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

[Vic]

This is a compilation of thoughts and questions from Nearyah, which I have tried to make into generic ideas as Q, and then answered, A.

Q. Doesn't "living after the manner of the Gentiles" in the way you mena it, mean Peter was violating Torah, and following other gods. The one definition you source includes that 'after the manner of the Gentiles' can mean 'savouring the nature of pagans, alien to the worship of God, etc". So that's what you are saying it means.

A. In the related definition of "after the manner of the Gentiles", which means living "like the Gentiles"; were various definitions related to use and context.

The first definitions to which the meaning stands in context, refers to being adapted to the customs of a people. The 'savouring the nature" defintion, was referring to the understanding that a gentile/pagan was one who worshipped and followed other gods, had idols and so on. All issues which are dealt with throughout the Scriptures with regards to NOT doing those things. Living after the manner of Gentiles, which Peter was doing, was not in the context of observing their religious practices prior to belonging to or seeking Christ.

Let's look at what 'gentile' means:
G1484
e?´????
ethnos
Thayer Definition:
1) a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together
1a) a company, troop, swarm
2) a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus
2a) the human family
3) a tribe, nation, people group
4) in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles
5) Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: probably from G1486

livest > G2198
?a´?
zao¯
Thayer Definition:
1) to live, breathe, be among the living (not lifeless, not dead)
2) to enjoy real life
2a) to have true life and worthy of the name
2b) active, blessed, endless in the kingdom of God
3) to live, i.e. pass life, in the manner of the living and acting
3a) of mortals or character
4) living water, having vital power in itself and exerting the same upon the soul
5) metaphorically to be in full vigour
5a) to be fresh, strong, efficient
5b) as adjective active, powerful, efficacious
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a primary verb

after the manner of Gentiles,G1483

G1483
e????????
ethniko¯s
Thayer Definition:
1) like the Gentiles
Part of Speech: adverb

not >as do the Jews,G2452

G2452
????da????´?
Ioudaiko¯s
Thayer Definition:
1) Jewishly, after the manner of the Jews
Part of Speech: adverb

why >>>compellest

G315
a??a??a´??
anagkazo¯
Thayer Definition:
1) to necessitate, compel, drive to, constrain
1a) by force, threats, etc.
1b) by permission, entreaties, etc.
1c) by other means
Part of Speech: verb

Gentiles> to live as do the Jews?G2450

G2450
????da??´??
Ioudaizo¯
Thayer Definition:
1) to adopt Jewish customs and rites, imitate the Jews, Judaise
1a) one who observes the ritual law of the Jews
Part of Speech: verb

Some want to twist this to mean that it was saying Peter was savouring or in the worship of false gods etc. They were seeking God, and salvation and Peter was declaring those things to them. The Gentiles didn't need to change what they ate, and Peter was eating with them and living with them--even though all of that went against the Mosaic law---which is why he had said to Cornelius in the Acts 10 verse, after the vision, "Act 10:28 ...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; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Act 10:29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me? "

Not everything someone does has to do with a religious ceremony which very obviously-as Paul wrote about---Peter wouldn't have been offering to idols, worshipping idols or involved in religious worship of that nature, nor would he be eating food given to idols. No believer would be doing that. However, as Peter was learning, he could sit and eat with Gentiles, eat their food in their homes, he could sleep in their homes and he wasn't defiled before God. That's the issue. He wasn't living after the manner of Jews, meaning the Sinai covenant--which prohibited him even being in their homes---as was very clearly presented as to why...see prior posts.

Meaning---Peter was living 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. Meaning day to day normal living practices which every culture has--from where and how one sleeps to where to go to the bathroom, what and how one eats, washes etc. Even though he was a Jew. And it was hypocrisy to pretend he wasn't doing those things and which he tried to hide that was what he was about, when the Jews who were in doctrinal error came around and said the Gentiles needed to keep the law of Moses, which also meant Peter, Paul and those other Jews with them, were also being told they needed to continue to keep the law of Moses. Hence the clarifying of those doctrines in Acts 15.

Paul, a Jew, rebuked Peter, a Jew, for being a hypocrite for living like the Gentiles and "not as do the Jews". Before Christ died, all The Jews were to be living according to the law of Moses which included CLEAN and UNCLEAN FOOD and separation from non Jews.

