Shar

6 minutes ago, other one said:

Well, I personally fail to believe God would use something that was a lie to make a point....   which is exactly what you are saying he did.

Be Christ-like and not call one another liars.  You simply cannot conclusively state that there is a dual meaning in this vision when Peter immediately goes to Cornelius' house to share the good news with a Gentile.

22 hours ago, Shar said:

4 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

Shar, what I am suggesting to you is the way you are interpreting scripture flies in the face of the historical reality.

There is absolutely no proof that the Early Church held to the Jewish dietary laws.

There is absolutely proof they did not.    Peter living as a gentile and not as a Jew, which is specifically, clearly, umambiguously and explicitly stated in scripture.  For your interpretation to be correct, Paul then is a liar and the scriptures lie.    

Paul was not a liar, and the scriptures do not lie.   Peter lived as a gentile and not as a Jew - and this specifically included eating.

You called this a fact.    Logically we must then conclude:

1. That it is a fact means it is true.  
2. That it is true means your interpretation, and your claims about how Peter lived and thus how all believers lived and were to live, are wrong.

 

Paul was not instructing to keep the passover, but in how to live our entire lives.    He is speaking metaphorically about our lives being unleavened.

 

Acts 15 was not an instruction of what the pagans had to do to be "brought  in"   they were already "in."    The instructions given by the Council were very limited and DO NOT INCLUDE abstaining from any particular food from any particular animal.   It has already been explained by myself and others what was happening here -  and it is explained in the text itself.    Let's look at it again:

	Act 15:19	“Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
	Act 15:20	“but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,fn from things strangled, andfrom blood.
	Act 15:21	“For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

 

So what was laid on the gentile believers was specifically and only this:

• abstain from things polluted by IDOLS
• sexual immorality
• things STRANGLED
• from BLOOD

That's it.

There are no specific food restrictions.   Nothing about Mosaic dietary laws, nothing.

Why didn't the Council in Jerusalem lay Mosaic dietary laws on the gentile believers? Obviously if such were required of believers in Christ, then they would have had to do so.  But they didn't.   

They expressly said: 

• we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles

 

So why did the Council in Jerusalem lay even these restriction regarding foods  - ie regarding foods offered to IDOLS,  things STRANGLED and from BLOOD ?

Verse 21 answers why using the word  "FOR"   

• γάρ gár, gar; a primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles):—and, as, because (that), but, even, for, indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.

 

• γάρ, a conjunction, which according to its composition, γέ and ἄρα (equivalent toἀρ), is properly a particle of affirmation and conclusion, denoting truly therefore, verily as the case stands, "the thing is first affirmed by the particle γέ, and then is referred to what precedes by the force of the particle ἄρα (Klotz ad Devar. ii. 1, p. 232; cf. Kühner, ii., p. 724; (Jelf, § 786; Winers Grammar, 445f (415f))). Now since by a new affirmation not infrequently the reason and nature of something previously mentioned are set forth, it comes to pass that, by the use of this particle, either the reason and cause of a foregoing statement is added, whence arises the causal or argumentative force of the particle, for (Latinnam,enim; German denn); or some previous declaration is explained, whence γάρ takes on an explicative force: for, the fact is, namely (Latinvidelicet, German nämlich). Thus the force of the particle is either conclusive, or demonstrative, or explicative and declaratory; cf. Rost inPassow's Lexicon, i., p. 535ff; Kühner, ii., pp. 724ff, 852ff; (cf. Liddell and Scott, under the word). The use of the particle in the N. T. does not differ from that in the classics.
• Thayer's Greek Lexicon

 

• and, as, because, for

  A primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles) -- and, as, because (that), but, even, for, indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.

  Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

 

So what was the reason the Council in Jerusalem laid these 4 things on the gentile beilevers?    

