All the crap about Christians not being subjected to old law actually comes about because of one incident.
The facts are these: Acts 15 deals with a meeting that took place in Jerusalem between the presbyters of the community church, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, possibly other unnamed apostles, and possibly lay members of the community. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a controversy that had arisen among the converted Pharisees of Antioch—who were of the opinion that Christianity was a religion that should be open only to Jews. They were openly distrustful of Paul, who was intent on converting gentiles as well.
In any case, the subject controversy was that the Pharisees were especially troubled by the fact that Paul allowed gentile converts to come into the new religion without being circumcised—a compromise they thought would lead to greater and more troubling (for them) concessions to the law. In fact, the specific item on the agenda appears to have been the non-circumcision of Titus (later, St. Titus)—a Greek gentile convert who was a frequently companion to Paul on his travels among the gentiles.
The meeting, an important early Christian meeting, is not only mentioned by Luke in Acts 15, but also by Paul in his letter to the Galatians, Chapter 2 (particularly verses 1-10.)
Both Acts and Galatians indicate that the main instigation for the meeting was the question of whether or not the act of circumcision was a necessary requirement for gentile converts to the newly formed religion. The question of whether dietary restrictions should be imposed was quickly included…and while there are some differences of opinions as to how that last part was resolved, the “minutes” of the meeting (actually a letter to the Christian community in Antioch) indicate that some dietary obligations remained in effect.
In the letter, the group invokes the agreement of The Holy Spirit in the decision. Circumcision, it was decided, was definitely NOT a requirement for membership. The dietary resolution has some minor ambivalence. Galatians seems to indicate that no dietary restrictions were required of the new gentile converts, or at least, none are specifically mentioned. Acts 15: 23-29 specifically states that the letter which outlined the results of the deliberations included the following, “…it is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and ours too, that we will not lay upon you (gentile converts) any burden beyond that which is strictly necessary, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from illicit sexual union. You will be well advised to avoid these things.”
In any case, anyone who reads the material in Galatians or Acts as justification for divorcing Christianity from the Old Testament law really is stretching things a great deal. The deliberations seem to have been almost exclusively confined to considerations of circumcision and dietary laws.
But even if that stretch is deemed proper and reasonable (which intelligent, well-intentioned people can do), there is absolutely no logical way to suppose any perceived divorce from Old Testament law includes the right to suppose that the things that pleased or offended the god of the Bible as indicated in the Old Testament…no longer applied. If an orthodox Jew was obliged to accept that murder, stealing, fornicating and lusting offended the god of the Bible—Christians were also. If an orthodox Jew was obliged to accept that homosexuality offended the god—Christians are also.
My argument is: Okay, if you want to stretch the passage in Acts to mean that “the law” no longer applies to Christians (an unrealistic stretch, in my opinion) you can logically argue that Christians are under no obligation to put homosexuals to death. But you cannot, on the basis of that stretch, logically argue that homosexual activity is not an abomination in the eyes of the god of the Bible.
NOTE: My personal opinion is that the best guess that can be made about the Bible is that it is a self-serving history of the early Hebrew people interspersed with a fanciful religious mythology. My opinion is that the best guess that can be made about the religious aspects of the Bible is that the people writing the material—the people inventing the god—put their prejudices into the mouth of the god they invented. Almost all of the anger, hatred, and prejudice against homosexuals today in our country has its genesis in the biblical mythology—and has absolutely no place in the hearts and minds of people supposedly as intelligent as we. It is my opinion that the unwarranted prejudice against homosexuals should end not because people are able to justify disregarding the more obviously silly ravings of what almost certainly is a mythical god…but because we, as an intelligent and basically fair species, should see such prejudice for the ignorance it is.
Said another way: Get off your bullshit about not allowing same-sex people to marry…or for “Christians” to indulge their blind guesses by refusing to provide services to gays
The facts are these: Acts 15 deals with a meeting that took place in Jerusalem between the presbyters of the community church, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, possibly other unnamed apostles, and possibly lay members of the community. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a controversy that had arisen among the converted Pharisees of Antioch—who were of the opinion that Christianity was a religion that should be open only to Jews. They were openly distrustful of Paul, who was intent on converting gentiles as well.
In any case, the subject controversy was that the Pharisees were especially troubled by the fact that Paul allowed gentile converts to come into the new religion without being circumcised—a compromise they thought would lead to greater and more troubling (for them) concessions to the law. In fact, the specific item on the agenda appears to have been the non-circumcision of Titus (later, St. Titus)—a Greek gentile convert who was a frequently companion to Paul on his travels among the gentiles.
The meeting, an important early Christian meeting, is not only mentioned by Luke in Acts 15, but also by Paul in his letter to the Galatians, Chapter 2 (particularly verses 1-10.)
Both Acts and Galatians indicate that the main instigation for the meeting was the question of whether or not the act of circumcision was a necessary requirement for gentile converts to the newly formed religion. The question of whether dietary restrictions should be imposed was quickly included…and while there are some differences of opinions as to how that last part was resolved, the “minutes” of the meeting (actually a letter to the Christian community in Antioch) indicate that some dietary obligations remained in effect.
In the letter, the group invokes the agreement of The Holy Spirit in the decision. Circumcision, it was decided, was definitely NOT a requirement for membership. The dietary resolution has some minor ambivalence. Galatians seems to indicate that no dietary restrictions were required of the new gentile converts, or at least, none are specifically mentioned. Acts 15: 23-29 specifically states that the letter which outlined the results of the deliberations included the following, “…it is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and ours too, that we will not lay upon you (gentile converts) any burden beyond that which is strictly necessary, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from illicit sexual union. You will be well advised to avoid these things.”
In any case, anyone who reads the material in Galatians or Acts as justification for divorcing Christianity from the Old Testament law really is stretching things a great deal. The deliberations seem to have been almost exclusively confined to considerations of circumcision and dietary laws.
But even if that stretch is deemed proper and reasonable (which intelligent, well-intentioned people can do), there is absolutely no logical way to suppose any perceived divorce from Old Testament law includes the right to suppose that the things that pleased or offended the god of the Bible as indicated in the Old Testament…no longer applied. If an orthodox Jew was obliged to accept that murder, stealing, fornicating and lusting offended the god of the Bible—Christians were also. If an orthodox Jew was obliged to accept that homosexuality offended the god—Christians are also.
My argument is: Okay, if you want to stretch the passage in Acts to mean that “the law” no longer applies to Christians (an unrealistic stretch, in my opinion) you can logically argue that Christians are under no obligation to put homosexuals to death. But you cannot, on the basis of that stretch, logically argue that homosexual activity is not an abomination in the eyes of the god of the Bible.
NOTE: My personal opinion is that the best guess that can be made about the Bible is that it is a self-serving history of the early Hebrew people interspersed with a fanciful religious mythology. My opinion is that the best guess that can be made about the religious aspects of the Bible is that the people writing the material—the people inventing the god—put their prejudices into the mouth of the god they invented. Almost all of the anger, hatred, and prejudice against homosexuals today in our country has its genesis in the biblical mythology—and has absolutely no place in the hearts and minds of people supposedly as intelligent as we. It is my opinion that the unwarranted prejudice against homosexuals should end not because people are able to justify disregarding the more obviously silly ravings of what almost certainly is a mythical god…but because we, as an intelligent and basically fair species, should see such prejudice for the ignorance it is.
Said another way: Get off your bullshit about not allowing same-sex people to marry…or for “Christians” to indulge their blind guesses by refusing to provide services to gays
