Now there are many Christians who have a hard time to understand the truth about clean and unclean foods. In the Bible, God tells us not to eat things like Pork, crab, cuttlefish, shellfish, lobster, etc. God had to put these laws in the Bible so that we could know certain creatures are harmful to eat. We see it in Leviticus 11..
Leviticus 11:1-23
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Now some Christians think that Mark 7:19 changes this and claim it says you can eat anything you want. Well lets look at it.
Mark 7:19
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Doesnt really say there is any changes to the clean or unclean foods that are set out, so where did this idea come in. Well lets look through a couple of the new versions of the Bible, Interestingly other versions had this in brackets, that "Jesus declared all foods clean".
New International Version "For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
English Standard Version "since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
New American Standard Bible "because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
So why did all the old versions of the Bible not contain this portion, and why do the new versions carry it within brackets? The Original Greek Manuscripts do not carry "In saying this, Jesus declared" which is in Mark 7:19.
This had been a later addition by some of the translators, its not what the Bible had, just a decision by the translators of the modern versions to add "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean)" was valid. Well lets look at the context of the chapter in Mark leading up to verse 19 and see if it is about eating any food, or eating food according to the traditions of man. We begin with Mark 7:1-4..
Mark 7:1-5
1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
We see here that the story begins with the Pharisees accusing some of Jesus disciples of not washing their hands before eating bread according to the "tradition of the elders". Now the Pharisees had their own laws they had made up and told others they had to follow in addition to God's Law, and this is what Christ addresses in the verses that proceed.
Mark 7:6-9
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
He starts by quoting Isaiah 29:13, showing their hypocrisy saying, that they honor God with their mouth but their hearts are far from Him as we see in 'honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.' And that in vain they worship Him, teaching commandments of men for 'doctrine'. Jesus goes further on their mistake showing that they are laying aside God's Commandments and are holding onto the 'traditions of men', which include their ideas of 'washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.' He says that they reject 'reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.' And He tells them they make God's Word of no effect by their traditions, 'Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.'
So what is the context, food or man made traditions? Lets go and give even more context starting at verse 13..
Mark 7:13-15
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
So what is Christ talking about, well we clearly see what it is in verse 13, and then He makes sure they are listening in verse 14 to the lesson about to be given. In verse 15 He declares, 'There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.' Is He saying that we can now eat whatever we want? No, He says that nothing that goes into a person from the outside can make him unclean. It is what comes out of a person that makes a person unclean.
Then in verse 17, the disciples ask what He meant as even they had questions..
Mark 7:17
17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
Now we come to the verses in question and Christ actually begins the answer in verse 18
Mark 7:18
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
He answers the disciples saying, whatever enters into man cannot make him unclean, but only through sin that proceed from the inside of man. It is clear that He says that man is defiled by the sin which is inside. And you can see how He finishes with the same..
Mark 7:19-23
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Now is He saying that God's direction on clean and unclean foods are of no use because whatever we eat is purged out of the stomach. Of course not, as we can see the whole context He was talking of was the 'tradition of man' the Pharisees had added, and declaring them hypocrites for making what God had given on clean and unclean, as they had the Law, Void. Putting in their own 'traditions'.
All foods are clean for Christians.
Some churches teach to abstain from certain foods and teach doctrines of demons.
Have you not read Acts 10 & 11?
: Texas Conservative Tue Feb 27, 2024 - 20:29:23All foods are clean for Christians.
Some churches teach to abstain from certain foods and teach doctrines of demons.
Have you not read Acts 10 & 11?
Yes and the truth that was being given...
Acts 10
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Acts 11
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
: Hobie Tue Feb 27, 2024 - 20:33:50Yes and the truth that was being given...
Acts 10
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Acts 11
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
If you understood this truth, you wouldn't be parroting the SDA doctrine of demons about abstaining from foods.
Acts 109 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.1 Timothy 44 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
https://vineyardjc.com/was-gods-dietary-law-done-away-with/ (https://vineyardjc.com/was-gods-dietary-law-done-away-with/)
: Jaime Wed Feb 28, 2024 - 07:24:31https://vineyardjc.com/was-gods-dietary-law-done-away-with/ (https://vineyardjc.com/was-gods-dietary-law-done-away-with/)
Lots of twisting of scriptures in this one. God's dietary laws were for the Jews, not the Gentiles.
Are you falling into believing this crap?
Did you give up bacon?
Acts 10 uses food as an illustration of the introduction of the Gentiles to the gospel.
All food is declared clean and the larger meaning is not food. However, it is still there.
(https://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/bacon-is-good-for-me-gif-30.gif)
This issue has ALWAYS bothered me. I think we have misunderstood Acts 10. I don't think Acts 10 is about what to eat. God never called the Gentiles unclean from what I have seen. The traditiona of man that the Pharisees held to DID consider the gentiles unclean. Jesus spent a great deal of time railing against these "traditions of men" or the oral Torah.
In Acts 10:28, Peter said:
28 "And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew zto associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but aGod has shown me that I should not call any PERSON common or unclean."
Peter realized God's actual purpose for the vision.
I am trying to minimize pork products. Not just for this reason. Though salamander is officially out of the question.
: Jaime Wed Feb 28, 2024 - 08:28:00This issue has ALWAYS bothered me. I think we have misunderstood Acts 10. I don't think Acts 10 is about what to eat. God never called the Gentiles unclean from what I have seen. The traditiona of man that the Pharisees held to DID consider the gentiles unclean. Jesus spent a great deal of time railing against these "traditions of men" or the oral Torah.
In Acts 10:28, Peter said:
28 "And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew zto associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but aGod has shown me that I should not call any PERSON common or unclean."
Peter realized God's actual purpose for the vision.
I am trying to minimize pork products. Not just for this reason. Though salamander is officially out of the question.
I don't think God would have sent a vision about all food being clean to Peter for an illustration if it really wasn't all made clean. It would be a type of lie.
There was a tearing of the veil after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that changed everything.
The vision was a type of object lesson as about the gentiles as Peter understood it and the context of Acts 10 supports. It was ALL about the Gospel for the Gentiles, to fulfill the promise made to Abraham in Genesis.
: Jaime Wed Feb 28, 2024 - 09:11:31The vision was a type of object lesson as about the gentiles as Peter understood it and the context of Acts 10 supports. It was ALL about the Gospel for the Gentiles, to fulfill the promise made to Abraham in Genesis.
If the object lesson was a lie what does that mean?
So clearly not ALL. If you dismiss the object lesson in the vision, how can you even be sure you understand the larger point?
The object lesson was not a lie. Peter understood exactly what was meant! And the vision never mentioned gentiles.
: Jaime Wed Feb 28, 2024 - 09:32:55The object lesson was not a lie. Peter understood exactly what was meant! And the vision never mentioned Gentiles.
Peter did not understand exactly what it meant at first.
17 While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon's house was and stopped at the gate. It was only later that he understood.
28 He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?"The small object lesson about how all food created by God is clean gave way to the larger lesson.
It was not against God's law but it was against the Jew's Oral traditions of men that Jesus continually decried.
: Texas Conservative Wed Feb 28, 2024 - 08:53:22There was a tearing of the veil after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that changed everything.
Apparently that change didn't apply to women in your book...
: 3 Resurrections Wed Feb 28, 2024 - 09:55:12Apparently that change didn't apply to women in your book...
You will have to be more clear if you want to make statements.
TC, the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius (just as it did on Pentecost to the disciples) was confirmation to Peter that Hod had a plan for the Gentiles and they shouldn't consider them unclean as the Pharisee's oral traditions had dictated, but God never declared the Gentiles unclean. The food was the object lesson not the subject of the lesson. The entire context of Acts 10 up until and after the vision was Peter's acceptance or not of the Gentiles based NOT on God's word but of the Pharisee's traditions of men or their oral Torah. Peter then we t on to tell people that it was anout people in vs 28.
: Jaime Wed Feb 28, 2024 - 15:09:13TC, the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius (just as it did on Pentecost to the disciples) was confirmation to Peter that Hod had a plan for the Gentiles and they shouldn't consider them unclean as the Pharisee's oral traditions had dictated, but God never declared the Gentiles unclean. The food was the object lesson not the subject of the lesson. The entire context of Acts 10 up until and after the vision was Peter's acceptance or not of the Gentiles based NOT on God's word but of the Pharisee's traditions of men or their oral Torah. Peter then we t on to tell people that it was anout people in vs 28.
You are arguing about something I never said.
If the object lesson is given in that all food created by God is clean, perhaps you should agree with what God said and not some error preached by a Messianic group.
But mothing in the context of the chaoter ever alluded to food. Only Peter's feelings about Gentiles was at issue. If food was the issue, I would have expected a leadup issue with food. God was addressing the Gentiles to Peter without mentioning the Gentiles, it seems to me. THEN that was ratified in no jncertain terms with the Spirit falling upon Cornelius and his family exactly like it did on the disciples themselves at Pentecost.
Yes.
: Jaime Wed Feb 28, 2024 - 08:28:00This issue has ALWAYS bothered me. I think we have misunderstood Acts 10. I don't think Acts 10 is about what to eat. God never called the Gentiles unclean from what I have seen. The traditiona of man that the Pharisees held to DID consider the gentiles unclean. Jesus spent a great deal of time railing against these "traditions of men" or the oral Torah.
In Acts 10:28, Peter said:
28 "And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew zto associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but aGod has shown me that I should not call any PERSON common or unclean."
Peter realized God's actual purpose for the vision.
I am trying to minimize pork products. Not just for this reason. Though salamander is officially out of the question.
The vision of the blanket of unclean animals that God showed Peter is indeed... about the idea The Gospel also going to the Gentiles. And that is exactly what Peter explained to his brethren in Acts 11.
Apostle Paul is who actually defines the New Covenant doctrine about unclean food. In 1 Timothy 4:3 Paul is referring to God's healthy meat list that He "created to be received".
But in 1 Corinthians 10:25 Paul says to eat whatever is sold in the "shambles" (market), asking no question for conscience sake. And if someone bids us to dinner, to eat what they set before us, asking no questions, except if they say it was sacrificed to an idol, then do not eat it for the sake of the one who offered it.
All this means that God's law involving clean vs. unclean foods still is in effect. The difference is that we are no longer held to a must keep it manner like the old covenant.
Want your body to be healthier? then try to eat according to God's clean list, and that in balance too. Use olive oil for cooking and for salad dressing with vinegar instead of Ranch, etc. Olive oil actually helps to cut bad cholesterol, as does a glass of wine per day. Ask your doctor.
: Jaime Wed Feb 28, 2024 - 17:31:47But mothing in the context of the chaoter ever alluded to food. Only Peter's feelings about Gentiles was at issue. If food was the issue, I would have expected a leadup issue with food. God was addressing the Gentiles to Peter without mentioning the Gentiles, it seems to me. THEN that was ratified in no jncertain terms with the Spirit falling upon Cornelius and his family exactly like it did on the disciples themselves at Pentecost.
The context is Peter was hungry and desiring to eat, and fell into a trance.
Food was in the context of his vision. It illustrates a point.
So Jaime, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
Or should I say, don't buy into Messianic arguments and start to consider unholy.
