Caporegime
So who was present at the council to issue the apostolistic decree?
Halal, is it meat you're looking for?
- Thread starter Zbornak
- Start date
So who was present at the council to issue the apostolistic decree?
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
No, a deity is above its followers and not defined by them. When a group redefines a deity, usually to be 'more like themselves', the two deities have diverged into two separate species, exactly like evolution.
If a member of the cabinet fiddles their expenses, it does not reflect badly on david cameron, unless cameron is complicit and actively engaged in the fiddling.
Hence why hypocrisy and contradictions amongst religious followers are disproofs of that believers/sects religion, not the deity itself. The absence of the deities presence in the real world, and seeming condoning by inaction, is another matter altogether.
RM and Castiel...here you go. I even took away the pain of naming a thread for you. Slug away.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18599278
Its all still relevant. Maybe its just not the flavour of muslim bashing you want.
Last edited:
That is a mighty high horse you are on...you may want to step off. Firstly, I was not "bashing muslims". The questions at the heart of this debate are:
1. Whether Halal/kosher meat should be allowed to be slaughtered in traditional religious methods and not allow pre stunning;
2. Whether meat that it halal/kosher should be labelled as such to allow consumers to make a free choice.
My answer to the second question is labelling should certainly allow for it as some people may not want to eat meat slaughtered by the halal/kosher method either from the incorrectly perceived notion that it is cruel and inhumane or from a religious perspective (which some may understand to be bigoted but nonetheless means something to primarily a Sikh or a Christian) that they do not want to eat meat blessed in the name of another religion, Abrahamic or otherwise, by a Muslim or a Jew. That is their right the same way a Muslim or a Jew (or a Sikh) has a right to access meat they are allowed to eat. Either way, the animal should be handled humanely right upto the time of slaughter .
I think my answer to the first question lies within my answer to the second.
Last edited:
Believers redefine their deities multiple times throughout their lifetime yet one cannot say the diety changes (assuming their religion doesn't change). Believers interpret it as an evolution of their understanding of the diety so the same can be said about Allah - not a different God, just understood differently.
Soldato
Well I agree, allowing halal etc meat to be sold is okay, but also allowing a choice and not removing non halal meats such as pig and meats not slaughtered in the correct manner is wrong.
I personally dont mind how my meat is slaughtered, just dont deny me access to anything and it should be fine. I know part of what I said has been said by me and others before, but halal or not it doesnt matter, as long as meats are not banned outright due to religious views.
Caporegime
And if you put paul on a pedestal and say that he could override the apostles and jesus and that modern Christianity is based upon pauls teachings how can one accept women in the church as he spoke out specifically against it.
Soldato
Is it worth mentioning that many Christians who worship in Arabic use Allah to refer to God? (You might have mentioned this already)
But you can believe the Koran is false but still believe they are the same god. Christians believe Mohammed was a false prophet but that doesn't mean the god Mohammed was talking about is false.
It isn't the same as comparing say Hinduism and Christianity. The Abrahamic religions are all very closely linked and all have the same god.
I am not certain but I don't think Muslims believe the Bible to be false, they just don't believe it literally meant Jesus was the son of God. But rather it was a metaphor and he was instead a great prophet.
They do however believe the Koran replaces the Bible since they believe it is the final word of God.
I don't know about the prayer when blessing halal meat but if it doesn't mention Mohammed then Christians have nothing to worry about.
Caporegime
If you take two pieces of wood from a tree and put a nail in one, is it the same piece of wood to the other?
While it is from the same tree it is not the same piece of wood and never was. If it was the same piece of wood they would not have broken two pieces off.
I'm still waiting for Castiel to explain who were the apostles present at the apostlees decree in Jerusalem!
While it is from the same tree it is not the same piece of wood and never was. If it was the same piece of wood they would not have broken two pieces off.
I'm still waiting for Castiel to explain who were the apostles present at the apostlees decree in Jerusalem!
