YP,
I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I am trying to take the letter in its place in history. That may put a spin on it that is not entirely correct, or at least not complete.
When I see that conference and the letter the came out of it, I see a continuation of the way of the Jewish existence. (I note that in at least one place the church was referred to as a sect of Judaism. That may not be an entirely untrue statement — and possibly not an unwanted statement.)
The history of Judaism was the law combined with its many interpretations. Those interpretations were not for knowledge (or at least originally not so) but as guides to properly living/fulfilling the law.
While we have been given a better way, there is still the need for insight, interpretation, teaching, etc. In recording this particular event, there are several things that I see:
- A desire to be right before the Lord. While the accounts in Paul's epistles are of zealous Judaizers coming and stealing freedom in Christ from the Gentile believers, the group taking up the complaint were not interested in defending Judaism, but in "getting it right."
- An honest admission that they were not making an absolute edict, but speaking according to what they believed that the Spirit was speaking to them.
- A consideration for the principles that the small stipulations they made represented. (This is strictly my take on it.) We know that certain of the dietary restrictions had to do with health, such as not eating pork to avoid getting trichinosis, while others were more about principles. Surely there was nothing unhealthy about boiling meat in milk. But you could not boil "a kid int is mother's milk." Why? Probably some kind of statement about your source not being the means of your end. Similar to no adultery because God is faithful. Were the ones the brothers in Jerusalem put on the Gentiles really necessary? I don't know. Maybe not. That is where their admitted uncertainty comes to play. It was not necessarily over.
- Last, I think that the process of freeing the Gentiles effectively freed the Jews from the requirements. They may not have wanted to say it out loud, but if God permits one, and is not a respecter of persons, then he would permit another. But one's freedom is not an indictment on those who freely chose not to be free.
As for "Judaism lite" I understand. But if the list is adultery, fornication, blood and strangulation, then they weren't about to allow it all (obviously) and rightly or wrongly, they believed it to be important.
I'm willing to allow that in terms of the complete righteousness of God it was probably an error to include it, but note that it was the first step in a process. Do you think that women should not teach — or at least not teach a man? If not, then the whole bunch, including Paul, were simply screwballs. But in their day, it was part of society and culture that it be so. But even some of Paul's words were not so absolute on the subject.
Or what about slavery?
The list goes on.
That we can look back and see how society in general and Christianity in specific has progressed from male-dominated, feudal, warring tribes to what we are today is a testimony to the spiritual growth that we now consider to be base-line. What about immigration? I've heard some talk about churches getting involved in a "sanctuary movement" to protect certain classes of illegal immigrants who are otherwise facing deportation. I may disagree with their ways, but their heart is right. What is the answer? Maybe we need another Jerusalem counsel to give us a well-reasoned and thoroughly-prayed decision that we all know is not the last word on the subject.
In short, when I look at the Jerusalem letter as an edict for the way it will be, I agree that there are problems. When I view it as a step in the spiritual evolution of humans who are being daily transformed, it is not so hard to understand and even accept.