Yeah, sure, I want to join. No pork chops or cracklin’s. Yeah, well, OK, no sacrifice is too great for eternal salvation. Shrimp? Boy, that’s a toughie, but, yeah, I guess so. Lobster? No prob, just an excuse to eat butter and salt…
Cut what? Off of my WHAT? That rips it, never mind. Where do the Mithra cult guys hang out?
You’d be better of with Judaism. Mithraists practiced full self-castration. Circumcision and all beef hotdogs don’t sound so bad now, do they?
Right, although I think you meant “Acts 10: 9-16,” not “Acts 9: 10-16” (see post #7 by toadspittle); and if you look at the context for Peter’s vision, one gets the impression (or at least I do) that its point is more metaphorical: not so much that Peter is supposed to accept food that he previously considered unclean but that he’s supposed to accept people that he previously considered “unclean.”
But yeah, one of the big major controversies of the early Church was whether Gentile converts should be required to obey the Jewish law (i.e. be circumcized, adhere to Jewish dietary restrictions, etc.), and the main account of this is in Acts 15, though Paul also addresses it in some of his letters.
I just want to point out that I have resolutely refrained from the old “ten percent off the top” joke.
Are you sure? Mithraism was a pretty big religion in the empire, especially among the army, and I’d think that particular ritual would discourage its spread. I know the priests of Cybele castrated themselves, but do you have a source for Mithraic castration?
Well, it was only the priests. I was taking a little comic license.
Revoked!
Yes, but you need to remember, I lack a sense of humor. 
Do you have a cite on castration for the priests, though? I thought we didn’t know enough about Mithraic practices to say much definatively about it.
Actually, after some googling, I can’t find anything about it one way or the other (and the accuracy of mystery-cult info on the net is pretty hit and miss anyway).
I thought I remembered it from a college lecture but I may have mixed up the Mithraists with the Cybeline priests…either that or the prof may have gotten it wrong. I have come to find out since college that his mystery cult lectures tended to be a little on the sloppy side (he was an Eastern Religion specialist who got roped into teaching a couple of comparative religion courses and Greco-Roman mystery cults were a little out of his speciality).
You did – it was the priests of Cybele and Attis.
And thanks to Thudlow for the catch on the chapter and verse switcharound. Yes, the primary message is about associations with people, but it can be used by literalists as supporting material for the release from kosher.
With hundreds of different sects, the designation “Christian,” has almost become a cliche’. Most folks in the world would apply the term to anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus. However, Jesus–in his three year earthly ministry-- never said anything about a “Christian” church, and anyone who has closely read and considered what he demanded of his followers during that time, wouldn’t claim they are following him according to that prescription, i.e., unless the whole thing is turned into a figure of speech.
The fact is, all of that particular following was Jewish (or Gentiles who “blessed Israel,” e.g., The Roman Centurion, and the “Woman of Canaan”), and Jesus’ himself plainly stated that he was sent **“not but for the lost sheep of the house of Israel” ** (Matt. 15:24). Even the apostle Paul, who claimed to be the **“apostle of (to) the Gentiles” ** (Romans 11:13; 15:16), said the gospel he preached was to **“the Jew first…” ** (Romans 1:16), and, indeed, his early followers were charged with keeping some of the Jewish ordinances (1 Cor. 11:2). Not until his post-Acts epistles were written did this change. In his letter to the Ephesians he removed **“the middle wall of partition…the law of commandments contained in ordinances…to make in himself one new man…one body by the cross…” ** (Eph. 2:15,16) This is confirmed in his letter to the Colossians, which was written about the same time. (Col. 2:13,14)
As far as I’m concerned, what matters is not whether one is practicing, or attempting to practice, the “Christian” religion (which will vary from one sect to the next), but, rather, has one individually trusted Jesus Christ as their Savior, believing that his vicarious atonement at Calvary was all sufficient to pay for their sins (which implies that they admit to being a sinner). One who has done this is “saved” into a spiritual entity Paul referred to as “the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:13-27). This is the true “Christian” church today, which has nothing to do with any religious affiliation, although religious affiliation would not exclude anyone from being a member of it.
Well, near as I can tell, Christians are jews who don’t follow the rules of being jewish, don’t worship the same god, and don’t wear the same clothes or belong to the same tribe. Oh, and there’s this whole concept of Hell, too. Not really so much there. Nor, really, is Satan all that big a thing.
I’m not saying that the rules they follow are not inspired, but I’ve got to tell you, the whole ‘judeo-christian values’ thing really gets up my ear. Because when someone says it, they mean Christian Values. Because they sure ain’t jewish ones. It doesn’t really matter what a christian thinks, either, because they’re not jewish. Which, truthfully, is probably a better deal for them. It’s very nice that you’re convinced that Jesus fufilled the laws. But see, that’s the whole part where you stop being jewish. Right about there, where the Messiah comes. Because, uhm… Jesus ain’t the jewish messiah. Didn’t do half the stuff the Messiah was supposed to.
We’ve discussed this before. Do searches. Judeo-christian would be a good keyword.
And forget the lopping the tip thing. No cheeseburgers, man.
That was not (read:NOT) about authorizing Peter (and by extension the Jews) to eat pork. The symbolism that Peter was given was to show that the preaching work about the Christ was no longer restricted to the Jews; and that Gentiles were now counted among those that Jesus’s disciples were to preach the Good News about the Christ to.
If you continue the texts that you cited, the reason for the vision becomes clear. You started your cite in verse 9; starting in verse 1 here’s the account:
Now if a person reads this account in it’s full context, it is clear what the account is talking about. The first 8 verses set the stage for Peter’s encounter with Cornelius, a God fearing Gentile.
