@dwells, that explanation of "things strangled" could be plausible. Why didn't they say that or just quote that verse in Leviticus 17 if indeed that was what they were referring to. The wording is not the same, leaving you to read into the text what you want it to say.
However, they weren't commanded to do them, they were suggestions. That's why the language says:
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
This is an assessment, guidance, not an authoritative command.
Paul later on in his letter to the church in Corinthians stated this:
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. note
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. note note
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. note
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;. 1 Corinthians 8:4-10.
At this point, abstaining from idols, or as it is reworded as abstain from meat offered to idols, didn't seem to be a command that Paul was forcing the Gentiles in Corinth to follow.
They were guidelines so as to not offend the Jews who lived in the cities where these Christians lived. I will elaborate this point more closely and thoroughly in another post later on.
It seems odd for James to give 4 things for Gentiles to avoid, but didn't give them anything they should do. He could have easily handled the debate by stating that circumcision was still required by God, but just not for salvation. All ambiguity over the issue would have been put to rest, if that is indeed what God still required. Rather, he said that he gave no such command.
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:. Acts 15:24
For now, can you move onto the other verses I cited as pertaining to Circumcision, ones that speak even more clearly to the issue of if circumcision is still required for Christians?
One more thought. I didn't contradict myself. Even if 100% of what they asked the Gentiles to follow was also found in the Torah, it doesn't mean they were commanding observance of the Torah. That violates the clear answer to the question asked in the first place. Once again, the question was
Do Gentiles need to be circumsized and follow the Torah?
James' and Peter's answer was a resounding NO.
So to make them say they were saying YES to that question violates the clear meaning and context of that chapter in particular. Now, is that the clear context of the rest of the New Testament in general?
RE: Contending for the Faith: part 1 of ?