Acts 15. Blood, things strangled etc. [Christian Response Please]

JimiTime

Full Chapter here.

This chapter provokes a few questions.

1) Jesus says that what we eat does not defile us. So why the 'no blood, strangled animals' etc?

2) Peter says that the gentiles were not distinguished from the Jew when God gave them his Holy Spirit. So why, after saying this (In response to Jews who wanted them to be circumcised), did he then say about the blood etc?

3) James is the one who mentions these things, and Paul etc agrees. Could it be wrong? If not, then why can't we eat things strangled etc? Also, does this mean a Christian should not eat black pudding etc? These meat laws given in the NT are never really talked about, and I'm not aware of Christians, like Jews or muslims, making sure their meat is in line with these commands.

Would love to hear your insights.
Cheers.

PDN

Hi Jimi,
There are some Christian groups today that do observe food laws - the Seventh Day Adventists would probably be the largest of these.

Given the historical context of Acts Chapter 15, and also taking into account Galatians, I think the prohibition against eating blood was a sensible move to smooth over the difficulties that Jews had with Gentiles coming into the Church.

Many Jews struggled with the idea of Gentiles becoming part of the Church without getting circumcised. We know that a group of Judaisers were still pressing this issue at the time when Paul wrote Galatians. But the Jews would have found the idea of eating blood to be so culturally repulsive that it would have caused a huge rift between Jewish and Gentile believers, thereby scuppering the establishment of a universal church and condemning Christianity to remain for ever as a sect within Judaism.

Now that particular historical bridge has long gone, and in fact your post has put the idea of black pudding in my head - so I'm off to the kitchen to put the frying pan on!

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Hi Jimi,
There are some Christian groups today that do observe food laws - the Seventh Day Adventists would probably be the largest of these.

They still hold to Levitical food law though. I'm more specifically talking about what the NT says. While all was 'made clean', it was still said that blood and things strangled etc were to be abstained from.

Given the historical context of Acts Chapter 15, and also taking into account Galatians, I think the prohibition against eating blood was a sensible move to smooth over the difficulties that Jews had with Gentiles coming into the Church.

Is this simply an assumption? Why would you not simply think it applies to us now?

Many Jews struggled with the idea of Gentiles becoming part of the Church without getting circumcised. We know that a group of Judaisers were still pressing this issue at the time when Paul wrote Galatians. But the Jews would have found the idea of eating blood to be so culturally repulsive that it would have caused a huge rift between Jewish and Gentile believers, thereby scuppering the establishment of a universal church and condemning Christianity to remain for ever as a sect within Judaism.

Again, I understand what you are saying, but why would you interpret it so? Why would you not simply think it applies? Does it not scupper Pauls whole point? He is on one hand talking about faith, and having to tell the Galatians off about law observance etc, but on the other hand, he left some of the law in to pacify the Jews?

Now that particular historical bridge has long gone, and in fact your post has put the idea of black pudding in my head - so I'm off to the kitchen to put the frying pan on!

Had some white pudding for lunch myself. Tasty!

wolfsbane

JimiTime wrote: »

Full Chapter here.

This chapter provokes a few questions.

1) Jesus says that what we eat does not defile us. So why the 'no blood, strangled animals' etc?

2) Peter says that the gentiles were not distinguished from the Jew when God gave them his Holy Spirit. So why, after saying this (In response to Jews who wanted them to be circumcised), did he then say about the blood etc?

3) James is the one who mentions these things, and Paul etc agrees. Could it be wrong? If not, then why can't we eat things strangled etc? Also, does this mean a Christian should not eat black pudding etc? These meat laws given in the NT are never really talked about, and I'm not aware of Christians, like Jews or muslims, making sure their meat is in line with these commands.

Would love to hear your insights.
Cheers.

This puzzled me for many years. Was it just an accommodation to the weak conscience of the Jews? Or was it a reminder of laws that applied to both Jew and Gentile?