I am pasting most of an article from the website of Dr. Temple Grandin, who is a noted world authority on Animal Welfare and has designed slaughter houses and made numerous observations on slaughter methods on her website here, http://www.grandin.com/ . She is probably almost as educated in this area as Castiel is on the NT and Quran.
This is taken from the page marked here, http://www.grandin.com/ritual/euthanasia.slaughter.livestock.html
If you dont want to read the entire article with my highlighted emphasis my summation is:
Ritual Slaughter (specifically Kosher) is absolutely fine and animals did not appear to feel any pain. However, this was primarily contingent on the handling of the animal and the method of restraint prior to it's slaughter. Halal slaughter would seem to be fine on chickens, sheep and goats (this article was specifically on cattle) but the “halal” knife was too short for cattle. It recommended for Halal slaughter use the Kosher slaughter knife to prevent hacking and sawing or to prestun the cattle.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ritual slaughter is slaughter performed according to the dietary codes of Jews or Muslims. Cattle, sheep, or goats are exsanguinated by a throat cut without first being rendered unconscious by preslaughter stunning.
Because ritual slaughter is exempt from Humane Slaughter Act, some plants use cruel methods of restraint...When ritual slaughter is being evaluated, the variable of restraint method must be separated from the act of throat cutting without prior stunning. Distressful restraint methods mask the animals reactions to the cut. (My emphasis)
The author designed and operated four state-of-the-art restraint devices that hold cattle and calves in a comfortable upright position during kosher slaughter. To determine whether cattle feel the throat cut, at one plant the author deliberately applied the head restrainer so lightly that the animals could pull their heads out. None of the 10 cattle moved or attempted to pull their heads out. Observations of hundreds of cattle and calves during kosher slaughter indicated that there was a slight quiver when the knife first contacted the throat. Invasion of the cattle flight zone by touching its head caused a bigger reaction. In another informal experiment, mature bulls and Holstein cows were gently restrained in a head holder with no body restraint. All of them stood still during the cut and did not appear to feel it. Disturbing the edges of the incision or bumping it against the equipment, however, is likely to cause pain. Observations by the author also indicated that the head must be restrained in such a manner that the incision does not close back over the knife. Cattle and sheep struggle violently if the edges of the incision touch during the cut.
The design of the knife and the cutting technique appeared to be critical in preventing the animal from reacting to the cut. In kosher slaughter, a straight, razor-sharp knife that is twice the width of the throat is required, and the cut must be made in a single continuous motion. For halal (Muslim) slaughter, there are no knife-design requirements. Halal slaughter performed with short knives and multiple hacking cuts resulted in a vigorous reaction from cattle. Fortunately, many Muslim religious authorities accept preslaughter stunning. Muslims should be encouraged to stun the cattle or use long, straight, razor-sharp knives that are similar to the ones used for kosher slaughter.
Investigators agree that kosher slaughter does not induce instantaneous unconsciousness. In some cattle, consciousness is prolonged for over 60 seconds. Observations by the author indicated that near immediate collapse can be induced in over 95% of cattle if the ritual slaughterer makes a rapid, deep cut close to the jawbone. Further observations indicated that calm cows and bulls lose sensibility and collapse more quickly than cattle with visible signs of agitation. The author has observed that cattle that fight restraint are more likely to have prolonged sensibility. Gentle operation of restraint devices facilitates rapid loss of sensibility.
Cattle do not appear distressed even when the onset of unconsciousness is delayed. Pain and distress cannot be determined by measurements such as an electroencephalogram. Behavioral observations, however, are valid measures for assessing pain. The author has observed that cattle appear unaware that their throat is cut. Investigators in New Zealand have made similar observations. Immediately after the cut, the head holder should be loosened slightly to allow the animal to relax. The author also has observed that after the head restraint is released, the animal collapses almost immediately or stands and looks around like a normal, alert animal. Within 5 to 60 seconds, cattle go into a hypoxic spasm and sensibility appears to be lost. The spasms are similar to those that occur when cattle become unconscious in a headgate that is used for restraint in feedlots. Practical experience has shown that pressure on the carotid arteries and surrounding areas of the neck from a V-shaped headgate stanchion can kill cattle within 30 seconds.