FOR THE REASONS -  BECAUSE -  Moses was taught in all the cities which meant Jews lived in all the cities and this meant that gentile believers, not understanding the Jewish faith and not understanding how they could be offensive and close the door on communication with the Jews, and thus harm their witness and the message of the gospel, were, for a time, told to avoid these things.  Of course sexual immorality is to always be avoided - and they chose to emphasize this because of the times they lived in, and how gentiles (non believers) overall perceived this.    But the prohibition against eating food offered to idols, for example, was not intended to be permanent, but temporary to address the situation of new gentile believers among the Jewish people..    

Christianity was, up to the conversion of gentiles, only a jewish sect.    And that is how the Jews understood it.    Now gentiles were also followers of Chirst.  Now suddenly regular Jewish people were confronted not only with a sect that had arisen within Judaism, but now the gentiles too?  This, in and of itself would be a great source of confusion and misunderstanding.   

And so, the Council in Jerusalem, understanding the delicacy of the situation and its impact on Jewish non believers, wanted to limit the offense Jewish non believers would feel seeing Gentile believers engaged in what had been only a Jewish phenomena before.

And so the reason for these prohibitions was because of the Jewish non believers and their sensibilities; to limit the opportunity of the Gentile believers to be a source of offense and thus a stumbling block to the conversion of Jewish non-believers among them.

So this was for the sake of the Jewish NON-believers.

Once things changed dramatically in 70 AD, and the Jewish people lost Jerusalem, their temple, and their priesthood and were sent fleeing, these prohibitions against food offered to idols, things strangled and the blood were not in force.  

In fact, Paul tells us long before 70 AD that to eat something offered to idols is nothing, for the idol is nothing, and that believers were to eat anything in the market place, or set before them at a feast, without asking questions - this included not only food offered to idols, but foods you claim christians should not eat for much of the food offered in the market place was food forbidden under the Mosaic law, as well as being offered to idols when they were slaughtered. 

This demonstrates how very temporary the prohibition, by the Council in Jerusalem, actually were.    Of all those 4 things gentiles were to abstain from, the only one that was carried forward to remain in force was that against sexual immorality. 

By the way, I have done a very thorough study of Church history, going back to original writings.  What I found does not match up with what you claim.

 

 

 

We disagree that the Peter's vision was a dual purpose and made unclean foods clean.  I believe he was referencing Gentiles, henceforth Peter went to Cornelius, not to get a ham sandwich.  That is the point of the discussion.  You state why you think so.  I state why I think so.  I could accuse you of false doctrine too, but we should not act in such a manner.  I do not throw stones at those who want to eat everything.  Those who do, must make sure they do the same for those who believe they need to remain kosher.  Remember, the matter of the heart is our greatest concern.

You copied well.  Your failed to show how early Christians fled when Jews were being persecuted, as to no longer be identified with them and avoid the persecution.  How Constantine substituted the Jewish feasts for the pagan feasts, such as Easter for Passover, Christmas (Saturnalia) for Succoth.  The list of anti-Semitism goes on and on throughout Church history.  Peter was an apostle to the Jews, as they agreed Paul would be the apostle to the Gentiles.  Peter did not become a Gentile Christian.   We now agree to disagree.  God Bless.  Shalom

14 hours ago, Shar said:

10 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

The law is part of the Old Covenant.

The Old Covenant was made obsolete and passing away.

The scriptures say the Old Covenant was:

• abrogated
  annulled
  cancelled
  deprived of its authority and power by God
  destroyed.

 

How do I get to that understanding?

By taking a hard look at what Paul said, looking at what words mean in the original as well as English I found this:

• Hbr 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. 
  
  
  Hbr 8:7 ¶ For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 
  
  Hbr 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: 
  
  Hbr 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. 
  
  Hbr 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: 
  
  Hbr 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. 
  