Verses 9 through 16 is the account of the vision that prepares Peter for his meeting with Cornelius. That is important because prior to this the news about the Christ had been restricted to God’s chosen people–the Jews. This vision let Peter know that hence forth that there was to be a change; a new paradigm.
The lesson of this vision is clear to Peter upon meeting Cornelius, and he says it plainly in verse 28 & 29 above. (bolded)
Jewish Christians are able to eat pork, as they are no longer under the Mosaic prohibition as a resuly of accepting Christ as the Messiah. (and the end of the Mosaic Law)
At any rate, these texts are NOT about dietary matters.
Rationalized by whom? When? And how do you know?
Further, show any biblical cite that shows us that they “were indeed concessions to make evangelization easier.”
The Mosaic Law had about 600 laws. Many were related to proper worship. Others were for sanitation, commerce, diet, etc.
The “declarations” are these:
Galations 3:10-14
“10 For all those who depend upon works of law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is every one that does not continue in all the things written in the scroll of the Law in order to do them.” 11 Moreover, that by law no one is declared righteous with God is evident, because “the righteous one will live by reason of faith.” 12 Now the Law does not adhere to faith, but “he that does them shall live by means of them.” 13 Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake.” 14 The purpose was that the blessing of Abraham might come to be by means of Jesus Christ for the nations, that we might receive the promised spirit through our faith.”
Ephesians 2:13-16
“13 But now in union with Christ Jesus YOU who were once far off have come to be near by the blood of the Christ. 14 For he is our peace, he who made the two parties one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off. 15 By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, that he might create the two peoples in union with himself into one new man and make peace; 16 and that he might fully reconcile both peoples in one body to God through the torture stake, because he had killed off the enmity by means of himself.”
Romans 7:6
“6 But now we have been discharged from the Law, because we have died to that by which we were being held fast, that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit, and not in the old sense by the written code.”
Galations 3:24
“24 Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith”
Now it is impratical in a post to put the Mosaic Law—it’s origin, features, purpose, fullfilment etc in proper perspective. For those interested, I would encourage you to read the acounts for yourself.
For my part, I find:
Nothing that shows that the easement of dietary restrictions (were in fact just one feature of the Mosaic Law) were done to make evengelizing easier.** Nothing.**
Also, the couple cites above (and there are more) cannot be fully appreciated without understanding it in full context.
In my reading, the full weight, purpose and power of the history and fullfilment (which spanned 1500+ years!) of the Mosaic Law make it a laughable notion that any aspect was rationalized. If such a cite exists, I’d love to see it.
Try reading between the lines, dude.
I expected nothing less than that from you in reply.
Well, you’re asking for a scriptural answer to a historical question. The historical answer is not spelled out in the NT as explicitly or as cynically as I phrased it but it’s the answer nonetheless and the NT provides the rationalization. Paul acknowledges that circumcision and kosher laws were an obstacle to to converting gentiles. He also admits that the Jerusalem cult (headed by those who, unlike Paul, were alleged to have actually known Jesus personally- including one who was supoosedly Jesus’ own brother) still thought converts should be bound by Jewish law. Paul provides his own theological arguments (which did not come from Jesus) as to why they shouldn’t be bound, but his argument would not have been necessary unless it was a problem for evangelizing gentiles to begin with.
To sum up, Acts describes a conflict among early Christian factions, the arguments for the faction headed by Paul and the eventual success of that faction after the destruction of Israel. It was a pragmatic decision of Paul’s for which he devised a rather ingenious argument, but realistically speaking, it was devised as a solution to a problem, it was not just some natural or unforced implication of anything Jesus taght. It had to be worked at.
I’ve got to side with the raindog on this one.
The distinct impression I get from reading Paul’s letters is that it’s more than just a rationalization for him. He’s pretty vehemently opposed to those who would require all Christians to follow Jewish law, though the issue he argues about most often is circumcision, not dietary laws. He’s convinced that Jesus Christ alone is sufficient—that what is required for salvation is faith in Christ, not faith in Christ and circumcision, or faith in Christ and strict adherence to the Law. (He even gets worked up enough to express a wish that those in the “circumcision party” would go all the way and cut the whole thing off.)
But I can see how you could think of Paul as a pragmatist. He himself was probably willing to either follow or ignore the Jewish laws and customs, whichever would advance the gospel.
But to Paul, the idea that circumcision and following the Law weren’t necesary was not just a concession he made in order to advance the gospel; it was the gospel. (That is, it was a central and inherent part of his message about who Jesus Christ was and what his significance was.)
What would you say about the Apostolic Council described in Acts 15?
Respectfully, raindog and JMS@CCT, there ARE those among us, like Diogenes, who will take a strict sociohistorical-documentarian critical POV of the development of Christianity. To Diogenes, describing how Christianity descended from Judaism is subject to the same analysis as to how the US descended from Britain, and requires no more or less reverence.
For Diogenes to state that this must have been a pragmatic action to ensure survival of the emerging new religion is not a put-down. It is a conclusion a reasonable person who does not presume the Truth of Christianity, can honestly come up with.
Then there are others among us who are informed in their analysis by the a Christian POV, but that of the various modalities of (small-c) catholic-apostolic Christianity, and for these, if Church leaders at a later date got together, sat down, thought about it, and came up with an interpretation, that’s just as valid a part of the Magisterium* since it is their belief the Holy Spirit guided the deliberations of the Councils, and that sola scriptura is not the only source of revelation.