+- SeekGod.ca Discussion Forum (http://www.seekgod.ca/forum)
+-- Forum: Discussion Boards (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Messianic Judaism / Hebrew Roots or Hebraic Roots (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? (/showthread.php?tid=37)
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Rose of Shushan - 04-29-2011 03:46 PM
Quote: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.I'm sorry if I was confusing in my answer.In Genesis 9 the prohibition is against blood.This prohibition is also present in the Sinai Covenant but other foods are added to the prohibition.In the New Covenant the blood avoidance still remains but the other dietary commands given at Sinai removed.
At this point I don’t even know how to answer you because you’ve gone back and forth.
I don't see why avoiding blood should be a contradiction of what Christ said about nothing that enters a man defiles him because the erason we are given for not eating blood is not that it makes us unclean or defiled but because the life is in the blood.It is a prohibition that seems to stand regardless of other commands pertaining to food.
You said that either they can eat what they like through the release of the Law or that they can't through Genesis 9 but why should it be all ro nothing? The release of the Law removes the dietary restrictions pertaining to clean and unclean.Hoever can God not now,in His New Covenant establish the dietary laws that he wishes? And if God wants to retain the blood prohibition that has been with us since the time of Genesis who are we to argue otherwise?
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Rose of Shushan - 04-29-2011 04:02 PM
Quote: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.
Jesus wasn't telling the people to go and eat pigs.He was making a point.To those that has the Law he never told them to break it and in deed many times called them out when they did break it.But Jesus was teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom and thus was introducing and preparing them for the day when it would be official that God had cleansed them.That is the vision of the sheet to Peter.
As to Mark 7 how can you say that the entire chapter doesn't mention food.Check these verses out. They are all in chapter 7 and they all mention food
Mar 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
In the next verse food is mentioned indirectly.
Mar 7:15 There 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.
Then in the next two verses it is clarified that food is meant since it refers to the belly and it passing out of the body.
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?
And since you said food wasn't even mentioned in Mark 7 I will be pedantic and include two other verses to do with food that I found in Mark 7
Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
Mar 7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Benny - 04-29-2011 05:41 PM
In all due respect, as a general comment on Rose's position,
if we are going to distinguish between pre- and post- sinaitic commandments...
The covenant with Abraham was to be circumcised. Anyone who wasn't circumcised, would be cut off from the covenant. Obviously, one should not misconstrue the act of circumcision as only a physical, commandment, without a spiritual dimension. This is seen from the Moses speech to Israel, Circumcise your hearts...
Later, this was included in the Torah given to Israel at Sinai; but, it was given originally way before Sinai. Why is it not considered to be in force by Christians, based on the reasoning given in regards to Genesis 9 concerning eating blood?
I realize that one will argue, 'BUT in the NT they did away with it, oh see Galatians', etc. Then, why didn't the NT do away with the 'eating of blood'- food with the blood- as well as the many other tid bits that Christians hold on to, that are found in the Torah before Sinai?
So that no one thinks that I am trying to deride Christians on this site, I would like to state that I am simply stating my comment, level headedly, and asking a question, level headedly.
No offense intended.=====
Regarding food, and Mark 7 [as well as the parallel passages]:
The issue is NOT about food, but about the Rabbinic tradition [said to be from king solomon] of washing the hands before a bread meal.
Thus, it states in verse 2 that they found fault with the disciples about not washing the hands.
In fact, if we read this account in Matthew 15.16-20, we find this to be the exact explanation of Jesus:
16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are [the things] which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Concerning the defilement aspect of the passage, I will copy here a passage from an article on the myjewishlearning website, entitiled 'Hand Washing' by Louis Jacobs. Although I am not a supporter of Conservative Jewish belief, or some of the halachic details he presents [which differ from Orthodoxy, to my knowledge- I have heard of pouring 1 or 3 times over each hand, but not 2x], nonetheless he sums up the idea well:
In Temple times there were elaborate rules in connection with ritual impurity. If a person had been rendered impure through having come into contact, say, with a dead rodent, he contaminated sacred food such as the tithe given to the priests, which must then not be eaten. The way in which contamination of this kind could be removed was through immersion in a ritual bath.
