Lev. 17-19) in order for them to follow so that they could behave order in the assembly of believers. As Torah was read ever Sabbath, they would learn more of how to live.

It should be noted Torah scrolls or the Scrolls of the prophets or the Writings were not easy to come by. These were very costly items and the average person did not own one. Which made synagogue attendance very crucial to one's learning the Ways and instructions of Elohim. We are very privelegde today in that the Scriptures are readily available to us.

This passages was dealing with whether circumcision was required for salvation and conversion and whether one had to obey the Oral Law to be saved. It was the Oral Law that was the burden that the Apostles did not want the new converts to bear...that was a burden for "our fathers to bear" and not the TaNaKH. Moshe declared in Deut. 30 or 31 that Yah's instructions were not too hard to do. Yahusha declared that His yoke was easy and burden light. Yahusha taught and lived a Torah observant lifestyle and so did His disciples. As they discipled, they instructed believers to follow them. That's what a discipleship relationship is all about.

There is a wide debate and much difference regarding the "Noachide laws" and who they pertain to.



Bluethread -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/21/2008 2:46:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Before we begin, why do you title this OP "Naochide Laws"? When I first saw the title I thought you had misspelled Noachian, but now I suspect this is a technical/historical term of sorts.

I just had another curiosity question. Why did Paul use the specific example of food sacrificed to idols in his discussion of freedom from legalism in 1 Cor chapter 8? Did he write those instructions before the Jerusalem Council or was it a thinly disguised effort to undermine a policy he disagreed with?


I changed the name of the thread, I hope that will make it more understandable. Noachide is also a misnomer. In my opinion, these rules have nothing to do with Noach. They were simply attributed to Noach in an attempt give them credability as an alternative to Ha Torah for the gentiles.

Regarding you reference to Paul's discussion of disputed matters. I believe he is refering to actual disputed matters of the time, not all matters on which one might choose to have a dispute. In 1Cor 8, I believe, Paul is clarifying the decision of the Jerusalem council. Paul tells us why gentiles were advised to not eat food sacrificed to idols. It was not because these foods were unclean, but because it might cause astumbling block for new converts who remembered eating such foods at the feasts in honor of the gods. So, Paul is not contradicting the council but explaining it's decision as later chapters of Acts tell us he did.



drmark -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/21/2008 8:13:14 AM)

quote:

Reasonable men have differed on questions regarding; Why these four?,
I'm still a bit puzzled as to why these four laws are referred to as "Noachide". The only command that appears to relate to Noah's time is Gen 9:4 - "Do not eat meat with the lifeblood in it". Thus food offered to idols and sexual immorality are not "Noachide". Indeed, there was no idol worship by the Flood survivors and incest would be required to repopulate the world!



Covaan_Meshuga -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/21/2008 12:41:54 PM)

Hi, Mark. The name, Noachide, for the "laws" is an old one. I, personally, have never looked into the Noachide Laws, because I find them to be irrelevant. I am not sure when they were first written down, but it was around 300-400 c.e., and it had nothing to do with Acts, which their writers/thinkers did not consider to be Scripture or consider to be relevant. Also, there were seven ideas within the Noachide Laws, not just four.

(Blue and Bolt, are there really people who connect that Paul taught with the Noachide Laws?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
I just had another curiosity question. Why did Paul use the specific example of food sacrificed to idols in his discussion of freedom from legalism in 1 Cor chapter 8? Did he write those instructions before the Jerusalem Council or was it a thinly disguised effort to undermine a policy he disagreed with?


But, Mark, when Paul talked about food, he was thinking with a Hebrew mind, not one like the modern American, who thinks that everything from pig to snake to snail to chicken is food. The Hebrew mind knew, understood, and could not fathom otherwise, that the meat within food included only what G-d said to eat. Paul never ONCE went against what G-d said to do, nor did Messiah.



LBolt -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/21/2008 8:57:20 PM)

quote:

(Blue and Bolt, are there really people who connect that Paul taught with the Noachide Laws?)


Actually...yes.

I read a book by a Messianic scholar who believes that Acts 15 is proof that gentiles were are only required to keep the Noachide laws and not the Torah. The author of the book slips my mind right now. Everything else in the book had solid information. But yes, there are some who believe that Torah is only for the Jews. I believe DaveW's assembly hold this teaching. I'm waiting to hear from him regarding in this particular thread.

It just goes to show you that we do not have it all and that there is much more for us to learn, more wrinkles to be ironed out.

