SeekGod.ca Discussion Forum

In short, this could not possibly be the subversion you talk about if it is, then we begin creeping down the road of God being sadistic once again. How? Because our person of focus, Peter says, it was a yoke they could not bear, which would be a smack in the face to what Yahuah (God) tells them about his law in reference to Deut 30.

If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it
(Deut 30:10-14)

So is Peter now saying, hey you know what guys Yahuah (God) lied to us?
You and I both know that Judaism is not only Torah which is crystal clear by what we see practice today, if we are honest. What Paul does say before he goes into his spill on Peter is the following, (my paraphrase) I was a champion of “Judaism”. If you walk through Galatians line-by-line you will see actions and teachings taking place outside the Father’s will. In all honestly, I’ve given a little bit of my view on this in the Jesus covenant/law thread indirectly.
But now you’re confusing me just as much as Rose (this is not a sarcastic confusion). Please explain how Peter’s vision takes place, and we do not see him eat one portion of red meat, and he confesses that the vision has nothing to do with food, yet you two say it does.

Let’s stop thinking so scholarly and look at this from a practical sense. If Acts 15:20 tells us that the gentiles were being taught to eat foods like the Israelites and not like they were accustom to in their life before Yahusha (Jesus). What makes you think that he would be eating something contrary to the law that was supposed to be issued to the gentiles in Acts 15:20?
Would it not make more sense that he would be eating what they were eating sense the command from Acts 15 was specific as to what they should eat according to the Torah, and not their previous life?
And as you suggested let’s stick with the main question being presented. Where does Peter say that he ate blood foods? Where did he say his dream given to him by Yahuah (God) meant what you say it meant? Where do any of the disciples do this?
Shalom!

Quote:In short, this could not possibly be the subversion you talk about if it is, then we begin creeping down the road of God being sadistic once again. How? Because our person of focus, Peter says, it was a yoke they could not bear, which would be a smack in the face to what Yahuah (God) tells them about his law in reference to Deut 30.

What do you mean by saying "God being sadistic once again"?

Quote:Are we really going to go down that road Rose? The nothing he made is unclean part by no way indicates eat food. If so, Peter most certainly would have ate whatever was available to him. The right question to ask is what did Peter do? What did Peter say the vision meant to him not us? The following answer is stretch out at least two times in the next chapter. I don’t really think this is debatable considering the revelation and events that took place immediately after the dream, let alone we never are told that Peter ate any food.

What road would that be? You don't seem to want to answer my question about what did God refer to when He told Peter to kill and eat? If it wasn't food what was it then since you keep saying it wasn't food but won't tell me what you think it is.If you want me to search for the answer somewhere else then that leaves us with the question of what did the kill and eat refer to?

Quote:In short, this could not possibly be the subversion you talk about if it is, then we begin creeping down the road of God being sadistic once again. How? Because our person of focus, Peter says, it was a yoke they could not bear, which would be a smack in the face to what Yahuah (God) tells them about his law in reference to Deut 30.

If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it
(Deut 30:10-14)

So is Peter now saying, hey you know what guys Yahuah (God) lied to us?

Lied why? In the vision of the sheet God says that what He has cleansed Peter is not to call common or unclean. For God to have cleansed it means that it previously was unclean. So it wasn't that God lied but that He now made all foods clean.
About it being a yoke that the fathers could not bear, this was because the Law was a schoolmaster and one of its aims was to bring us to the point where we recognize our need for salvation.The people as a whole kept breaking the covenant and incurring all its curses for disobedience so Peter was correct in his observations.

Quote:Let’s stop thinking so scholarly and look at this from a practical sense.

Heh in other words stop thinking scholarly and let me brainwash you a little.Scholarship is good otherwise people end up believing anything unscrupulous people will tell them and thus we get the mess of teachings such as those encountered on the forum.

Hello.

This comment is in response to Rose of Shushan's comment to Ne'eryah:

"What road would that be? You don't seem to want to answer my question about what did God refer to when He told Peter to kill and eat? If it wasn't food what was it then since you keep saying it wasn't food but won't tell me what you think it is.If you want me to search for the answer somewhere else then that leaves us with the question of what did the kill and eat refer to?"

Metaphorical language is common in prophecy and dream visions. An example that is pretty similar to this is that which we read in the book of Zechariah 3:

1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: [is] not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.

4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.

5 And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD stood by.

My question is, is the vision meaning to refer to change his garments, or to the removal of his iniquity? Are we to say that his iniquity is that he is wearing filthy garments, literally, or that his filthy garments are a symbol of his iniquity?
I understand that it says 'they changed his garments'; but remember that it is a vision, and how does the vision interpret the clothes?

