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

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:Acts 15 doesn’t just mention foods, but it mentioned some other specific laws, which are all in relation to certain things in reference to the Torah. There is reason why these laws are mentioned and all of it has to do with the Torah being handed over to the people. If we apply your logic to this chapter that there is some new law being passed down, then there is need to even have a verse twenty-one. It literally turns into being an anomaly with your understanding. They couldn’t be getting some new law as you suggest and then be told that Moses is preached on every Sabbath, that’s ludicrous. If there were a new law being instituted separate from the Law of Moses, wouldn’t you think they would commit the people to that law verses hearing Moses on the Sabbath? Do you not think they would have read Leviticus 11 and said to themselves we should follow this sense we are now called to Yisra’el. (Israel). Again, I’m not following.

That makes two of us now since I'm not understanding you too well in what you wrote up there.
One thing which struck me when rereading the chapter in question is this part


Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

So James gave no such commandment that they had to get circumcised and keep the Law.He likens that teaching to a subversion of their souls.
The he goes on to say

Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

So Nearyah in response to the question of whether they had to get circumcised and keep the Law the answer there is a rotund no! James in verse 29 tells us all that new gentile believers were expected to do.
Were they also commands in the Law of Moses? Yes.But Paul there is clear that the rest of the commands of Moses are not binding on these new gentile believers.


I also want to add that James says these necessary things.To me that means that they are necessary to believers and regarding your reference to verse 21 conflicting with all this,to me it merely says that the Israelites already kew about or complied with these things since they heard Moses being preached every Sabbath and in the Law it taught those already.

[Rose of Shushan]

Nearyah, I had written

Quote:If God wishes to remove the laws of commandments contained in ordinances that led to the separation and then give new dietary laws ..ie everything can be eaten except that strangled or with blood, why not?

to which you replied

Quote:Please explain your understanding of this along with Ephesians 2:15.

Well, Ephesians said

Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;


It ties in with the vision been given to Peter since the vision removed the dietary prohibitions that were part of the law of commandments contained in ordinances,that made Israel set apart and holy to the Lord via the Mosaic Covenant.
Paul confirms there that there is now no separation between jew or gentile in the eyes of God and both are reconciled to the Father through Jesus Christ.

Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

[Ne'arYah]

Quote:Originally written by: Rose
Its not picking and choosing because it's not an all or nothing situation.
We have the separation between jew and gentile which the Law brought removed and thus no food makes one unclean any longer.

The issue about avoiding blood and things strangled is a command which had nothing to do with making someone unclean.
It is given to us because the life is in the blood and the blood is meant to be drained out of meats which we consume.I think they also say strangled things since that form of death leads to blood being retained and doesn’t drain out.I may be wrong on that though its just my reasoning.

Nearyah what I see wrong with your reasoning is that you think that avoiding blood is due to it making one unclean. It isn’t and that’s why the command to avoid blood doesn’t conflict with Mark 7.
It’s a separate command , a command which wasn’t new to the Israelites but would have been new to gentiles and one which has nothing to do with clean or unclean.

It seems to me that the way you are looking at this is that you mistakenly think that if God removes the dietary prohibitions He gave Israel at Sinai that he has to remove everything.The fact that God removed those but then in the New Covenant gives us new ones,or as I said new to some but not new to others, is God's prerogative ,isn’t it?
If God wishes to remove the laws of commandments contained in ordinances that led to the separation and then give new dietary laws ..ie everything can be eaten except that strangled or with blood, why not?

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

If this were what God was doing it would be his prerogative, but this does not add-up at all to other versus which discuss food. Listen to yourself…Everything you said conflicts with “your point of view” of Mark 7, not mine. You specifically stated that the verse tells us that nothing we put in our bodies defiles us. This logically means we can eat any food from shrimp, lobster, catfish, and pig. Let’s recap this because I’m not letting it go until you either say you’re wrong, or make this work with the other passages we know about food – even if we don’t included the Law of Moses.

