tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post4878896061186063209..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Reply to C. Michael Patton on "Sola Scriptura", Part Four (Tradition and Apostolic Succession)Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-21040549231785233952013-11-10T18:47:26.490-05:002013-11-10T18:47:26.490-05:00If the decree of the Jerusalem council were not me...If the decree of the Jerusalem council were not meant for everyone, then there is no difficulty. James was the head of the Jewish Christian faction in the early church, and he requested the promulgation of this decree to address Jewish Christian concerns. The council concurred. <br /><br />Father Joseph Fitzmyer, a preeminent Catholic exegete, explains in his commentary on the books of Acts: "There are four regulations that James would impose on Gentile Christians who live among Jewish Christians, considering them like the "aliens" of old in Israel. James thus appeals for a sympathetic understanding of Jewish Christian sensibilities...James's regulations seek only a modus vivendi of Gentile among Jewish Christians and imply no salvific purpose in them." <br /><br />The only difficulty with this interpretation is that the fourth regulation deals with "fornication," which one would think should apply to Gentiles and Jews alike and is not merely a matter of Jewish observance. However, Fitzmyer explains that, in context, the word translated as "fornication" actually refers not to sexual misbehavior as such, but rather to "various forms of marriage within close degrees of kinship" proscribed by the Jewish law. Of course, the Church later developed her own regulations about kinship and marriage, but this decree refers to the Jewish rules. <br /><br />Consequently, there is no contradiction between the Jerusalem decree and Paul's relative indifference in 1 Corinthians to the issue of eating meat dedicated to idols. Corinth was largely a Gentile church, rather than a church of "Gentile Christians living among Jewish Christians." The decree was thus not really applicable to Corinth. Even so, Paul tells his flock in Corinth that they should avoid meat sacrified to idols if eating or serving it offended a neighbor's conscience, thus acknowledging the intent of the decree.<br /><br />With the disappearance of the Law-observant Jewish Christian faction in the Church, these regulations became unnecessary and are, of course, no longer binding on us. By the same token, they were not binding on Gentile Christians in Paul's day who did not have regular interaction with Torah-observant Jewish Christians.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-46472164930439844102013-11-10T12:06:46.361-05:002013-11-10T12:06:46.361-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339370489153427951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-67043405221912145102013-11-10T12:06:10.158-05:002013-11-10T12:06:10.158-05:00Is it possible that Paul's teaching in 1 Corin...Is it possible that Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 8 about food sacrificed to idols can show that the declarations of the Jerusalem council were not binding and infallible? Paul says to follow your conscience, or that eating the meat is fine if it is not causing the brother to stumble. Does "things" in "abstain from the things polluted by idols" mean this meat? And does this show that Paul did not bind the Corinthians to this decree in Jerusalem?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339370489153427951noreply@blogger.com