I found the answer when I realised the implication of the creationist account of history in regard to life and death. The prohibition on blood and things strangled is not a leftover from Moses, but a universal law applying from the time that animals were first given to man as food. Until the Flood man was vegetarian - the creation ordinance. But when he came out of the ark, God gave man all other creatures as food:
Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

From this text and the more elaborate ones in Moses' Law, it seems the prohibition on blood is a mark of respect for the animal and for just how grave a matter it is to kill what God gave breath. We should eat an animal with the consciousness of our fall and God's mercy.

This shows too the reason for the prohibition on things strangled - the creature and God were disrespected in the killing. Its life, as represented by its blood, was treated with contempt.

So, Yes, we ought not to eat black pudding. I ate it in ignorance in times past, but not since. This realisation also made me wary of 'blood sports', the killing of animals can be for fun rather than of necessity. Death, even of animals, is a big thing in God's sight:
Matthew 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.

_________________________________________________________________
Probverbs 12:10 A righteous man regards the life of his animal,
But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

Splendour

The pagans drank blood in their rituals, hence the drinking of blood was a no go area. If an animal is killed by being strangled, the blood, afaik, doesn't drain out of the animal and the blood can't drain out of the meat which means if eating this meat, you are also eating the blood of the animal.

JimiTime

Splendour wrote: »

The pagans drank blood in their rituals, hence the drinking of blood was a no go area. If an animal is killed by being strangled, the blood, afaik, doesn't drain out of the animal and the blood can't drain out of the meat which means if eating this meat, you are also eating the blood of the animal.

So do you think it still applies to us today?

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

These meat laws given in the NT are never really talked about, and I'm not aware of Christians, like Jews or muslims, making sure their meat is in line with these commands.
Would love to hear your insights.
Cheers.

Don't take my black pudding away Jesus said it wasn't what went into your mouth was the problem it was what came out of it so that's good enough for me. Are we supposed to be eating Halal meat?

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

Don't take my black pudding away Jesus said it wasn't what went into your mouth was the problem it was what came out of it so that's good enough for me.

The issue is, the Acts account seems to contradict this. PDN's explaination still means that there's a contradiction, though it explains why.

Wolfsbanes explaination offers that its not a 'food' law, but rather a law founded from the beginning of us being allowed eat meat. God appointed 'Blood' as the symbol of the life of the animal, and required it to be spilled out in recognition of its life been given up.

Are we supposed to be eating Halal meat?

Halal is 'blessed' by an Imam etc, so halal is nothing to do with it. I'm trying to work out what this 'keep abstaining from blood' means in practical terms, and if it actually applies to us today.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

Halal is 'blessed' by an Imam etc, so halal is nothing to do with it. I'm trying to work out what this 'keep abstaining from blood' means in practical terms, and if it actually applies to us today.

Halal also prohibits blood, strangled animals etc. Perhaps you're taking things to literally.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

Halal also prohibits blood, strangled animals etc.

I know, but so is Kosher. The 'blessing' is what differentiates it from other animals slaughtered in similar ways and makes it 'Halal'.

Perhaps you're taking things to literally.

Maybe you've missed the point of the thread? I.E. Its a question to other Christians as to what to make of this. So in relation to you saying I'm taking it too literally, could you please offer your explaination as to what it means? So far, all answers have taken it literally, but one has said it still applies and one has said it doesn't. So I would be interested in what 'abstain from blood' means to you metephorically? Note it says 'KEEP abstaining from blood' in the book of James. So it seems to be referencing something that was already done. I certainly can't see any metephorical meaning, but it would be helpful if you could give your reasoning on it being metephorical.

Splendour

JimiTime wrote: »

So do you think it still applies to us today?

I think Paul was concerned about the reason why some Gentiles partook in the drinking of blood & eating meat of strangled animals ie. paganism, rather than the act itself.
If however, you are taking blood in the form of black pudding for nutritional benefit then no I don't imagine it applies. I doubt you're performing a pagan ritual when you're eating said pudding? Though why anyone would want to eat the dreaded stuff is beyond me!

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

I know, but so is Kosher. The 'blessing' is what differentiates it from other animals slaughtered in similar ways and makes it 'Halal'..

It was a lighthearted comment related to taking away my black pudding. Substitute kosher if you like. Or non-strangled, blood-drained chicken nuggets. As for me I'll stick to the pig blood.