O the whole point was to confirm to Peter the Gentiles are part of God's plan. God never considered them unclean. Only the Pharisees traditions of men that Jesus despised taught that the Gentiles were unclean. Peter's being bungrynpresented God an opportunity for an object lesson that needed to be addressed.
In Acts 15 in the Jerusalem counsel, the elders decided on 4 rules for the gentiles conversions. why? Because they will get rest since Moses is taught each Sabbath in the Synagogues. (Vs 21) That would have been a good opportunity to say "as amended by God in Peter's vision."
This food issue has bothered me as long as I can remember. My denomination's view was like every other mainstream denomination. It bothered me probably 40 years before I knew there was such a thing as Messianic Jews.
Plus in Acts 10:28, Peter stated what God had shkwn jim in the vision, ie the object lesson. Rather than " Hey guys we can have bacon!"
: Jaime Fri Mar 01, 2024 - 08:18:07O the whole point was to confirm to Peter the Gentiles are part of God's plan. God never considered them unclean. Only the Pharisees traditions of men that Jesus despised taught that the Gentiles were unclean. Peter's being bungrynpresented God an opportunity for an object lesson that needed to be addressed.
In Acts 15 in the Jerusalem counsel, the elders decided on 4 rules for the gentiles conversions. why? Because they will get rest since Moses is taught each Sabbath in the Synagogues. (Vs 21) That would have been a good opportunity to say "as amended by God in Peter's vision."
This food issue has bothered me as long as I can remember. My denomination's view was like every other mainstream denomination. It bothered me probably 40 years before I knew there was such a thing as Messianic Jews.
Plus in Acts 10:28, Peter stated what God had shkwn jim in the vision, ie the object lesson. Rather than " Hey guys we can have bacon!"
The primary lesson is what was shown in Acts 10:28. However, God would not lie in the vision and tell Peter to eat those foods that were considered unclean, unless he meant it.
The Messianic argument here is stupid. It repudiates the character of God and makes Him to be a liar.
No it's not stupid. How many times in scripture has God shown a dream like to Joseph that made a point other than what was shown on the surface of the dream or vision. I don't believe Peter took the vision at all like all the Catholic influenced Christianity has. Our inherited interpretation even as Protestants has never made sense to me, as I said BEFORE I even knew there was such a thing as Messianic Jews.
: Jaime Fri Mar 01, 2024 - 10:26:14No it's not stupid. How many times in scripture has God shown a dream like to Joseph that made a point other than what was shown on the surface of the dream or vision. I don't believe Peter took the vision at all like all the Catholic influenced Christianity has. Our inherited interpretation even as Protestants has never made sense to me, as I said BEFORE I even knew there was such a thing as Messianic Jews.
I don't recall any vision in the OT where God says "hey go eat this food" but doesn't mean it. It's a poor argument from the Messianics.
The dietary law was a part of Israel being set a part from those around them.
As a gentile, I was never under the dietary law, and I still am not.
The dreams Joseph had were metaphorical. Shocks of grain speaking and doing things to one another. Cows eating other cows. Those didn't set the standard of reality for anything. All I'm saying is I don't believe God changed the food laws here, he was using the food laws to demonstrate a truth to Peter about the Gentiles.
As a side note, is there any place in the Bible where God called the Gentiles unclean? I couldn't find any place. And Peter said God had showed him in the vision not to call any man unclean or common (possibly because God had never referred to them or designated them as unclean and God was correcting him?)
It seems to me God's plan was to have Israel as the means of leading the world, including the clean Gentiles to Him via His Word, not to shun the Gentiles as unclean. And he demonstrated that to Peter im the vision, enough to enter a Gentile's house - Cornelius's, so that final confirmation of that to Peter and the Jews with the falling of the Spirit upon Cornelius. Which leads to Paul's revelation of the "mystery" of the Gospel was for Jews and Gentiles alike in the book of Ephesians. And the mystery was it was always that way in God's mind, not a new plan per se'.
: Jaime Fri Mar 01, 2024 - 15:08:42As a side note, is there any place in the Bible where God called the Gentiles unclean? I couldn't find any place. And Peter said God had showed him in the vision not to call any man unclean or common (possibly because God had never referred to them or designated them as unclean and God was correcting him?)
It seems to me God's plan was to have Israel as the means of leading the world, including the clean Gentiles to Him via His Word, not to shun the Gentiles as unclean. And he demonstrated that to Peter im the vision, enough to enter a Gentile's house - Cornelius's, so that final confirmation of that to Peter and the Jews with the falling of the Spirit upon Cornelius. Which leads to Paul's revelation of the "mystery" of the Gospel was for Jews and Gentiles alike in the book of Ephesians. And the mystery was it was always that way in God's mind, not a new plan per se'.
Agreed. God has holy, pure, and righteous intentions for everything He does. That would include trying to tell us what we should or should not eat. This was for a blessing upon Israel, not just another list of rules to burden them. To be sure, it would not hurt anyone to follow these guidelines today, but no doubt be a healthy benefit. Though such advice is not any longer intended to be national law for any by His command. As no literal nation of this earth is called to be His representative today, but only Christ's church, spiritual Israel.
I don't look at God's food instructions as burdensome but a blessing, as he intended. I also don't think Acts 10 rescinds his instructions, or removes a non-existent burden. The story of Peter's vision, in my opinion, was an object lesson for Peter regarding the Gentiles who God never said were unclean, as far as I can find. The Pharisee's oral Torah (THEIR instructions) or traditions of men, that Jesus spoke against often, erroneously categorized the Gentiles as unclean.