Even though exsanguination is not an approved method of euthanasia by the AVMA, the author has observed that kosher slaughter performed with the long, straight, razor-sharp knife does not appear to be painful. This is an area that needs further research. One can conclude that it is probably less distressful than poorly performed captivebolt or electrical stunning methods, which release large amounts of epinephrine.
Welfare can be greatly improved by use of a device that restrains the animal in a comfortable upright position. For cattle and calves, a conveyor restrainer or an upright restraint pen can be used. In small plants, sheep or goats can be held by a person. If an upright pen is used, vertical travel of the lift under the animal抯 belly should be restricted to 71 cm to prevent the animal from being lifted off the floor. A pressure limiting valve must be installed on the head holder and rear pusher gate. Many existing upright restraint boxes apply excessive pressure. To prevent excessive bending of the neck, the head holder should position the animal's forehead parallel to the floor. Equipping the head holder with a 15-cm wide, rubber covered forehead bracket will make the head holder more comfortable (Fig 3). The animal should stand in the box with its back level. An arched back is a sign of excessive pusher-gate pressure. In some plants, animals are removed from the restrainer before they become unconscious. Discomfort to the animal can be minimized by allowing it to lapse into unconsciousness before it is removed from the restrainer.
During the past five years, many large kosher slaughter plants for cattle have replaced shackling and hoisting with upright restraint. Large numbers of veal calves and sheep, however, are still shackled and hoisted. Progressive plant owners have installed upright restraint equipment, but unfortunately there are some plant owners who still refuse to install humane restraint equipment because they are not legally required to do so. Animal handling guidelines published by the American Meat institute recommend the use of upright restraint.
Conclusions
The technology exists that allows slaughter and euthanasia to be one. Although some slaughter plants maintain high animal welfare standards, there are others in which management allows abuses to occur. After adequate equipment has been installed, the single most important determinant of good animal welfare is the attitude of management. Good equipment provides the tools that make humane slaughter and handling possible, but it is useless unless it has good management to go with it.
This is taken from the page marked here, http://www.grandin.com/ritual/euthanasia.slaughter.livestock.html
If you dont want to read the entire article with my highlighted emphasis my summation is:
Ritual Slaughter (specifically Kosher) is absolutely fine and animals did not appear to feel any pain. However, this was primarily contingent on the handling of the animal and the method of restraint prior to it's slaughter. Halal slaughter would seem to be fine on chickens, sheep and goats (this article was specifically on cattle) but the “halal” knife was too short for cattle. It recommended for Halal slaughter use the Kosher slaughter knife to prevent hacking and sawing or to prestun the cattle.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ritual slaughter is slaughter performed according to the dietary codes of Jews or Muslims. Cattle, sheep, or goats are exsanguinated by a throat cut without first being rendered unconscious by preslaughter stunning.
Because ritual slaughter is exempt from Humane Slaughter Act, some plants use cruel methods of restraint...When ritual slaughter is being evaluated, the variable of restraint method must be separated from the act of throat cutting without prior stunning. Distressful restraint methods mask the animals reactions to the cut. (My emphasis)
The author designed and operated four state-of-the-art restraint devices that hold cattle and calves in a comfortable upright position during kosher slaughter. To determine whether cattle feel the throat cut, at one plant the author deliberately applied the head restrainer so lightly that the animals could pull their heads out. None of the 10 cattle moved or attempted to pull their heads out. Observations of hundreds of cattle and calves during kosher slaughter indicated that there was a slight quiver when the knife first contacted the throat. Invasion of the cattle flight zone by touching its head caused a bigger reaction. In another informal experiment, mature bulls and Holstein cows were gently restrained in a head holder with no body restraint. All of them stood still during the cut and did not appear to feel it. Disturbing the edges of the incision or bumping it against the equipment, however, is likely to cause pain. Observations by the author also indicated that the head must be restrained in such a manner that the incision does not close back over the knife. Cattle and sheep struggle violently if the edges of the incision touch during the cut.
