Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Rose of Shushan · 05-19-2011, 09:58 PM

Quote:Without verse 5 being our guide on what is clean (the word and prayer) if we want to make this generic or should I say open to all things, then you and I are also included in this verse for food.
- For every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused. (1 Tim 4:4)
- So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. ( Gen 1:27)
Do you really think God is giving you and I the right to eat humans ( our children, husbands, and wives.)

Context is everything, in the previous verse its speaking about abstaining from meats and humans have never ever been meat.

1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

As Vic already explained , the "for every creature" and "nothing is to be refused" shows that it covers all meats that can be used as food. Not humans! That is a sick proposition.

Rose of Shushan · (This post was last modified: 05-22-2011 04:52 PM by Rose of Shushan.)

Nearyah please don't blame Vic as it is my fault that I replied to a post of yours which was afterwards moderated by Vic.She had closed this thread to you and in restrospect I see that perhaps I shouldnt have replied to you.
The thing is that I am not taking this as an us against them situation like you seem to be doing.
I take you to be sincere in your search for study but totally misled.And since I'm choosing to believe that you are out to seek truth my intention is to dialogue with you and see how you're arriving at all thse weird conslusions about Scripture.It's very hard to understand you though ,the way you write and the arguments that you make.
About Isaiah 65 I don't know what you meant when you mentioned the passages about swine flesh etc.If you elaborated further then I might be able to answer.

sari83 · (This post was last modified: 05-23-2011 02:32 PM by sari83.)

I've been somewhat following this discussion. There is a discrepancy that I've noticed, and I'm having difficulty drawing reasonable conclusions.

So, here it is:

Concerning the passage from the book of Galatians, where Paul reprimands Peter when some of Jews from James come to visit, and he as well as others seperate themselves from the gentiles; I find it highly unlikely, that after Peter's glorious vision, and the things he witnessed taking place with Cornelius, that he make a mistake up in this area of the good news. Peter had explained his vision and personal experiences with the gentiles receiving the holy spirit to the Jews in Jerusalem. So, there wouldn't be this major doctrinal difference between those from James and those with Paul.

Gal 2:11-14
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (KJV)

One slightly plausible explanation thus far is that Galatians was written before Acts 10. However, what would have been the purpose of Peter receiving the vision after having already being introduced to the concept by Paul?

Rose of Shushan · 05-23-2011, 04:20 PM

Quote:Concerning the passage from the book of Galatians, where Paul reprimands Peter when some of Jews from James come to visit, and he as well as others seperate themselves from the gentiles; I find it highly unlikely, that after Peter's glorious vision, and the things he witnessed taking place with Cornelius, that he make a mistake up in this area of the good news. Peter had explained his vision and personal experiences with the gentiles receiving the holy spirit to the Jews in Jerusalem. So, there wouldn't be this major doctrinal difference between those from James and those with Paul.

I don't find it so unlikely since it is likely that those of the Circumcision bought significant pressure upon Peter probably doing his head in with the type of arguments that messianics and HR give to justify the still keeping of the food laws.
Or maybe Peter didn't want to offend those of the circumcision and ended up rebuffing the Gentile believers by separating himself of with those that still preached a separation between the two when it came to eating.
It is possible that Peter did so in order to keep in the Circumcision's good books and in keeping with the freedom to live either as a jew or gentile in order to win people to Christ.Paul however realises that this is counterproductive since other jews are then caught up in it too as we read in verse 13

Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

It seems Paul being protective for the gentile part of the church realises that regardless of the reason for Peter doing what he did, it comes off as hypocritical since prior to that time he had been living like a gentile and thus not observing any law of separation.
One thing I also see here is that by Paul referring to them as the Circumcision (when he and all the other christian jews were also technically of the circumcision)he means those who seemed to still be preaching that gentiles should also obey the law,much like those in HR and messianic circles today.
.

***Vic*** · 05-23-2011, 05:02 PM

As I said in a previous post, it stands to reason Galatians took place after the vision in Acts 10, but before the council in Acts 15. The incident in Galatians could very easily be the reason for going to Jerusalem as it quotes the issue of some being sent from James and that is what is further discussed in Acts 15.

sari83 · (This post was last modified: 05-28-2011 10:02 PM by sari83.)

(05-23-2011 04:20 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: I don't find it so unlikely since it is likely that those of the Circumcision bought significant pressure upon Peter probably doing his head in with the type of arguments that messianics and HR give to justify the still keeping of the food laws.
Or maybe Peter didn't want to offend those of the circumcision and ended up rebuffing the Gentile believers by separating himself of with those that still preached a separation between the two when it came to eating.
It is possible that Peter did so in order to keep in the Circumcision's good books and in keeping with the freedom to live either as a jew or gentile in order to win people to Christ.Paul however realises that this is counterproductive since other jews are then caught up in it too as we read in verse 13[/color][/b]

Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

It seems Paul being protective for the gentile part of the church realises that regardless of the reason for Peter doing what he did, it comes off as hypocritical since prior to that time he had been living like a gentile and thus not observing any law of separation.
One thing I also see here is that by Paul referring to them as the Circumcision (when he and all the other christian jews were also technically of the circumcision)he means those who seemed to still be preaching that gentiles should also obey the law,much like those in HR and messianic circles today..

You give some very good explanations, Rose. It still seems very strange to me that Peter would make a huge blunder like that.

Correct if I'm wrong, this incidence with Peter seems to be an extension of Paul's earlier expression of superiority over the others (apostles I presume) we read about in Galatians chap.2:

Gal 2:1-6
Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:(KJV)

Rose of Shushan · 05-28-2011, 10:09 PM

Quote:Correct if I'm wrong, this incidence with Peter seems to be an extension of Paul's earlier expression of superiority over the others (apostles I presume) we read about in Galatians chap.2:

Gal 2:1-6
Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:(KJV)

The following in what you pasted leads me to see that Paul hadn't been superior at all and instead kind of humble,when he says he first went to them privately in case he run in vain.

And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

sari83 · 05-28-2011, 10:46 PM

(05-28-2011 10:09 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: The following in what you pasted leads me to see that Paul hadn't been superior at all and instead kind of humble,when he says he first went to them privately in case he run in vain. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

The following verse is what led to my "superiority" conclusion:

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:(KJV)

Rose of Shushan · 05-28-2011, 10:53 PM

Quote:The following verse is what led to my "superiority" conclusion:

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:(KJV)

How I read that is that there was nothing new that he learnt from them.If we bear in mind that Paul had already been in ministry to gentiles all those years it makes sense that God,indeed Christ, had shown him all he needed to know about the Gospel already and thus there was nothing new to be learnt from the brothers at Jerusalem.

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

06-03-2011, 08:10 PM

Hi, newbie here. After 18 pages of discussion--what's the answer to the original question, if I may ask? was Peter's vision about food (and therefore the definition of food was changed by the vision at that point), people, or both?

(p.s.: I did not choose that "Jesus Saves" icon. If there's a way to leave the space blank other than checking "no icon", I'd use it)