A bit different, but the same concept, are other prophecies in Zechariah 4 about the two olive branches, Jeremiah 1 about the almond tree, the seething pot...also in the book of revelation 1 [of many places] the seven candlesticks, the seven stars, the two edged sword coming out of his mouth, etc...
When it comes to visions and parables we have to be careful in taking everything literally. Yes, there are times where a person is told to do a literal act with a physical object, that is meant symbolically. For example when Jeremiah takes the girdle, wears it a bit, buries it in the ground, and removes it after many days...or Isaiah walking naked, or Ezekiel laying on his side x number of days, Hoshea marrying an reformed prostitute, etc.

Therefore, in Peter's vision, I believe we need to let Peter interpret it himself...at first he is confused, and thinks it refers to food, "Lord, I have never eat anything common or unclean"...but later, he comes back with the realization of the meaning of the dream [not by saying, Ah, we can eat pork, but rather] "Now I know that God is not an accepter of persons, but in every nation he who does righteousness is accepted with him."

Be well.

Quote:Therefore, in Peter's vision, I believe we need to let Peter interpret it himself...at first he is confused, and thinks it refers to food, "Lord, I have never eat anything common or unclean"...but later, he comes back with the realization of the meaning of the dream [not by saying, Ah, we can eat pork, but rather] "Now I know that God is not an accepter of persons, but in every nation he who does righteousness is accepted with him."

Hi Benny nice to see you posting again.
I see your point but I don't think it applies in this case since like I keep repeating, God said He had cleansed it.If God hadn't replied to Peter three times the same thing then I would have agreed that the meaning had not been made clear such as in other prophecies.
From the whole passage we see that yes he was confused

Act 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
Act 10:20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

but when the men send for Him the Spirit has to tell Peter to go with them,otherwise He wouldn't have gone.

Act 10:22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
Act 10:23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.

Peter stays at Cornelius house and this would have involved Peter eating "unclean" food.I think its so logical that the vision would have primarily addressed food since the food laws were one of the main things that would have prevented Peter from lodging and eating at Cornelius house.
And Peter did eat since in the next chapter we see these accusations levelled at Peter

Act 11:2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
Act 11:3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Peter never denies that he ate with them but instead recounts the vision as the reasoin of why He did so.If Peter hadn't eaten with them he would have said so right there but instead he explains that it was because of the vision.
So the men ask him about food and he recounts the vision which was also about food.

If it had been solely about people wouldnt Peter have explained so in his defense but Peter gives the vision as his defence of why he did so.So Peter has the vision that clears the food issue and then the Spirit has to tell him to go with the men ortherwise Peter wouldnt have gone.If it had just been a matter of associating with gentiles whatb would have been the pointy of the vision of the sheet.Wouldnt the spirit telling them to go with the men suffice?
The two things go hand in hand, associating and eating.

Quote:bit different, but the same concept, are other prophecies in Zechariah 4 about the two olive branches, Jeremiah 1 about the almond tree, the seething pot...also in the book of revelation 1 [of many places] the seven candlesticks, the seven stars, the two edged sword coming out of his mouth, etc...
When it comes to visions and parables we have to be careful in taking everything literally. Yes, there are times where a person is told to do a literal act with a physical object, that is meant symbolically. For example when Jeremiah takes the girdle, wears it a bit, buries it in the ground, and removes it after many days...or Isaiah walking naked, or Ezekiel laying on his side x number of days, Hoshea marrying an reformed prostitute, etc.

Well Hoshea did marry the prostitute ,Isaiah did go naked and Ezekiel did lay on his side all those days.Like Peter they obeyed God .After the vision we don't see Peter going out and literally killing a host of unclean animals and eating them, what we see is Peter applying the principles behind the vision which incidentally was not a prophecy.The Joshua example was a prophecy of what God was going to do in the future and is not the same as the vision of the sheet.
In the Hoshea ,Isaiah and Ezekiel episodes we see a mix of prophecy and instructions for the then present time and the prophets did carry out God's instructions.

(04-29-2011 09:49 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:bit different, but the same concept, are other prophecies in Zechariah 4 about the two olive branches, Jeremiah 1 about the almond tree, the seething pot...also in the book of revelation 1 [of many places] the seven candlesticks, the seven stars, the two edged sword coming out of his mouth, etc...
When it comes to visions and parables we have to be careful in taking everything literally. Yes, there are times where a person is told to do a literal act with a physical object, that is meant symbolically. For example when Jeremiah takes the girdle, wears it a bit, buries it in the ground, and removes it after many days...or Isaiah walking naked, or Ezekiel laying on his side x number of days, Hoshea marrying an reformed prostitute, etc.