The design of the knife and the cutting technique appeared to be critical in preventing the animal from reacting to the cut. In kosher slaughter, a straight, razor-sharp knife that is twice the width of the throat is required, and the cut must be made in a single continuous motion. For halal (Muslim) slaughter, there are no knife-design requirements. Halal slaughter performed with short knives and multiple hacking cuts resulted in a vigorous reaction from cattle. Fortunately, many Muslim religious authorities accept preslaughter stunning. Muslims should be encouraged to stun the cattle or use long, straight, razor-sharp knives that are similar to the ones used for kosher slaughter.
Investigators agree that kosher slaughter does not induce instantaneous unconsciousness. In some cattle, consciousness is prolonged for over 60 seconds. Observations by the author indicated that near immediate collapse can be induced in over 95% of cattle if the ritual slaughterer makes a rapid, deep cut close to the jawbone. Further observations indicated that calm cows and bulls lose sensibility and collapse more quickly than cattle with visible signs of agitation. The author has observed that cattle that fight restraint are more likely to have prolonged sensibility. Gentle operation of restraint devices facilitates rapid loss of sensibility.
Cattle do not appear distressed even when the onset of unconsciousness is delayed. Pain and distress cannot be determined by measurements such as an electroencephalogram. Behavioral observations, however, are valid measures for assessing pain. The author has observed that cattle appear unaware that their throat is cut. Investigators in New Zealand have made similar observations. Immediately after the cut, the head holder should be loosened slightly to allow the animal to relax. The author also has observed that after the head restraint is released, the animal collapses almost immediately or stands and looks around like a normal, alert animal. Within 5 to 60 seconds, cattle go into a hypoxic spasm and sensibility appears to be lost. The spasms are similar to those that occur when cattle become unconscious in a headgate that is used for restraint in feedlots. Practical experience has shown that pressure on the carotid arteries and surrounding areas of the neck from a V-shaped headgate stanchion can kill cattle within 30 seconds.
Even though exsanguination is not an approved method of euthanasia by the AVMA, the author has observed that kosher slaughter performed with the long, straight, razor-sharp knife does not appear to be painful. This is an area that needs further research. One can conclude that it is probably less distressful than poorly performed captivebolt or electrical stunning methods, which release large amounts of epinephrine.
Welfare can be greatly improved by use of a device that restrains the animal in a comfortable upright position. For cattle and calves, a conveyor restrainer or an upright restraint pen can be used. In small plants, sheep or goats can be held by a person. If an upright pen is used, vertical travel of the lift under the animal抯 belly should be restricted to 71 cm to prevent the animal from being lifted off the floor. A pressure limiting valve must be installed on the head holder and rear pusher gate. Many existing upright restraint boxes apply excessive pressure. To prevent excessive bending of the neck, the head holder should position the animal's forehead parallel to the floor. Equipping the head holder with a 15-cm wide, rubber covered forehead bracket will make the head holder more comfortable (Fig 3). The animal should stand in the box with its back level. An arched back is a sign of excessive pusher-gate pressure. In some plants, animals are removed from the restrainer before they become unconscious. Discomfort to the animal can be minimized by allowing it to lapse into unconsciousness before it is removed from the restrainer.
During the past five years, many large kosher slaughter plants for cattle have replaced shackling and hoisting with upright restraint. Large numbers of veal calves and sheep, however, are still shackled and hoisted. Progressive plant owners have installed upright restraint equipment, but unfortunately there are some plant owners who still refuse to install humane restraint equipment because they are not legally required to do so. Animal handling guidelines published by the American Meat institute recommend the use of upright restraint.
Conclusions
The technology exists that allows slaughter and euthanasia to be one. Although some slaughter plants maintain high animal welfare standards, there are others in which management allows abuses to occur. After adequate equipment has been installed, the single most important determinant of good animal welfare is the attitude of management. Good equipment provides the tools that make humane slaughter and handling possible, but it is useless unless it has good management to go with it.
