This may seem to be strange or even conflicting if we forget the context.
Those following Yeshua during the first decades thought they were circumcised Hebrews obeying the law (teachings in Torah). The Yeshua movement was a revival movement within Israel, until it spread to the pagan world. There were differences between the Hellenistic and more traditional Hebrews but all were children of the covenant between Israel and God. A large part of the jews following Yeshua had the opinion that those circumcised needed to obey the laws of Torah. They could accept that those not circumcised did not need to follow all the laws in Torah but they wanted to be blameless also in that respect.
There were cultural tensions between the Hellenistic and traditional Hebrews and the situation became even more tense after Gentiles were added among followers. We can see part of this tension already in Acts 6 and in the persecutions that started after the killing of Stephanos; the persecutions were targeted mainly against the Hellenistic followers.
In this kind of sensible situation, it was important to maintain unity among the followers. Those not following the laws of Torah had to take into consideration the feelings of the more traditional ones. What Acts 15 tell about the conclusion of the meeting and debate in Jerusalem can be understood as an attempt to maintain unity among the circumcised and the Gentile believers. Eating blood or something sacrificed to idols would have been an abomination to the jews and would have broken the unity in communion. So, avoid eating such things and you will do well.
Definitely a mystery, but a cool one. I remember one co-instance involving a CCM artist that elicited a laugh from me, and a verbal response, “How do you do that! ” Some of his providences are not easy, but all are good.
I think the McDowells (Sean and Josh) are a solid resource. I do think they tend to have their spin, which is to be expected about anyone, but their books are well reasoned. I read “More than a Carpenter” recently and thought it was very good; similar to “Case for Christ” but shorter.
With that being said, I’d you’re doing research into the resurrection, I’d recommend William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, and NT Wright for the affirmative case (for the negative case, maybe Bart Ehrman). Here are some solid books:
NT Wright - Resurrection of the Son of God
Habermas & Licona - Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
WLC - On Guard or Reasonable Faith
I’m curious what people recommend on the negative side. One of the issues here is it’s difficult to find people who make the negative case for Jesus’s resurrection without venturing into mythicism. In other words, it’s more people not being convinced by the evidence/positive case than there being really solid alternative theories from what I can tell.
” Some of his providences are not easy, but all are good.