But the sages imposed in certain circumstances the minor form of contamination known as "hand contamination" in which only the hands, not the whole body, was contaminated and for this to be removed total immersion was not required, only the ritual washing of the hands. Since there was a good deal of priests' tithe in ancient Palestine which could easily come into contact with the hands, the sages eventually ordained that the hands of every Jew, not only the hands of a priest, must be washed ritually before meals.
Not a Matter of Hygiene
It has to be appreciated that this ritual washing of the hands has nothing to do with physical cleanliness. On hygienic grounds, the hands are obviously to be clean of dirt before food is eaten. Even when the hands are physically clean they are still required to be ritually washed.
Although the original reason for washing the hands no longer applies, since there is no sacred food to be eaten, the ritual was continued on the grounds that the ideal of holiness demands a special, ritualistic washing of the hands. The act of washing the hands in this sense is seen as the introduction of the holiness ideal into the mundane life of the Jew. This ritual washing is only required before a meal at which bread is eaten.
Thus, Jesus seems to be saying that a lay person who is going to eat a bread meal, doesn't transfer tumah to the bread/food, which goes into his mouth [and thus, the entire meal, as the washing and blessing over the bread, according to Jewish law, includes all other foods except wine or dessert], goes through the digestive system, and out. This is not the case with the priests in the Temple, however.
Paraphrased, Jesus could be said to be saying,
"If a lay person doesn't wash hands before eating, he doesn't become defiled. But what you, pharisees and scribes, are doing [ie speaking evil of the innocent], that defiles a man. For from your evil hearts you seek to find fault with me and my followers."
Mark 7.25-
25 For a [certain] woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:
26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] unto the dogs.
28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.
30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.
This passage isn't about a woman seeking food, but about a woman seeking healing for her daughter. The talk about the food is part of the metaphorical dialogue...like the parables are. She obviously caught on, and responded in like manner. However, the issue here is not about food, but healing for her daughter.
This passage is also found in Matthew 15.
Anyway, I think the discussion on what the dream means should come from the story, its context, and what Peter recounts of it.
Be well.
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Rose of Shushan - 04-29-2011 06:26 PM
Quote:The covenant with Abraham was to be circumcised. Anyone who wasn't circumcised, would be cut off from the covenant. Obviously, one should not misconstrue the act of circumcision as only a physical, commandment, without a spiritual dimension. This is seen from the Moses speech to Israel, Circumcise your hearts...
Later, this was included in the Torah given to Israel at Sinai; but, it was given originally way before Sinai. Why is it not considered to be in force by Christians, based on the reasoning given in regards to Genesis 9 concerning eating blood?
I realize that one will argue, 'BUT in the NT they did away with it, oh see Galatians', etc. Then, why didn't the NT do away with the 'eating of blood'- food with the blood- as well as the many other tid bits that Christians hold on to, that are found in the Torah before Sinai?
Benny because we cannot take one reasoning and apply it to everything.The blood issue,along with things strangled does remain in the NT and is expressely mentioned in Acts.Circumcision is mentioned in the NT but in this case it is one of the things that is done away with.
It is a logical question and I too once thought that maybe us Christians too should circumcise our children.However in the NT we are warned against it.
We can't really say that just because one thing remains that all should remain or that if a large part goes all should go too.
I think if we do this we run the danger of dictating what God should have or shouldn't have done.
I can offer you some of my reasons on why I think circumcision is now done away with.In the times of Abraham it was a sign of the covenant and also a shadow of the true circumcision that is the heart. Now we are not living in the shadows but in the eternal Covenant so I can see why this should not be made an issue.
Quote:Thus, Jesus seems to be saying that a lay person who is going to eat a bread meal, doesn't transfer tumah to the bread/food, which goes into his mouth [and thus, the entire meal, as the washing and blessing over the bread, according to Jewish law, includes all other foods except wine or dessert], goes through the digestive system, and out. This is not the case with the priests in the Temple, however.