  Hbr 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 
  
  Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. 
  obsolete, 
  old and about to be abrogated, 
  repealed, 
  annulled, 
  cancelled, 
  abolished by authority
  
  
  Now that which decayeth
  obsolete, 
  old and about to be abrogated, 
  repealed, 
  annulled, 
  cancelled, 
  abolished by authority
  
  
  and waxeth old
  failing from age, 
  obselecent, 
  being deprived its of force and authority by God
  
  [is] ready to vanish away. 
  be destroyed

 

I'll explain how I get this in the next post.

We disagree that the Peter's vision was a dual purpose and made unclean foods clean.  I believe he was referencing Gentiles, henceforth Peter went to Cornelius, not to get a ham sandwich.  That is the point of the discussion.  You state why you think so.  I state why I think so.  I could accuse you of false doctrine too, but we should not act in such a manner.  I do not throw stones at those who want to eat everything.  Those who do, must make sure they do the same for those who believe they need to remain kosher.  Remember, the matter of the heart is our greatest concern.

This is in reference to the sacrificial system, since the Messiah's sacrifice made us righteous, "he died once for all".  This did not do away with all of G-d's law.  Remember the precious words of our L-rd in Matthew 5:17.  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets (the O.T).  I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill (to make their meaning full)  them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter or the least stroke of the pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."  Immediately after this He goes into giving the full meaning behind several parables the Jews were already familiar with and gives them their true meaning.  He starts with the teaching on Anger.

The reference "to fading" means that it is moving forward to the time when it is all completed, then it will be obsolete, but is not so yet.  Not all has been accomplished as our L-rd requires.

Also, English translations poorly use the word "Law" for both of the words meaning either legalism or for teaching/guidelines of G-d.  You need to drive down those meanings when confused by the meaning of "Law".  Most times in the negative sense it references legalistic in character, which Paul often spoke against, not the reference to G-d's teachings.

13 hours ago, Shar said:

19 hours ago, Ezra said:

Now you are trying to change what the Holy Spirit has clearly stated in 1 Timothy, which also corresponds to what He stated in Genesis chapter 9.

For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Genesis 9:3,4).

Please note again, that "every creature" means every creature, and that is also what Peter saw in his vision -- every creature. This corresponds to "every moving thing that liveth" so you are REFUSING TO ACCEPT what God says here, and insisting that the Law of Moses still applies.  That is false doctrine, my friend. If some Christians want to eat Kosher, they have the liberty to do so.  If other Christians do not eat Kosher, they have been given the liberty by God Himself, and by Christ, who said that it is not foods which defile the man, but what comes out of his heart. Neither group may judge the other regarding food, since the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink.

 

 

We disagree that the Peter's vision was a dual purpose and made unclean foods clean.  I believe he was referencing Gentiles, henceforth Peter went to Cornelius, not to get a ham sandwich.  That is the point of the discussion.  You state why you think so.  I state why I think so.  I could accuse you of false doctrine too, but we should not act in such a manner.  I do not throw stones at those who want to eat everything.  Those who do, must make sure they do the same for those who believe they need to remain kosher.  Remember, the matter of the heart is our greatest concern.

Regarding your point on "every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving".  If this be truly as you assume, then would you say it is OK to cook up a Blow Fish or one of the 16 varieties of extremely poisonous tree frogs?  You interpretation of this, would render these eatable, simply by giving thanks.  See, you cannot take a literal interpretation of this verse to justify we can eat anything.  Paul references "food" here.  And like I previously wrote, G-d has listed out what is and what is not food for His people.  So when they speak of food, they speak of truly eatable food as G-d has defined.  But like I also said, division should not be over this topic.  It is just "food for thought", (no pun intended), to get us truly searching out scripture without any pre-disposed bias that we may have grown up to believe. 

13 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

 Shar, Peter lived as a Gentile, not as a Jew.    That means when he ate with the Gentiles, he ate as a Gentile, not as a Jew.  This is what Paul tells us.

The scriptures are very clear about this.

This one fact unravels your argument.