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe you've missed the point of the thread? I.E. Its a question to other Christians as to what to make of this. So in relation to you saying I'm taking it too literally, could you please offer your explaination as to what it means?

Insofar as it's application to me I don't see it as meaning anything tbh.

On the one hand the blood is what gives the animal life etc and we're not to disrespect it, but IMO the greatest respect that could be given is the consuming it for it's benefits. For people who kill the animals and drain the blood kosher/halal etc - what happens to the blood that is drained and boiled out? Is it preserved as some life giving sacrifice or is it destroyed?

If it's dumped I would consider that a greater insult than eating it tbh.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

It was a lighthearted comment related to taking away my black pudding. Substitute kosher if you like. Or non-strangled, blood-drained chicken nuggets. As for me I'll stick to the pig blood.



Insofar as it's application to me I don't see it as meaning anything tbh.

On the one hand the blood is what gives the animal life etc and we're not to disrespect it, but IMO the greatest respect that could be given is the consuming it for it's benefits. For people who kill the animals and drain the blood kosher/halal etc - what happens to the blood that is drained and boiled out? Is it preserved as some life giving sacrifice or is it destroyed?


If it's dumped I would consider that a greater insult than eating it tbh.

I appreciate you tackling the question, but I would like to bring in the scripture in question. I understand your reasoning above, and thats fine. Specifically however, I'm asking for insights on the chapter of Acts I posted. So how would you balance your reasoning above, with what is detailed in Acts?

Also, your last sentance:

'If it's dumped I would consider that a greater insult than eating it tbh.'

How do you equate this reasoning specifically with with God asked to be done when he first allowed us to eat meat?

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

I appreciate you tackling the question, but I would like to bring in the scripture in question. I understand your reasoning above, and thats fine. Specifically however, I'm asking for insights on the chapter of Acts I posted. So how would you balance your reasoning above, with what is detailed in Acts?

Sounds like the gentiles in question were doing odd things with their animals and food."Food polluted by idols" Were they trying to be Christians simultaneously with offering blood sacrifices or ceremonially killing animals by strangulation. I don't think it was meant as a golden rule for Christians down through time.

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, your last sentance:
'If it's dumped I would consider that a greater insult than eating it tbh.'
How do you equate this reasoning specifically with with God asked to be done when he first allowed us to eat meat?

Wasn't the OT instruction not to eat blood from animals as it was symbolic of sacrifice and atonement etc. I don't get though that animals slaughtered in a kosher way can be drained of blood and that blood just gets discarded seems odd. Blood is too precious to eat but not precious enough that we shouldn't just bin it? Jesus specifically asked the disciples to take his blood as it was life giving, I think that washes the slate clean when it comes to eating the life giving blood of animals too, regardless of what went before.

Soul Winner

JimiTime wrote: »

Full Chapter here.

This chapter provokes a few questions.

1) Jesus says that what we eat does not defile us. So why the 'no blood, strangled animals' etc?

2) Peter says that the gentiles were not distinguished from the Jew when God gave them his Holy Spirit. So why, after saying this (In response to Jews who wanted them to be circumcised), did he then say about the blood etc?

3) James is the one who mentions these things, and Paul etc agrees. Could it be wrong? If not, then why can't we eat things strangled etc? Also, does this mean a Christian should not eat black pudding etc? These meat laws given in the NT are never really talked about, and I'm not aware of Christians, like Jews or muslims, making sure their meat is in line with these commands.

Would love to hear your insights.
Cheers.

A careful re-reading of this text will show that it is James who makes this an issue. Peter and Paul are silent in this chapter after this, they neither agree or disagree with James. Now you already pointed out what Jesus said on the subject. And Peter makes a pretty good speech about not been bound under law anymore due to the sacrifice that Christ made and James actually agrees with him, but for some reason he (James) felt the need to contaminate the whole thing by making these comments about things in the law.

But lets see what Paul does have to say on the subject:

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Colossians 2:13-17

We know that Paul had to withstand Peter to his face at Antioch because before certain came from James he (Peter) did eat with the Gentiles with no qualms at all, but when he seen the crowd from James coming he disassembled himself from the Gentiles. This infuriated Paul and he lets us know about in Galatians 2:11-14 and equates Peter's behavior with not walking upright according to the Gospel. HELLO??? Peter not walking uprightly according to the Gospel?