Paraphrased, Jesus could be said to be saying,
"If a lay person doesn't wash hands before eating, he doesn't become defiled. But what you, pharisees and scribes, are doing [ie speaking evil of the innocent], that defiles a man. For from your evil hearts you seek to find fault with me and my followers."
Maybe you didn't read my post too closely since I did say that Jesus did say what He did in response to the Pharisees accusing Him of not keeping a tradition of the elders.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
I am not sure what you mean when you said
Quote:Thus, Jesus seems to be saying that a lay person who is going to eat a bread meal, doesn't transfer tumah to the bread/food, which goes into his mouth [and thus, the entire meal, as the washing and blessing over the bread, according to Jewish law, includes all other foods except wine or dessert], goes through the digestive system, and out. This is not the case with the priests in the Temple, however.
Jesus didn’t mention bread or the transfer of impurity or any of the things that you read into it though.All He said was
Mar 7:14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
Mar 7:15 There 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.
Mar 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
What you think Jesus may have meant is fine and makes sense just that its not even a paraphrase of what Jesus said.
I don't understand what you mean by it not being the case with the priests in the Temple.What isn't the case?
Ben the verses about the Syrophoenician woman I included in a tongue in cheek way since Nearyah alleged that food wasn't even mentioned in Mark chapter 7.
Quote:And since you said food wasn't even mentioned in Mark 7 I will be pedantic and include two other verses to do with food that I found in Mark 7 Biggrin
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Benny - 05-01-2011 12:31 AM
For sake of brevity, I am not quoting all that is said, just the main points:
a) In response to your comment "a shadow of the true circumcision that is the heart.":
I stated that:
one should not misconstrue the act of circumcision as only a physical, commandment, without a spiritual dimension. This is seen from the Moses speech to Israel, Circumcise your hearts...
because, in fact, circumcision has always been two fold, part of it is the physical act and part of it is the "heart", as I referred to with Moses saying [Deuteronomy 10.16], "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff necked." Jeremiah [4.4] echoes this later on, saying, "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem."
Likewise, the promise of God circumcising the hearts of ISRAEL, is part of the promise of the "new" covenant; however, this promise is one of:
a) return to the Torah of Moses in all its phases
b) a return to the Land of Israel
c) etc.
This is as it says in Deut 30.1-10:
1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call [them] to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee,
2 And shall return unto the LORD thy God, and obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul:
3 That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.
4 If [any] of thine be driven out unto the outmost [parts] of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee:
5 And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.
6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
7 And the LORD thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee.
8 And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.
9 And the LORD thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers:
10 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.
And this is often echoed in the prophets, as happening in the ACHARIT HAYAMIM - the end of days. Many of the promises connected to this, world peace, etc, show that it has not yet happened.
However, the purpose of point out such passages as these is, again, to show that the act of circumcision always has been both a physical and spiritual [ie of the heart] act.
b) As for the paraphrase...
If 'the washing of hands' mentioned is a 'tradition of the elders', then it stands to reason that it is not in Scripture, aside from allusions to it here. That said, to understand a conversation that is based around it, we need to look at 'the elders' writings concerning it. This was the reason for citing a 'non Scripture' reference. Once we understand the concept of the 'washing of hands', then we can understand the unclean/defiling concept that Jesus refers to, in context.
As for the knowledge that it is for a bread meal...a) I refer to the fact that it says in the NT "when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands..." [Mark 7.2]. In line with the 'tradition of the elders' which, with background info from the elders, states that such a hand washing is for before eating a bread meal [aside from the few other cases, where one may have touched a part of the body that is normally covered, and requires a slightly different kind of washing the hands- which are not relevant in this case].
The impurity is not referring to the food as being non-kosher foods, because the issue in question is not on the food itself, but the 'eating without washing the hands'. This is addressing the impurity point you were making to Ne'aryah, which you say refers to food.
