Is it OK to eat what was sacrificed to idols or not?

No its not OK. Jesus in the book of Revelation condemns it.


1 Corinthians 8 does not teach you should eat meat sacrificed to idols, that would make Paul contradict himself in later chapters and the Jerusalem council and Jesus in Revelation!
John Chrysostom has a great exposition of this, check it out trofimus im sure you would be interested in it.
First part of it is HERE and you can find more in the website.

That verse states explicitly that it is OK. No need to check out a website unless it's a cooking site offering BBQ tips.

I don't think I've seen one of those kebab wraps in the US.


Muslims don't have actual idols they sacrifice to. Pre-Muhammad, the evidence seems to point to Arabic-speaking Christians calling God 'Allah', and they still do. Muslims say, 'mismillah'-- 'In the name of God.'

Their concept of God falls short of the Bible's, but they claim to worship the God of Abraham.

I saw some Muslim declaring some students could graduate from a college, and he translated it into English. He declared they could graduate, 'In the name of God.' It sounded pretty strange to me. What if it was later discovered that one of the students had a mistake with their credits or had cheated?

You mean besides 'Allahu Ahkbar!' which is the last thing that some folks ever hear . . . or is that "Aloha Snackbar!"

If you read I Corinthians 8 about this, please be aware that this is only part of a longer argument that takes a bit of a detail or the issue of sacrificing liberty and rights and applies it to Paul's not using his right to live of the gospel in chapter 9, only to return back to the main topic in chapter 10.

In chapter 8, Paul agrees to some extent with the arguments of those who think nothing of idols, giving conscience reasons not to worship idols. But he gives other arguments in chapter 10. Here are some of the arguments in chapters 8 and 10 not to eat mean offered to idols.

1. The conscience of the weaker brother and causing him to sin.
2. The destruction of Israelites in the desert over idolatry.
3. Not provoking the Lord to jealousy.
4. Not fellowshipping with demons.

Paul then, building on the conscience issue, makes an allowance for buying and eating meat or eating and feasts without asking questions, because "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof". Taking his overall argument, he does not just flat out allow eating meat offered to idols. He agrees with some of the reasons of those who think it is okay, but then offers several other reasons not to. He does make a couple of nuanced exceptions, but does not wipe out or contradict the letter written to the Gentile churches which the remaning 12 apostles, himself, Barnabas, whatever other apostles, and the elders decided the Spirit was saying during that council in Jerusalem in Acts 15. And he does not teach people to eat meat offered to idols, a teaching Jesus opposed later in the book of Revelation in very strong language.

Where else does Jesus say stuff like, "...I will kill her children with death..."? The issues there related to teaching the people to fornicate and to eat meat offered to idols.

I don't think I've seen one of those kebab wraps in the US.


Muslims don't have actual idols they sacrifice to. Pre-Muhammad, the evidence seems to point to Arabic-speaking Christians calling God 'Allah', and they still do. Muslims say, 'mismillah'-- 'In the name of God.'

Their concept of God falls short of the Bible's, but they claim to worship the God of Abraham.

I saw some Muslim declaring some students could graduate from a college, and he translated it into English. He declared they could graduate, 'In the name of God.' It sounded pretty strange to me. What if it was later discovered that one of the students had a mistake with their credits or had cheated?

They told them to not eat sacrificial meat (offered to idols) because they actually believed in the so called "god." Hence idolatry. Their conscience bore witness against them, partaking in what essentially is a form of worship with another god, but not the one true God. We know that we could eat in the temple and that all their gods are fake, superstitions. Yet for others it would be like serving another god.
They didn't make the distinction. So in our liberty we could've eaten food that was sacrificed to an idol, but had we been seen by a weaker brother they could see it as permission in idolatry.

In essence, our liberty would be their license to sin.

the weaker brother being destroyed is matter of conscience.
if to him eating such food is sacrilege, then to see a stronger brother in the Lord eat it could cause him to stumble, when in fact the stronger brother understands that he has liberty as a Christian to eat whatever he wants because he is no longer bound to the law but has liberty through the Spirit.

the idea is for each to commend the act to God. The one who eats honors God by recognizing the liberty that Christ bought for him, and the one who abstains honors God by not wanting to partake in what seems to be sacrilege

likewise the one who eats should not condemn the one who does not eat and vice versa since they both are seeking to honor God

Trofimus,
I'm done arguing, feel free to offer your counterpoint unmolested.

Protestants have been debating this issue for hundreds of years,
and to be honest, although we disagree, we aren't generally that worked up about it.

...

Eureka, you have identified confusion within HUMANS;
that is quite definitionally different than confusion within scripture.

The two things are not remotely the same.

I understand the Catholic church NEEDS to make these two dissimilar issues similar, in order to justify the magisterium.
But having a DESPERATE NEED to be illogical... well... it still can't turn one thing into another.



....

I do not even think we were arguing I would be glad to get your opinion on my OP questions though, we do not have to argue if the Bible is clear or not.

If you read I Corinthians 8 about this, please be aware that this is only part of a longer argument that takes a bit of a detail or the issue of sacrificing liberty and rights and applies it to Paul's not using his right to live of the gospel in chapter 9, only to return back to the main topic in chapter 10.

In chapter 8, Paul agrees to some extent with the arguments of those who think nothing of idols, giving conscience reasons not to worship idols. But he gives other arguments in chapter 10. Here are some of the arguments in chapters 8 and 10 not to eat mean offered to idols.

1. The conscience of the weaker brother and causing him to sin.
2. The destruction of Israelites in the desert over idolatry.
3. Not provoking the Lord to jealousy.
4. Not fellowshipping with demons.

Paul then, building on the conscience issue, makes an allowance for buying and eating meat or eating and feasts without asking questions, because "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof". Taking his overall argument, he does not just flat out allow eating meat offered to idols. He agrees with some of the reasons of those who think it is okay, but then offers several other reasons not to. He does make a couple of nuanced exceptions, but does not wipe out or contradict the letter written to the Gentile churches which the remaning 12 apostles, himself, Barnabas, whatever other apostles, and the elders decided the Spirit was saying during that council in Jerusalem in Acts 15. And he does not teach people to eat meat offered to idols, a teaching Jesus opposed later in the book of Revelation in very strong language.

Where else does Jesus say stuff like, "...I will kill her children with death..."? The issues there related to teaching the people to fornicate and to eat meat offered to idols.

can anyone else read this ? The letters are too light here .
Blessings
Bill

So if you want to send someone to hell, secretly sacrifice his/her favorite food to an idol then let them eat it.