This is your story…

Jesus lived by the law though he at times may have taught his “own law” or as I’ve heard reference in other threads the “father’s law”.
In his ministry upholding the law he teaches that food is not what defiles the body Mark 7:18-20

And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (Mark 7:18-20)

According to your teaching I am now allowed to eat anything even though he doesn’t permit this law, he spoke it. Yet couldn’t really have done it because he was living to fulfill the Law of Moses; nonetheless, in Acts 10 and 11 we still see Peter not following this Jesus law, which he admits openly in Acts 10:14
"By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean” (Acts 10:14).
Part two of your view is that these food laws given to Yisra’el (Israel) through the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:20 were for those that were coming into the kingdom. You’ve now called these even more new laws (newer than the one given in Mark 7).

- but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.(Acts 15:20)
In the mist of these laws being passed down to “even the gentile”, you and Vic are trying to convince me that Peter was told he was allowed to eat like a gentile WHICH HAPPEN TO BE THE SAME FOODS THAT THEY ARE RESTRAINED FROM EATING IN ACTS 15:20.
By the way the law you see in Mark 7 never came into practice according to your understanding. This means Yahusha (Jesus) is now just giving out laws to confuse people. No wonder the road is narrow and few would find it… We don’t even know which laws we are to follow.

So your only way of harmonizing these 3 passages is to tell me that these were laws that were new to some, and not others. Well now you’ve really opened up a can of worms. By that standard we would have to conclude the same for the rest of these laws since food laws were not the only things mentioned. In order for you to even half-way convince me that you make some kind of sense on this point, then I would be forced to accept the same is true concerning all the laws. Why? Because you’re making a decree that these laws handed down in Acts 15 are the new laws for the body of Christ to follow in its new man. So where is the rest?

These laws don’t even tell us to love our neighbor, or to love Yah for that matter. The truth be told these specific laws were handed down immediately for a reason. The trick is that the reasons have everything to do with the Law of Moses and how they (gentiles) should be ushered into a mature faith. The purpose of these few laws being mentioned has everything to do with the activity of the gentile (sinners) life slowly converging to a set a-part lifestyle of an Yisra’elite.

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:According to your teaching I am now allowed to eat anything even though he doesn’t permit this law, he spoke it. Yet couldn’t really have done it because he was living to fulfill the Law of Moses; nonetheless, in Acts 10 and 11 we still see Peter not following this Jesus law, which he admits openly in Acts 10:14
"By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean” (Acts 10:14).

I don't understand what you mean up there .My guess is that maybe you mean that in Acts Peter was still eating only clean foods and this would be why he told God that he ahd never before eaten anything common or unclean.
I don't doubt Peter on that for a second since Peter had been in the Mosaic Covenant and lived by its dietary laws.
Nearyah the fact that Jesus said what He did in Mark 7 does not mean He then told everyone to disregard the laws of Moses and eat unclean food.If He had there would then I'm sure it would have been recorded in the Gospels.The Israelites there were under the Mosaic Covenant and Jesus hadn't died yet.

Quote:Part two of your view is that these food laws given to Yisra’el (Israel) through the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:20 were for those that were coming into the kingdom. You’ve now called these even more new laws (newer than the one given in Mark 7).

No I don't believe that Israel was given anything at the Jerusalem Council in Acts.It was gentiles that were addressed there due to some having tried to SUBVERT THEIR SOULS by saying they had to keep the Law of Moses and get circumcised, which is pretty much what you are doing too, no?

When I said they were new laws.I use the term laws loosely there, but they were new to Gentiles.They wouldn't have been new to the Israelites since they were already part of the Mosaic Law.

Quote:So your only way of harmonizing these 3 passages is to tell me that these were laws that were new to some, and not others.

I think you're not understanding my english if you reduce my explanation to that.

