+- 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 - 05-03-2011 08:40 PM
Quote: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 word chadash means new, chodesh refers to the new moon.Thus that article hasn't really got anything to do with the word chadash meaning new.It's talking about the moon. Chodesh can also mean month as in
Num 28:11 And in the beginnings of your months ye shall offer a burnt offering unto the LORD; two young bullocks, and one ram, seven lambs of the first year without spot;
וּבְרָאשֵׁי, חָדְשֵׁיכֶם--תַּקְרִיבוּ עֹלָה, לַיהוָה: פָּרִים בְּנֵי-בָקָר שְׁנַיִם וְאַיִל אֶחָד, כְּבָשִׂים בְּנֵי-שָׁנָה שִׁבְעָה תְּמִימִם.
Quote: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.
Can you perhaps paste for us what he actually says on this.Does he actually write "renewed/new covenant" or is that your own insert?
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Mary - 05-03-2011 10:09 PM
"The good news was not for the church"
I ask for readers' and posters' pardon for what I am going to do - combine in one post an answer to this thread and the thread on the new Covenant. To good extent it also deals with the " is Easter Pagan issue."
I have used the above partial quote because I think it goes to the heart of all the threads: who is the good news for. Rose has answered it, and let me also just say there was no church until Jesus came, to unite believers, whoever they are and where ever they are from, in one body, under Him, Jesus Christ who is the Head.
It indicates a problem I have discerned in many answers from Ne'arYah, Mo Huintir and Benny: you do not appear to recognise who the covenants were for and with. I summarised this in my post #23 in the covenant thread, and it was also discussed by Vic, Rose and Sari.
The Lord has over the past week laid on my heart to share Colossians 1 and 2 with you (as well as all scriptures previously provided). Ne'arYah, you particularly have acknowledged that we are taught and guided by the Holy Spirit, so I ask that you pray for understanding in this. the Holy Spirit will never teach something that is not backed up in His word: if you are given understanding of something, you will find verification in His word, and not just once, but many times. So after Colossians, I believe that Romans, and specifically chapter 6, sums up the whole matter.
Colossians 1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,
Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,
For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:
As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ;
Who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit.
For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;
Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell;
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God;
Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.
Colossians 2
For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh;
That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.
For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
(Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
Romans 6
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Benny - 05-04-2011 12:52 AM
Rose,
The Malbim comment:
is a) in Hebrew, thus my translation
b) in reference to the difference between the covenants, not on the meaning of chadashah
on yirmeyahu 31.30-31 reads as follows:
30) hineh yaim baim ...vkharati...brit chadashah.
ki habrit hakodem haya al tanai shelo yechateu sh'az yufar habrit, ci bizman ha'avar hayah ephshariut lachet, aval le'atid lo yihyeh ephshar clal shychateu, c'mo sh'yevaer:
because the earlier covenant was on condition that they don't sin that then they nullify the covenant, since in the time past it was possible to sin; but in the future it will not be possible they sin at all, like it explains:
31) lo k'brit asher karati et avotam. she'az lo hayu adayin muchanim el hash'lemut vhatikun,
then they weren't yet prepared to completeness and rectification
----
Moon- as in the actual object that hovers in orbit, is yareach. Rosh Chodesh is reference to the time period- Rosh doesn't mean 'beginning', but literally 'head'.
We refer to the period, month, by what it is: chodesh, a renewal [of the moon]. We call it 'Rosh Chodesh', because the day designated as such is the 'head/beginning of the renewal'.
--
"hachodesh hazeh lakhem rosh chodashim" "This renewal of the moon shall be a beginning of renewals for you." [p.127 of the Hirsch Pentateuch. The Hirsch Pentateuch is an English translation from the original German that Rabbi Hirsch wrote in, since his audience was the assimilated Jews in Germany in the 1800's.]
--
Be well.
