Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food?
05-13-2011, 02:35 PM
RE: Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food?
Okay, so taking time to write something this long must mean you want me to respond. I’ve tried to be discipline in this topic and focus on the actual topic itself through one of you (Rose) and their interpretation, which doesn’t even allow scripture to interpret scripture because tell this day no one is admitting to what Peter said his vision meant in the scripture. We see this clearly by Rose adding to what Peter tells us his vision meant in full. However, putting that aside, I will now follow what you’re saying to show how none of this makes sense. Keep in mind I’m using the same bible as you so please don’t think I’m pulling these concepts out of thin air. Before I start I do want to say that using Strong’s concordance is a good beginners tool in understanding the bible, but it has flaws because we should at this point all agree that the word selection chosen throughout the king James wasn’t the best, which means the defining of those words are going to automatically be off. In some cases it matters and in others it doesn’t.
(05-12-2011 04:34 PM)Vic Wrote: And by all means Nearyah, you appear to be deliberately obtuse on this issue. You are not listening to what is being said to you, and appear to be infested with gnats and straining away at them and going nowhere. I am very close to closing this topic to you.
So you’re introducing Galatians into the discussion.
11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12For 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. 13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14But 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? (Galatians 2:11-14)
This is the text you presented the other day along with some definitions from Strong’s which said to live after the manner of gentiles meant to do the following. Personally, I’m looking at the third definition #3 because it describes the meaning of the other two by using the term “in the NT”.
Quote:adapted to the genius or customs of a people, peculiar to a people, nationalAre you asking me to believe that this is the nature of Peter living among the gentiles? Galatians tells me better than this when I add more to the chapter you started me with through verses 11-14. I’m now giving you verse 15 and 16 to add to it.
We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 2:15-16)
What Shaul is saying here is that they the set- apart did not live, nor walk in their (gentile) customs, he even goes as far to call their custom sin, which is obvious from the definition you’ve applied. He continues on to tell the people that they are all submitted to Yahusha (Jesus). I can give you a whole days worth of the term “works by the law” and what studies have shown this to mean according to the Dead Sea Scrolls. But let’s just stick with the bible and go back one chapter, right before Shaul sets up why he dug into Peter.
And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers (Galatians 1:14)
I ask you, does this sound like Torah he is rebuking when he addresses Peter, or does it sound like Judaism (oral tradition)? (Please see Mark 7:7-14) I’m sure at this point you’re thinking I’m twisting scripture, so let’s see what tradition we see taking place here and in Acts 10.
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 (Acts 10:28)
Could this be why Galatians reads he separated himself? Not one time do we see the issue of what he ate being mentioned? The law that was being broken was not what he ate, but the fact that he ate with them, not as them, and yes this would be the portion that applies to Ephesians. Even as I write this I can here some of you saying, “he’s twisting scripture”. So I’ll add more scripture to support scripture to make sure none think I’m crazy about what the gentile was taught by the disciples. I guess for most of you here it would be best to use Shaul since he seems to be the one correcting Peter from following the law (assumed torah).
19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
So there are only two alternatives we can take from this story. One James is openly admitting that Paul was not guilty of the things they thought he was doing, which would be teaching others to not get circumcised and walk after the customs of the Torah.
Or we can now say that James and Paul are lying to keep the gospel moving forward which then places them in a horrible position biblically and totally out of the will I’ve Yahauh (God). For the bible tells us - Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)
Would you like to be the first to say that these two are the followers of the Devil? Or can we simply agree that the Torah was being taught to the new believer as I’ve been saying the whole time I’ve been with you? Please understand, I’m not saying that the Torah is the end all be all because we are called to keep both the scriptures and some would say the commandments of Elohim, and our faith in Yahusha (Jesus). You have to understand how the Greek mind (Abrstract) works and how we have come to our popular belief today. Which is incomplete in terms of how the Hebrew mind (both external and physical) worked and how we are supposed to be in the body. Previously I’ve given the example of how we look at baptism. If you know what I know you could also use this example for fringes as well.
Quote:Peter's vision dictated what?
Needless to say, you already know I do not buy in to the idea that food itself is what’s being discussed. It was the activity of the person. The very thing that divided them was what the definition you provided said about the manner of Gentiles. They were sinners; they lived walked and even ate contrary to the laws of Elohim. So when they came to Mashiyach (the messiah) they were called to his yoke, to be his bond servant, and follow this if you will. They were called to give-up there lives and, follow after him and he taught nothing to them accept the law of Moses, which came from the Father.
I’ve shared this idea with Rose. Peter did not say what you both are putting in his mouth saying, nor did Yahuah (God) reveal his vision to mean what you both teach. He told us that what we are no longer to call unclean or common was man, not mans sin. And hear is the passage to prove it.
- But God has shown me that I must not call any person common or unclean. (Acts 10:28). How you pull the word “person” and get “food” is beyond me, but by all means I digress.