Quote:Well now you’ve really opened up a can of worms. By that standard we would have to conclude the same for the rest of these laws since food laws were not the only things mentioned. In order for you to even half-way convince me that you make some kind of sense on this point, then I would be forced to accept the same is true concerning all the laws. Why? Because you’re making a decree that these laws handed down in Acts 15 are the new laws for the body of Christ to follow in its new man. So where is the rest?

Try reading the rest of the NT
Seriously though you seem to be wanting more written sets of rules to follow instead of God dwelling in you and His Spirit changing you from within.
We have enough teaching in the NT and even so its not reading the rules and being aware of them that is enough.Ancient Israel had plenty of rules but that didn't guarantee obedience .
There are Christians in may remote parts of the world and havent ever seen complete Bibles.Yet the Holy Spirit led them to a life of obedience to God and to love their neighbours as themselves.

Quote:The trick is that the reasons have everything to do with the Law of Moses and how they (gentiles) should be ushered into a mature faith. The purpose of these few laws being mentioned has everything to do with the activity of the gentile (sinners) life slowly converging to a set a-part lifestyle of an Yisra’elite.

The set apart lifestyle for the Israelite was part of the Mosaic Covenant.We, believers in Jesus Christ as Saviour, enter into a New Covenant which is different.Since we are to spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth, it makes sense to me that God removed the laws that would stop Israelite believers eating and living amongst Gentiles, otherwise how could the Gospel have spread like it did.
We are to be in the world but not of it.

[Ne'arYah]

(05-10-2011 02:50 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  

Quote:According to your teaching I am now allowed to eat anything even though he doesn’t permit this law, he spoke it. Yet couldn’t really have done it because he was living to fulfill the Law of Moses; nonetheless, in Acts 10 and 11 we still see Peter not following this Jesus law, which he admits openly in Acts 10:14
"By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean” (Acts 10:14).

I don't understand what you mean up there .My guess is that maybe you mean that in Acts Peter was still eating only clean foods and this would be why he told God that he ahd never before eaten anything common or unclean.
I don't doubt Peter on that for a second since Peter had been in the Mosaic Covenant and lived by its dietary laws.
Nearyah the fact that Jesus said what He did in Mark 7 does not mean He then told everyone to disregard the laws of Moses and eat unclean food. If He had there would then I'm sure it would have been recorded in the Gospels.The Israelites there were under the Mosaic Covenant and Jesus hadn't died yet.

In the name of heaven - what do you call yourself saying he was telling his followers if now you are saying he didn’t establish a new law in Mark 7? This was your very reason for introducing Mark 7 weeks ago was it not? You were trying to show me that he removed the a law and essentially gave a new one.

Quote:

Quote:Part two of your view is that these food laws given to Yisra’el (Israel) through the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:20 were for those that were coming into the kingdom. You’ve now called these even more new laws (newer than the one given in Mark 7).

No I don't believe that Israel was given anything at the Jerusalem Council in Acts.It was gentiles that were addressed there due to some having tried to SUBVERT THEIR SOULS by saying they had to keep the Law of Moses and get circumcised, which is pretty much what you are doing too, no?

When I said they were new laws.I use the term laws loosely there, but they were new to Gentiles.They wouldn't have been new to the Israelites since they were already part of the Mosaic Law.

Even here you add to my confusion. I consider myself more than capable of reading words put together by man. Yet you seem to simply use the same terms and then introduce the term under a new term that’s the same. The term I’m referring to here is “Law of Moses or Mosaic Law.” I’m going to repost your words and bold what I mean in hopes that you can explain this better. Or again, maybe you got it wrong, and you'll agree so we can address Vic’s post (Galatians) and more.


Quote from Rose:
“No I don't believe that Israel was given anything at the Jerusalem Council in Acts.It was gentiles that were addressed[b] there due to some having tried to SUBVERT THEIR SOULS by saying [b]they had to keep the Law of Moses and get circumcised, which is pretty much what you are doing too, no?

When I said they were new laws.I use the term laws loosely there, but they were new to Gentiles.They wouldn't have been new to the Israelites since they were already part of the Mosaic Law.”