So what is the Gospel? The Gospel is the good news that Christ delivered us from the curse of the law. He took the penalty that we deserve onto Himself so that we don't have to take it. By doing this He forever took it away from us never to be brought back up again. "and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" Col 2:14

So who is this James character that wants to bring the law back up? And why didn't Paul and Peter have the balls to speak up against him at Jerusalem? Because he was the brother of the Lord, who up until the resurrection never believed in Him even though he knew Him better than most as his brother growing up. In fact there is a passage in the New testament where it is recorded that Jesus' brothers wanted Jesus to go to Jerusalem so that He would be killed. Jesus had to tell them that it was not His time to go and let them go on ahead.


"After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life. But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near, Jesus' brothers said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world." For even his own brothers did not believe in him." John 7:1-11

Anyway after the resurrection James was the natural choice to head the church at Jerusalem because of his kinship with Jesus, this was common practice in those days and in that region of the world, that the next of kin take over the reigns should the leader die, which is why there is division amongst the Muslims even today. But the point is that it wasn't because it was God's will that James should head the church at Jerusalem.

So we need to ask the questions: Was James (the brother of Jesus) a chosen disciple of Jesus during His earthly ministry? No. Did Jesus pick Him for a specific duty after the resurrection? There is no record or it. We do know that Jesus did appear to James after the resurrection which (like Paul admittedly) seems to be the only thing that could convinced James that He was actually the Messiah that was to come. James is also the one who said that without works faith is dead and that Abraham was justified by works and not faith, which is diametrically apposed to what Paul says about him, that he (Abraham) believed (trusted or had faith in) God and it (his faith) was counted unto him for righteousness, not his works.

"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Romans 4:3

And here is the scripture:

"Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness." Genesis 15:6

So it all boils down to who you want to listen to. Peter's speech about the end of the law, the good news of God that the law died with Christ and Paul's Epistles which outline very clearly that the law is dead, never to be brought up again and anyone who is under even one jot of the law is bound to do the whole law. Or James' lone crusade to resurrect the law?

wolfsbane

Soul Winner wrote: »

A careful re-reading of this text will show that it is James who makes this an issue. Peter and Paul are silent in this chapter after this, they neither agree or disagree with James. Now you already pointed out what Jesus said on the subject. And Peter makes a pretty good speech about not been bound under law anymore due to the sacrifice that Christ made and James actually agrees with him, but for some reason he (James) felt the need to contaminate the whole thing by making these comments about things in the law.

But lets see what Paul does have to say on the subject:

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Colossians 2:13-17

We know that Paul had to withstand Peter to his face at Antioch because before certain came from James he (Peter) did eat with the Gentiles with no qualms at all, but when he seen the crowd from James coming he disassembled himself from the Gentiles. This infuriated Paul and he lets us know about in Galatians 2:11-14 and equates Peter's behavior with not walking upright according to the Gospel. HELLO??? Peter not walking uprightly according to the Gospel?

So what is the Gospel? The Gospel is the good news that Christ delivered us from the curse of the law. He took the penalty that we deserve onto Himself so that we don't have to take it. By doing this He forever took it away from us never to be brought back up again. "and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" Col 2:14

So who is this James character that wants to bring the law back up? And why didn't Paul and Peter have the balls to speak up against him at Jerusalem? Because he was the brother of the Lord, who up until the resurrection never believed in Him even though he knew Him better than most as his brother growing up. In fact there is a passage in the New testament where it is recorded that Jesus' brothers wanted Jesus to go to Jerusalem so that He would be killed. Jesus had to tell them that it was not His time to go and let them go on ahead.


"After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life. But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near, Jesus' brothers said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world." For even his own brothers did not believe in him." John 7:1-11

Anyway after the resurrection James was the natural choice to head the church at Jerusalem because of his kinship with Jesus, this was common practice in those days and in that region of the world, that the next of kin take over the reigns should the leader die, which is why there is division amongst the Muslims even today. But the point is that it wasn't because it was God's will that James should head the church at Jerusalem.