Quote:Why? Because the law had been nailed to the cross with Christ. The wall of separation was removed so God could make one new man of the two who had before been separated by all the laws and commandments and ordinances of the Sinai covenant.
So what law was against you Vic? Let’s see was it the law for you to love your Elohim? Or how about the law to love your mother or father? Maybe it was the law that tells judges not to take bribes from people…
For the first time ever you can record me as being sarcastic, and for good cause. I’m stating the following to show you that the law was not against you, because we are told that the law brings the exact opposite.
Keep His statutes and commands, which I am giving you today, so that you and your children after you may prosper and so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you for all time." (Deut 4:40)
Hopefully you can agree that none of the laws mentioned above work against you then as much as they do now. However, when we look to see what does work against us this all makes sense. What worked against us was the penalty for not keeping the law. Deut 27 speaks to that and we see this little phrase mentioned in Deut 31- Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, so that it may remain there as a witness against you. Does going the speed limit work against you, or the person that violates the speed limit?
The law only turned against anyone when they did not walk by it. So if you’re customs were not what Yahuah (God) ask them to be you would fall prey to the laws punishment, it worked against you. This is why those that walked away from Yahuah and his commandments were brought back to form one new man. They were brought back (notice I’m saying brought in the sense that payment was made for their debt of sin) to Yahuah through his sacrifice that they may live according to his principles through the Ruach (spirit). His principles have not changed, but the people are the focal point, it’s them that are forming the new, not his law, not his ways. We the people are to come out of our sinful ways in every which way to become set-apart to him according to his word. This is why he tells us plainly that – “ this crowd, which doesn't know the law, is accursed!" (John 7:49)
Quote:Why? To make Himself one new man --all in Christ in one Spirit of unity.
I would ask that you keep this passage in mind the next time some one tries to tell you that no one could keep the law.
Quote:Heb 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary
Let’s pause here because now you’ve elevated our eating conversation and compared it to foods offered by priest for sin sacrifices and the ordinances pertained in that particular ceremony. This has absolutely nothing to do with Peter and what he ate.
If you’re trying to focus on the covenant over all, I only ask that you read my comments about this in The “Jesus new covenant thread,” but for starters, I will leave you with the end of chapter 8.
By saying, a new [ covenant ], He has declared that the first is old. And what is old and aging is about to disappear (Hebrews 8:13)
I dare say you nor I have had the privilege to walk in the holy of holies literally. This goes back to what I said earlier about the Hebrew mind set being both internal and external; both are called upon because they both serve to give the person the concept. - Therefore," He said to them, "every student of Scripture instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who brings out of his storeroom what is new and what is old." (Matthew 13:52) Are you following? We take both…
Quote:And the Scriptures also tell us and warn us:2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;[/b]
Are you following the text you provided? It’s telling you that these people confused Paul’s words and then confused the scriptures (Genesis through Malachi) by his words. This means that the two have to line-up, so if you say Paul says don’t do something mentioned in the scriptures, and Peter is telling you that those who are not well instructed by the scriptures will miss the message Paul is giving… Do you think you fall on Peter’s side with this? Am I not the one correcting what you say according to the Law? We can start with the food laws, is that not in the law, and aren’t you telling me to leave it back there because Paul says otherwise?
All of this serves as a perfect example to the point Peter makes in his plea to understand the scriptures well first so that you can understand the New Testament. I bolded some points throughout the passages you provided to show you that the Torah & Prophets is present in each of them.
- Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness,
and Your instruction is true (Psalms 119:142)
- For a commandment is a lamp, teaching is a light,
and corrective instructions are the way to life. (Proverbs 6:23)
- If Your instruction had not been my delight,
I would have died in my affliction (Pslams 119:92)
There was a saying that came out in the mid 90’s called “what would Jesus do (WWJD)?” Well this prescription above tells you what we are to follow to get to that point in the Ruach (spirit). No matter how you try to explain it we end-up with the same Elohim requesting the same thing from those he has called to be part of his nation.
But beyond these, my son, be warned: there is no end to the making of many books, and much study wearies the body. 13 When all has been heard, the conclusion of the matter is: fear God and keep His commands, because this [is for] all humanity. 14 For God will bring every act to judgment, including every hidden thing, whether good or evil. (Eccl 12:12-14)
Yahusha taught the Father’s doctrine (John 12:49) Shaul taught his doctrine (1 Cor 7:19) and Peter points us in the direction of those scriptures that show us his doctrine (2 Peter 3:16-17), which would be Genesis to Malachi. Sadly, many bypass what Moses says to the people when he gives the commands.
So when you start telling me that Moses law is out, and this Jesus law is in, which is the same law, you loose me. I leave it to you. Either your heart is circumcised or not?
And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live (Deut 30:6). So if you say your heart is circumcised you just signed up for the family of Elohim, after all this same passage says - I make this covenant and this oath, not with you alone, but with him who stands here with us today before the LORD our God, as well as with him who is not here with us today (Deut 29:15)
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)