Now in your effort to add that the Law of Moses wasn’t carried on you inserted that some were trying to subvert the new comer (gentiles) souls with the law. However, by the time you close your statement you realize that the law that was being given over to the gentiles comes from the Mosaic Law, which is why it was not new to those who were apart of Yisra’el (Israel), and only new to those who would be following the law. So even here I’m walking away with nothing. Clearly your telling me that they had to keep the Mosaic Law without me even having to tell you. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

Rose you have to see how you are double dipping, taking dirt to the beach, trying to sale water to ocean, trying to sale a bird a plane ticket. I’m not getting smart with you, but I do want to come across clear on this… I’m not trying to make you seem crazy, but this is hard to follow because passage by passage your logic that your trying to apply is broken every time we introduce more passages. Mind you through all of this I have only introduced one additional passage and thats Acts 15.

Quote:Original quote: Ne’arYah
So your only way of harmonizing these 3 passages is to tell me that these were laws that were new to some, and not others.

Quote:I think you're not understanding my english if you reduce my explanation to that.

Quote:Well now you’ve really opened up a can of worms. By that standard we would have to conclude the same for the rest of these laws since food laws were not the only things mentioned. In order for you to even half-way convince me that you make some kind of sense on this point, then I would be forced to accept the same is true concerning all the laws. Why? Because you’re making a decree that these laws handed down in Acts 15 are the new laws for the body of Christ to follow in its new man. So where is the rest?

Try reading the rest of the NT
Seriously though you seem to be wanting more written sets of rules to follow instead of God dwelling in you and His Spirit changing you from within.
We have enough teaching in the NT and even so its not reading the rules and being aware of them that is enough.Ancient Israel had plenty of rules but that didn't guarantee obedience .
There are Christians in may remote parts of the world and havent ever seen complete Bibles.Yet the Holy Spirit led them to a life of obedience to God and to love their neighbours as themselves.

Don’t misinterpret why I asked this. The question "where is the rest" wasn’t stated because I like laws… It’s to show the ignorance of saying that these laws “are all” that the gentile had to follow. We are told in the gospels that believers are to be baptized. We are told in the epistles such as John that we out to love our neighbor. We are told in books like Galatians that we ought to stride to have the characteristics of the fruit of the spirit. And even more, we are told in Corinthians that we are to keep the commandments of Yahuah (God), which happens to be the Old Testament by the way. I said "where is the rest" in hopes that you'll see the bigger picture that what we see in Acts 15, is not the end-all- be-all for gentiles. The argument you’re starting to develop through Acts 15 we don’t even see these people being told not to murder, or cheat on their spouse for that matter, let alone to believe. However, we see these same gentiles that Paul ushers in being taught more elsewhere.[/quote]

Quote:The trick is that the reasons have everything to do with the Law of Moses and how they (gentiles) should be ushered into a mature faith. The purpose of these few laws being mentioned has everything to do with the activity of the gentile (sinners) life slowly converging to a set a-part lifestyle of an Yisra’elite. [quote]

The set apart lifestyle for the Israelite was part of the Mosaic Covenant.We, believers in Jesus Christ as Saviour, enter into a New Covenant which is different.Since we are to spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth, it makes sense to me that God removed the laws that would stop Israelite believers eating and living amongst Gentiles, otherwise how could the Gospel have spread like it did.
We are to be in the world but not of it.

I really am trying to stay on Acts 10 and 11, but you and Vic want to explore more while we're still trying to figure out what is being said in this one passage concerning Peter. So I'm trying to turn a blind eye to such things as “we in Jesus Christ.” If you can make sense of our focus topic (Peter) then we can start down the road of Ephesians and Galatians.

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:In the name of heaven - what do you call yourself saying he was telling his followers if now you are saying he didn’t establish a new law in Mark 7? This was your very reason for introducing Mark 7 weeks ago was it not? You were trying to show me that he removed the a law and essentially gave a new one.