The Gentiles did not live according to clean and unclean food--amongst many other things that THE JEWS were required to do according to the Law of Moses--and the Gentiles were not part of. ....

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.

eat G4906
s??es??´?
sunesthio¯
Thayer Definition:
1)[b] to eat with, take food together with
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4862 and G2068 (including its alternate)

*******from the definition above for eat*********"from G4862 and G2068 (including its alternate)"
G4862
s?´?
sun
Thayer Definition:
1) with
Part of Speech: preposition
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a primary preposition denoting union

G2068
e?s??´?
esthio¯
Thayer Definition:
1) to eat
2) to eat (consume) a thing
2a) to take food, eat a meal
3) metaphorically to devour, consume
Part of Speech: verb

Peter was eating with and living with the Gentiles in the manner of the Gentiles. Yet he was a Jew. So either he disobeyed the Mosaic Law and was in sin, or it was as Paul wrote when Peter separated from the Gentiles he had been eating and living with: that Peter and the others "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel." It can't be both.

Peter was living in the same manner as the Gentiles, in food and nothing being unclean to them. He was with people who, if he was abiding the law of Moses, would have been unclean for him to be with. Let alone eat with or partake of their food or be in their homes.

Q. Did Jesus live after the manner of the gentiles, eating their foods? Did he actually eat contrary to the law? When the Son went after sinners did he convert to their lifestyle, or did he convert their life style to his? Paul and James taught the people through the book of Acts, and it was every bit of the law given to gentiles.

A.Peter was declaring the Gospel of Jesus Christ, why he lived and died for our sins, and the Gentiles wanted to know how to be saved. There was a difference in what was done, before Christ died, and after He died and rose again. When Christ died the law was abolished, nailed to the cross, moved out of the way in order to make one new man, uniting Jews and Gentiles in Christ....it had nothing to do with keeping the Mosaic law anymore. All are found in sin and all need to come to Christ. No longer could the separation caused by the law--that made the Jews a separate people, and to be kept separate from other nations, now, they too were able to be with Gentiles as equal in the body of Christ. No more did the keeping of the law make one righteous. Instead it is by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and living to Christ and abiding the new covenant that one lives for God. We have zero rightousness in ourselves or what we do. Jesus is made righteousness for us.

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Jesus kept the Spirit and intent of the law perfectly. He was about His Father's business. As far as whether Jesus sat and ate with and the 'unclean', yes, He did, and He ate without complaint whatever was set before Him, regardless who was with Him. He entered the home of those who were viewed as unclean.

Mat 9:9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
Mat 9:10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
Mat 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

publicans G5057
te??´???
telo¯ne¯s
Thayer Definition:
1) a renter or farmer of taxes
1a) among the Romans, usually a man of equestrian rank
2) a tax gatherer, collector of taxes or tolls, one employed by a publican or farmer general in the collection of taxes. The tax collectors were as a class, detested not only by the Jews, but by other nations also, both on account of their employment and of the harshness, greed, and deception, with which they did their job.
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G5056 and G5608

sinners G268
a?µa?t???´?
hamarto¯los
Thayer Definition:
1) devoted to sin, a sinner
1a) not free from sin
1b) pre-eminently sinful, especially wicked
1b1) all wicked men
1b2) specifically of men stained with certain definite vices or crimes
1b2a) tax collectors, heathen
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G264

In fact just shortly after that, the incident with the woman with the issue of blood, who touched the hem of Jesus' garment, took place, and according to Mosaic law---she was unclean and He became defiled. When He continued on to the synagogue ruler's house and raised his daughter from the dead, He was again made unclean by that according to Mosaic Law. Yet there is no record that He did the required separation and cleansing. He was sinless before God in all that He did. Matthew 9: and Luke 8

But let's look at another passage:

Luk 7:1 Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum.
Luk 7:2 And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
Luk 7:3 And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
Luk 7:4 And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:
Luk 7:5 For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.
Luk 7:6 Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:

Jesus was willingly going to go into the home of a Gentile/Roman and heal his servant. Jesus allowed a Samaritan woman to give him water, and Jesus want to the Samaritan village and stayed there. John 4 The Samaritans were the sworn enemies of the Jews, were viewed as unclean, and they were from pagan tribes originally and cross bred with Israel who then followed their other gods. They were unclean to the Jews, and the Jews were unclean to them but we see Jesus...and the disciples...