Caporegime
Is it not true?
That halal is no longer necessary then if Christians do not have to eat kosher or as pee apostlees decree?
That halal is no longer necessary then if Christians do not have to eat kosher or as pee apostlees decree?
I'd say it is more like 'Take one piece of wood, add a nail, then is it the same piece of wood after you added the nail to it?'
What is the relevance?
The Council of Jerusalem included Simon Peter, Paul of Tarsus, James Adelphotheos and Barnabas as well as other Church Elders and Apostles.
Good, then God remains the same God despite what his disparate followers might interpret about his nature?
If this is the case and the Islamic God is the God of Abraham (do you agree with this?) then there is no idolatry, as God is not a false God even if his followers ascribe what you might interpret as false to him. How can there be the sin of idolatry in eating Halal if God, Allah, Yahweh is the One True God?
Indeed. I hadn't mentioned it specifically...I assumed is was obvious when I mentioned that Allah was simply the Arabic for The One God...ironically it is also the Aramaic (the language of Christ) word (Alaha) for The One God also...so in all likelihood Christ would have called God, Alah on occasion.
Caporegime
The relevance is you said it was the Pharisees of the council and the elders. I contend it was made up of some of jesus's 12 apostles. Are you telling me that Paul who was not one of jesus's apostles the 13th if you will had more knowledge of jesus teachings than Simon peter? One of only 3 men whom jesus showed the resurrection to? Do you think peter Simon forgot so quickly the teachings of christ and passed incorrect doctrine to paul saul.
Or do you think that perhaps jesus intentions were clear and that it is infact paul who changed the teachings of his own accord claiming that he could learn nothing from some of jesus own apostles?
Or do you claim that jesus original apostles were infact all wrong and paul who never met jesus in the flesh was jesus's replacement on earth?
How I envy your un inquisitive mind. Life must be very simple.
Spot on bud - A lot of people seem to forget that Allah is the name first given to 'God' by the arabian christians not the muslims!.
Both Arabian Christians and the Pagans used to refer to Allah as 'The One God' way before Islam even begun.
It's a common misconception and people don't seem to understand a basic concept of the three abrahamic religions and how they are all so common - for example the flesh of swine (the favourite food that a lot of people bang on about) is actually forbidden by ALL three religions. So is Usury (interest) - but as time progressed people have changed the religions to suit their own needs.
Just because its an Arabic word and not an English one people seem to think its a completely different god - just goes to show how uneducated people are in the basics and quick to jump to silly conclusions.
No I did not...you seem to be confusing the arrest of Paul with the Council of Jerusalem..they are no the same. The Council did not have Paul arrested...it was actual Jews from Asia (Pharisees and Sedducees) who rallied the mob that led to Paul's arrest, not the Council of Jerusalem or Jewish Christians.
What are you talking about now? No-one said that Paul was one of the Twelve Apostles/Disciples (as opposed to the word Apostle, which simply means missionary/student and there were upward of 70 Apostles)..The point of the Council is that they legitimised Paul (and Barnabas) mission amongst the Gentiles, not shunning him. The debate revolved around the disagreement that a convert could not be saved unless he followed Mosaic Law, Paul disagreed that is what Jesus taught, that Jesus taught that Salvation came through Christ and Christ alone..something that is generally accepted by Christians today as being the case... They did not shun Paul or have him arrested. He was arrested by the Romans because he was being beaten to death by a mob incited by Jews from Asia because wrongly they assumed that Paul had allowed a desecration of their Temple.
And let us get one thing clear here, there have been many disagreements between Christians, particularly in the Early Church that were settled thusly, it doesn't mean that Peter was always right or Paul was always wrong and the Bible is not just written by, and Christians do not just take their Tradition and Doctrine from the Twelve Apostles...Mark (Gospel) for example was not one of the Twelve Apostles, he was one of the Seventy however and a disciple of Peter..Luke (Gospel) (who also traditionally wrote Acts) was a disciple and friend of Paul. According to Christian Tradition that is.
