(05-07-2011 02:02 AM)Mary Wrote: (05-06-2011 03:21 PM)NearYah Wrote: Quote:Original: Mary
Honestly Ne'arYah, everything you accuse Rose of here is actually what you have been doing! I'll use the word obfuscate again, but more colloquially, I'll simply say BS baffles brains! It would take forever to unravel the contradictions and scripture and word "twistings" that you have posted over the two threads - this one and the Covenants one. Why do you continue to ignore Galatians, Colossians, Romans, Corinthians, Hebrews etc which have been presented to you? The vision that God has given Peter clearly and simply gives him permission to mix with and eat with gentiles, and eat their food! - it's no more complicated than that! A 5 year old can see that you have to go to a lot of mental and verbal gymnastics to get the Scripture to fit your beliefs. Many verses have been given to you - as I said, God doesn't make his point once only!
As Vic provided Col 3 vs 17: And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
So Mary, can you please give me one time where I have twisted scripture? If you want to send me a personal email or call me by phone instead of hammering this out here, then no problem. I have no problem speaking with you first hand.
OK.
you responded to Rose and quoted from Acts 11 verse 4 onwards saying:
"In the whole chapter!
But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house: And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the LORD Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. (Acts 11:5-24)
I challenge you to pull food out of anything in there. Do you think they were rejoicing because Peter ate some pork and crab? No! They rejoiced because they were (gentiles) unclean and cleansed by Yahuah (God), just as the Father had cleansed them (the disciples). This was the good news. Not we can eat what we choose and continue to walk after the ways of Yah (God). Where do you see that in any of his response? Please show me? From what you just read straight from the bible he tells you it had every thing to do with communicating the spirit and salvation to the unclean. Instead of focusing on the message, you’re focus on where the message took place."
You underlined all the parts that give credence to your belief that the vision was not about food, and that Peter did not - could not possibly - eat the same food as Gentiles. A person who is not knowledgeable about Scripture,or is too lazy to go to the Bible and check, might just accept what you presented, but you left out the first 3 verses:
Acts 11 vs 1-3
And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
Furthermore, to try to convince us that Peter would not eat "unclean or unlawful" food you tell us Cornelius would have had lawful food prepared for him. That's just imagination on your part - nowhere in the Bible does it say that Cornelius did that, and Peter had every opportunity to answer the Jewish men that Cornelius had prepared lawful food for him, but he does not - he describes the vision he had in which God tells him He has cleansed everything.
Read the story through from chapter 10, not just Peter's recounting of the vision in chapter 11. Peter's vision gave him permission to eat all foods. Cornelius's vision gave him permission to contact and invite Peter to his home: Peter was told to go to Cornelius. God brings it all together, the mixing with Gentiles and eating with them to show that not only spiritually but practically, the separation between Jew and Gentile is no more.
There are many other scriptures to support this. They have been presented in this and the Covenants thread, but let me know if you want them again.
There is no need to take this "private" - it is a public forum, and if you present something biblically incorrect publicly, I'll hold you accountable publicly. I apologise if it upsets you, but you are misleading people.
Shalom Mary!
I have about 2 hours to kill so I’m going to try and make my rounds here, and in the covenant thread.
Thanks for responding as always…
I read your reasoning as to why you feel I have manipulated scripture, but as you probably guessed, I disagree.
I didn’t highlight verses 1-4 for two reasons, and I will give them in hopes that you understand I wasn’t trying to hide anything.
Reason 1:
If you go back to my last official post before the one you quoted me talking to Rose. I had previously provided the same exact quote with your same understanding through Roses comment and addressed it back in post #107. Obviously I couldn’t be hiding it, if we just discussed it, or maybe you didn’t see why I responded back with the “whole chapter”
Secondly, that part of the chapter (verses 1-4) though it is part of the chapter, it has no bearing on Peter’s response, and his interpretation of his vision. I only focused on what he said his vision meant because that is the base of our discussion. To show my sincerity on this you will notice that I also left-off the last 6 verses of Acts 11, because it also has nothing to do with Peter’s vision. Hopefully, that clears things up. Personally, I would never want anyone to take my word for anything and just run with it. The bible commands us not to be lazy and to be workers of diligent like the ants. My hope is that whatever I say to you or anyone is that you look it up. I’d even like for you to take it to those you respect spiritually and discuss it with me more. I’m not trying to walk or teach in error as I’m sure you too.
Now that we’ve gotten through that little patch let’s focus on what you’re saying.
Quote:Oringinal: Mary
Furthermore, to try to convince us that Peter would not eat "unclean or unlawful" food you tell us Cornelius would have had lawful food prepared for him. That's just imagination on your part - nowhere in the Bible does it say that Cornelius did that, and Peter had every opportunity to answer the Jewish men that Cornelius had prepared lawful food for him, but he does not - he describes the vision he had in which God tells him He has cleansed everything.
Read the story through from chapter 10, not just Peter's recounting of the vision in chapter 11. Peter's vision gave him permission to eat all foods. Cornelius's vision gave him permission to contact and invite Peter to his home: Peter was told to go to Cornelius. God brings it all together, the mixing with Gentiles and eating with them to show that not only spiritually but practically, the separation between Jew and Gentile is no more.
So here is the problem with this, and please for the love of the one that saved us pretend it’s not coming from me if that will help you understand why I cannot accept your view once considering all the bible.
In Acts 15:20 we are told that Peter and the other disciples (including Paul) are to give a letter to the gentiles for what they should do as they come to belief in Yahuah (God) and his set apart people. Hopefully, you and I are Seeing Eye to eye at this point.
We should also be able to agree that Acts 15 takes place after Peter’s vision we’re given in Acts 10 and 11. Right? Great!
So if just those two things are true; how is it that Peter and this gentile are told they can eat whatever they want? Yet we have Peter bearing witness and lining up in agreement with the same spirit, that gentiles such as Cornelius are now going to be forced to
not eat certain foods that they were accustom to eating in Acts 15:20?
If we make Peter a pig eater here in Acts 10 and 11, then we have a double-standard being handed down in scripture in Acts 15, it’s just that simple.
The only way you or Rose can be right about this is if Acts 15 is referring to something outside of blood animals, which it isn’t. We know this because we see this issue continue in Romans and Corinthians.
I’m not sure how much you agree with Rose’s theory, but Rose says it’s because we return to the laws given by Yahuah (God) at Sinai… Rose used Gen 3:9 for a reference, but Rose also told me, and is still telling me that Mark 7 teaches us that nothing we put in our mouth defiles us. Both of these interpretations speak against what Acts 15 tells us. It makes us pick and chose which passage is right, which we all know the bible cannot do, which mean the error is on our part.
So what do I say about all this?
I say that my bible says that the issue in Mark 7 was not about food at all, but what was being taught against was the tradition of eating with dirty hands (nothing more).
I say that my bible says that both Galatians, Acts 10 and 11 are all referring to the law of separation gentiles from Yisra’el, which my bible supports through the characters mentioned in the story i.e., Cornelius, - "You know it's forbidden for a Jewish man to associate with or visit a foreigner (Acts 10:28)
I say that all this synchronizes with Acts 15 perfect because now we see how the gentiles were to start adapting to the Yisra’el (set apart) life style.
You said I’m using my imagination, but I laugh on the inside and say what do you call yourself doing? Where do you see the type of foods being ate in these chapters? What animal did he kill, let alone eat? None of that is given to you. I haven’t assumed anything greater than you if I have at all. I have very good reason to believe that Cornelius not only had food for Peter (within the law), but that he also would have been eating food just like Peter. The bible says what about Cornelius?
They said,
"Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who has a good reputation with the whole Jewish nation,
(Acts 10:22)
Now I have reason to believe that this same Cornelius not only had food that Peter would eat, but he probably ate the food himself! And even if he didn’t I have even more reason to believe that for this reason, him being one fearing Elohim that he would have most definitively provided for Peter appropriately. The issue was not what Peter was eating Mary. It was who he was with and where he was with him. Despite his record with the Jewish people they still wanted to find something dirty on Peter, thus the accusation, you eat with this uncircumcised man!!!! This is why you have a Acts 10:28 to guide you in the wrong doing. The reason Peter explains himself to those in Acts 11:1-4 and not mention food is because he didn’t violate any food law. He violated their law. This is the same thing you read when you turn to Galatians.
Search
Member List
Help