My point for introducing Mark 7 was to show you that Jesus wasnt teaching Mosaic Law, if I remember correctly.

Quote:Now in your effort to add that the Law of Moses wasn’t carried on you inserted that some were trying to subvert the new comer (gentiles) souls with the law. However, by the time you close your statement you realize that the law that was being given over to the gentiles comes from the Mosaic Law, which is why it was not new to those who were apart of Yisra’el (Israel), and only new to those who would be following the law. So even here I’m walking away with nothing. Clearly your telling me that they had to keep the Mosaic Law without me even having to tell you. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

No I am not telling you they had to keep Mosaic Law.What I am saying is that the recommendations given by James happened to include something which had also been in the Law of Moses.And thus they were not new to Israelites but new to Gentiles.
And the subversion of souls is said by James ,not me, I merely referred to his quote.

[Ne'arYah]

Then what was he teaching? Doesn't this mean that he was doing what you said he didn't do then according to your latest comment?

Quote:the fact that Jesus said what He did in Mark 7 does not mean He then told everyone to disregard the laws of Moses and eat unclean food. If He had there would then I'm sure it would have been recorded in the Gospels.

At this point I'm loosing hope that you're even keeping up with yourself. Your story is slowly changing day-by-day. So now Jesus did not teach by the Law of Moses, nor did he give a new law in Mark 7? So what are you saying took place in Mark 7, a simple gesture of speech?

It sounds like we agree that you’re telling me he was teaching something different (using your understanding). So now my question becomes what did he teach, and who ever had a chance to follow it? And if he taught anything what would be the point if him teaching his students to follow it if they never had a chance to do it?

As far as James comment - you know this is starting to sound twisted. Maybe James wasn't talking about “the” Torah the way you wished he was. After all, I don't think they would want to subvert anyone from Yahusha (Jesus) by giving them parts of the law, and allowing them to continue to learn the law of subversion on each Sabbath. Does that really make sense, is this really the story you’re going with? Considering that there was no Matthew-Revelations in that time I think your understanding of what was taking place here is not foreseen clearly in context of the time and event. We haven’t even considered the many passages that tell them to follow that law, which is subverting for the soul, which I refuse to bring-up until the few passages on the table are answered respectfully.
Mark 7, Acts 10, Act 11, and Acts 15. As of today you have given me two different versions on what has taken place in Mark 7. Version 1 is Yahuah (God) removes the laws for men to eat all foods. Version 2 is that Yahuah (God) doesn’t teach a law.

In terms of Acts 10 and 11, you’ve completely ignore what Peter said his vision reveals to him and add to it; by what passage I have still yet to see.

To cover-up the lack of union between these two passages you tell me the law changes again in Acts 15 to restrain from blood only. If I’m a gentile, I am starving at this point because I don’t know what to eat.

Again I offer you the alternative.
Mark 7 was about the traditions of the law (oral law) being enforced on the disciples (washing of hands) what goes into the mouth by the hands. Or as the old American saying goes God made dirt and dirt don’t hurt.
Acts 10 and 11 is strictly about killing the law of separation containing to the people, the communication, and attitude toward others (i.e., Yahuah is no respecter of person) and nothing else.

And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
( Acts 10:13)
And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)
- 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)


Acts 15 wasn’t new laws for those found in Yisra’el (who the gentiles were expected to become). But these were laws being handed down to them immediately because of the sinful worship they did to their gods. The laws you’re reading in Acts 15 deal with how they would have sex in their temples unto idols, and then offer a sacrifice of blood and eat these sinful foods in there sinful ways, which happens to be a direct opposite of what we see the children of Yisra’el (Israel) called to.

My story hasn’t changed one bit. Yet I can’t even pin the tail on the donkey with your because it’s too difficult to follow once we apply all the passages. One moment I’m told to eat every thing nothing defiles me. Next moment (literally) I’m told to eat everything with the exception of foods with blood. This is an all for nothing in the way you presented your logic in telling me mine was wrong. Either you can or can not eat anything according to your comments, not mine.

[Vic]

Nearyah, I think that's enough personal attacks against Rose. You are the one twisting what is said and trying to make it into a confusing mess to fit your beliefs.

Now please hear this:

Jesus, when He walked the earth, pointed people to loving God and observing the law as given by God through Moses to Israel. Simultaneously He began to teach the Law of CHrist aside from the Sinai Covenant, which is what you seem unable to comprehend. So please pay attention and don't try to twist what is said to conform to your beliefs. Suspend your confusion and beliefs and just listen.

The examples Rose gave like---an eye for an eye as found in the Law of Moses, was counteracted by Christ's commandment on that topic. UNtil Christ died, that's what was taking place. And please notice what Moses said concerning Him:

Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Deu 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Notice--God said He would be speaking exactly what God commanded Him to speak, And then states the result of not listening to Him. So where Jesus commanded something different than what Moses had said--such as the eye for an eye example---what did God say through Moses ? God commanded it. And you are to listen Christ.

When He died and rose again, the New Covenant was fully enacted, the old Sinai covenant becoming obsolete. Because of the 'better promises' given through Christ. That is, forgiveness of sins and eternal life and salvation for those who believed--Jews and Gentiles--through the salvation of God, Jesus Christ. As promised in the Scriptures. He was the given New Covenant --as proimised in the Scriptures. Salvation Provided by God Himself-as promised in the Scriptures.

When the disciples were to lay the foundation of the church, teaching the doctrines of the New Covenant, they needed to understand that no longer were they--Jews--bound to the Sinai covenant, nor were the --Gentiles-- to be compelled to keep the Sinai covenant which was to Israel in the first place..

Instead the separation caused by that specific covenant to Israel was removed and all become one in CHrist. Righteousness of CHrist without the law, which was of the flesh.

Therefore, just as Peter and Paul and others demonstrated, they no longer were bound to the Mosaic Law but the commandments of Christ. That is, the commandments of God, separate and distinct from the law of Moses.

Each is individually saved by God's grace, by faith in Christ, that He was indeed the promised Messiah and salvation of God. That He alone provided the way to the Father. That there is no other sacrifice to be given ever again for sin. That all the shadows and types and prophecies in the law and the prophets and psalms regarding Christ were indeed fulfilled.

What we see in the NT is the proclamation of those truths plus the doctrine of how to live for Christ. And it does not entail keeping the Sinai covenant. Rather, we see that those who belong to Christ are not separated by race, or food/clean or unclean. For as Peter was shown and showed in his vision and Paul repeatedly taught---there is nothing unclean in and of itself. That all things that were unclean under the law--were now made clean by God--people because of Christ and His sacrifice and then indwelling Holy Spirit in all believers; and all food --good for all when received with thanksgiving--to those who believe HIm and know the truth.

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,***8 if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 ***For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. ***
1Ti 4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

When James and all the other leadership decreed that it was 'SUBVERTING THE SOULS" to teach that Gentiles were to keep the law of Moses---when he said clearly they had never given that commandment-----it shows that James and the other leadership already knew that they were not bound to keeping of the Mosaic law. They already understood that the Truth of the Gospel meant that those things were indeed nailed to the cross---and the scriptures have been repeatedly posted on these things which you reject as truth.

True believers have the freedom to eat or not eat things. THey are making those choices, and it has nothing to do with keeping or rather, the attempt to keep the law of Moses. THey are not living to that, but to Jesus Christ. As Peter showed when "LIVING" in the same manner as the Gentiles and NOT Living the same AS WERE THE JEWS.--meaning the traditional way of keeping the Law, before Christ died.

Meaning---Peter lived in the manner normal and common to Gentiles, not observing any of the clean or unclean restrictions imposed on Israel/Jews while under the Sinai covenant. Even though he was a Jew. And it was hypocrisy to pretend he wasn't when the Jews who were in doctrinal error came around, and he tried to hide that was what he was about. .

Instead---as all the apostles and those they taught learned----that whoever they were with and were sharing Christ with, they understood the freedom they had was bound to the love of Christ and love of others. And even though they had complete freedom and liberty regarding all the Mosaic laws which had made Israel distinct and separate; to eat or not eat, and to be with or not be with others, what they did in Christ was always out of love and compassion for those they were sharing Him with. They were to put others first before their own freedom and liberty in the Truth of the Gospel.

These foundational things you need to get a handle on, Nearyah, because unless you do grasp them, you not only bring confusion to yourself, but to those you attempt to teach; and you are trying to teach things you neither know or understand. And God is not the author of confusion.

[Mary]

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:At this point I'm loosing hope that you're even keeping up with yourself. Your story is slowly changing day-by-day. So now Jesus did not teach by the Law of Moses, nor did he give a new law in Mark 7? So what are you saying took place in Mark 7, a simple gesture of speech?

It sounds like we agree that you’re telling me he was teaching something different (using your understanding). So now my question becomes what did he teach, and who ever had a chance to follow it? He was teaching about the Kingdom of God,about the Law for that Kingdom.His teachings are to be found in the Gospels, you and I know that.
When he taught the people on Mark 7, His comment was in response to the Pharisees calling him out on not observing their tradition.
In His response Jesus taught on the principles of His Kingdom since according to Mosaic Law some things that go into the mouth do make people unclean.

Nearyah Jesus there wasn’t then teaching people to go and now eat all they liked since those people were Israelites and in the Mosaic Covenant.Jesus hadn't died yet to that Covenant was still in force.
It wasn’t til Jesus death that the New Covenant is ushered in.
Nearyah why are you asking me what Jesus taught? Are you not a believer?You said

Quote:And if he taught anything what would be the point if him teaching his students to follow it if they never had a chance to do it?

Are you referring to Mark 7 in this? Or the rest of His teaching? Jesus did not teach His disciples to break the Law of Moses since the Mosaic Law was binding until Jesus death. And we know that He certainly did not intend this by Mark 7 since Peter ,all the way forward in Acts was still eating clean food until the vision.
What Jesus did teach was about the Kingdom of God and the Laws, ( though these Laws are never formally addressed as Laws since they don’t come written in stone like the ten did)..just like Moses then taught the people more than the ten commandments and relayed to the people all that God commanded him so does Jesus with the New Covenant and His Kingdom.
What Jesus taught was intended to be written down to provide a witness and testimony for you, me and the people of the whole world.Check out these words from our King

Mat 26:13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

Quote:To cover-up the lack of union between these two passages you tell me the law changes again in Acts 15 to restrain from blood only. If I’m a gentile, I am starving at this point because I don’t know what to eat.

Is it so hard to understand that the laws of clean and unclean as per Mosaic Law are over and that new commands regarding food are recommended.
These commands are to abstain from animals which have been strangled,still have blood or offered to idols.
This time the commands are not because they make someone unclean.We do not know the exact reason for those commands but you certainly gave some valid reasons of why they could have been put in place.We know that they formed part of the Law of Moses and the avoid blood one before Moses so its just htings that happen to form part of God's comamnds that He wants to continue us to follow.

Quote:My story hasn’t changed one bit. Yet I can’t even pin the tail on the donkey with your because it’s too difficult to follow once we apply all the passages. One moment I’m told to eat every thing nothing defiles me. Next moment (literally) I’m told to eat everything with the exception of foods with blood. This is an all for nothing in the way you presented your logic in telling me mine was wrong. Either you can or can not eat anything according to your comments, not mine.

Thats cos food with blood does not make you unclean, what defiles you is what comes out of your mouth not what goes in.
Does that sound familiar?
So lets recap for the hundredth time.Eating food whatever food no longer makes you unclean.You may eat everything you like EXCEPT animals which have been strangled or still have blood.
Is that really so hard to understand?