And I don't claim anything, I am just telling you what mainstream Christianity accepts, you are the one who is claiming authority about the validity of Pauline Doctrine in Christianity, not I, I am simply imparting the common theology as regards Paul's acceptance in mainstream Christian thought as well as the common interpretation of Mark and how it relates to Food Prohibition in Chrisitianity....and that is what is important when determining whether A Christian can eat Halal or not...
Yeah, whatever!!!!
Anyway, I have wasted enough time discussing this, you can make you own mind (I suspect that it was made up long before you posted anything here however) and people can accept or reject the respective opinions as they choose.
Last edited:
Caporegime
No I did not...you seem to be confusing the arrest of Paul with the Council of Jerusalem..they are no the same. The Council did not have Paul arrested...it was actual Jews from Asia (Pharisees and Sedducees) who rallied the mob that led to Paul's arrest, not the Council of Jerusalem or Jewish Christians.
What are you talking about now? No-one said that Paul was one of the Twelve Apostles/Disciples (as opposed to the word Apostle, which simply means missionary/student and there were upward of 70 Apostles)..The point of the Council is that they legitimised Paul (and Barnabas) mission amongst the Gentiles, not shunning him. The debate revolved around the disagreement that a convert could not be saved unless he followed Mosaic Law, Paul disagreed that is what Jesus taught, that Jesus taught that Salvation came through Christ and Christ alone..something that is generally accepted by Christians today as being the case... They did not shun Paul or have him arrested. He was arrested by the Romans because he was being beaten to death by a mob incited by Jews from Asia because wrongly they assumed that Paul had allowed a desecration of their Temple.
And let us get one thing clear here, there have been many disagreements between Christians, particularly in the Early Church that were settled thusly, it doesn't mean that Peter was always right or Paul was always wrong and the Bible is not just written by, and Christians do not just take their Tradition and Doctrine from the Twelve Apostles...Mark (Gospel) for example was not one of the Twelve Apostles, he was one of the Seventy however and a disciple of Peter..Luke (Gospel) (who also traditionally wrote Acts) was a disciple and friend of Paul. According to Christian Tradition that is.
And I don't claim anything, I am just telling you what mainstream Christianity accepts, you are the one who is claiming authority about the validity of Pauline Doctrine in Christianity, not I, I am simply imparting the common theology as regards Paul's acceptance in mainstream Christian thought as well as the common interpretation of Mark and how it relates to Food Prohibition in Chrisitianity....and that is what is important when determining whether A Christian can eat Halal or not...
Yeah, whatever!!!!
I'm specifically talking about the apostolistic decree we ran over earlier. I said to you that the decree was that Paul take the word to the gentiles of Christ but they gave him 4 laws to uphold as a minimum and that they should visit the synagogue to read about the other laws and traditions on a sunday.
This is written. But you keep ignoring this over and over again and I cant figure out why, expect that it defeats your argument. I will repost it for your sake:
Paul was sent away from the jewish council after the decree with the following message to promote:
Paul actually amended this script and turned it into a different message that he instead preached and mis sold the story to them:
I have highlighted the lie by Paul to the galatians and that he himself over esteemed his part, ignored the decree from some of the original 12 apostles,
and then went back to Jerusalem and told the jewish council what he had been preaching. The council were not happy and asked him to cleanse himself. By this point, the council (from Peter Simon) had already sent letters out to the places Paul had been preaching to tell them that Paul was a false prophet/Apostle.
The council had already communicated with the people that Paul had been preaching to and told them to ignore his lies and they repeated the decree via letter. At this point Paul is counted as a liar and a false prophet/apostle.
The jewish people from asia spotted Paul, knowing that he had preached to gentiles and jews alike with his own false testimony and had him arrested by the Romans.
Had Paul stuck to the decree and only taught gentiles the 4 laws he was asked to, why would they have had him arrested?