As for the priests in the Temple comment...understandably, what I said concerning them doesn't makes sense. The intent was they were already required to eat in purity. Therefore, I focused on the lay people, which is entirely rabbinic in nature, though considered serious in nature in practice.
Therefore, with all that in mind, I attempted to paraphrase Jesus with an 'explanatory paraphrase', if that makes sense.
c1) I am not saying that anybody [non-Jewish, aside from those who may subscribe to being of the 10 tribes, of which there is not specific proof to any individual being of them] should be running out to get circumcised or be washing their hands etc. I am just trying to address the texts.
c2) Are there other passages that concern these two issues that cause one to question circumcision, kosher food, etc [such as galatians, for example]? For sure, I have questions on the other texts, in context...though I have my thoughts, their applied consistency needs to be examined.
Be well.
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Rose of Shushan - 05-01-2011 02:58 PM
Quote:Likewise, the promise of God circumcising the hearts of ISRAEL, is part of the promise of the "new" covenant; however, this promise is one of:
a) return to the Torah of Moses in all its phases
b) a return to the Land of Israel
c) etc.
I think that since you practice a different faith to ours, it is natural that we will differ in what we think about the New Covenant.
Your New Covenant seems to be exactly the same as the Sinai one since you said it’s a return to Torah in all its phases, a return to the land..so why is it new? .
Quote:And this is often echoed in the prophets, as happening in the ACHARIT HAYAMIM - the end of days. Many of the promises connected to this, world peace, etc, show that it has not yet happened.
However, the purpose of point out such passages as these is, again, to show that the act of circumcision always has been both a physical and spiritual [ie of the heart] act.
As Christians we do believe that what the prophets foretold about the New Covenant and what would happen in the latter days, which you called the end of days, has happened and is not some time off in the future.
I respect that as a follower of Orthodox Judaism you hold on to the prophetic interpretations of your religion and see the prophetic verses differently to ours.
For example you said that we don't have world peace yet and I do have an answer for that since I hear that argument from anti missionaries all the time. However that would derail this thread since it was originally about food.I will start that thread for you soon under a relevant heading .
Quote:As for the priests in the Temple comment...understandably, what I said concerning them doesn't makes sense. The intent was they were already required to eat in purity. Therefore, I focused on the lay people, which is entirely rabbinic in nature, though considered serious in nature in practice.
I don't understand .
Everyone was required to be eating in purity anyway priests and the non priests.What we were seeing is that the Pharisees had imposed even stricter rules upon the food laws much the same as rabbinic Judaism has done today.And I do understand what you are saying that Jesus would have been addressing that fact ie the fact that they had added to God's laws. Since He held them to the Law that they were still under and which they claimed to teach and know .I agree with you there Ben but this still leaves us with what He said after which baffled even the apostles.
Ben I am not saying that there Jesus was now telling them all to ignore the food laws and I hope my writing isn't giving anyone that impression.They were all bound to that law of Moses until Jesus would end it all with His death.Jesus never taught them to break it but He did teach something different many times which caused the state of affairs that kept leading to the Pharisees and Scribes testing and persecuting Him all the time. One one hand He upheld Moses but on the other He would teach His Gospel and commandments for the Kingdom of God so that's why we see an apparent conflict going on at times.
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Ne'arYah - 05-03-2011 03:07 PM
(04-29-2011 03:46 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:Quote: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.I'm sorry if I was confusing in my answer.In Genesis 9 the prohibition is against blood.This prohibition is also present in the Sinai Covenant but other foods are added to the prohibition.In the New Covenant the blood avoidance still remains but the other dietary commands given at Sinai removed.
At this point I don’t even know how to answer you because you’ve gone back and forth.
I don't see why avoiding blood should be a contradiction of what Christ said about nothing that enters a man defiles him because the erason we are given for not eating blood is not that it makes us unclean or defiled but because the life is in the blood.It is a prohibition that seems to stand regardless of other commands pertaining to food.
You said that either they can eat what they like through the release of the Law or that they can't through Genesis 9 but why should it be all ro nothing? The release of the Law removes the dietary restrictions pertaining to clean and unclean.Hoever can God not now,in His New Covenant establish the dietary laws that he wishes? And if God wants to retain the blood prohibition that has been with us since the time of Genesis who are we to argue otherwise?