I really see this as a double standard. Why would Elohim put a division between Jew and non-Jew with regard to His teachings and instructions? How many wills does He have?



drmark -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/21/2008 10:12:46 PM)

quote:

The name, Noachide, for the "laws" is an old one.
So it derives from rabbinic tradition, because I'm still not finding anything in Genesis 9 to support two of the four or seven or however many there are.

quote:

I, personally, have never looked into the Noachide Laws, because I find them to be irrelevant.
Why is that, Abiyah?

quote:

when Paul talked about food, he was thinking with a Hebrew mind, not one like the modern American, who thinks that everything from pig to snake to snail to chicken is food.
I'm sorry, but I'm not getting this. Acts 15:20 and 15:29 states "food polluted by or sacrificed to idols". Paul also states "food sacrificed to idols" in 1 Cor 8:1, 4, 7, and 10. Paul does not use the word "meat" until his summary statement of application in 8:13. So again I ask, why is Paul apparently contradicting the Jerusalem Council's directions about 5 years after they were disseminated?



Covaan_Meshuga -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/22/2008 12:05:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Abiyah
(Blue and Bolt, are there really people who connect that Paul taught with the Noachide Laws?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LBolt
Actually...yes.

I read a book by a Messianic scholar who believes that Acts 15 is proof that gentiles were are only required to keep the Noachide laws and not the Torah.

Then a really question his/her scholarship -- strongly. In my opinion, the writer forgot to read the rest of the Acts story, which clearly states that the Gentiles who joined their synagogue would learn the rest as they continued to go to services on Shabbat. As much as I love Dave, I hope that this does not bother him, but this is right there in Scripture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LBolt
I really see this as a double standard. Why would Elohim put a division between Jew and non-Jew with regard to His teachings and instructions? How many wills does He have?

Indeed! Why would He provide two ways of salvation? Two set of rules? Especially when all people throughout history who threw in with Israel were required to follow all of Torah.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Abiyah
The name, Noachide, for the "laws" is an old one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
So it derives from rabbinic tradition, because I'm still not finding anything in Genesis 9 to support two of the four or seven or however many there are.

It is a rabbinc tradition, and exactly -- there is nothing in the Bible to support it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Abiyah
I, personally, have never looked into the Noachide Laws, because I find them to be irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Why is that, Abiyah?

I don't have time to look into everything that is, in my opinion, false teaching, because I'm already running too hard trying to just unlearn the bad teachings in my own life and to learn the Truth. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Abiyah
when Paul talked about food, he was thinking with a Hebrew mind, not one like the modern American, who thinks that everything from pig to snake to snail to chicken is food.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
I'm sorry, but I'm not getting this. Acts 15:20 and 15:29 states "food polluted by or sacrificed to idols". Paul also states "food sacrificed to idols" in 1 Cor 8:1, 4, 7, and 10. Paul does not use the word "meat" until his summary statement of application in 8:13. So again I ask, why is Paul apparently contradicting the Jerusalem Council's directions about 5 years after they were disseminated?

The word we translate to meat can intend any food or it can intend meat from a beast, depending upon context.

When the pagans sacrifice, they may sacrifice anything, from vegetable to fruit to meat to hallucinogens to other items. And in those times, the markets where people shopped sold all kinds of things, some of which had been first sacrificed to idols.

Paul, if he had contradicted the council, would have been reprobate; but Paul did not do that at any time. I was talking about meat because other matter cannot become biblically nonkosher unless it comes in contact with nonkosher meats.



drmark -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/22/2008 8:20:11 AM)

quote:

I don't have time to look into everything that is, in my opinion, false teaching
Since abstaining from sexual immorality is not a false teaching, how does one determine which of the four specific rules in Acts 15 may be irrelevant for each individual.

quote:

Paul, if he had contradicted the council, would have been reprobate
Maybe I am reading the passage all wrong, but Paul states in 1 Cor 8:7-12 that we are no worse if we eat this food or abstain and that the only sin comes from being seen eating this food by a weaker brother who may be emboldened to sin. I see no qualifications to the rule regarding food offered to idols which relates to merely causing our weaker brother to sin. So why wasn't Paul reprobate in tacitly allowing the stronger brother to eat the forbidden food?



ta_mosquito -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/22/2008 10:17:22 AM)

MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE

This thread is getting very close to being redirected to the "Keeping the Law" one stop thread.

Please refrain from making statements about how there is one Law for Jews and Gentiles, about whether or not Gentiles were required to keep the Torah, etc. as these belong in the one-stop thread.