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Benny - 05-04-2011 04:09 AM
Hi Mary,
Perhaps, I am misunderstanding in Ne'aryah's quote 'the good news was not for the church', but I think that the more accurate statement concerns the identity of 'the church'. I am not an expert in Greek, but I can read Hebrew fairly decent, thank God. Therefore, I like to use the online KJV, my interlinear Bible, and my thayer's Greek lexicon to identify what the greek word correspond to in Hebrew [as found in cross reference in the Septuigint].
However, there is one point to be made as a preface, which addresses another comment you made: it concerns the "Holy Spirit" teaching us.
The concept of the "Holy Spirit" leading/giving a person understanding, is not a Christian concept, only. Aside from the more lofty levels of "ruach hakodesh/Holy spirit" attained by Jews of lofty stature, there is a basic level of "holy spirit" [if you will] that every Jew attains when they study any aspect of Torah. This is called, a chiddush. Chiddush has several understandings...for some, it is a "new" insight into Torah, for others, it is something "new" to that person [it could even be something that is known to the populace at large, but that the person specifically didn't know]. In any case, it is said to be linked to the specific person's soul. Many times, it manifests itself as "conscience" [if you will] guiding a persons deeds, telling the person where they messed up, or how they can improve themselves.
However, a person can't just believe anything that comes to mind, and say, "God told me...etc" Because a spirit of impurity [ie the satan] can also put things in people's heads. The more one 'walks in the light', one is led 'in the light', using NT terminology.
The "holy spirit" can't contradict previously received revelation...[some will call it tradition, etc.] with very few exceptions.
Therefore, the concept of "the holy spirit will guide you into all truth" is not such a new concept, and Jews do believe in the concept. However, we also know that one needs to study and to do all one can to understand a matter, and not rely solely on "Holy Spirit"...
Anyway, back to the issue of the identity of the 'church' concept raised by Ne'aryah. What I think Ne'aryah is getting to is the well known 'OT' knowledge that Israel is God's people...forever...continue on reading in Jer 31...etc [with God's help, I hope to have a post on it in the future. I am working on it...but my feeble mind, and lack of understanding in OT/NT correlations and meanings, takes time to learn objectively.]
Likewise, that this is composed of two kingdoms, etc...
Is the NT speaking of literal Gentiles, or is it possible that the NT is referring to the Lost Tribes [No, Rose, they have not returned, this is universally accepted by the Jewish sages in the Gemara and commentaries on the 'OT'...likewise, the regathering is discussed in prophecy as a thorough regathering from all the nations. In 'Jesus' time, even, the majority of Jews, let alone 10 tribes, were outside the Holy Land.]
Therefore, I believe Ne'aryah is saying that the 'gospel' was primarily spoken to Israel, more specifically to the 10 tribes [although to Jews also], and it is they who are the 'church'.
Note that in Jeremiah 31.5, a chapter that speaks very much about the lost tribes, it says that "'notsrim' will call out on Mount Ephraim and say, Let us ascend to Zion, to Hashem our God." If 'Jesus' was "Yeshua hanotsri", then perhaps the words here in the Hebrew can be very telling as to who the 'church' is.
An additional note, if you look it up, 'church' #1577 comes out as 'kahal' a word used for Israel throughout the 'OT'.
Edah is another word used with the same basic meaning.
Would the 'early church' have understood themselves as 'the church' ie a distinctly separate religion than that of the Jews? Perhaps the formulation of the 'al haminim' [prayer against 'heretics'/and believers in Yeshu and other groups] at the end of the 1st century, tells of the indistinguishable nature of many of his early followers. After all, this prayer was recited in the synagogues, and the person leading prayer could be seen to be a follower of Yeshua or not by whether or not he recited this prayer in the repetition of prayer that is said aloud.
I am sure Ne'aryah will correct me if they feel that I have not addressed the basic concept of their statement.
In the end of all this theological underpinnings, the most important thing [in my humble opinion] is to have faith in God, and seek to live a life of purity [not because we are some holy righteous person, but because that is what God asks of us, 'Be holy, for I am holy'] and God will lead a person to the destination He has of them.