 

 

 

This one fact you quote does not go with the actual times.  Peter was a Jew and remained so.  The Jews did not adopt the pagan lifestyle.  The Gentiles were not the non-Jews of today.  They were an extremely idolatrous, sexually perverted, blood drinking, non-kosher, polytheist people group.  Remarkably unclean and to be avoided.  These people were now open up to being brought into the faith through the blood of Messiah.  The only faith was a biblical form of Judaism, that Paul often referred to as "The Way".  Acts 15 gave the first 4 basic requirements that these pagans must do to clean up their act in order to be able to be brought in and have the Jew teach them the faith.  These Gentiles were required to give up their lifestyle, NEVER did G-d instruct the Jew to adopt pagan lifestyle in ANY form. 

A clear example of how the Church has deviated from the original faith is our failure to practice, even as stated by Paul to keep, is The Passover (1 Cor. 5:8).  How could we ignore one of the G-d's greatest festivals, that marked the actual death, burial and resurrection of our L-rd, and justify switching it for the pagan feast of Ishtar?  Ishtar (Easter), the fertility goddess, and all it symbols of the eggs, the bunnies, etc.  We take the Passover, throw it away, and say our L-rd resurrected on this pagan feast?

Do a thorough study of the Church's history and you will be astonished on how far we have deviated.  Constantine moved to make Christianity the religion during his reign for political reason.  They then took the worship of their Sun god on Sunday and switched out Sabbath and switch Passover for the pagan feast of Ishtar (Easter) and our L-rd's birth (Festival of Succoth) for Saturnalia, the birth of their Sun god, Saturn. 

5 hours ago, Ezra said:

Now you are trying to change what the Holy Spirit has clearly stated in 1 Timothy, which also corresponds to what He stated in Genesis chapter 9.

For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Genesis 9:3,4).

Please note again, that "every creature" means every creature, and that is also what Peter saw in his vision -- every creature. This corresponds to "every moving thing that liveth" so you are REFUSING TO ACCEPT what God says here, and insisting that the Law of Moses still applies.  That is false doctrine, my friend. If some Christians want to eat Kosher, they have the liberty to do so.  If other Christians do not eat Kosher, they have been given the liberty by God Himself, and by Christ, who said that it is not foods which defile the man, but what comes out of his heart. Neither group may judge the other regarding food, since the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink.

 

 

We disagree that the Peter's vision was a dual purpose and made unclean foods clean.  I believe he was referencing Gentiles, henceforth Peter went to Cornelius, not to get a ham sandwich.  That is the point of the discussion.  You state why you think so.  I state why I think so.  I could accuse you of false doctrine too, but we should not act in such a manner.  I do not throw stones at those who want to eat everything.  Those who do, must make sure they do the same for those who believe they need to remain kosher.  Remember, the matter of the heart is our greatest concern.

17 hours ago, post said:

why would you speak as though the new testament isn't scripture? 
trying to duck Mark 7:19? 

if you teach that we are under Moses' law with regard to dietary law (and why not every part of the law, not just the parts you may like?) then you're going to have to deal with that verse. 

 

I already dealt with Mark 7:19 in my previous post.  Please read..

17 hours ago, post said:

why would you speak as though the new testament isn't scripture? 
trying to duck Mark 7:19? 

if you teach that we are under Moses' law with regard to dietary law (and why not every part of the law, not just the parts you may like?) then you're going to have to deal with that verse. 

 

Did not say it is not.  Simply indicated that there reference was not to it, but to the scriptures of the OT

11 minutes ago, Spock said:

I think I'm understanding you better here. You believe we should continue to follow and obey God's written word as prescribed in Torah (the 270 or so mitzvahs that are still applicable today)  not merely the interpretation provided by the rabbis  (rabbinical Judaism) as set forth in the Talmud.  Ok, let's go with that. Then I suppose you believe you should adhere to ALL of the applicable 270 mitzvahs and not just the dietary mitzvahs.  Ok, read on from Hebrew4Christians:

As you know, there are some people within the Messianic movement (as well as legalistic churches) who claim that followers of Jesus should become "Torah Observant." Since Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew, they argue, and we are called to be His followers, then we ourselves should become Torah observant, too.  As well-meaning as this sounds, however, this is specious reasoning, based on a variety of exegetical errors, not the least of which is the confusion between the idea of Torah and Covenant.  Nonetheless, I wonder if these legalists have ever taken the time to actually read the list of the Torah's demands -- all 613 of them? As a reminder, let me list a few of the more difficult commandments in the Torah of Moses here:

• Slavery is permissible, and fathers may sell their daughters (Ex 21:7; Lev. 25:44).
• You may not contact a woman while she is in her monthly cycle (Lev. 15:19-24).
• Homosexuals are to be put to death (Lev. 20:13)
• You must put someone to death for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2).
• You cannot leave your homes to work on the Sabbath (Exodus 16:29).
• You should keep a completely kosher diet (Lev. 11:10).
• You should not allow anyone with physical blemishes to come before the altar of the LORD (Lev. 21:16-20).
• You should never plant two types of crops in the same field (Lev. 19:19).
• You should never wear garments that have two types of fabric (e.g., no cotton/polyester blends) (Deut 22:11).
• You should publicly execute anyone who curses or blasphemes (Lev. 24:10-20). 
• You must burn to death those who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14).
• You should put to death a rebellious child (Deut 21:18-22).
• You must pay for (and marry) a virgin you seduced (Exodus 22:16).
• You must destroy all places of idolatry in the Land (Deut 7:2, 12:2).
• You are commanded to burn apostate cities and kill all the inhabitants (Deut 13:15-17) the cherem - including babies and women.
• You also must kill all magicians, witches or wizards among the people (Deut 18:10)
• You must hang a blasphemer and an idolater (Deut 21:22).
• In courts of law, you may not take evidence from a woman (Deut 24:17).
• You must marry your brother's wife when your brother dies childless (Deut 25:5). 
• If you take a female prisoner of war and seduce her, she will become a slave with certain rights, and if you later dislike her, you can grant her freedom, but you cannot sell her to another slave owner (Deut. 21:11-15).

Just curious shar,  do you Believe all of the above should be completely adhered to?  I especially like the one that says you should never wear garments that have two types of fabrics.  Do you follow that one too?  Im sure you have a response as to why you don't have to follow most of these but you should follow the dietary command so lay it on me sister (and saved sinner too).

in love,

spock

 

I think this could be an interesting discussion, however, I do not believe it belongs here where we are discussing if it is OK to eat unclean food.  This is best served by starting a new thread.  It would take forever to answer each one and determine whether these apply today.  Just off the bat, I see a lot are civil laws that were unique to people living in the land Israel (like that stated to destroy all places of idolatry in the Land.  "The Land" was Israel only).  In our land, we would not hang a man for blasphemy or not take testimony from a woman in court.  Please start a new thread if you are really interested in all these.  Thanks

13 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

Yet Paul does not rebuke Peter for living (including eating) as a Gentile - which it is clear Peter did, but for living as a Jew and because of his hypocritical behavior others following him in doing so.

 

The Council of Jerusalem did not lay the Mosaic dietary laws on the Gentiles either.

 

 

Peter was a Jew.  He could not, nor did he ever become a Gentile.  In this passage, Paul rebukes Peter for his hypocrisy when the men came from James.  He withdrew himself from association with the Gentiles.  Paul rebukes him for Peter lived and associated with the Gentiles, as other Gentiles did, and no longer as a Jew who would not associate or come near a Gentile.  Remember, in his vision, he clearly did not ever eat or get near that which was unclean and Gentiles were unclean.  G-d showed Peter that Gentiles are now welcomed into His family.  Henceforth, his visit to Cornelius and entering the house of a Gentile for the first time.