Well Hoshea did marry the prostitute ,Isaiah did go naked and Ezekiel did lay on his side all those days.Like Peter they obeyed God .After the vision we don't see Peter going out and literally killing a host of unclean animals and eating them, what we see is Peter applying the principles behind the vision which incidentally was not a prophecy.The Joshua example was a prophecy of what God was going to do in the future and is not the same as the vision of the sheet.
In the Hoshea ,Isaiah and Ezekiel episodes we see a mix of prophecy and instructions for the then present time and the prophets did carry out God's instructions.

As I said,
'there are times where a person is told to do a literal act with a physical object, that is meant symbolically [ie has symbolical meaning]'.
Therefore, on that point I agree, since it echos what I had already mentioned; but I point out, that not always is it the case.

concerning Joshua, I am not sure that it is a prophecy about the future, but rather about a) an event that happened in those days [b) that is meant to instruct us, to be explained]...
a) the priests were marrying non-Israelite persons at that time:

Ezra 9-10
9.1 Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, [doing] according to their abominations, [even] of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.

9.2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of [those] lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.

10.18 And among the sons of the priests there were found that had taken strange wives: [namely], of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren; Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib, and Gedaliah.

10.19 And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and [being] guilty, [they offered] a ram of the flock for their trespass.


Here we seek that the high priest, who represents Israel in the Temple on that all important 'Day of Atonement' [let alone the rest of the year, with the other priest], his own sons took foreign wives. Though the text in Zechariah doesn't say specifically [and is thus open to interpretation], many commentators note that this is the iniquity that is being removed from him in the vision.
Why is Joshua the high priest being punished for his sons behavior?
Well, we see the same thing in the 1st book of Samuel, where Eli the high priest is held responsible for the actions of his sons Chophni and Pinchas.

b) It is a lesson for us in the purification of our 'filthy garments'; that we need to guard ourselves, and act upon that which we know, be responsible for those under our care...for example, do we show love to the brethren or not, do we look upon women lustfully or not, do we pray to God with sincerity of heart or not, do we judge others deeds, etc. In short, faith is not mere thinking, but it requires us to responsibly act on what we believe. As it says in Revelation, 'those who have the testimony of 'Jesus', and keep the commandments'.

With Peter, it doesn't say he rose up and killed a non kosher animal and ate it with the non-jews.
The concept of not eating with "unbelievers" [so to speak] is also taught in the NT, for example 1 cor 10-11. In general, the concept of not mixing with outright violators is often mention in the writings.

The Jewish concept of not eating with 'gentiles' is two fold:
a) the actual food- the sages felt we needed a 'fence' in order to ensure that our food was kosher [thus, the prohibition of 'non jewish cooking' and 'non jewish milk'; logic is that we can't trust another with our food, if they are not obligated in the same; thus, a Sabbath violator is one example of a person who is considered 'like an idolator' in many areas of Jewish Law, not that the Jew in question, God forbid, is an actual idolator]; also, that our food is not the product of idolatry, as in the case of wine/grape juice.
b) from the book of Esther, where Jews attended Achashverosh's party, as well as Daniel 1, we learned the affects of eating...a meal is more than the eating of food...it is an act of 'fellowship'/social communion, as we find in 1 cor 10-11.

In explanation of Peter 'eating with gentiles' etc; in all honesty, I do not know a satisfactory answer, that I can say is contextually correct.
With 'Jesus' it was a case of him eating with 'sinners' [though the pharisees berated by 'Jesus' were apparently hypocritical sinners themselves]; there is also an issue about them not washing their hands for the meal [which is an institution of king solomon- according to tradition- that is required by observant Jews before eating a bread meal, or dipping food in one of the '7 liquids].

Be well.

Rose, I try my best to not insult you or Vic and yet every time there is a comment being made by one of you that has nothing to do with facts. Now you tell me that I’m brainwashing people. This is great… Lets put the ball in your corner and repeat this from the top Peter gets a dream and in his confusion (because he knew based from what took place in Mark 7 that God couldn’t be telling him to eat meat) And God says the following

Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
(Acts 10:12-15)
Now the part your trying to build a case on is at the end of Acts 10:15. So where in that line do you see the word food? It’s not there because the dream had nothing to do with food, if anything the food would have been a symbol, as Benny mentioned already and even more importantly as Yahusha (Jesus) revealed to Peter himself
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean
(Acts 10:28)
So did he say what you said about food? Is he saying that is what his dream meant? Is he saying that is what Yahuah (God) told him? He had a perfect chance to address it right here and he did not. So the brainwashing wouldn’t be me. I’m following what Peter said his dream was . You’re now implying more into his dream than why it was given to him, which is clearly seen in the story in comparison to his revelation.
But lets assume we want to make Peter’s dream about food. Why is it that Peter never eats the food you say he was permitted to eat if he was so hungry?

