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

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:49:53 +0000, "A.G.McDowell"
 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

John R (Ripon43) wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:49:53 +0000, "A.G.McDowell"
>  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?

Tim.

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

"Alwyn"  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.

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

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:56:41 -0000, "- .. --  Tim    .-."
 wrote:


>What about black pudding?  Is that wrong for Christians to eat?

In my eyes yes, I cant stand em !!!!!

Strangely enough, its the only part of a pig I don't like, although I
did try it once.



John

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:47:51 GMT, "Phil Saunders"
 wrote:

>"Alwyn"  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.



John

"John R (Ripon43)"  wrote in message 
news:gug2f5lka4hlceg2rh1tnbub687p209r3q@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:47:51 GMT, "Phil Saunders"
>  wrote:
>
>>"Alwyn"  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.

Phil

In article <XcbIm.1520$Ym4.918@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Phil Saunders
 writes
>"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
>news:q5bIm.43264$7Y2.2239@newsfe27.ams2...
(trimmed)
>
>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