Joh 4:39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
Joh 4:40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
Joh 4:41 And many more believed because of his own word;
Joh 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

These verses also illustrate how Jesus was not restricting Himself to the Israelite race, but was showing love for and that salvation was also to the Gentiles as prophesied. His teaching on the Good Samaritan, means much more when understanding the depth of hatred the Jews had for the Samaritans and vice versa.

Q. Could you please point out just one verse or even definition that tells us what they ate? I got the whole who he ate with, but does that mean we all eat the same even in todays time. For example we all eat together here at work, but we order different foods for vegetarians that eat with us. I eat tofu they’ll eat ribs. Your thinking is like saying we all went to McDonalds and therefore we all ordered the same thing. Come on man… Is this really a straw mans argument or is it simply truth. Moving on to my real point.

A. The question is a strawman's argument. How rude are people going to be, when invited into someone's home?? Since when is going to someone's home to eat with them, ever to be viewed as going to a restaurant where the expectation is order what you want and insult the host by condemning their food....What kind of a guest treats their hosts with such disrespect? To think that to be normal, or appropriate, shows an obvious lack of, or zero knowledge of charity and love of others, that anyone would think that to be acceptable. Living and Eating after the manner of gentiles and eating with them means eating what was offered by them.

A precursor of what that meant is found when Jesus initially sent the twelve disciples out. If it was just expected everything would be according to the clean/unclean, there would have been no need to repeat the issue about eating what was provided. And if they merely went to the 'lost sheep of Israel', the food issue could have been the 'traditions' that might cause a problem, but irregardless, Jesus overrode that with his directives.

Luk 9:2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
Luk 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
Luk 9:4 And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart.

Luk 9:52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.

In that passage, 9:52-56, we see that Jesus was going to stay with the Samaritans, despite their being unclean to the Jews, but they rejected Him because of His clear determination of going to Jerusalem. Showing their anomisity towards the Jews, and which was shown also in return by the disciples wanting to have them destroyed. Later with the seventy Jesus also said:

Luk 10:4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.
Luk 10:5 And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house.
Luk 10:6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.
Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
Luk 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
Luk 10:9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

Jesus brought the New Covenant and was/is the New Covenant. He brought salvation to all mankind, to the Jews first and also the Gentiles, while He walked the earth. He was showing the transition of thought concerning love of others and acceptance of all because of Christ.

Q. I think you are making a heavy assumption that Peter was sitting with the Gentiles and not doing his job as teaching them how to live set-apart unto the Father.

A. Peter's job was to teach them the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the sound doctrine we find now recorded within the NT. The apostles were eyewitnesses of Christ and His resurrection. They alone were given the job to lay the foundations of the church---the body of Christ. And it was built on the foundation of Christ---who He is, why He died and rose again and salvation available to mankind. It was their job to give understanding of the fulfillment of all the prophecies concerning the Messiah and the salvation of God and the promised new covenant being fulfilled in Christ, where God's laws were written on our hearts and minds. They did that by showing those things fulfilled via the law, prophets and psalms. They then instructed in sound doctrine for the new believers---both Jews and Gentiles. Because all were now to follow the same sound doctrine to live for Christ...and it was not based on going back to the now fulfilled and abolished law of Moses. But rather the words given by the Holy Spirit to the apostles and the things Jesus taught them directly, because God's laws were now written on the hearts and minds of all who believe.

As far as how the people lived, as was posted in post 78 of this thread,

Quote:In another thread I quoted Mathetes, who wrote his letter about 150 A.D. It was noted then and I will quote part of it it again for you:
Quote: ......Chapter V. The manners of the Christians.
For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. [b]For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or
deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking [281] method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers.... http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/mathetes.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a bit about Acts 15; the apostle Peter makes it clear that Gentiles who come to the faith do not have to be circumcised or >>keep the law of Moses<< which means including the food issues.

Q. So let's relate this to what Paul is facing while dealing with Peter and his walk, and what made these people different living to the true gospel. The key here is that they used the law to subvert people, but the law itself was not designed to work the way they used it. 1 Tim 1:8 says that the law of Moses is a good thing for the one who uses it lawfully. Obviously these people were not doing that with the law.

A. The Mosaic law, ie Sinai covenant separated Jews from all other people. That was part of it's purpose, to be a total roadmap of how to live for God. It kept Israel a 'peculiar people' when compared to the rest of the nations. Jesus Christ dying changed that as He brought in the NEW Covenant to be written on our hearts and minds. It is not the Sinai covenant, but built on better promises.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Q. You said, "Peter did not have a thermos of kosher coffee, and a lunchpail of 'clean' food, as he sat and ate with these Gentiles..." Simply put, you are assuming that Peter didn't do any of these things. More importantly, as it applies to the main story we are discussing. The bible tells you the following about the house Peter was welcomed to, [Cornelius] "He was a devout man and feared God along with his whole household. He did many charitable deeds for the [Jewish] people. (Acts 10:2)". We would be better to guess that this man knew what Peter would eat according to Torah and would have most assured got Peter his food if he didn’t already have it himself.

A. People do know they didn't have thermos's or lunchpail's back then right?

First, Cornelius was an officer in the Roman army. He was a 'devout man who gave to the poor. But he did not know Christ nor does it say he lived like the Jews. Because quite frankly the very issue and argument about this whole thing hinges on whether he lived as the Jews. What is the first thing Peter said when he entered Cornelius home?.

..28 ...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; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

If Cornelius was already living like a Jew and had become like a Jew, it shouldn't have been an issue for Peter to associate with him, since the point being made is that sojourners and strangers could be part of Israel...once they converted and believed right?

Lev 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. >>>>>>

So we can assume then someone who was living in the manner of the Jews and keeping the law of Moses---and one can review Leviticus 17 etc for mention of the stranger who gives burnt offerings etc....to mean that strangers also called sojourners were indeed in company with Jews. And it was not an offense to either of them. So...if Cornelius was in fact worshipping God in the manner of the Jews and abiding the law of Moses and the clean/unclean food, there would be absolutely no need for Peter to say, "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; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. ".

Because Corenlius would have been perfectly acceptable to be around, because he would have been abiding the law of Moses--just like the Jews.

The fact is, there were Gentiles who retained the knowledge of God, and did not go after other gods. They, by their very nature worshipped God with a contrite heart. But they did not follow the practices of the Jews and they did not know Jesus Christ. The Romans could be benevolent towards the conquered Jews or they could be cruel. Cornelius was a Roman, who followed Caesar but worshipped God in his own way, and he was fair with the Jews. And because of his heart attitude it was acceptable to God---even though he did not abide the law of Moses. Acts 10:2-4 and:

Act 10:22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.

Cornelius was no different in a sense, than the centurion in Luke 7, mentioned above, where Jesus was going to go into his home to heal his servant.

Luk 7:3 And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant. 4 And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this: 5 For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.

Cornelius was a just and fair man, he was a nice man, he gave alms to the poor and prayed to God, and he was kind to the Jews. God answered his prayers because He had a perfect plan in motion to teach Peter and the other Jews that prophecy was being fulfilled about Gentiles able to be saved, which included the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when they believed Christ--the same as the Jews....and without having to keep the law of Moses....which as they began to understand, was abolished, blotted out, and removed for just this reason.

And Peter said, Act 10:33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Notice---Peter did not say, everyone that keeps the law of Moses is accepted with Him... and then Peter presented the Truth of Jesus Christ and...

Act 10:41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
Act 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Galatians was clearly related to the vision of the sheet and what it meant. That's why it was brought into the conversation. It had precisely the application of what was meant by the vision. And how some had not been taught nor understood not just that issue, but the prophecies about the Gentiles also being given salvation if they believed Christ, and that the promise of salvation was not based on the laws given to the fathers, but via the new covenant. We know it was after the vision of the Sheet. Because otherwise Peter would not have broken the Law of Moses in order to be sitting with, living with and after the manner of the Gentiles, and eating after the manner of the Gentiles. We know that it took place before Acts 15 because of what was said.

Q. I placed Mark 7:7-8 in this response so that you could see that your assumption of what the term "law of our fathers, and traditions of our fathers” does not mean Torah, it meant man traditions (oral law). We see the same thing taking place a few other times throughout the NT but we can see this clearly in Mark 7. The same term being used in
Galatians 1:14 "law of our fathers and that passage goes as far to tell us that it was Judaism, which is most definitely not the Torah.

Above you mentioned that these people did not understand gentiles were being saved through the Son, and not the law. Who was saved through the law? Realizing that no one was [saved] means that nothing changed from the time before Christ or after. Even when the law was empowered during the time of Moses living life, those men were not saved by the law either. Did David keep the law perfect? No. Was he saved? Yes. So we obviously see that something doesn't add up with these men that preached another gospel because they were teaching that the commandments themselves saved.

A. Of course law and traditions doesn't mean the same thing. The Pharisees were making traditions the commandments of God, which is why most rejected Christ. Jesus had said to abide the things from the law of Moses---before He gave His life, but He also exemplified living according to the Spirit of the law versus the letter. Which is why He healed people on the sabbath etc. People have always been saved by faith like Abraham exemplified, but many are wanting justification by the works of the flesh in the keeping of the law-with or without the traditions.

Notice first how the topic of Peter living like the Gentiles is brought in by Paul, who was also not keeping the Mosaic Law by going to the Gentiles and being with them:

Gal 2:2 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.
Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Gal 2:4 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:
Gal 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Gal 2:10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For >>before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles:<< ... [/b]

What does James say in Acts 15, after the reason for the get together is established>

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, ...

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: **********

James clearly stated that the men sent from Judaea were not told to command that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised nor keep the law of Moses. Instead James said that they had troubled them and subverted their souls with those teachings.

Q. These people taught through the Law of Moses that the gospel (news) of circumcision saves you, and dismissed the idea that Yahusha saves you. This is not a reflection of the torah teachings, but more so a reflection of oral understanding of torah (rabbanical law). The Torah does not teach this whatsoever... this is the tradition and purpose that the fathers put into circumcision. The law of Moses was not the issue....

According to you no outsiders could even talk to those in the old covenant right? So how did they get a mixed people then, who were the stranger among them? This story can not run with the entirety of scripture because we see gentiles being in the faith even then.

A. Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

What was being said was that IN order to be viewed as clean and able to keep the law, one had to become part of Israel, and be circumcised and then keep the law. That is what was perceived as being needed before one could 'be saved.' Because under the law of Moses, sojourners and strangers could adhere to Israel by doing those things [they became proselytes and practiced the ways of Israel in keeping the law of Moses]. The one sign God gave Abraham as a seal to the promise, was being circumcised, which was passed to Israel as a seal, along with keeping the Sabbath. Those Jews believed, as HR are wont to claim today, one must --said in varying ways to appear it is not a requirement but shows one's dedication to being grafted into Israel--not Christ---that in order to be saved one must follow what Israel had been given to follow, starting with circumcision. Because what was addressed in Acts 15, uses the phrases of not just circumcision being required but:

That it was "needful to circumcise them," AND "to command them to keep the law of Moses". The law of Moses is not just about circumcision---The Pharisees which believed--were saying that the Gentiles needed to be commanded to keep all of it-the volume of the Mosaic law and all that pertained to it.

Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

And in James' judgment what did he address: "Acts 15:24 ...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."

Keeping the law was always about keeping all of it. And Peter said, the Gentiles were saved by faith, just like them. And they were purified the exact same way--that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. Peter also said, why would you put a yoke on the neck of disciples-----he didn't say Gentiles---he said disciples, who are all followers of Christ regardless of race---and switched the focus from Gentiles to Jews---by saying, the yoke which their fathers nor they themselves could bear; and Peter and Paul and other Jews believed that all Jews were saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ---just like the Gentiles. Not by the keeping of the law of Moses which many many passages relate as being abolished, blotted out, vanished away etc., for the New Covenant which is written on the hearts and minds.

The New Covenant is not the Sinai Covenant.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The laws written on our hearts are not the Sinai covenant. But that is topically discussed on other threads and can be addressed there. Peter's vision was about food and people and understanding that because of Christ all must walk by faith, and because of Christ, all have opportunity to be saved. PLeasing God was no longer dependent on race and abiding the Sinai Covenant, but rather all could have fellowship with God through and because of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant.

[corecrash]

(06-03-2011 08:10 PM)Inquisitor1231 Wrote:  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)

I've been here one day and have read through many of the posts and it's very obvious that they don't even know let alone understand the outcome themselves. What I have witnessed in my very short time, short posts, and most importantly, the responses to my post is that there is a spirit here, but It sure doesn't look like the Spirit of God.

