I don't have my WT Library CD ROM with me and I could use the text right now.
Thanks in advance!
-ithinkisee
Can someone post Questions From Readers-October 15, 1978, pp. 30-1?
by ithinkisee 5 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
blondie
*** w78 10/15 pp. 30-31 Questions from Readers ***
Questions
from Readers?
Did the apostle Paul disagree with the first-century governing body about eating meat offered to idols, as some conclude from comparing Acts 15:28, 29 with 1 Corinthians chapter 8?No, for the evidence proves that Paul was in full agreement with the decree of the apostles and elders.
In the year 49, Paul and Barnabas brought to the Jerusalem body of elders and apostles the question of whether Gentile converts must get circumcised. Based on the Scriptures and God?s dealings, and guided by the holy spirit, the council determined that converts did not need to keep the Law. But, among other things, they did have to "keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols."?Acts 15:1-29.
About 55, Paul wrote to the Corinthians about eating food that had been sacrificed to idols. He said that an idol is really nothing. So a Christian could eat meat that had been sacrificed to an idol, and that later as surplus was taken out and sold in a meat market or in a public restaurant connected with the temple. If, however, someone who previously worshiped the idol would stumble at the Christian?s eating such meat, Paul advised that it would be best to avoid doing so in order that the other person?s faith would not be damaged.?1 Cor. 8:7-13; 10:25-33; Rom. 14:1-4, 19-23.
In view of this, some Bible commentators have contended that Paul was refusing to go along with the council?s decree or that there was a continuing division on the matter. For example, Professor E. Blaiklock says: "In 1 Cor. viii. 4 Paul himself publicly adopts a more liberal attitude than that which the decree lays down." Heinrich A. Meyer writes about Paul?s supposed "self-subsistent position?wholly independent of the authority of all the other apostles." And Dr. Meyer comments that in First Corinthians chapter 8 Paul "makes no reference to the decree of the apostles either here or elsewhere, which is in keeping with his consciousness of his own direct and independent apostolic dignity. . . . Moreover, this very chapter, along with chap. x., shows plainly that, in virtue of his independent position as an apostle, he had early enough shaken himself clear of all applications of the temporary agreement come to at Jerusalem."
Such reasoning is insidious, dangerous and contrary to God?s inspired Word. It reflects the idea that Bible books present personal and contradictory human opinions and are not all inspired and beneficial. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) And, at least in some cases, it reflects a desire to label the decree of Acts 15:28, 29 as temporary and now unnecessary. This, though, conflicts with the Bible and with the historical evidence that Christians in the second century and beyond recognized the decree as binding.
What actually was Paul?s position on the matter of "abstaining from things sacrificed to idols"?
Far from taking exception to that decree, Paul and Barnabas participated in the council that reached that decision. Then they publicized the decision, as Acts 16:4 reports: "Now as they traveled on through the cities they would deliver to those there for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem." This built up the congregations.
Did Paul change his stand by the time he wrote First Corinthians (c. 55) or Romans (c. 56)? Not at all. In fact, it was after writing both of those letters that he went to Jerusalem the last time. (1 Cor. 16:8; Acts 19:1; Rom. 15:25) While there, he met with James and the older men, who referred back to the decree of Acts 15:28, 29 as still valid and binding on Christians. Paul did not disagree.?Acts 21:17-26.
Hence, we have good reason to expect that any seeming conflict between the council?s decree and what Paul wrote can be resolved. And that certainly is so.
What the decree in Acts 15:28, 29 forbade was a Christian?s being part of a formal, religious ceremony or his committing an act of idolatry. Those who sacrificed an animal to an idol got some of the meat to eat. Their doing so was clearly a religious act; it was considered sharing in a meal with the pagan god. (Ex. 34:15; Deut. 32:17; 1 Cor. 10:18-21) Christians absolutely could not do that. The decree of the Christian governing body had forbidden it, and Paul was in full agreement. He wrote: "Therefore, my beloved ones, flee from idolatry."?1 Cor. 10:14; 1 Thess. 1:9.
So, in writing what he did in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 and Romans 14, Paul was not granting permission to share in an idolatrous act or feast in honor of an idol, as the Israelites had done and incurred God?s wrath. (Num. 25:1-4; Rev. 2:14) Rather, he was dealing with simply eating, as a customary meal, meat from an idol temple that had been sold to the public in general. Such meat was not unclean or defiled simply because of its background.
-
AlmostAtheist
Such meat was not unclean or defiled simply because of its background.
Unlike Christmas trees, Easter eggs, and birthdays, which are most certainly unclean because of their background.
-
blondie
ithinkisee,
Have you examined out the Israelites could sell meat with blood in it to non-Jews?
-
ithinkisee
Apparently based on the Kingdom Interlinear, the same Greek word is rendered differently in these scriptures. Sneaky on the part of the WT:
(Acts 15:29) 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols (Greek:eudolothutos) and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!"
(1 Corinthians 8:1,4,7) "Now concerning foods offered to idols: we know we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 4 Now concerning the eating of foods offered to idols (Greek:eudolothutos), we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. 7 Nevertheless, there is not this knowledge in all persons; but some, being accustomed until now to the idol, eat food as something sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled."
(1 Cor. 8:10) "For if anyone should see you, the one having knowledge, reclining at a meal in an idol temple, will not the conscience of that one who is weak be built up to the point of eating foods offered to idols? (Greek:eudolothutos)"
Is that same greek word (eudolothutos) also used in 1 Corinthians chapter 10?
I don't have a NWT or Kingdom Interliniear with me but I could certainly use the knowledge.
Thanks,
-ithinkisee
-
euripides
Is that same greek word (eudolothutos) also used in 1 Corinthians chapter 10?
The Greek word in 1 Cor 10:14 is eidololatria, idolatry. Eidolothuton is a term which is a derogatory derivation from hierothuton, the ancient word for sacrificial meat. Apparently this concept could only have arisen in Israelite tradition. Sacrificial meat was partly used for ritual purpose and partly eaten. After its sacrificial use it was routinely sold in the market, because food and meat was clearly not as readily available (with relevant storage abilities) as it is today. To be a vegetarian in the ancient world was a radical if not flighty proposition--calories were scarce enough for a life of labor as most people lived. The wealthy and/or philosophers were considered dainty if they were vegetarians. Getting picky about what meat is alright to eat and what isn't must have seemed arbitrary and inconvenient.
Euripides