: Jaime Sat Mar 02, 2024 - 16:39:52I don't look at God's food instructions as burdensome but a blessing, as he intended. I also don't think Acts 10 rescinds his instructions, or removes a non-existent burden. The story of Peter's vision, in my opinion, was an object lesson for Peter regarding the Gentiles who God never said were unclean, as far as I can find. The Pharisee's oral Torah (THEIR instructions) or traditions of men, that Jesus spoke against often, erroneously categorized the Gentiles as unclean.
The instructions to Israel were never for you. And they still aren't for you or me. We are not part of that audience.
And for one it was to, a vision said to eat.
And the person who saw the vision inderstood it was concerning how to treat the gentiles.
I'm not trying to bind you to the food instructions, I think they are good advice. God intended them for blessing and a good life. The instructions were not for imposing a burden.
In Acts 15 the compromise of the four requirements were for new gentile converts, not to require too much of them including circumcision since the Jews were making circumcision or unfamilar food instructions for the new gentile recruits as a prerequite for salvation. The Jews said, hey, they will get the rest of Moses eventually on Sabbath anyway. Why that statement if this was a new permanent paradigm. Implying to me these 4 rules only applied to brand new gentile converts as a compromise with the Jerusalem elders and the new converts would get the rest as they meet in the Synagogues each Sabbath. This was not a new rule for all times for gentiles, just the converts temporarily it seems to me. I fully realize this opposes the typical Christian narrative. It think that narrative not correct. I acknowledge your dismay.
Without the phrase in vs 21, my view would probably be different. At any rate, I don't consider God's food instruction as salvational at all, but just good advice. Any burden surrounding the food instructions AND relationships with Gentiles was perpitrated and furthered by the Pharisee's traditions of men, aka the so called oral torah.
https://davidwilber.com/articles/did-jesus-reject-the-torahs-dietary-laws-mark (https://davidwilber.com/articles/did-jesus-reject-the-torahs-dietary-laws-mark)
Additionally, scholars recognize that Luke makes use of Mark 7 in his account of Jesus dining with the Pharisee in Luke 11:37-41.[8] Like Mark 7 and Matthew 15, Jesus violated the Pharisaic handwashing ritual but not the Torah. If Luke understood Mark to be addressing the Torah's dietary laws in Mark 7, we might expect him to include that detail in his use of Mark's material, but he doesn't. Luke portrays Jesus as rejecting only extrabiblical traditions, not God's commandments,
Define "food" as Peter would have understood it.
Maybe like me puzzling over the question of is sushi food or bait?
: DaveW Mon Mar 04, 2024 - 12:11:35Define "food" as Peter would have understood it.
Define "eat" as Peter would have understood it. ::pondering::
: Jaime Mon Mar 04, 2024 - 12:52:25Maybe like me puzzling over the question of is sushi food or bait?
Not bait. The bass aren't having any of that cold rice!
: Texas Conservative Mon Mar 04, 2024 - 13:04:23Define "eat" as Peter would have understood it. ::pondering::
Missed the point. Stuff like pork and shell fish would not have been considered "food," even though now you may think it is.
: DaveW Tue Mar 05, 2024 - 13:48:27Missed the point. Stuff like pork and shell fish would not have been considered "food," even though now you may think it is.
I didn't miss your point at all. Your point is invalid and missed what Acts 10 said in Peter's vision.
9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11 and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12 and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. 13 A voice came to him,
"Get up, Peter, kill and eat!" 14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." 15 Again a voice came to him a second time,
"What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." 16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.
: Texas Conservative Tue Mar 05, 2024 - 18:33:23I didn't miss your point at all. Your point is invalid and missed what Acts 10 said in Peter's vision.
9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11 and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12 and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. 13 A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!" 14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." 15 Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." 16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.
You forgot -
Act 10:17
Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, 18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. 19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. 20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them. 21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come? 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. 23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him. 24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends. 25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. 27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.
28 And he said unto them, 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.Sometimes context is necessary unto proper understanding. Peter himself doubted as to what the vision might mean. Which means he obviously did not think that it meant all foods declared unclean for Israel, were now proclaimed clean by God. To the contrary, logical conclusion according to the greater context of the story, reveals that Peter understood the vision to be in relation to peoples not foods. This is your chosen conclusion, not his, or what the scriptures under examination plainly state.
: Amo Fri Mar 08, 2024 - 19:43:29Sometimes context is necessary unto proper understanding. Peter himself doubted as to what the vision might mean. Which means he obviously did not think that it meant all foods declared unclean for Israel, were now proclaimed clean by God. To the contrary, logical conclusion according to the greater context of the story, reveals that Peter understood the vision to be in relation to peoples not foods. This is your chosen conclusion, not his, or what the scriptures under examination plainly state.
Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself....
: 4WD Sat Mar 09, 2024 - 04:20:53Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself....
Again, a little context brings a lot of clarity.
Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
: Amo Sat Mar 09, 2024 - 08:14:05Again, a little context brings a lot of clarity.
Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Yes, a little context does bring a lot of clarity. The context is that within the New Covenant, there is nothing that is unclean in itself; it is only unclean in the mind of the one who thinks it is unclean. Paul's message is that we must not consider such a person to be evil.
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Rom 14:18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
: 4WD Sun Mar 10, 2024 - 06:08:44Yes, a little context does bring a lot of clarity. The context is that within the New Covenant, there is nothing that is unclean in itself; it is only unclean in the mind of the one who thinks it is unclean. Paul's message is that we must not consider such a person to be evil.
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Rom 14:18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
No we cannot judge one to be evil according to what they eat. Accepting such as cannibalism of course, or other meats restricted by NT scripture such as those sacrificed to idols. Yet Paul also said, -
2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. 7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
Peter did also consider that there were still unclean foods, which he refused even when a vision seemed to tell him to eat such. On the other hand, he and other of the apostles determined -
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. 12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day............