More importantly I ask again. Why in the world is Peter told that he can eat any food, and then only five chapters after, which who knows how many years later, we see the same Peter and “all of the disciples” telling the new comers that they were not to eat these same foods in Acts 15?

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
(Acts 15:20)

Quote:Rose, I try my best to not insult you or Vic and yet every time there is a comment being made by one of you that has nothing to do with facts. Now you tell me that I’m brainwashing people. This is great…

Hey I'm sorry if what I sounded sounded wrong.It's just that if we ignore scholarly facts then people and by this I mean in general,people can then say whatever they want to say with no accountability and other people may believe them and be misled.

Quote:Lets put the ball in your corner and repeat this from the top Peter gets a dream and in his confusion (because he knew based from what took place in Mark 7 that God couldn’t be telling him to eat meat)

Do you mean these verses in Mark 7?

Mar 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Mar 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

Because if you are then it actually supports my case and not yours.
As I said in another post, Jesus did address them in response to them imposing a tradition upon Him as though it were a commandment but Jesus response indicates that nothing that goes into a man's mouth could make them unclean. That is a contradiction to Sinai Law that says a whole lot of food items were unclean to them and that may be why the disciples later asked Him again about it.Jesus doesn't reassure them that He had been referring to the traditions involving food.Instead he reiterates what He said that nothing that goes into a man makes him unclean.

Quote:And God says the following

Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
(Acts 10:12-15)
Now the part your trying to build a case on is at the end of Acts 10:15. So where in that line do you see the word food? It’s not there because the dream had nothing to do with food, if anything the food would have been a symbol, as Benny mentioned already and even more importantly as Yahusha (Jesus) revealed to Peter himself
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean
(Acts 10:28)
So did he say what you said about food? Is he saying that is what his dream meant? Is he saying that is what Yahuah (God) told him? He had a perfect chance to address it right here and he did not.

In line 15 the word food isn't mentioned but it is God's response to the previous line where Peter said that he had never eaten(verb to do with eating food) anything unclean before.So even if that line didn't contain the word food it was referring to food since the previous verses are to do with food.

Quote:And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean
(Acts 10:28)

You jumped from verse 15 to 28 and by 28 the Spirt had already bade Peter to go with the men doubting nothing.

Quote:But lets assume we want to make Peter’s dream about food. Why is it that Peter never eats the food you say he was permitted to eat if he was so hungry?

Because it was a vision and one doesn't eat visions.But we do see he did eat with Cornelius because afterwards we see where those of the circumcision accuse him of it
Act 11:2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
Act 11:3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
Act 11:4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,


Notice it says Peter expounded it to them.So he didn’t reassure the men that he never ate with them and instead recounts the vision and what subsequently happened and thus gives the reasons why he did .

Quote:More importantly I ask again. Why in the world is Peter told that he can eat any food, and then only five chapters after, which who knows how many years later, we see the same Peter and “all of the disciples” telling the new comers that they were not to eat these same foods in Acts 15?

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
(Acts 15:20)

In Acts 15 20 the Gentiles were only bound to obey the strangled and blood.There is no reference to the whole Sinai food prohibitions of clean and unclean.The abstention from blood predates Sinai.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

(04-29-2011 01:31 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Rose, I try my best to not insult you or Vic and yet every time there is a comment being made by one of you that has nothing to do with facts. Now you tell me that I’m brainwashing people. This is great…

Hey I'm sorry if what I sounded sounded wrong.It's just that if we ignore scholarly facts then people and by this I mean in general,people can then say whatever they want to say with no accountability and other people may believe them and be misled.

Quote:Lets put the ball in your corner and repeat this from the top Peter gets a dream and in his confusion (because he knew based from what took place in Mark 7 that God couldn’t be telling him to eat meat)

Do you mean these verses in Mark 7?