Be well.
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Mary - 05-04-2011 05:16 AM
(05-04-2011 04:09 AM)Benny Wrote: Hi Mary,
Perhaps, I am misunderstanding in Ne'aryah's quote 'the good news was not for the church', but I think that the more accurate statement concerns the identity of 'the church'. I am not an expert in Greek, but I can read Hebrew fairly decent, thank God. Therefore, I like to use the online KJV, my interlinear Bible, and my thayer's Greek lexicon to identify what the greek word correspond to in Hebrew [as found in cross reference in the Septuigint].
However, there is one point to be made as a preface, which addresses another comment you made: it concerns the "Holy Spirit" teaching us.
The concept of the "Holy Spirit" leading/giving a person understanding, is not a Christian concept, only. Aside from the more lofty levels of "ruach hakodesh/Holy spirit" attained by Jews of lofty stature, there is a basic level of "holy spirit" [if you will] that every Jew attains when they study any aspect of Torah. This is called, a chiddush. Chiddush has several understandings...for some, it is a "new" insight into Torah, for others, it is something "new" to that person [it could even be something that is known to the populace at large, but that the person specifically didn't know]. In any case, it is said to be linked to the specific person's soul. Many times, it manifests itself as "conscience" [if you will] guiding a persons deeds, telling the person where they messed up, or how they can improve themselves.
However, a person can't just believe anything that comes to mind, and say, "God told me...etc" Because a spirit of impurity [ie the satan] can also put things in people's heads. The more one 'walks in the light', one is led 'in the light', using NT terminology.
The "holy spirit" can't contradict previously received revelation...[some will call it tradition, etc.] with very few exceptions.
Therefore, the concept of "the holy spirit will guide you into all truth" is not such a new concept, and Jews do believe in the concept. However, we also know that one needs to study and to do all one can to understand a matter, and not rely solely on "Holy Spirit"...
Anyway, back to the issue of the identity of the 'church' concept raised by Ne'aryah. What I think Ne'aryah is getting to is the well known 'OT' knowledge that Israel is God's people...forever...continue on reading in Jer 31...etc [with God's help, I hope to have a post on it in the future. I am working on it...but my feeble mind, and lack of understanding in OT/NT correlations and meanings, takes time to learn objectively.]
Likewise, that this is composed of two kingdoms, etc...
Is the NT speaking of literal Gentiles, or is it possible that the NT is referring to the Lost Tribes [No, Rose, they have not returned, this is universally accepted by the Jewish sages in the Gemara and commentaries on the 'OT'...likewise, the regathering is discussed in prophecy as a thorough regathering from all the nations. In 'Jesus' time, even, the majority of Jews, let alone 10 tribes, were outside the Holy Land.]
Therefore, I believe Ne'aryah is saying that the 'gospel' was primarily spoken to Israel, more specifically to the 10 tribes [although to Jews also], and it is they who are the 'church'.
Note that in Jeremiah 31.5, a chapter that speaks very much about the lost tribes, it says that "'notsrim' will call out on Mount Ephraim and say, Let us ascend to Zion, to Hashem our God." If 'Jesus' was "Yeshua hanotsri", then perhaps the words here in the Hebrew can be very telling as to who the 'church' is.
An additional note, if you look it up, 'church' #1577 comes out as 'kahal' a word used for Israel throughout the 'OT'.
Edah is another word used with the same basic meaning.
Would the 'early church' have understood themselves as 'the church' ie a distinctly separate religion than that of the Jews? Perhaps the formulation of the 'al haminim' [prayer against 'heretics'/and believers in Yeshu and other groups] at the end of the 1st century, tells of the indistinguishable nature of many of his early followers. After all, this prayer was recited in the synagogues, and the person leading prayer could be seen to be a follower of Yeshua or not by whether or not he recited this prayer in the repetition of prayer that is said aloud.
I am sure Ne'aryah will correct me if they feel that I have not addressed the basic concept of their statement.
In the end of all this theological underpinnings, the most important thing [in my humble opinion] is to have faith in God, and seek to live a life of purity [not because we are some holy righteous person, but because that is what God asks of us, 'Be holy, for I am holy'] and God will lead a person to the destination He has of them.
Be well.
Thank you. That was a very interesting obfuscation.
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Rose of Shushan - 05-04-2011 09:27 AM
Quote:The Malbim comment:
is a) in Hebrew, thus my translation
b) in reference to the difference between the covenants, not on the meaning of chadashah
Thanks, that is why I asked for clarification, since I had the feeling the renewed/new part was your own insertion.
Quote:on yirmeyahu 31.30-31 reads as follows:
30) hineh yaim baim ...vkharati...brit chadashah.
ki habrit hakodem haya al tanai shelo yechateu sh'az yufar habrit, ci bizman ha'avar hayah ephshariut lachet, aval le'atid lo yihyeh ephshar clal shychateu, c'mo sh'yevaer:
because the earlier covenant was on condition that they don't sin that then they nullify the covenant, since in the time past it was possible to sin; but in the future it will not be possible they sin at all, like it explains:
31) lo k'brit asher karati et avotam. she'az lo hayu adayin muchanim el hash'lemut vhatikun,
then they weren't yet prepared to completeness and rectification
on that last quote
Quote:lo k'brit asher karati et avotam. she'az lo hayu adayin muchanim el hash'lemut vhatikun,
then they weren't yet prepared to completeness and rectification
you didn't translate the first part of the sentence
which reads not like the covenant I made with their fathers is that because the Mablim was quoting Jeremiah there? Even so I don't see where that commentator regards it as the same covenant from what you have shown me.Quote:Moon- as in the actual object that hovers in orbit, is yareach. Rosh Chodesh is reference to the time period- Rosh doesn't mean 'beginning', but literally 'head'.While I appreciate that the "renewal" of the moon each month leads to what we know as a month, it doesn't get us away from the fact that a month is called chodesh in Scripture.
We refer to the period, month, by what it is: chodesh, a renewal [of the moon]. We call it 'Rosh Chodesh', because the day designated as such is the 'head/beginning of the renewal'.
In Scripture rosh chodesh would be head of the month.Rosh could be head or beginning since rishon which means first derives from that word.If something is at the head it's at the beginning.
Quote:"hachodesh hazeh lakhem rosh chodashim" "This renewal of the moon shall be a beginning of renewals for you." [p.127 of the Hirsch Pentateuch. The Hirsch Pentateuch is an English translation from the original German that Rabbi Hirsch wrote in, since his audience was the assimilated Jews in Germany in the 1800's.]
--
With all respect to Mr Hirsch I am including some more verses which have the word chodesh as month and instead substituting the word renewal there .There were tons but this is just a selection Enjoy
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second renewal, the seventeenth day of the renewal, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Exo 13:5 And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, that thou shalt keep this service in this renewal
1Sa 20:27 And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the renewal, that David's place was empty: and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday, nor to day?
1Ki 5:14 And he sent them to Lebanon, ten thousand a month by courses: a renewal they were in Lebanon, and two renewals at home: and Adoniram was over the levy.
1Ki 6:37 In the fourth year was the foundation of the house of the LORD laid, in the renewal Zif:
1Ki 6:38 And in the eleventh year, in the renewal Bul, which is the eighth renewal, was the house finished throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the fashion of it. So was he seven years in building it.
1Ki 8:2 And all the men of Israel assembled themselves unto king Solomon at the feast in the renewal Ethanim, which is the seventh renewal.
Est 3:7 In the first renewal, that is, the renewal Nisan, in the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from renewal to renewal, to the twelfth renewal, that is, the renewal Adar.
Est 8:12 Upon one day in all the provinces of king Ahasuerus, namely, upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth renewal, which is the renewal Adar.
Quote:Rosh Chodesh is reference to the time period- Rosh doesn't mean 'beginning', but literally 'head'.Incidentally Mr Hirsch used the word beginning for rosh
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Ne'arYah - 05-04-2011 03:46 PM
(05-03-2011 04:48 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: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.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are proving my point. In order to be apart of them they were forced to keep the same law, which in this case would be circumcision. This is simple comprehension. If we were to reverse this law and ask ourselves could a Israelite take part in the feast without being circumcised the answer would still be no. Why? Because the same law applied to the set-apart people.
Quote: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.
So let’s stop right here because I would like to point something out. If the stranger dwelling among us becomes one of us are they still a stranger? If you adopt a child into your family do you then treat them differently? Hopefully, you’re a good and fair person that you wouldn’t, and neither would our Father. The stranger mentioned here is for the one that is “not a-part” of his people, those that are outside the covenant. Those who elected to not par-take in following Torah. In other words, this is not a separate law for Yahuah’s (God’s) people and the stranger that once was around them because they would partake in the law. We can battle about this all day, but you will find yourself falling short on nearly most of the old book with stories in reference to Passover in Exodus, and others like Ruth.
And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
(Ruth 1:16)
My original comment on this point was that there is only one law for those that left Egypt. Moses didn’t go up once for the Yisra’elite (Israelite), and then again for the sojourner. The mere fact that you are trying to prove your point through the Torah tell you something… Hopefully you caught that…. You’re trying to use the law given to the children of Yisra’el to show me that there was a different law given to the gentile…. But you’re going to the law that was given to the Children of Yisra’el. It’s the same law, no matter how we cut it.
The assembly is to have the same statute for both you and the foreign resident as a permanent statute throughout your generations. You and the foreigner will be alike before the LORD. 16 The same law and the same ordinance will apply to both you and the foreigner who resides with you."
(Numbers 15:15)
The concept of gentiles being brought to Yisra’el is not something that we only see in the old covenant. Yet the same principles are carried over into the new covenant. For all that are not Yisra’el (native born), who are now Yisra’el (spiritually born), were to be grafted in by the remnant the same way (Romans 11:11-15).
For this reason we are asked to come to him like little children (1 Peter 2:2). Why? So that we can learn his ways, and his ways were given to a certain group of people (Romans 9:3-5). Again you are pulling your proof from a text that we all admit was given to the children of Yisra’el. If sojourners have a different law, please reference me to their book so that I can do a quick study.
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.
Quote:We have established no such thing
Yes to your last question. Eating is the part that you are over-extending to a point that no one else does in the story. The focal point of Yahusha (Jesus) words is to point Peter in the direction of unclean things i.e., Gentiles, which I, as well as, Peter himself states clearly. Mind you this was a vision not an actual prompting of the spirit for him to break the Torah. The Ruach (spirit) helps him out to interpret the vision.
Peter interpretation of his vision (which was only for him) explained it perfectly while giving other(s) who weren’t there clarity as to what he was doing providing the action implemented through the Ruach (Spirit). He said his vision had nothing to do with unclean foods, but everything to do with bringing the gentile stuck in there pagan, non- circumcised unclean ways in full status of salvation equal to him and Yisra’el (Israel) through the father (Acts 11:17). There is no food mentioned anywhere else in the text. Where is the food (I’ll explain shortly)! LOL
At this point you are just drowning in water while holding on to a leaf, I see how your getting there, but you are still leaping over some spots and asking me to assume the holes are filled.
Is there another passage or something that you think permits eating of any foods? Because this one you have Peter and Luke telling you that you are interpreting his vision wrongfully. Peter being the character of the vision and Luke being the writer of the story. Neither one of them mention anything about breaking the food laws.
Quote:Originally: Rose
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 [b]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.
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 said it best! Eating –with – the – gentiles, not eating-as-a-gentile.
The following passage is why I’m focused on what I am, not by my choice; it is what’s revealed to us through the narration. We are told plainly what was being violated was the law of separation (eating with the gentiles). The reason that I don’t make an issue with the eating portion in Acts 11:3 is because I understand that Peter wouldn’t have done such a thing based off his response.
"No, Lord!" Peter said. "For I have never eaten anything common and unclean!"
(Acts 10:14)
Based off Peter’s response, we can kill two birds with one stone. We see here that he tells Yahusha (jesus) No, and the text says no lord with an expression mark, as to say never would I do that! This is important because here we see that Mark 7 (especially the later part) could not have been a call for them to eat anything they choose. If it was then Peter’s response would have been something along the lines of thanks for reminding me because I sure am hungry. However, Peter understood just as I, that the spirit would not speak against the Word. Peter knew the word said not to eat these unclean foods, and that Yahusha wouldn’t call him to do so, thus giving him the notion to reject the vision if it had referred to food.
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.
When Peter went up to Jerusalem, those who stressed circumcision [argued with him, saying, "You visited uncircumcised men and ate with them!"
(Acts 10:2-3)
This is going nowhere if we are going to make assumptions as you are with the above point. Please show me the food that they ate at the table so that you can call me wrong? In order for you to be correct you would have to show that Peter ate some form of beast that he wasn’t permitted to eat according to Leviticus 11. Please do so. Or are you assuming that the entirety that this gentile had to eat was pork? Outrageous, if this is what we place our hope on. I sit and dwell with a homosexual at my job, and by no means do him and I carry the same life style. He eats pork, smokes, and curses like a sailor. I don’t curse, don’t smoke, and I don’t eat pork, yet him and I go to lunch together at least once a week. So am I now eating what he eats because I go to lunch, and eat with him? Do I do what he does in respect to other men? Everything you’ve said is an assumption, based off half evidence? I have given you nothing but what the story tells, and you’re responses are all assumptions (though good ones).
We see this picture (separation law) being crystal clear in other stories, unless your going to stick with Yahusha can break the torah idea.
When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with sinners and tax collectors, they asked His disciples, "Why does He eat with tax collectors and sinners?" 17 When Jesus heard this, He told them, "Those who are well don't need a doctor, but the sick [do need one]. I didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners."
(Mark 2:17-18)
So I ask you was Yahusha eating pork here or was the issue about who he was eating with? What your reading in Mark 2 is the same law that is reference in Acts 10:28 and Gal 2.
In reference to Galatians, I ask the same question about that passage as I am with Acts 10:28. Please show me where it states that Peter violated a food law?
For he used to eat with the Gentiles before certain men came from James. However, when they came,he withdrew and separated himself, because he feared those from the circumcision party.
(Gal 2:12)
Now why would he fear them? Would it be because of what we saw in Acts 11:3? They jump down his throat for eating with (sitting with) those that were not circumcised.
If I’m reading this without any commentary playing the role of interpretation, it would seem that the issue here was him separating himself, just like the law said for him to do back in Acts 10:28. Nowhere here does Paul say “he separated himself and ate like the Jews casting out our liberty”. He says simply he separates himself. Paul makes the issue clear by stating the problem for us, not the food. But where does the law say that Jews had to be separated?
Acts 10 and 11, Galatians and Mark 2 all deal with this oral law of separation, thus Peter’s vision should be viewed equally the same. If you’re going to shoot Peter down because you see the word eat we may as well say that Yahusha ate some pork chops too.
Let’s do this a different way… Can you please show me where the torah gives the commandment that is mentioned in Acts 10:28, which we also see rearing its head up in Galatians?
Thank You.
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Benny - 05-04-2011 04:19 PM
Rose,
Firstly, the idea with chodesh being renewal, is about the concept behind chodesh...otherwise, using your lack of understanding of the Hebrew language...and also your train of thought...
"I will make a new covenant [brit chadashah]"...should be translated as a "I will make a monthly covenant...[brit chadashah]"
Likewise, in the Creation story, we should translate
vayhi erev vayhi boker as vayhi arav vayi baqar...talking about herds and cattle instead of night and day...the vowel points are only known from tradition, and therefore the words can actually be translated in a number of acceptable ways, which is how the Jewish Sages wrote the 'midrash'. charut [concerning the tablets, being the engraving of God] can be translated as cherut [freedom].
Likewise, Rosh shel ceves...is the head of a sheep...or can be translated as beginning of a sheep...? Beginning is reshit, or techilah, etc.
Concerning Hirsch's translation...correct, it can be [non-literally] translated as beginning...we say beginning of the renewal/month, but we don't say 'beginning of the ceves/sheep' we say head of the ceves.
If you understood the concept that I was trying to relay, concerning chodesh referring to a renewal, instead of trying to argue the point in your favor, you would agree. By the way, why don't we call the month rosh yareach...[yareach is in verse 34 of the Jer 31.
And, I realize that you didn't read the Malbim translation too closely, apparently. The covenant is different, in that death will no longer reign...ie it will not be possible to sin...also, taking the totality of the 'OT' prophecies, you see that they say that Torah observance will be lived in totality...not that it will be done away with.
Back to the translation: Why did I not translate that first part is simple: those words are called devar matchilim [pronounced mat-chi-lim], which only point to what is being commented on.
Be well.
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Rose of Shushan - 05-04-2011 04:38 PM
Quote:Rose,
Firstly, the idea with chodesh being renewal, is about the concept behind chodesh...otherwise, using your lack of understanding of the Hebrew language...and also your train of thought...
"I will make a new covenant [brit chadashah]"...should be translated as a "I will make a monthly covenant...[brit chadashah]" Smiley-face-thumb
I think it's your hebrew that needs improving
chadashah is new and chodesh is month so how can we arrive at what you wrote?
I will type out the words so that you can see the difference
חֲדָשָׁה chadashah
חֹדֶשׁ chodesh
Am I missing something here? Even if you were to ignore vowel points we still have the extra heh in chadashah.
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food? - Rose of Shushan - 05-04-2011 04:53 PM
Quote:So let’s stop right here because I would like to point something out. If the stranger dwelling among us becomes one of us are they still a stranger? If you adopt a child into your family do you then treat them differently? Hopefully, you’re a good and fair person that you wouldn’t, and neither would our Father. The stranger mentioned here is for the one that is “not a-part” of his people, those that are outside the covenant. Those who elected to not par-take in following Torah. In other words, this is not a separate law for Yahuah’s (God’s) people and the stranger that once was around them because they would partake in the law. We can battle about this all day, but you will find yourself falling short on nearly most of the old book with stories in reference to Passover in Exodus, and others like Ruth.I don't understand all that you wrote up there, specifically when you are saying when you say that the stranger mentioned isnt part of the people and are outside the covenant.Perhaps if you included Scripture or something that would help along the explanation .
I have given you some examples of where there isn't one law for the stranger and the Israelite such as in the charging interest or the foods that are allowed to be consumed by the stranger and not the Israelite.
If you choose to ignore these there is not much I can do to convince you really.
Quote:The assembly is to have the same statute for both you and the foreign resident as a permanent statute throughout your generations. You and the foreigner will be alike before the LORD. 16 The same law and the same ordinance will apply to both you and the foreigner who resides with you."Here you failed to read or include the whole context..It is referring again to the particular commands regarding the offerings.
(Numbers 15:15)
Num 15:10 And thou shalt bring for a drink offering half an hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
Num 15:11 Thus shall it be done for one bullock, or for one ram, or for a lamb, or a kid.
Num 15:12 According to the number that ye shall prepare, so shall ye do to every one according to their number.
Num 15:13 All that are born of the country shall do these things after this manner, in offering an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
Num 15:14 And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever be among you in your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD; as ye do, so he shall do.
Num 15:15 One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD.
Num 15:16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
Quote:We can battle about this all day, but you will find yourself falling short on nearly most of the old book with stories in reference to Passover in Exodus, and others like Ruth.
And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
(Ruth 1:16)
What exactly is your point about Ruth?