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 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.
Apart from this the NT does mention unclean spirits many times over.
Yes. Acts 10. All Clean.
Those that forbid foods teach doctrines of demons. 1 Timothy 4:1-5.
Colossians 2:16 also talks about not letting people judge you by what you eat or drink.
Gentiles were not and still are not under the Law concerning food. The dietary restrictions of Israel per the Law were to set them apart from surrounding nations. Leviticus 20
: Amo Sun Mar 10, 2024 - 13:32:35No we cannot judge one to be evil according to what they eat. Accepting such as cannibalism of course, or other meats restricted by NT scripture such as those sacrificed to idols. Yet Paul also said, -
2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. 7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
Peter did also consider that there were still unclean foods, which he refused even when a vision seemed to tell him to eat such. On the other hand, he and other of the apostles determined -
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. 12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day............
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 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.
Apart from this the NT does mention unclean spirits many times over.
Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
: Amo Fri Mar 08, 2024 - 19:43:29Sometimes context is necessary unto proper understanding. Peter himself doubted as to what the vision might mean. Which means he obviously did not think that it meant all foods declared unclean for Israel, were now proclaimed clean by God. To the contrary, logical conclusion according to the greater context of the story, reveals that Peter understood the vision to be in relation to peoples not foods. This is your chosen conclusion, not his, or what the scriptures under examination plainly state.
Indeed. I do not believe that Peter himself considered pork or shell fish to even be "food."
: DaveW Tue Mar 12, 2024 - 06:13:35Indeed. I do not believe that Peter himself considered pork or shell fish to even be "food."
What do you think Peter thought the pigs in the parable of the prodigal son were used for?
They were not considered food by the Jews BECAUSE OF God's instructions to them. What the rest of the world considered them was irrelevant to the Jews. The pigs were used in the parable to highlight hiw far the orodigal son had fallen. The story wouldn't have had quite the same impact if the prodigal had found himself eating with sheep or cattle.
: Jaime Tue Mar 12, 2024 - 06:42:42They were not considered food by the Jews BECAUSE OF God's instructions to them. What the rest of the world considered them was irrelevant to the Jews.
Peter was told to "eat." What do you "eat" Jaime? Food?
I eat what I consider food. As an example, I don't consider raw fish or oysters as a food item. Not because of a rule though, just because it's gross to ME. Peter didn't consider the unclean animals as food because of generations of his people heeding God's instructions, which was the point of the instructions. The intent of God's instructions were not to impose an unnecessary insurmountable burden, but for a blessing.
: 4WD Tue Mar 12, 2024 - 06:25:05What do you think Peter thought the pigs in the parable of the prodigal son were used for?
Total degradation. Totally detestable circumstances.
: DaveW Wed Mar 13, 2024 - 13:01:38Total degradation. Totally detestable circumstances.
Even though the Lord apparently told him otherwise?
4WD, was the question referring to prior to the vision or afterwards or both.
Prior to the vision Peter would have considered some of the animals as detestable and not food as Dave W indicated. After the vision Peter said the following in Acts 10:28:
And he said to them, "You yourselves know that it is forbidden for a Jewish man to associate with or visit a foreigner; and yet God has shown me that I am not to call any person unholy or unclean.
We don't know what lesson he learned about food. I would have assumed THAT would have been the focus of his report And he said to them, "You yourselves know that it is forbidden for a Jewish man to associate with or visit a foreigner; and yet God has shown me that I am not to call any person unholy or unclean. had he thought the lesson of the vision was about food, and not an object lesson about the Gentiles, the apparent change in food instructions would have been earth shaking news to him and I would assume he would have shouted it from a mountaintop or at least repeated it to his peers as a paradigm change ithat it would have been, especially since God had never said that the Gentiles were unclean to my knowledge. The Pharisees absolutely did say that in their traditions of men, that Jesus railed against. Hence the voice said in Acts10:15:
And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made clean, do not call common."
: Texas Conservative Wed Feb 28, 2024 - 06:24:28If you understood this truth, you wouldn't be parroting the SDA doctrine of demons about abstaining from foods.
Acts 10
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
1 Timothy 4
4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
And you see it was about accepting ventures and food that had been put before idols, so can't twist and misapply what is given here..
I had understood 1 Timothy 4 likely speaking about Catholic doctrine of abstaining from meat on Friday and of their forbidding priests to marry. I think they have relaxed some of this in recent times.
One more question on this topic: in our small group Bible study this week, someone brought up a question. In Acts 10 it mentions "common" and "unclean". I had never noticed the term common there. In Peter's Vision a cloth descended with EVERY kind of animal on it and then in vs 13 through 15 it says:
13 And there came a voice to him: "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made clean, do not call common."
Someone said they read that when clean and unclean animals were penned together bumping into each other the clean animals were considered "contaminated" or "common". This seems to go along with Mark 7 when Jesus was explaining to the Pharisees why his disciples did not wash their hands before they ate. It was not what was on the outside that deviled something (or a person). Hence the voice in Peter's vision makes sense to me when it said let no one call unclean or common what God has MADE (or created clean). Peter would not have picked an unclean animal nor would he have picked a contaminated previously clean animal because it was mingled in with the unclean on the cloth per his understanding. That is why the object lesson Peter learned was about the Gentiles that God made or created clean and Peter realized he could not call them unclean or common. This makes abundant sense to me since Peter never mentioned again anything about God's ancient food instructions being changed.
The word common was always there in Acts 10 in my Bible, but I never considered this explanation. I just didn't believe this was an occasion of rescinding God's food instrucfions. But how Peter took the object lesson in his report to the other Jews, I am more convinced more than ever that this vision did NOt rescind God's food instructions. And Gid's food instructions were meant to bless mankind, not to burden mankind.
