Possible contradiction

[penguinfan]

In the New Testament, James, Jesus' brother, says not to consume meat that has been sacrificed to idols.

However, in his epistles, Paul says it doesn't matter that meat has been sacrificed to idols and it is safe to eat it.

Not that this issue is relevant nowadays, but which command should Christians follow?

Are not the two verses contradictory?

Note: The prohibition on meat by James is in Acts 15, Paul allowing sacrificed meat to be consumed is in one of his epistles, but if you do not know the epistle off the top of your head (which I can't at this moment), then you probably cannot answer my question.

Thanks.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Paul's position is not quite "It's okay." His statement is in 1 Corinthians 8, and is quite nuanced. A rough break-down is:

1. We, that is Christians, know that an idol is nothing. So the fact that meat has been dedicated to an idol doesn't have any meaning to us.
2. However, not everyone realises that an idol is nothing. (This is the part that makes the "command" mostly irrelevant today in Western countries; certainly, it would still be true in most of the Third World.)
3. So if a weak brother, who hasn't come to grips with the meaninglessness of idols, sees meat that has been offered to one, his faith being weak allows him to (mistakenly) believe that it is tainted.
4. Now, we know that eating meat or not eating meat doesn't affect our status with God. So we can take it or leave it.
5. (Crux of the argument:) "But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak."
6. (Conclusion:) "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

So as long as you're living in a progressive culture that understands that idols are just meaningless works of humanistic art, there's nothing to this "offered to idols" thing that can affect you -- eat or don't eat, it's up to you. But if you are in a place where your example could adversely affect a weaker (or "younger in the faith," if you prefer) Christian, then you must not eat such meat.

James, since he was writing a short circular letter, just took the short way: Don't do it [implied: because you might not know who you are affecting.] Paul went into more detail, but came to the same place: If it's going to hurt a brother whose understanding or faith is not as developed, then I won't do it for the world.

The (hope this helps) Curtmudgeon

[popaface]

I'm not sure that it's that possible to say exactly what James meant by what he said. To point out the absolute obvious you are presuming this because you don't want the Bible to contradict itself. Whatever the reason James said it is unclear to us, perhaps he was one of Paul's "weak" in the faith and he thought it offensive for people to eat meat offered to idols?

Allan

[The Curtmudgeon]

I'm not sure that it's that possible to say exactly what James meant by what he said. To point out the absolute obvious you are presuming this because you don't want the Bible to contradict itself. Whatever the reason James said it is unclear to us, perhaps he was one of Paul's "weak" in the faith and he thought it offensive for people to eat meat offered to idols?

Allan

The Bible doesn't contradict itself whether I want it to or not. And while I have no doubt it is unclear to you, it isn't to people who read and study it with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

The (speaking of presuming -- you are presuming what I mean) Curtmudgeon

[John Goddard]

I'm not sure that it's that possible to say exactly what James meant by what he said. To point out the absolute obvious you are presuming this because you don't want the Bible to contradict itself. Whatever the reason James said it is unclear to us, perhaps he was one of Paul's "weak" in the faith and he thought it offensive for people to eat meat offered to idols?

Allan

Acts 15 is addressed only to heathen Gentiles coming into faith, therefore they were new and raw compared to Jews who were already secure with their beliefs in God.

Paul kind of says what Jesus says:

Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

So there is nothing magical about pork or meat sacrificed to idols or even fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, the food itself isn't going to harm you.

It's your attitude when eating it that will harm you, and if God said not to do it then don't. But even if God didn't forbid it, then eating it may still harm you if you think it's wrong.

Like if you have money with Caesar on it and are tempted to put your faith in Caesar rather than God, you shouldn't use it. This money is also meat sacrificed to idols if it praises the Divine Caesar.

Matthew 22:20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

Matthew 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

[popaface]

Acts 15 is addressed only to heathen Gentiles coming into faith, therefore they were new and raw compared to Jews who were already secure with their beliefs in God.

Paul kind of says what Jesus says:

Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

So there is nothing magical about pork or meat sacrificed to idols or even fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, the food itself isn't going to harm you.

It's your attitude when eating it that will harm you, and if God said not to do it then don't. But even if God didn't forbid it, then eating it may still harm you if you think it's wrong.

Like if you have money with Caesar on it and are tempted to put your faith in Caesar rather than God, you shouldn't use it. This money is also meat sacrificed to idols if it praises the Divine Caesar.

Matthew 22:20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

Matthew 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

I'm not convinced. I think that what we have in the NT is quite obviously a conglomorate of Christianities not a singular set of beliefs and practices. This is evidenced in Paul's own epistles and most notably his portrayal of the Council of Jerusalem, cross reference, for instance Galatians 2:1-14 with Acts 15. What obviously stands out is that Paul, a participant in the council, emphasizes that there were a range of opinions and no strict consensus and Luke tells that there was a very friendly council of which the outcome was agreed upon by all there.

Now, I think that Paul gave a much more accurate rendition of the affairs and that Luke very much wanted to pain earliest Christianity very very pretty.

The Bible doesn't contradict itself whether I want it to or not. And while I have no doubt it is unclear to you, it isn't to people who read and study it with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

The (speaking of presuming -- you are presuming what I mean) Curtmudgeon

Yes, I am presuming that you are beginning with the initial unsubstantiated and arbitrary presupposition that the Bible is inerrant. Am I wrong? Perhaps I should have asked first?