These men from James are referenced in Acts as they insisted that the Gentiles must be circumcised in order to be saved.  This was not the case.  Here in Galatians, Paul further rebukes this for these men that came from James were seen by Peter.  Peter became fearful and separated himself.  Paul further rebukes this circumcision mandate from these men by stating that no one can be justified or saved by observing the law, but only through faith in Messiah.  We died to these requirements of the Law in order to live by faith.  This rebuke is not an mandate that all of G-d's law (teachings, guidelines) are to be thrown out.  Paul still observed these, practiced them.  He took Nazarite vows and performed them.  The apostles and early believers kept the Sabbath, festivals and kept kosher.

40 minutes ago, Spock said:

If I may be so bold, for anyone who wants to go deeper in this subject, here is a link from a Messianic Jew, who does not believe Christians should be under the Torah Laws, in particular, the 613 mitzvahs. But read it for yourself if interested: 

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Redux/redux.html

sinnersaved, I would love to read your rebuttal to this article if you feel so led. I know it's rather long and I won't blame you if you don't feel like doing that. 

Cheers,

spock

Read the article  By the way, I love Hebrew4Christians.  He is referencing throughout, the question as to whether we should follow (quite erroneously) the Torah as defined by Rabbinical Judaism.  This is mostly the Oral Law with the added requirements by man.  This is what Yeshua was referencing and rebuking the Pharisees when they criticized His disciples.  He clearly asks in this article "are we to abandon the real Torah?"  The author's response is G-d forbid,  just as Paul said, "Are we to nullify the Law?  G-d forbid.

Just like Yeshua said, "Don't think I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets".  The true law of G-d throughout His Word has always been about grace, loving G-d and loving your neighbor.  G-d gave the 10 commandments which summarized his Law into categories that were to "Love your G-d with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself".  Temporary animals sacrifices were needed to cover sin and point to the True Lamb of G-d.  We are now made clean and righteous through His sacrifice, once for all.  The mystery of the Holy Spirit now lives in us.

10 hours ago, Ezra said:

As a matter of fact, Jesus (by the power of the Holy Spirit, giving the words to Paul) actually declared all meats as "clean" (1 Tim 4:1-6). He also told Noah the same thing. As long as the Old Covenant was in effect, the dietary restrictions were in effect.  I believe the vision shown to Peter in Acts 10:9-16, may have had a double meaning: (1) Gentiles are now clean and (b) all meats are now clean.  Please note carefully what the Holy Spirit says through Paul, particularly verse 4. So today the promotion of dietary restrictions is actually a doctrine of devils:

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

 

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

 

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.      

 

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

 

5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

 

6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

 

As already mentioned, those who wish to follow the Mosaic Law are free to do so, provided they do not judge those who freely eat all meats with thanksgiving.

 

 

 

 

Good morning.  Answer 1 timothy 4.  Remember, Paul is addressing Timothy for instructions to church leaders.  These latter days they abandon the Truth and follow the devil.  Remember, Satan is a counterfeit and against G-d's order.  They forbid the holy order of marriage.  Probably for living in sin instead.  They abstain from certain FOODS that G-d created and to be received with Thanksgiving.  This is not against G-d's dietary laws, but against what He says you can eat.  Paul's reference to everything good and to be received with thanksgiving is better understood as to what G-d defined as good food.

The real question is, "What does G-d define as food?"  That is very clear in the Leviticus and elsewhere.  For His people, called by His name, the list did not include unclean animals.  He specifically says Eat this and Don't Eat That.   In the beginning, all of mankind was vegetarian.  After the flood, we see a verse to everything that moves.  But these people already knew what clean and unclean animals were and they are coming out of a lifetime of being a vegan.  I don't think they immediately went hunting for wild boar.  From Noah to Moses, it is interesting that nowhere in the Bible do you ever see a reference to them serving up unclean meat to eat, but always specifically serving up clean meat.  Most times they ate meat on only special occasions. 