I would hope to hear what #DaveW has to say about this issue with the word "common"'in the context of Acts 10 and also Mark7
To quickly summarize, God made two categories of animals: Clean and Unclean. When the two are oenned together and touch each other that contamination makes the clean common or literally contaminated or unholy per the Jewish leaders oerversion of what God intended. What God made or created Holy cannot be made unclean or contaminated by touching the unclean animal. God's lesson to Peter, If God made the Gentiles clean, do not consider them unclean or .common (contaminated)
: Jaime Sat Mar 23, 2024 - 22:07:34One more question on this topic: in our small group Bible study this week, someone brought up a question. In Acts 10 it mentions "common" and "unclean". I had never noticed the term common there. In Peter's Vision a cloth descended with EVERY kind of animal on it and then in vs 13 through 15 it says:
13 And there came a voice to him: "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made clean, do not call common."
Someone said they read that when clean and unclean animals were penned together bumping into each other the clean animals were considered "contaminated" or "common". This seems to go along with Mark 7 when Jesus was explaining to the Pharisees why his disciples did not wash their hands before they ate. It was not what was on the outside that deviled something (or a person). Hence the voice in Peter's vision makes sense to me when it said let no one call unclean or common what God has MADE (or created clean). Peter would not have picked an unclean animal nor would he have picked a contaminated previously clean animal because it was mingled in with the unclean on the cloth per his understanding. That is why the object lesson Peter learned was about the Gentiles that God made or created clean and Peter realized he could not call them unclean or common. This makes abundant sense to me since Peter never mentioned again anything about God's ancient food instructions being changed.
The word common was always there in Acts 10 in my Bible, but I never considered this explanation. I just didn't believe this was an occasion of rescinding God's food instrucfions. But how Peter took the object lesson in his report to the other Jews, I am more convinced more than ever that this vision did NOt rescind God's food instructions. And Gid's food instructions were meant to bless mankind, not to burden mankind.
I would hope to hear what #DaveW has to say about this issue with the word "common"'in the context of Acts 10 and also Mark7
To quickly summarize, God made two categories of animals: Clean and Unclean. When the two are oenned together and touch each other that contamination makes the clean common or literally contaminated or unholy per the Jewish leaders oerversion of what God intended. What God made or created Holy cannot be made unclean or contaminated by touching the unclean animal. God's lesson to Peter, If God made the Gentiles clean, do not consider them unclean or .common (contaminated)
Interesting. I agree, this more firmly establishes what the vision was really about. Not about what to eat or not, as such was already well established in Peter's mind, being Jewish.
It's clear to me that the animals on the sheet that descended in the vision was both unclean animals and animals that were created clean, but were considered contaminated or unholy by the Jewish Oral Torah, against the written Torah. The message from God was do not call common or contaminated or unholy what He created (or made) clean. Precisely the scenario of what the Jews had done with the Gentiles. God never considered them unclean or common like the Pharisees mistakenly had. The Pharisee's Oral Torah or traditions of men was a lot of times at odd's with God's written Torah.
In my Blue Letter Bible App, the following commentary says it better than I can:
From David Guzik:
i. In Old Testament thinking, there was the holy and the common. The holy was made common when it came into contact with something common, and could only be made holy again through a ritual cleansing. When something was made holy it was called consecration; when it was made common it was called desecration.
ii. At this point, Peter believed that God spoke only about food. But shortly, God showed Peter that He was really getting at another point.
It's clear to me and in the text that the object lesson of the physical (that all food is now clean) pointed to a larger spiritual lesson.
Bacon is good.
(https://y.yarn.co/deaa4be2-c6c2-4bac-a9fe-67ad62120499_text.gif)
The object lesson is that what God created clean, (the Gentiles) should not be called common or contaminated or unholy, depending on the version of the Bible.
What Peter saw in the dream was all out of bounds as food because the clean animals were contaminated or made common to the unclean animals according to the Pharisees traditions of men in their oral Torah and in contradiction God's written Torah. God was straightening the mess out for Peter for the sake of the Gentiles, not for the sake of new food instructions..
: Jaime Sun Mar 31, 2024 - 21:44:05The object lesson is that what God created clean, (the Gentiles) should not be called common or contaminated or unholy, depending on the version of the Bible.
What Peter saw in the dream was all out of bounds as food because the clean animals were contaminated or made common to the unclean animals according to the Pharisees traditions of men in their oral Torah and in contradiction God's written Torah. God was straightening the mess out for Peter for the sake of the Gentiles, not for the sake of new food instructions..
That the primary message to Peter concerned the plan for inclusion of Gentiles does not mean that the literal message about food wasn't true.
: 4WD Mon Apr 01, 2024 - 08:09:34That the primary message to Peter concerned the plan for inclusion of Gentiles does not mean that the literal message about food wasn't true.
Agreed.
Just like in Luke 5, when Jesus healed the paralytic.
Jesus said He forgave the sins of the paralytic.
The healing was a physical demonstration to demonstrate His power.
Often physical examples point to the greater lesson.
The message about food was literally don't call what God created clean as common or unclean. God never created swine clean. On the table cloth in the dream, the unclean animals were mixing with the ones created clean and Peter and the Pharisees considered such contamination as rendering a clean animal common or contaminateed. Hence Peter's statement and the ensuing object lesson about the Gentiles whom God did NOT create as unclean. God didn't declare anything that was created unclean clean there. He was simply telling Peter to not call anything created clean as common or unclean. Some of those animals on the cloth were undoubtedly created clean and some unclean. Peter's issue was he thought the touching of the clean by the unclean ones would render the clean contaminated, which Jesus adressed in Mark 7 about what is on the outside does not contaminate one as the Pharisee's thought with their hand washing requirements, that Jesus criticized. God's response to Peter mentions only "do not call what I have created clean COMMON" (or contaminated). God did not reverse any of the unclean animal's status, just clarified to Peter what cannot be called "common" (meaning contaminated)
: 4WD Mon Apr 01, 2024 - 08:09:34That the primary message to Peter concerned the plan for inclusion of Gentiles does not mean that the literal message about food wasn't true.
And the message of the dream Joseph interpreted, did not literally mean skinny cows were going to eat fat cows.
If God out of nowhere decided to reverse the ancient food instructions it likely would have come with more fanfare and a much more succint statement. Or at least Peter would have shouted it from the rooftops for several days at least! "We can eat swine!".
Acts 10:10-15
[10]But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance;
[11]and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
[12]and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
[13]A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
[14]But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."
[15]Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
Jaime, what God has cleaned, you should no longer consider unholy.
He didn't make unclean thing clean then. He explained then"common" thing to him. The commkn thingbis something God created clean and per the Pharisees mistakenly they taught a clean thjng can be contaminated and be commkn withnthenunclean by toich. god sakd NO to THAT not a blanket making all things clean. He's the one that created both clean and unclean. He said don't call unclean or common what I have created clean. He didn't address the things he created unclean. Some biased translations word it such that it appears he did.
He didn't make unclean things clean then. He explained the "common" thing to Peter. The common thing is something God created clean and per the Pharisees mistakenly they taught a clean thing can be contaminated and be common with the unclean by touch. God said NO to THAT, not a blanket making all things clean. He's the one that created both clean and unclean. He said don't call unclean or common what I have created clean. He didn't address the things he created unclean. Some biased translations word it such that it appears he did. The ESV is what I believe is most accurate.
Acts10:15 ESV
15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made (created) clean, do not call common."
God made clean animals from the very beginning. No one had a right to declare his clean animals common because of them touching one another. Exactly the point Jesus was making in Mark 7.
https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/does-peters-vision-prove-we-can-eat-anything-the-difference-between-common-unclean/ (https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/does-peters-vision-prove-we-can-eat-anything-the-difference-between-common-unclean/)
Jaime, are your suggesting that the food restrictions of the Old Law should still remain in affect?
I don't think they were rescinded. The food instructions were for blessing not burden. If the food laws were rescinded, in my opinion it had to be because of other passages, NOT Acts 10.
This website pretty well summarizes my beliefs about the subject, and probably explains it better:
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Bible-say-all-food-is-clean (https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Bible-say-all-food-is-clean)
Sects that claim the dietary laws are still in force pertaining to clean and unclean foods are non-Trinitarian. These sects classify the Godhead differently than do Trinitarians.
In SDA Theology The Father was (is) "The Lawgiver" with Michael Christ or creature christ (aka God the Son) being understood to be lesser due to his coming of existence.
Anti-Trinitarian sects conclude that Father God gave the Commandment to not eat pork, shrimp and the like and therefore become militant and insulted when someone brings up texts like:
1st Corinthians 10, 25 - 32:
Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For "the earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
The unbelievers being referenced above are not Jews or Christians - they would be Pagans, Heathens. The Scripture above is essentially a COMMAND. Can someone imagine an Apostles of Christ urging Christians to commit adultery, theft or murder??? Of course NOT! If eating a roasted hog or lobster was considered to be a sin do you really believe St. Paul would have instructed the Christians in his care to go ahead and dig in? I hope not!
Anti-Trinitarian sects, particularly SDA's reject that God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) is ONE BEING. SDA's teach that Father is a material flesh & bone God with every organ and part a perfect man has. In other-words God (the Father) is a PERSON with a flesh body. Michael Christ is another separate "BEING" who they assert "could have lost his salvation" & had that happened ultimate God would have annihilated Christ.
You simply can't have creature christ going against a commandment Father God is believed to have issued therefore eating shrimp and other things outlawed in the Book of Leviticus is OUT OF THE QUESTION for an SDA.
Ironic that despite this Ellen White was known to rebuke youth for eating oysters yet she was proven to have been wolfing them down in significant quantities. By her own admission Ellen was an oyster monger.
: Cathlodox Thu Apr 11, 2024 - 18:43:08Sects that claim the dietary laws are still in force pertaining to clean and unclean foods are non-Trinitarian. These sects classify the Godhead differently than do Trinitarians.
In SDA Theology The Father was (is) "The Lawgiver" with Michael Christ or creature christ (aka God the Son) being understood to be lesser due to his coming of existence.
Anti-Trinitarian sects conclude that Father God gave the Commandment to not eat pork, shrimp and the like and therefore become militant and insulted when someone brings up texts like:
1st Corinthians 10, 25 - 32:
Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For "the earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
The unbelievers being referenced above are not Jews or Christians - they would be Pagans, Heathens. The Scripture above is essentially a COMMAND. Can someone imagine an Apostles of Christ urging Christians to commit adultery, theft or murder??? Of course NOT! If eating a roasted hog or lobster was considered to be a sin do you really believe St. Paul would have instructed the Christians in his care to go ahead and dig in? I hope not!
Anti-Trinitarian sects, particularly SDA's reject that God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) is ONE BEING. SDA's teach that Father is a material flesh & bone God with every organ and part a perfect man has. In other-words God (the Father) is a PERSON with a flesh body. Michael Christ is another separate "BEING" who they assert "could have lost his salvation" & had that happened ultimate God would have annihilated Christ.
You simply can't have creature christ going against a commandment Father God is believed to have issued therefore eating shrimp and other things outlawed in the Book of Leviticus is OUT OF THE QUESTION for an SDA.
Ironic that despite this Ellen White was known to rebuke youth for eating oysters yet she was proven to have been wolfing them down in significant quantities. By her own admission Ellen was an oyster monger.
More babel, from Babylon.
: Amo Fri Apr 12, 2024 - 12:40:35More babel, from Babylon.
Look Amo, if you want to believe that Lucifer celebrates every time someone orders clam chowder more power to you - just don't expect folks who read their Bible to buy into that.
: Cathlodox Sat Apr 13, 2024 - 23:33:10Look Amo, if you want to believe that Lucifer celebrates every time someone orders clam chowder more power to you - just don't expect folks who read their Bible to buy into that.
Now that is at least a simple and to the point statement. Not like the constant drivel, twisted quotes, and Babel you usually spout. An exaggeration of my views regarding diet to be sure, nevertheless, simple and to the point.
God does not trifle. He did not give dietary instruction to Israel through Moses, arbitrarily. There was a purpose for proper diet and still is. Even humanity understands the physical and mental effects of proper or improper diet. It is not rocket science. Bible believers should absolutely consider what God has advised people to eat or not. People will listen to doctors advice about such. Are doctors instructions and or knowledge above God's? Nevertheless -
Mat 15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. 12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? 13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. 15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. 16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
The consumption of alcohol presents a real time example of the principles involved in proper diet for bible believers. The consumption of alcohol itself does not defile, but the effects of alcohol certainly tend toward defilement. In that the more you put into your mouth, the more likely defilement will end up coming out of your mouth, not to mention straight forward evil actions. This I know from experiential knowledge concerning a great deal of drinking and drugging during my childhood and youth.
In the same manner, food with ill effects upon the mind or body, weaken the vessel within which our Lord seeks to establish His righteousness. Toward salvation and a clarity of mind and body concerning our witness. Lord knows we need every bit of help we can get in accomplishing such. Or at least I can personally testify that I do.
: Amo Sun Apr 14, 2024 - 09:03:26Now that is at least a simple and to the point statement. Not like the constant drivel, twisted quotes, and Babel you usually spout. An exaggeration of my views regarding diet to be sure, nevertheless, simple and to the point.
God does not trifle. He did not give dietary instruction to Israel through Moses, arbitrarily. There was a purpose for proper diet and still is. Even humanity understands the physical and mental effects of proper or improper diet. It is not rocket science. Bible believers should absolutely consider what God has advised people to eat or not. People will listen to doctors advice about such. Are doctors instructions and or knowledge above God's? Nevertheless -
Mat 15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. 12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? 13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. 15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. 16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
The consumption of alcohol presents a real time example of the principles involved in proper diet for bible believers. The consumption of alcohol itself does not defile, but the effects of alcohol certainly tend toward defilement. In that the more you put into your mouth, the more likely defilement will end up coming out of your mouth, not to mention straight forward evil actions. This I know from experiential knowledge concerning a great deal of drinking and drugging during my childhood and youth.
In the same manner, food with ill effects upon the mind or body, weaken the vessel within which our Lord seeks to establish His righteousness. Toward salvation and a clarity of mind and body concerning our witness. Lord knows we need every bit of help we can get in accomplishing such. Or at least I can personally testify that I do.
There has been more death and illness from the consumption of Chickens and Turkeys than all seafood and pork combined. That should tell you right there that the Levitical command was designed to SEPARATE and KEEP SEPARATED the Children of Israel from the nations around them.
It's pretty hard to become friends with someone
YOU CAN'T EAT WITH. That line of demarcation terminated with Christ who fulfilled the ceremonial law relegating those ceremonials enjoined on the Jews to the trash heap.
Like I said, a Christian has no more business following Levitical dietary laws than they have observing the feast of tents or the day of atonement. However, if devotion to these sorts of things help ones walk with Christ it's my understanding we have the liberty to have those devotions.
If you feel more holy by having a devotion to the Levitical food laws by all means - just don't believe you are gaining favor from God by not eating a shrimp basket at your local seafood restaurant.
The abuse of anything causes problems Amo, eating too much, drinking too much, etc.
Someone who is obese actually has on average less time to live than does someone with a drinking problem. The point is EVERYTHING IN MODERATION. If someone has a drinking problem they can't control it's better for that person to not drink at all. That's common sense.
: Jaime Wed Feb 28, 2024 - 15:09:13TC, the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius (just as it did on Pentecost to the disciples) was confirmation to Peter that Hod had a plan for the Gentiles and they shouldn't consider them unclean as the Pharisee's oral traditions had dictated, but God never declared the Gentiles unclean. The food was the object lesson not the subject of the lesson. The entire context of Acts 10 up until and after the vision was Peter's acceptance or not of the Gentiles based NOT on God's word but of the Pharisee's traditions of men or their oral Torah. Peter then we t on to tell people that it was anout people in vs 28.
Exactly...
There has been more death and illness from the consumption of Chickens and Turkeys than all seafood and pork combined. That should tell you right there that the Levitical command was designed to SEPARATE and KEEP SEPARATED the Children of Israel from the nations around them.
So what, God told you the above? Just exactly where did you get this information from? And how did they know far more people have died from chicken and turkey than unclean seafood and pork?
Swine flu alone took out countless millions.
: Texas Conservative Wed Feb 28, 2024 - 06:24:28If you understood this truth, you wouldn't be parroting the SDA doctrine of demons about abstaining from foods.
Acts 10
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
1 Timothy 4
4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
That was speaking of the Gentiles, and Peter understood and did all he could to spread it with the others who held back from them. Core belief and well understood..