Because, as far as I can see, "The Bible doesn't contradict itself whether I want it to or not" sounds very much like an initial unsubstantiated presupposition from whence you begin any sort of interpretation of Scripture. What if I do not begin from this same perspective? What if I begin from a complete apathy towards historicity and consistency and instead I just try to read the stories we have and interpret them as what they say in their respective historical and cultural contexts? Is that a wrong approach?

Allan

[John Goddard]

I'm not convinced. I think that what we have in the NT is quite obviously a conglomorate of Christianities not a singular set of beliefs and practices. This is evidenced in Paul's own epistles and most notably his portrayal of the Council of Jerusalem, cross reference, for instance Galatians 2:1-14 with Acts 15. What obviously stands out is that Paul, a participant in the council, emphasizes that there were a range of opinions and no strict consensus and Luke tells that there was a very friendly council of which the outcome was agreed upon by all there.

Now, I think that Paul gave a much more accurate rendition of the affairs and that Luke very much wanted to pain earliest Christianity very very pretty.

You are only showing that Christians disagreed on how to convert Gentiles, not that the Bible contradicts itself. The Bible comes to the ultimate conclusion that Gentile believers in God don't need to be converted to Judaism, same as mainstream Judaism teaches today.

What you are hung up on is that Gentiles had greater occasion to be around meat sacrificed to idols than Jews did, therefore Gentiles had to be more diligent not to be associated with it so as not to shake their new faith in the God of Israel.

[popaface]

That's just incorrect, what we have in Luke and Paul are two fundamentally different accounts of the same event. If they are the same account then one author is missleading. That's the absolute simplest truth. Paul tells us that earliest Christianity was very diverse, according to Luke it was very neat and tidy.

The Bible is not inerrant.

Allan

[themuzicman]

In the New Testament, James, Jesus' brother, says not to consume meat that has been sacrificed to idols.

However, in his epistles, Paul says it doesn't matter that meat has been sacrificed to idols and it is safe to eat it.

Not that this issue is relevant nowadays, but which command should Christians follow?

Are not the two verses contradictory?

Note: The prohibition on meat by James is in Acts 15, Paul allowing sacrificed meat to be consumed is in one of his epistles, but if you do not know the epistle off the top of your head (which I can't at this moment), then you probably cannot answer my question.

Thanks.

You don't quite have an accurate picture, here. James is freeing the Gentiles from the law of Moses, leaving in place laws against sex outside of marriage, drinking blood, and eating meat sacrificed to idols.

Paul explicitly states that if you know that meat has been sacrificed to idols do not eat it. But if you are served meat, you are not obligated to ask whether it has been sacrificed or not. Thus, reasonable ignorance is an acceptable defense in the case.

No contradiction at all.

Michael

[popaface]

What about the overall impression that you get when reading one story and then reading the other one?

Eitther one author is missleading and the stories can harmonize by emphasizing one story over the other, or we have two different stories which are meant to portray an overall different account of one event.

EIther Paul is correct and Luke is incorrect (oir missleading) or Luke is correct and Paul is incorrect (or missleading). That's the simple truth and if you don't accept it, you're simply paying more attention to the primal presupposition that "The Bible is inerrant" to what the Bible actually says.

Allan

[John Goddard]

What about the overall impression that you get when reading one story and then reading the other one?

The overall impression you can get here is that Mark offers the only true beginning to the Gospel of Jesus, all the other beginnings in Matthew, Luke, and John are fake.

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

...if you're on a cherrypicking expedition.

[popaface]

Absolutely not!
I am of the opinion (contrary to most contemporary scholars) that Mark, Matthew and Luke are all written contemporaneously. It makes much more sense than Q and source theories that strangely enough emphasize a simple belief in Jesus and end with an embellished belief in Jesus. I also think that John was written far sooner than most scholars would admit.

The reason why scholars present a very neat, tidy historical account of the documents in the NT is because of the deep cultural influence of German Romantic philosophy which romanticizes "primative" cultures above "developed" cultures.

My point, centrally, is that the NT is not free of contradiction and inaccuracy. I don't think that these contradictions and inaccuracies invalidate it, I think that if we were to go back in time to a first century Jewish peasant, like Jesus, and start talking about Aristotelian logic, the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity and the law of excluded middle, we would more than probably see a curious smile, nothing more.

Luke and Paul obviously have contradictory points about the Council at Jerusalem. For Paul it was messy for Luke it was neat, that's the simple truth. A fundamentalist Christian may want to harmonize both accounts but I would be much more inclined to see Luke's ecclesiology and Paul's claim of Apostleship in these contradictions.

Allan

[bartdanr]

Interesting thread...

To muddy it up, how about the stark condemnation of eating food sacrificed to idols in Revelation 2:

14Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality. 15Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

20Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

Interestingly, in this same chapter John speaks of "those who call themselves Jews but are of the Synagogue of Satan"...whom is he condemning? Was he referring to Paul, who claimed so strongly to be Jewish yet said (among other things) that eating meat sacrificed to idols didn't matter.

Or was he referring to some other group entirely? It's difficult to imagine he was referring to the 'Judaizers' that Paul condemned in Galatians, in that he so starkly disagrees with Paul in this matter.

[themuzicman]

He was referring to Jews who rejected Christ and were persecuting the church.

[RBerman]

To muddy it up, how about the stark condemnation of eating food sacrificed to idols in Revelation 2

Paul said that it can be bad to eat food sacrificed to idols, so it's not hard to imagine that John is describing such a situation. But Revelation 2 doesn't give much detail to argue about either way.