And the thing is I am bothered not by the choice you choose to make Castiel, I can only present the books as they are communicated to allow the other forum users to understand the points I make and the points you make.
If they want me to shut up then fine. It means little to me I am not here to convert anyone. I think it provides an interesting discourse on what is haram to Muslims and what could be to Christians. The story has a path it is weaving to intersect with the koranic expression of haram foods and whether muslims believing the NT but importantly NOT the teachings of Paul. How jesus alleged revelation about in the passage that Castiel uses to accept all food and the removal of opd law but how this is not carried over into the understanding of halal through the NT and the koranic verses.
Last edited:
The Apostolic Decree was the Council of Jerusalem or the Apostolic Conference if you prefer. Paul goes to Jerusalem long after this and James doesn't accuse Paul of teaching anything untoward, in fact he greeting him with respect and honour, but he says that the Jews in Jerusalem believe that Paul has been teaching Jews that they need not be circumcised...Paul had not his mission was amongst the Gentiles, but that is what the Jews believed so James asked Paul to obviate their fears, this is not what you are saying, you are saying that Paul was called a Liar and false Apostle by James and the Church in Jerusalem..this is simply not suggested in the Scripture.
In any case the apostolic decree is rarely observed in mainstream Christianity, particularly Western Christianity.
As I said, if you want to accept that interpretation then go right ahead, your mind is made up, like I said you must read Acts 22 etc to actually understand the context of the scripture, which is not calling Paul a liar at all, quite the opposite, in Paul Speaks to the People, Luke explains that Paul is accurately instructing through the Grace of God as opposed to before his conversion when he was boastful and conceited (when he was a Pharisee, not now he was an Apostle)...
What Paul taught was that Salvation comes through Christ alone, not through the Adherence to Law, this is a central tenet of Christianity and a major doctrinal difference between Christianity and Judaism.
That Acts 15 shows that James asks Paul to obviate the Jews and their accusations and promote harmony by showing he followed the Law himself, thus the purification doesn't mean that Paul was shunned, quite the opposite, Acts doesn't state that Paul was teaching Jews to break Mosaic law, that is what James said the Jews in Jerusalem thought, not that is what he was doing. The entire point of the Purification was to prove to the Jews that Paul was Jewish himself (we hear about this in his speech as well) ...the Asiatic Jews thought that Paul had allowed a Gentile into the Inner Temple, this wasn't true, but they accused him of it anyway as they were threatened by the message of Paul, that was there was no difference between Christian Jew and Christian Gentile that they were both one under God (again a central belief of mainstream Christianity) and sought to kill him..the Romans arrested Paul because they thought him someone else (an Egyptian False Prophet who had raised a mob a few years earlier) and when they realised he was not that person they allowed him to address the People and that is why Acts gives us this information, as the backdrop to the Conversion of Paul and his subsequent Speech to the very people who were moments before trying to kill him. The point of this is to show Paul's divinely commanded mission to the Gentiles and the Jewish Peoples refusal to accept the Gospels..and so on... Anyway Nickg this could go on forever, including explaining the defence of Paul to the Sanhedrin, where he elucidates the theology of Fulfilment and so on, but no doubt you are fully convinced by the sources you used earlier who also think that Barak Obama is the AntiChrist and that Jesus said so...for this I cannot take such opinion very seriously.
However, if you really want to discuss the validity and criticisms of Pauline Theology and the ins and outs of Dual-Covenant Theology then start a thread in SC and I'll participate, GD isn't really suitable for such an in-depth discussion as this would generate and most people would just get very bored.
however again like I said earlier your sources interpretation is not widely accepted by mainstream Christianity and that is the point relevant to this thread...as far as mainstream Christianity is concerned there is no prohibition relating to food, including Halal.
I would also point out that scholars generally give more authenticity to the Galatians account than they do the one in Acts. Which is the opposite from what the anti-Pauline sources you keep quoting do. Luke was a disciple of Paul, not the other way around and preference is given to Paul over Luke with regards to the authenticity of its theology.
Last edited: