If Sacrifices Are "Done Away" Why Is There No Sign of Doctrinal Controversy in the First Century Church?

When we look into the New Testament, we can find strong proof that the doctrine of the circumcision of gentiles (or gentile proselytes) which enabled gentiles to keep Passover (Exodus 12:48) was indeed overturned. Acts 10 is clear. Cornelius a gentile was given God's spirit and was baptised, without having been circumcised.

Even those who would later oppose the non-circumcision of gentiles and became known as "those of the circumcision" and who were with Peter at the time, were forced to agree with him, that Cornelius shouldn't be forbidden water baptism, because Cornelius was speaking in tongues and had clearly been given the Holy Spirit by God Himself without being circumcised. Paul and Barnabus too had seen the fruits of God's Spirit evident right throughout the gentile churches, in members who hadn't been circumcised.

Read Galatians, read Romans, Paul writes a lot to address this doctrinal change, because indeed it was a change in what must only have been a temporary law. Yet after Cornelius, because gentiles were now not required to be circumcised there was considerable unrest in the church; letters were being written on the subject and finally the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15: was called to resolve the conflict. The law in Exodus 12: MUST have been temporary.

Clearly God was now calling gentiles and they no longer had to be formally naturalised as Israelite citizens under God's everlasting circumcision covenant with Abraham and his descendents in Genesis 17.

OK back to the subject. Before the doctrine of circumcision was clarified there was the massive turmoil in the New Testament church.

So are we then to believe that the church (which was predominantly Jewish, and even in gentile areas was taken "first to the Jew and then the Greek" would have accepted ANY OTHER change to the law without so much as a murmur?

Just as there isn't any record of anything like a "Jerusalem Conference" for doing away with the Sabbath, Holy Days, Clean and Unclean Meats; there isn't any record of anything like a "Jerusalem Conference" when the sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood were supposed to have been done away.

You would have been forgiven for thinking that if there was anything like a major shift in doctrine, like the abrogation of sacrifices, that the balloon would have gone up, wouldn't you?

Arguably the reason why there was no doctrinal controversy about the sacrifices being done away, was that they werent.

Return to the start of Paul's Post Crucifixion Temple Sacrifices a Judianity website ?
© www.pauls-post-crucifixion-temple-sacrifices.info March 2006.

One small and predictable change to an "Old Testament" law about circumcising gentile proselytes in Acts, caused massive turmoil in the predominantly Jewish first century church. So if most of the other Old Testament laws were "done away" - why then isn't any comparable disturbance recorded in the New Testament? How can the written Torah law (law of Moses) really be "done away" in Galatians?