Rose, I appreciate you trying to explain your view on this, but it still doesn’t add up to the totality of the Bible. I know as well as you, there has always been one law for all Yahuah’s (God’s) people
The same law will apply to both the native and the foreigner who resides among you."
(Exodus 12:49)
With this being said, we just came from Acts 10 establishing the fact that Peter vision did not permit him to eat anything against the laws provided in Leviticus chapter 11.Even if you disagree, I think we can agree that Peter eats nothing of the sort. Now if Peter was true to his word from Acts chapter 10 &11. Then we find ourselves stuck with breaking the golden rule I supplied above (Exodus 12:49). They all followed one rule, it seems as if you are now telling me that they didn’t… It almost sounds like you’re saying that the gentiles were called to keep a different law than the Yisra’el (Israel). I’m not sure what angle you’re taking on this, but if you’re trying to say that the gentiles were given a completely different set of rules to follow, then I’m still not understanding. Acts 15:9 says that he (Yahuah/God) made “no distinction between them and us.” I think this is confusing a bit because your stretching the text beyond its meaning.
Bottom line is simply this, if Yahuah (GOD) intended for Peter to eat meat that would have been the end goal and message from the dream. However, not only do we see his dream revealing itself as something different altogether, but we also see him verifying his dream for us, which gives us no right to add to what the spirit revealed to him. Peter said it was a dream meant to warn him to now accept the gentile openly etc…
You asked someone else why did Yahusha (Jesus) come?
He came to bring Yisra’el (Israel) back to its position in Torah. The good news was not for the church, but it was for all those who had transgressed the Torah through there sinful ways (tribes under Ephraim). Which ironically places us at the heart as to why those rules were mentioned in Acts 15 in the first place. His blood was the only way Yahuah (God) could use to clean the slate. Not only then, but also forevermore, that his chosen people and all who would join them can come to him freely. He had to come to redeem those that had fallen from the 1st covenant i.e., the reason why we call it the new covenant and why most that believe which are from Hebrew origin call it the renewed covenant.
As always you can have the last word on the issue.
Shalom!
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Rose of Shushan - 05-03-2011 04:48 PM
Quote:Rose, I appreciate you trying to explain your view on this, but it still doesn’t add up to the totality of the Bible. I know as well as you, there has always been one law for all Yahuah’s (God’s) people
The same law will apply to both the native and the foreigner who resides among you."
(Exodus 12:49)
Have you read the whole chapter? It deals with the Passover and how both the Israelites and the strangers living among them were to observe it.We cannot take this verse and apply it to mean the whole Law when the context is the Passover.
Exo 12:43 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:
Exo 12:44 But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
Exo 12:45 A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.
Exo 12:46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.
Exo 12:47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.
Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
Exo 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
Exo 12:50 Thus did all the children of Israel; as the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.
See there that the one law pertains to the stranger and homeborn regarding keeping the Passover once they’ve been circumcised too.See verse 45.A foreigner or hired servant may not eat of it.
There are many other places in the Law that we see clearly a different law for the Israelite and for the soujourner or stranger.
Deu 15:1 At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.
Deu 15:2 And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the LORD'S release.
Deu 15:3 Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release;
Deu 14:21 Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
Lev 22:24 Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof in your land.
Lev 22:25 Neither from a stranger's hand shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these; because their corruption is in them, and blemishes be in them: they shall not be accepted for you.
There may be more but you get the idea.
Quote:With this being said, we just came from Acts 10 establishing the fact that Peter vision did not permit him to eat anything against the laws provided in Leviticus chapter 11.Even if you disagree, I think we can agree that Peter eats nothing of the sort. Now if Peter was true to his word from Acts chapter 10 &11. Then we find ourselves stuck with breaking the golden rule I supplied above (Exodus 12:49). They all followed one rule, it seems as if you are now telling me that they didn’t… It almost sounds like you’re saying that the gentiles were called to keep a different law than the Yisra’el (Israel). I’m not sure what angle you’re taking on this, but if you’re trying to say that the gentiles were given a completely different set of rules to follow, then I’m still not understanding. Acts 15:9 says that he (Yahuah/God) made “no distinction between them and us.” I think this is confusing a bit because your stretching the text beyond its meaning.We have established no such thing
since you still haven't answered me on what it was that God meant when He said to Peter kill and eat if it wasn't food. Then you also didn’t reply to what it was you think it was God cleansed that had previously been unclean in the vision. If it was gentiles then had God asked Peter to kill and eat Gentiles?It is consistent with it being food since Peter is later accused of eating with Gentiles and Peter does not deny 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.
It says eat. Eat is to do with food.There is a two fold accusation there that Peter associated or stayed with Gentiles and that he ate with them.
You seem to just want to make the issue about associating with Gentiles but the eating there is just as important and actually seems to be the primary focus of the vision.
If Peter had not received that vision he could not have eaten Cornelius food since the Law didn't allow him to.
Acts 15 9
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
You missed out the verse where it says by faith.There had been a distinction until then but now they saw that the Holy Spirit was also been given to the Gentiles.
Quote:Bottom line is simply this, if Yahuah (GOD) intended for Peter to eat meat that would have been the end goal and message from the dream. However, not only do we see his dream revealing itself as something different altogether, but we also see him verifying his dream for us, which gives us no right to add to what the spirit revealed to him. Peter said it was a dream meant to warn him to now accept the gentile openly etc…
That was the end goal since Peter did go and eat with Cornelius and later on we see Peter living like a gentile , according to Paul.
The end goal also included Peter being able to freely associate with gentiles since the food purity laws were one of the primary reasons why Peter would not have been able to lodge at Cornelius' house.
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Rose of Shushan - 05-03-2011 05:33 PM
Quote:He came to bring Yisra’el (Israel) back to its position in Torah. The good news was not for the church, but it was for all those who had transgressed the Torah through there sinful ways (tribes under Ephraim).If He would have come to bring Israel back to Torah then He would have been just like the other prophets. They all called Israel back to the Covenant they had made.
The good news was for the whole world.
Isa 52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!
Isa 52:8 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion.
Isa 52:9 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the LORD hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.
Isa 52:10 The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.
Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
Quote:He had to come to redeem those that had fallen from the 1st covenant i.e., the reason why we call it the new covenant and why most that believe which are from Hebrew origin call it the renewed covenant.
I haven't heard anyone from hebrew origin call it the renewed covenant.The only place I hear it is amongst messianics. The word chadash means new .The verse itself tells you its new since it says it is not like the previous one
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Apart from the Hebrew brit chadasha meaning new covenant the words not according to the covenant I made with their fathers, shows it to be a different one than the Sinai one.
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Benny - 05-03-2011 07:39 PM
Rose said:
I haven't heard anyone from hebrew origin call it the renewed covenant.The only place I hear it is amongst messianics. The word chadash means new .The verse itself tells you its new since it says it is not like the previous one
On the night where Rosh Chodesh Iyar enters, I would like to refer you to an article on OU.org- that stands for Orthodox Union, concerning Rosh Chodesh, as an example that, indeed, it does have the meaning of renewal: http://www.ou.org/chagim/roshchodesh/
It says, "On a deeper level, Rosh Chodesh symbolizes renewal, the ability of the Jewish People to rise up from oblivion and restore itself to its past greatness. Just as the moon disappears at the end of each month, but returns and grows to fullness, so Israel may suffer exile and decline, but it always renews itself - until the coming of the Messiah, when the promise of the Exodus and the Revelation at Sinai will be fulfilled, never to be dimmed again."
The Malbim says, on the passage in Jer 31, that the "new/renewed" covenant will be different in that it was possible for Israel to sin, unlike in the 'renewed/new' covenant where it will not be possible for Israel to sin. Obviously, this would be connected to the removal of the 'spirit of impurity' from the earth prophecy.
Be well.