Mar 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Mar 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

Because if you are then it actually supports my case and not yours.
As I said in another post, Jesus did address them in response to them imposing a tradition upon Him as though it were a commandment but Jesus response indicates that nothing that goes into a man's mouth could make them unclean. That is a contradiction to Sinai Law that says a whole lot of food items were unclean to them and that may be why the disciples later asked Him again about it.Jesus doesn't reassure them that He had been referring to the traditions involving food.Instead he reiterates what He said that nothing that goes into a man makes him unclean.

As I mentioned before that does not fit the entire story, the later is what you’re taking away from the story, which is fine but to state it as fact is not a given. He just came from casting demons into pigs back in Mark 5. So here we see those same unclean foods being used as an instrument to get rid of something unclean. And you are now your telling me that Yahusha (Jesus) is telling them to go and eat the same beast? This doesn’t even flow with the overall events that are taking place. Especially considering that nothing in the entire chapter of Mark 7 is related to food. There is not a mention of it at all. Below is the same quote I made before so that anyone that comes to this site can see the entire portion of Mark 7.

Quote:1Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
14And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
18And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
24And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.

(Mark 7:1-24 KJV)
So with this being said, I ask you was the tradition being mentioned in these verses the scripture that tell us what we should eat, or the Pharisee tradition of how they wash their hands? You’re thinking similar to the disciples who almost were confused on the real issue being discussed. The issue wasn’t the food, it was the fact that they had dirty hands, (in the Pharisee’s eyes) and they were eating unclean because their hands were dirty. If you read this passage closely you don’t even have a type of food being mentioned.

Quote:

Quote:Originally: Ne’arYah

And God says the following

Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
(Acts 10:12-15)
Now the part your trying to build a case on is at the end of Acts 10:15. So where in that line do you see the word food? It’s not there because the dream had nothing to do with food, if anything the food would have been a symbol, as Benny mentioned already and even more importantly as Yahusha (Jesus) revealed to Peter himself
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean
(Acts 10:28)
So did he say what you said about food? Is he saying that is what his dream meant? Is he saying that is what Yahuah (God) told him? He had a perfect chance to address it right here and he did not.

In line 15 the word food isn't mentioned but it is God's response to the previous line where Peter said that he had never eaten(verb to do with eating food) anything unclean before.So even if that line didn't contain the word food it was referring to food since the previous verses are to do with food.

Quote:And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean
(Acts 10:28)

You jumped from verse 15 to 28 and by 28 the Spirt had already bade Peter to go with the men doubting nothing.

I didn’t jump to verse 28 to make pull off a trick. I did it to save space, but if you will…


And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing:for I have sent them. Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come? And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him. And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends. And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together. And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (Acts 10:15-28)
The reason I highlighted 28 was in hopes of showing you and anyone else reading that the issue here was not about food. We don’t even see a drop of water in these verses. All the intention and focus of the spirit was on the men (people) not food.

Quote:Originally: Ne’arYah

Quote:But lets assume we want to make Peter’s dream about food. Why is it that Peter never eats the food you say he was permitted to eat if he was so hungry?

Because it was a vision and one doesn't eat visions.But we do see he did eat with Cornelius because afterwards we see where those of the circumcision accuse him of it
Act 11:2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
Act 11:3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
Act 11:4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,




Orginally: Rose

Notice it says Peter expounded it to them.So he didn’t reassure the men that he never ate with them and instead recounts the vision and what subsequently happened and thus gives the reasons why he did .

Quote:Originally: Rose

More importantly I ask again. Why in the world is Peter told that he can eat any food, and then only five chapters after, which who knows how many years later, we see the same Peter and “all of the disciples” telling the new comers that they were not to eat these same foods in Acts 15?

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
(Acts 15:20)

In Acts 15 20 the Gentiles were only bound to obey the strangled and blood.There is no reference to the whole Sinai food prohibitions of clean and unclean.The abstention from blood predates Sinai.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

This is getting worse and worse - you're now conflicting with your own viewpoint. So now I have a more questions.

You first tried to say and I am paraphrasing that those things made unclean are now clean. You’ve not only used


- Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
( Acts 10:12)


-And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
(Acts 10:15)

but you’ve also tried to use Mark 7 by focusing on the following verses.

And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
(Mark 17-20)
So now all of the sudden, you’re telling me that Genesis 9 is restricting the people from eating other foods Yahuah (God) created. Yet in the passages above you’re telling me that God has given the people the right to eat anything because nothing that goes in the body defiles them. That makes no sense, it sounds good, but it does not harmonies with the truth, it’s an outright contradiction. Either they can eat whatever as you say they can through the release of the law through passages like Acts and Mark or they can’t through Gen 9.

At this point I don’t even know how to answer you because you’ve gone back and forth.