You may keep this thread on the topic of whether those four guidelines are all or if there were more, what they mean, etc. but if the thread continues in the vein of whether or not these are the guidelines for Gentiles or if Gentiles must keep the Torah, it will be closed and redirected.

Thanks!

Tricia
Forums Moderator

Please do not reply to this message within the forums or chat.

Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.

Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.



Covaan_Meshuga -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/22/2008 10:34:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
I don't have time to look into everything that is, in my opinion, false teaching

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Surely you do not think abstaining from sexual immorality is a false teaching!

Mark, I prefer not to remember that you have, in the past, taken my words and tried to twist them into saying something I never said. I really want to think of you as a friend, but you have done this again right here. Are you seriously unaware of what you are doing, or is this deliberate? I need an answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
Paul, if he had contradicted the council, would have been reprobate

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Maybe I am reading the passage all wrong, but Paul states in 1 Cor 8:7-12 that we are no worse if we eat this food or abstain and that the only sin comes from being seen eating this food by a weaker brother who may be emboldened to sin. I see no qualifications to any of the four rules listed in Acts 15.

Furthermore, if someone believes the four rules are "irrelevant" and "false teaching", why would they accuse anyone who contradicted the Council to be "reprobate"?

Again, I ask the same question: Are you seriously unaware of what you are doing, or is this deliberate? I need an answer.



drmark -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/22/2008 11:37:23 AM)

Abiyah, I have edited my post #10 to avoid the appearance of evil. I do not "try to twist" anyone's words. You are one of the experts on the subject of this particular thread and I am truly interested in understanding other Christians' attitudes toward apparent contradictions in Scripture. Thank you for your forgiveness.



Bluethread -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/22/2008 3:43:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Paul, if he had contradicted the council, would have been reprobate


Maybe I am reading the passage all wrong, but Paul states in 1 Cor 8:7-12 that we are no worse if we eat this food or abstain and that the only sin comes from being seen eating this food by a weaker brother who may be emboldened to sin. I see no qualifications to the rule regarding food offered to idols which relates to merely causing our weaker brother to sin. So why wasn't Paul reprobate in tacitly allowing the stronger brother to eat the forbidden food?


A common mistake in interpreting Scripture is to take the simple literal interpretation and not take grammar, culture and context into account. For example, to presume that the council's decision was presented as a word for word legal document that must be adhered to to the letter without any interpretation whatsoever, does not take the nature of the dispute or the actions following into account.

It is my opinion that the decision was a summary of the most difficult issues of the time and must be understood in that context. That is why Paul, Barnabas, Judas and Silas were sent with the letter to clear up any misunderstanding that might result from a misreading of the document.

I believe, this is what Paul is doing in 1 Cor 8.



drmark -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/22/2008 4:16:15 PM)

quote:

It is my opinion that the decision was a summary of the most difficult issues of the time and must be understood in that context. That is why Paul, Barnabas, Judas and Silas were sent with the letter to clear up any misunderstanding that might result from a misreading of the document.

I believe, this is what Paul is doing in 1 Cor 8.
Well, 1 Cor 8 certainly doesn't clear up my misunderstanding! I guess I'll just have to look at some other commentaries since I'm not getting much help here. Thanks any way, folks.



LBolt -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/22/2008 8:38:15 PM)

Hey Drmark, what translation are you getting
quote:

Acts 15:20 and 15:29 states "food polluted by or sacrificed to idols". Paul also states "food sacrificed to idols" in 1 Cor 8:1, 4, 7, and 10
from?

The word translated "meat" in I Cor. 8:13 is the Greek word "broma." According to the Strongs Exhaustive Concordance, broma means articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish Law.

Here's an interesting quote from a commentary on I Corinthians 8 regarding the Corinthian culture.

quote:

"...it must be observed that it was a custom among the heathens to make feast on their sacrifices, and not only to eat themselves, but invite their friends to partake with them. These were usually kept in the temple, where the sacrifice was offered (v. 10), and, if any thing was left when the feast ended, it was usual to carry away a portion to friends...feasts...were always accounted, among the heathen, sacred and religious things, so that they were wont to sacrifice before all their feasts; and it was accounted as profane thing among them...to eat private tables any meat whereof they had not first sacrificed on such occasions...In this circumstance of things, while Christians lived amongst idolaters, had many relations and friends that were such, with whom they must keep up acquaintance and maintain good neighborhood, and therefore have occasion to eat at their tables, what should they do if any thing that had been sacrificed should be set before them? What, if they should be invited to feast with them in their temples? It seems as if some of the Corintians had imbibed an opinion that even this might be done, because they knew an idol was nothing in the world, v. 4. The apostle seems to answer more directly to the case (ch. 10), and here to argue, upon supposition of their being right in this thought, against their abuse of their liberty to the prejudice of others; but he plainly condemns such liberty in ch. 10. The apostle introduces his discourse with some remarks about knowledge that seem to carry in them a censure of such pretences to knowledge as I have mentioned: We know, says the apostle, that we all have knowledge (v.1); as if he had said,'You who take such liberty are not the only knowing persons; we who abstain know as much as you of the vanity of idols, and that they are nothing; but we know too that the liberty you take is culpable, and that even lawful liberty must be used with charity and not to the prejudice of weaker brethern"


This is from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition.

What you see is that some Corinthians believers continued to participate in idolatry claiming that it was alright because they 'knew' the idols were nothing. The prohibition was not just limited to meats but idolatry at large. This is also known as spiritual whoredoms or adultery. The apostle's rationale seems to be rooted Exodus 34:15-16. YHVH had already established a sacrificial system and provided for eating meat from His sacrifices. Passover seems to attest to this with the eating of the lamb.

quote:

MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE

This thread is getting very close to being redirected to the "Keeping the Law" one stop thread.

Please refrain from making statements about how there is one Law for Jews and Gentiles, about whether or not Gentiles were required to keep the Torah, etc. as these belong in the one-stop thread.

You may keep this thread on the topic of whether those four guidelines are all or if there were more, what they mean, etc. but if the thread continues in the vein of whether or not these are the guidelines for Gentiles or if Gentiles must keep the Torah, it will be closed and redirected.

Thanks!

Tricia
Forums Moderator


When dealing with "Noachide Laws" it somewhat borders on discussing Torah because this subject is very much related...I'll try to be mindful of your admonishment. [:D]



Covaan_Meshuga -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/23/2008 12:21:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Abiyah, I have edited my post #10 to avoid the appearance of evil. I do not "try to twist" anyone's words. You are one of the experts on the subject of this particular thread and I am truly interested in understanding other Christians' attitudes toward apparent contradictions in Scripture. Thank you for your forgiveness.

First, Mark, I am not an expert. I clearly stated that I have not looked into the Noachide Law because I find them irrelevant (see post 6, paragraph 1). Further, I stated that in my opinion, they have nothing whatsoever to do with Acts (see post 6, paragraph 1).

I really came here to read what Bluethread had to write, because he knows more than I do about the subject or he would not have started it, I presumed. Then, after being here, I decided to ask the question of Bluethread and LBolt, which I asked in post 6, then to answer you because you are a friend and I saw you here after coming. I have nothing to teach here but also came here to learn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga, post 9, re the Noachide Laws
I don't have time to look into everything that is, in my opinion, false teaching

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark, in the rewritten post 10
Since abstaining from sexual immorality is not a false teaching, how does one determine which of the four specific rules in Acts 15 may be irrelevant for each individual.

I was writing about the Noachide Laws, Mark. The reason false doctrine works is because it always carries with it a little truth, and this is what can confuse the reader/hearer. I was not writing about Acts 15. You changed the subject to Acts 15.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga, post 9, in answer to Mark's question about Acts 15 and 1 Corinthians 8
Paul, if he had contradicted the council, would have been reprobate

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark in answer to the above
Maybe I am reading the passage all wrong, but Paul states in 1 Cor 8:7-12 that we are no worse if we eat this food or abstain and that the only sin comes from being seen eating this food by a weaker brother who may be emboldened to sin. I see no qualifications to the rule regarding food offered to idols which relates to merely causing our weaker brother to sin. So why wasn't Paul reprobate in tacitly allowing the stronger brother to eat the forbidden food?

In order to understand the passage you brought up here, you cannot begin with verse 7, but you must back up to at least verse 4, and you need to understand what was going on. Every family was not a farming family, so these had to buy their meat at the market, just as we must. Paul is not going against the counsel when he tells them that the idols that the meat may have been sacrificed to are nothing. Sure, in Acts 15, the people were told not to eat things that were strangled, but not all meat that was sacrificed to idols was strangled. Such meat as that strangled retains large quantities of blood and purposely eating blood is absolutely forbidden.

Paul says that there is one G-d and all other gods are nothing, so big deal if something was eaten, then it was discovered that it had been sacrificed. The only precautions about this were stated in that if one of the believers had a weakness regarding meat sacrificed to these non-existent gods, then they were to avoid eating it in order not to trouble that believer.

Paul was writing, in the verses you brought up, about food offered to idols, not kosher and nonkosher foods.



PopsiLufsJesus -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/23/2008 12:25:28 AM)

Exactly. I was just reading that today.



drmark -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/23/2008 9:00:16 AM)

quote:

Paul is not going against the counsel when he tells them that the idols that the meat may have been sacrificed to are nothing.
So this is like a "don't ask and don't tell" policy (1 Cor 10:27). Paul is teaching the Corinthians not to worry about the Jerusalem Council's guidelines for food sacrificed to idols and bloody meat as long as you worship the One and Only Lord. Is that a fair understanding of the 1 Cor 8 and 10 passages? And is it also fair to say that some of the Corinthian congegration lived in a cultural setting that precluded them from raising their own food so they had no control over how it was prepared or handled? If true, then would you agree that Paul is setting a precedent here for other (gentile) Christians not to worry about authoritative church teachings when they may be socially or culturally impractical to comply with?



Deleted User -> [Deleted] (9/23/2008 10:09:31 AM)

[Deleted by Admins]



Covaan_Meshuga -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/23/2008 10:34:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
Paul is not going against the counsel when he tells them that the idols that the meat may have been sacrificed to are nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
So this is like a "don't ask and don't tell" policy (1 Cor 10:27). Paul is teaching the Corinthians not to worry about the Jerusalem Council's guidelines for food sacrificed to idols and bloody meat as long as you worship the One and Only Lord.

Once again, Mark, I repeat that they were to stay away from meats that were strangled, because strangulation left a lot of blood in the meat. I don't know how many way to say that so that it is understood.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Is that a fair understanding of the 1 Cor 8 and 10 passages? And is it also fair to say that some of the Corinthian congegration lived in a cultural setting that precluded them from raising their own food so they had no control over how it was prepared or handled?

Yes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
If true, then would you agree that Paul is setting a precedent here for other (gentile) Christians not to worry about authoritative church teachings when they may be socially or culturally impractical to comply with?

No.
(1) There was no such thing as "church" then. Church is a later invention. Acts 15 is a ruling by leaders of believing synagogues for those Jews and Gentiles who attended in them.
(2) Furthermore, I Corinthians was not written to Gentiles only; it was also written to Jews.
(3) What one eats as a follower of the Bible, when it pertains to what the Bible says about eating, is not a social or cultural decision. Kosher is kosher; nonkosher is nonkosher.



Covaan_Meshuga -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/23/2008 10:41:56 AM)

Emerging, that is a real interesting take on the subject, but it leaves out much of Jewish teaching and Jewish understanding even though the passage was written by Jews to Jews and Gentiles about Jews and Gentiles worshiping G-d together in a Jewish context. Thank you for letting me see your views.



drmark -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/23/2008 1:27:39 PM)

quote:

I was writing about the Noachide Laws, Mark. The reason false doctrine works is because it always carries with it a little truth, and this is what can confuse the reader/hearer. I was not writing about Acts 15. You changed the subject to Acts 15.
Now I am completely confused, Abiyah! The title of the OP is "Acts 15 Noachide Laws". How can I possibly change the subject when this is the title of the thread? Would any other "expert" be able to explain the Biblical relationship between Noachide Laws, Acts 15, and Genesis 9:4?

quote:

Once again, Mark, I repeat that they were to stay away from meats that were strangled, because strangulation left a lot of blood in the meat. I don't know how many way to say that so that it is understood.
But how does anyone know if meat is strangled unless they specifically ask? That's all I'm pointing out. This rule appears to me to be mostly unenforceable.

quote:

3 of the four are easy to understand: abstain from idols, blood (murder), and sexual immorality (adultery, etc.)
This is nice symbolism, emerging, but the vast majority of modern translations use "eating food sacrificed to idols and eating blood", not idolatry and murder. Since the original text does not contain the Greek word for "eating", are you suggesting that newer translations are incorrect? Surely the Jerusalem Council would not have to reconfirm two of the Ten Commandments!

quote:

For starters, it means that the objective of the Council was met - table fellowship was now underway. There was now no longer a need to be so sensitive over these matters of who is eating what and how it is prepared.
But in 1 Cor 8 and 10 Paul is already encouraging table fellowship with his "don't ask and don't tell policy" and this comes only 5 years after the Council's meeting! Does anyone else besides me see that this appears to be a thinly veiled re-interpretation of the Acts 15 prohibitions?

quote:

(1) There was no such thing as "church" then. Church is a later invention. Acts 15 is a ruling by leaders of believing synagogues for those Jews and Gentiles who attended in them.
So "believing synagogues" were not considered "church" back then? Abiyah, I'm not tying to twist your words but this sure sounds like "church" to me! A local group of Christians worshipping and fellowshipping together under the distant authority of duly-appointed leaders who could establish recommended policies for the benefit of all. I see this church structure working well today in many denominations!

quote:

(3) What one eats as a follower of the Bible, when it pertains to what the Bible says about eating, is not a social or cultural decision.
Yet the Jerusalem Council stated that eating strangled meat must be avoided. Since Acts 15 is now canonized in Scripture, does this pertain to what the Bible says about eating? Or do we apply social or cultural qualifiers as Paul did in 1 Cor 8 and 10 when he laid out the "don't ask and don't tell policy"?



PopsiLufsJesus -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/23/2008 1:29:32 PM)

I was just reading Acts 15 over again. And I think the strangulation thing is mentioned more than once in Acts, but it came to my attention that the verse makes perfect sense, at least about the strangled things. Because somewhere in the Word, and I am not sure where, but it says that life is in the blood and we are not to eat anything with blood, right? So if through strangulation the blood is still quite present...then it would make sense why this would have been a command? Right?



Bluethread -> RE: Naochide Laws (9/23/2008 5:19:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Would any other "expert" be able to explain the Biblical relationship between Noachide Laws, Acts 15, and Genesis 9:4?


I am not really an expert on the "Noachide Laws" and I hope Abiyah doesn't mind me jumping in here to clear a few things up.

It might have been better if I would have just put Acts 15 in as the title. I put Noachide Laws in because I expected those who see Acts 15 in this light to respond. There does not appear to be what happened. However, what is done is done.

Let me try to bring things together regarding the "Noachide Laws". Then maybe we can move on. As Abiyah has pointed out some rabbis derived certain laws which they propose were Adonai's commandments to all of mankind. Some believe this was an attempt to give the Gentiles a law so they would not "corrupt" Ha Torah. As Abiyah has also pointed out the relationship of these "laws" to Noach is questionable.

That said, some have taken this concept and have applied it to Acts 15 to explain the appearant differences between it and Ha Torah. That is one of the issues I expected to be raised with regard to this passage. Now again discussions of Ha Torah need to be discussed in the law thread in the doctrine forum.

So, unless or until someone wishes to make that connection between the "Noachide Laws" and Acts 15, there is no need to discuss them further here.



quote:

But in 1 Cor 8 and 10 Paul is already encouraging table fellowship with his "don't ask and don't tell policy" and this comes only 5 years after the Council's meeting! Does anyone else besides me see that this appears to be a thinly veiled re-interpretation of the Acts 15 prohibitions?


I don't believe Paul is proposing a "don't ask and don't tell policy", but was clarifying the intent of the directions. The council was not saying the associating of clean things with unclean things makes them unclean. What they were saying is that until people understand that this rabbinic principle is incorrect it is best to error on the side of caution.



quote:

So "believing synagogues" were not considered "church" back then? Abiyah, I'm not tying to twist your words but this sure sounds like "church" to me! A local group of Christians worshipping and fellowshipping together under the distant authority of duly-appointed leaders who could establish recommended policies for the benefit of all. I see this church structure working well today in many denominations!


Abiyah can correct me if this is not her meaning, but, I think the point is that the term "church" carries many connotations in addition the charaacteristics you point out. It is these connotations that can lead to a misunderstanding of the gatherings of believers in Paul's time.

quote:

Yet the Jerusalem Council stated that eating strangled meat must be avoided. Since Acts 15 is now canonized in Scripture, does this pertain to what the Bible says about eating? Or do we apply social or cultural qualifiers as Paul did in 1 Cor 8 and 10 when he laid out the "don't ask and don't tell policy"?


This is what I was talking about when I said the simple literal approach to interpreting the Scriptures can lead us astray. In the letter they say they didn't want to bother them with anything but the listed things and the were sending four people to affirm theire words and intent. The context and the fact that they sent Paul and others leads me to believe that what Paul says in the later epistles are clarifications rather than contradictions of these the councils decision.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI