Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food?

[Vic]

(01-05-2009 06:37 AM)malawk Wrote:  Malawk

Quote:Brings to mind also Genesis 49 and Jacob blessings his sons theres many refferences to animals there aswell as many more throughout the bible these are just a few.

Question to ask yourself is why Peter was seeking the meaning of the vision if the meaning was so clear? also If as you say this passage in mark Jesus is declaring all foods clean, Peters whole vision would seem odd meaning that Peter himself missed this occurance in Mark as you understand it, ie Peter had no such knowledge of foods being made clean well after Christ rose.

Greg, in the example you gave of when people were referenced as animals, alongside other decriptions or the actual name of the person--did God say "Rise, ..; kill, and eat." to or about any of them?

Act 10:12-16
(12) Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
(13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
(14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
(15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
(16) This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

Peter's vision was unique--because it was bringing what the New Covenant meant -in more ways than one.

Greg, you said you aren't getting your questions answered. But there is a difference in getting an answer and receiving or rejecting it. Rejecting an answer is not the same as not getting an aswer.

Quote:Vic I am sort of shocked though that you don't have trouble with people "adding" or "inserting" words into Mark , since at least towards me you seemed to care about the word of God and strongly against people that attempt to "alter" it.

Greg you misunderstood. I was meaning it didn't surprise me that what was said did not match with the manuscripts. If you looked at my Bible section that I gave the link for--you would see why I don't use those other versions. However, it doesn't change the fact of what Jesus said in those verses. That you don't agree is obvious, but I did in fact answer you.

Further, if one looks at the scriptures after Christ died, the vision and Acts 15, and other verses some of which I have given you--show that food had become an issue--and the sum of the issue is this Greg---do you love others enough to share a meal with them in their home without insulting them, for the love of Christ?

As far as receiving a piece of bloody meat---it's a common thing to request well done or med or whatever and most people accept that with such things as steak or beef....I myself have asked for a steak to be put on the BBQ longer---no one is offended by that. It is merely viewed as a preference and no one is insulted. That is far different than saying how dare you feed me this , etc. -which has been told to me has happened with messianics...so where's the love for others or Christ?

Quote:"Again eating "with" someone who eats unclean food is very different then eating unclean food with them."

So you are basically saying that if you went to someone's home and they sat down to eat--you would either pull out your own hamper of food and suggest what they eat isnt good enough for you? or you would watch them eat and try not to say anything as to why you wouldnt eat with them, when they invited you into their home? or tell them Christ doesn't let you eat unclean things--or eat with the unclean--those who don't know Christ?

You would never make a missionary---and yet--we are all in a mission field to share Christ wherever we are....that does pose a problem doesn't it? And doesn't that overturn the Scriptures in Romans which I gave you? And the other Scriptures?

You will say no and that I haven't answered you--but I have.

Quote:I wonder if your suggesting that when Jesus was eating with sinners that He also ate unclean foods aswell? I've always understood it that Christ "kept the law perfectly" kept all His Fathers commandments maybe you believe differently.

You obviously have been missing the Scriptures I have used to show that Jesus was transitioning to the New Covenant. When He said "it has been said, but I say unto you..." He was in fact bringing in the New Covenant--and when the woman was caught in the act of adultery---by the Mosaic law -which you and many others claim to keep but don't actually--she should have been stoned and also the man who was committing adultery with her---but she wasn't and Jesus said- "Go and sin no more". All those who did not stone her then--also broke the Mosaic law based on your perceptions of what the law entails.

That Jesus showed mercy and that He alone can forgive and change the law in favor of that is something you ignore.