So we need to ask the questions: Was James (the brother of Jesus) a chosen disciple of Jesus during His earthly ministry? No. Did Jesus pick Him for a specific duty after the resurrection? There is no record or it. We do know that Jesus did appear to James after the resurrection which (like Paul admittedly) seems to be the only thing that could convinced James that He was actually the Messiah that was to come. James is also the one who said that without works faith is dead and that Abraham was justified by works and not faith, which is diametrically apposed to what Paul says about him, that he (Abraham) believed (trusted or had faith in) God and it (his faith) was counted unto him for righteousness, not his works.

"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Romans 4:3

And here is the scripture:

"Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness." Genesis 15:6

So it all boils down to who you want to listen to. Peter's speech about the end of the law, the good news of God that the law died with Christ and Paul's Epistles which outline very clearly that the law is dead, never to be brought up again and anyone who is under even one jot of the law is bound to do the whole law. Or James' lone crusade to resurrect the law?

I'm afraid you misunderstand what the Jerusalem Council was. It was not a post-apostolic gathering offering an opinion on what the Scripture teaches, but the apostolic Church delivering infallible truth to Gentile converts.

You also misunderstand James' use of works vs faith. He made it plain that the faith that was opposed to works was the faith possessed by the demons - a mere intellectual knowledge, without commitment/trust. Real faith produces works.

Aside from that, the law against blood was pre-Mosaic, delivered to the forefathers of all mankind. Moses repeated it, as he did the law against murder, and one is as valid for us as the other. Not all the law of Moses was abolished by the New Covenant - those that preceded the Old Covenant remain for us.

_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Soul Winner

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm afraid you misunderstand what the Jerusalem Council was. It was not a post-apostolic gathering offering an opinion on what the Scripture teaches, but the apostolic Church delivering infallible truth to Gentile converts.

Hi Wolf. OK that sounds interesting. Do you have any evidence that this was the apostolic Church delivering truth to Gentile converts? I mean where is it written that this was the purpose of this meeting? And do you have any scripture which points to pre-Law practices that God explicitly laid down? I'm not doubting that He did because tithing was common practice as was offering sacrifices to God and building alters but is there scripture which records God specifically giving the command not to eat meat from strangled animals and so forth before the law was given to Moses?

wolfsbane wrote: »

You also misunderstand James' use of works vs faith. He made it plain that the faith that was opposed to works was the faith possessed by the demons - a mere intellectual knowledge, without commitment/trust. Real faith produces works.

I don't think so. James used that as a cover for what he actually believed. Unless he seen works then there was no faith. But how did he know? Only God has the right to judge in this regard. The baring of fruit to God from the heart of the believer is the business of God and the believer and nobody else has the right to judge that. James was a self righteous ass. As we all can be at times and he expresses it in his epistle. He said that Rahab was saved by her works. She ran a whore house and lied about the spies and James says she was saved by her works. He also said that God does not temp anyone but Genesis tells us that God tempted Abraham.

I don't think James should be in the Bible but I'm glad he is for this reason, he provokes the argument about what faith really is. There is no such thing as intellectual faith. There's real trust in God or there's trust in your own performance that you believe will pass muster with God when offered to Him in place of your faith. Works without faith is dead, James had it back wards. He should have been more concerned with teaching faith and letting the resulting indwelt spirit do His work in cleaning up the house instead of getting on the case of those who were not bearing as much fruit as James would have liked.

This is legalism and it was the first and most dangerous heresy of the Church and it is rife in Christianity today because it wasn't stamped our harsh enough by Paul and others at the get go. What would Christianity have achieved for God if the message of grace and faith had been kept center stage all these centuries? God only knows.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Aside from that, the law against blood was pre-Mosaic, delivered to the forefathers of all mankind.

When though? Is it recorder anywhere?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not all the law of Moses was abolished by the New Covenant - those that preceded the Old Covenant remain for us.

Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until it was all fulfilled and He said that He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it, which means that if He fulfilled it then that means that every jot and tittle has passed away - abolished.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Galatians 3:10-14

wolfsbane

Soul Winner said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm afraid you misunderstand what the Jerusalem Council was. It was not a post-apostolic gathering offering an opinion on what the Scripture teaches, but the apostolic Church delivering infallible truth to Gentile converts.
Hi Wolf. OK that sounds interesting. Do you have any evidence that this was the apostolic Church delivering truth to Gentile converts? I mean where is it written that this was the purpose of this meeting?

Seems evident that was the purpose of the meeting:
Acts 15:2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question...

6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

And that it was apostolic command, just as much as any letter from Paul or Peter would be:
Acts 15:23 They wrote this, letter by them:
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.

And do you have any scripture which points to pre-Law practices that God explicitly laid down? I'm not doubting that He did because tithing was common practice as was offering sacrifices to God and building alters but is there scripture which records God specifically giving the command not to eat meat from strangled animals and so forth before the law was given to Moses?

This was given to Noah:
Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Eating flesh was now OK, but not blood. That proscribes both eating the blood on its own and eating flesh from which the blood has not been drained (strangled flesh).

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You also misunderstand James' use of works vs faith. He made it plain that the faith that was opposed to works was the faith possessed by the demons - a mere intellectual knowledge, without commitment/trust. Real faith produces works.
I don't think so. James used that as a cover for what he actually believed.

I'm amazed you can accuse him of being deceitful! One may as well accuse Paul of despising the Law, but covering that by his assertion that the Law is holy.

Unless he seen works then there was no faith. But how did he know? Only God has the right to judge in this regard. The baring of fruit to God from the heart of the believer is the business of God and the believer and nobody else has the right to judge that.

James is saying that no fruit means no real faith. As to what fruit anyone has, that is known only to God and to a lesser extent, the person. James is warning us against hypocrisy and self-deceit.

James was a self righteous ass. As we all can be at times and he expresses it in his epistle. He said that Rahab was saved by her works. She ran a whore house and lied about the spies and James says she was saved by her works. He also said that God does not temp anyone but Genesis tells us that God tempted Abraham.

Rahab's faith was shown in her lying about the spies - she took sides with God's people against her own people and their gods. Her lying was an act of war.

When James says God does not tempt anyone, he means God does not entice them to sin. Not that He does not test their faithfulness to Himself.

God does not put lustful thoughts in our hearts, but He does allow us to be accosted by sexually immoral people from time to time.

I don't think James should be in the Bible but I'm glad he is for this reason, he provokes the argument about what faith really is. There is no such thing as intellectual faith. There's real trust in God or there's trust in your own performance that you believe will pass muster with God when offered to Him in place of your faith. Works without faith is dead, James had it back wards. He should have been more concerned with teaching faith and letting the resulting indwelt spirit do His work in cleaning up the house instead of getting on the case of those who were not bearing as much fruit as James would have liked.

This is legalism and it was the first and most dangerous heresy of the Church and it is rife in Christianity today because it wasn't stamped our harsh enough by Paul and others at the get go. What would Christianity have achieved for God if the message of grace and faith had been kept center stage all these centuries? God only knows.

So Paul too failed to fulfil his ministry! No, my friend, Paul finished the course and was free from the blood of all men ( Acts 20). James too left us Spirit-breathed commands from God. All we have to do is discover the right sense of his words. By comparing Scripture with Scripture, we are able to do so - and if we take James' explanation of true faith at face value rather than assume it is a cover, we find Paul and he to be of one accord.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Aside from that, the law against blood was pre-Mosaic, delivered to the forefathers of all mankind.
When though? Is it recorder anywhere?

As above: Genesis 9:4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not all the law of Moses was abolished by the New Covenant - those that preceded the Old Covenant remain for us.
Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until it was all fulfilled and He said that He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it, which means that if He fulfilled it then that means that every jot and tittle has passed away - abolished.

And it is. But removing the Law of Moses did not remove the Law of God, did not remove His prohibition on murder, theft, adultery, or the other things that had been banned from the Fall in Eden. Nor the ban on eating blood that was given to Noah. Only those that were given solely to Moses were abolished with the abolition of the Old Covenant.

The New Covenant kept the Law of God, wrote it on our hearts:
Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

_________________________________________________________________
Ephesians 5:5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.