There is a lot of arrogance, unloving remarks to each other, and a lot of strife. The administrator does not even follow her own forum rules going way off topic many times but is very quick to point out how something was not done right if she disagrees with anything you say.

So I say this on purpose so that I will be banned, though it is the Truth, because you can delete my account. I won't be back. I'm shrugging my shoulders and walking away. I think if Jesus himself were to input anything here, he would not really be welcome though they claim to be of his. I don't think they would recognize him because they do not know him.

You quote verses about what comes out of your mouth defiling a man and speculate what they are about but just open your eyes and read your responses and how they are framed and colored and how people are treated and you will have a perfectly clear understanding of what those verses mean though I think you have a veil over your eyes.

I came excited with Joy, gentleness, and peace and boy did I find it almost immediately drained just reading the words here. There is hypocrisy and an air of authoritarianism on the part of the administrator.

The sentiment that I read on these boards makes what Paul said come alive for me:

2 Timothy 2:23 "Abstain from the disputes of fools who are without instruction, for you know that they generate conflict."

I leave you with one last quote and I pray that God will fill these forums and these people with the Spirit so that they may bear the following fruits:

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

[Vic]

(06-26-2012 10:28 AM)corecrash Wrote:  

(06-03-2011 08:10 PM)Inquisitor1231 Wrote:  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)

I've been here one day and have read through many of the posts and it's very obvious that they don't even know let alone understand the outcome themselves. What I have witnessed in my very short time, short posts, and most importantly, the responses to my post is that there is a spirit here, but It sure doesn't look like the Spirit of God.

There is a lot of arrogance, unloving remarks to each other, and a lot of strife. The administrator does not even follow her own forum rules going way off topic many times but is very quick to point out how something was not done right if she disagrees with anything you say.

So I say this on purpose so that I will be banned, though it is the Truth, because you can delete my account. I won't be back. I'm shrugging my shoulders and walking away. I think if Jesus himself were to input anything here, he would not really be welcome though they claim to be of his. I don't think they would recognize him because they do not know him.

You quote verses about what comes out of your mouth defiling a man and speculate what they are about but just open your eyes and read your responses and how they are framed and colored and how people are treated and you will have a perfectly clear understanding of what those verses mean though I think you have a veil over your eyes.

I came excited with Joy, gentleness, and peace and boy did I find it almost immediately drained just reading the words here. There is hypocrisy and an air of authoritarianism on the part of the administrator.

The sentiment that I read on these boards makes what Paul said come alive for me:

2 Timothy 2:23 "Abstain from the disputes of fools who are without instruction, for you know that they generate conflict."

I leave you with one last quote and I pray that God will fill these forums and these people with the Spirit so that they may bear the following fruits:

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

THis last verse you just quoted corecrash. Somehow it loses something when you don't apply it to yourself in this post, including the unloving remarks. I gather you cannot respond to my last post on this topic, which is why you are up in arms and angry about me, the forum, any interaction or refutation that you perceive to be not to your liking and therefore must have had a very wrong attitude and been not of Christ to have been posted. Do you know my heart, because I don't know yours. Only God knows hearts, and what was and is behind each post.

Your posts have for the most part not been answered as yet, but rather, you were being encouraged to slow down posting so people could in fact catch up. I in fact have been tied up with company and continue to be, so to suggest you are not being addressed properly is not accurate. I was trying to encourage you to browse the forum and read related threads to the topics you were interested in, as well as pointing you to the Introduction section so other members would and could meet you.. If you find that offensive I am sorry. You can accuse me and other members of being not of Christ, as you have, but that doesn't mean it's true.

[Lois]

corecrash,


You say,

Quote:there is a spirit here, but It sure doesn't look like the Spirit of God

.


I guess you are saying we do things here by the spirit of Beelzebub?

All I can say to that is,WOW! Thems fightin' words but I will not allow myself to be lead there.

Mat 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.


You say some pretty harsh things here and I think you have shown your true colors.

You come across as extremely confused.You have stated a few times in your postings,"I'm confused","I'm confused","I'm confused"

You're posts are long,all over the place and confusing.

1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

We are not the ones confused here.You are the one repeatedly stating how confused you are.

You are attempting to sow that confusion on the forum.

Vic has every right and all authority to stand against confusion being sown on HER website..and I will stand with her in agreement on that.