Now, there are references throughout that G-d permitted the giving of dead animals and unclean things that were not permitted to be eaten to the alien (the Goyim, the true Gentile that was not in the faith or family of G-d).  Most importantly, we must all remember that the kingdom of G-d is more than eat or drink.  Our priorities should always be on our heart (words, thoughts, actions, etc.).  Never let something as this discussion divide the Family of G-d.

1 minute ago, thereselittleflower said:

Yet Paul does not rebuke Peter for living (including eating) as a Gentile - which it is clear Peter did, but for living as a Jew and because of his hypocritical behavior others following him in doing so.

 

The Council of Jerusalem did not lay the Mosaic dietary laws on the Gentiles either.

 

 

I will address this later.  Living as a Gentile.  Will explain this tomorrow.  Good Night.  Love talking to you.

1 minute ago, Shar said:

I am saying the dietary laws given by G-d do not seen to have been done away with by the practice of Yeshua, the Apostles or the early believers who came into the synagogue and learn and studied Moses.  That the original faith that was preached by Paul and the Apostles and practiced by our Messiah was Judaism and was a sect of Judaism known as The Way. That the faith did not mimic any other form of religion or practice.

To all,  glad to be back on.  This was fun.  Quitting for the night.  G-d Bless.

6 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

ok so you're saying the Mosaic law supersedes this and we are held to stricter requirements than Noah?

 

I am saying the dietary laws given by G-d do not seen to have been done away with by the practice of Yeshua, the Apostles or the early believers who came into the synagogue and learn and studied Moses.  That the original faith that was preached by Paul and the Apostles and practiced by our Messiah was Judaism and was a sect of Judaism known as The Way. That the faith did not mimic any other form of religion or practice.

3 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

I consider myself grafted into Chirst along with all believers, Jew or Gentile.

Noah was before the dietary laws.  See my post regarding that.  Thanks

4 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

Could you show me where God told Noah not to eat pork?  

 

OK.  I need to understand.  Are you distinguishing yourself as a Noah Chide (believes only needs to follow the seven laws given to Noah) or do  you consider yourself grafted into Israel, as per Romans 11?

5 minutes ago, post said:

i think therese has said what else i would also say.
the law of love is to govern our actions. if we ever eat together, there will be no BBQ at the table, for the sake of your conscience. but whoever can eat even a thing sacrificed to an idol without guilt, and be thankful to God for it - how can i accuse him or her? didn't God tell Noah also, 

Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
(Genesis 9:3) 

? 


but about Isaiah 66 -- it does bear on this discussion, and verse 3 is part of the same prophecy as verse 17. it is the context with which v. 17 should be understood. there in 3, the Lord clearly says that those who offer grain - acceptable under Moses - are as those who offer pigs blood - abomination under Moses. additionally there are 3 more comparisons the Lord makes with outwardly kosher sacrifices, speaking of them as abominable. why does He say this?? isn't it because of what they chose in their hearts, as He says? 
so also, when Christ says that evil comes from within our hearts, not from what comes into our mouths, He is in keeping with Isaiah 66, and Isaiah 1, where the Lord says 'Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me!' 
when the heart is wicked, what is outwardly clean is the same as abomination before Him.

 

That was G-d's direction to Noah.  No longer required to be a vegetarian, as it was before the flood.  This was before the dietary laws were given to G-d's people.  These dietary laws also helped distinguish G-d's people from the pagans.   

5 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

It specifically says "used to EAT with the Gentiles."

I'm sorry, but I don't see support for your position.  I know you do, but I see the opposite.

We can agree to disagree.

 

 

If I EAT with you, it does not mean I eat the same thing.  You and I may go out to eat dinner.  I am eating with you, but that does not mean I am eating the same thing you are eating.

10 minutes ago, Spock said:

Sinner and shar,

so you two (batman and robin, lol) seem to believe "it is too difficult" for Gentiles to NOT eat porky.  Hmmmmm

if they think that is to difficult wait until they find out about plucking out your eye when it begins to lust, or turn the other cheek when someone slanders your name. 

LOL

15 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

 

Paul said he became all things to all people, to the Jew as a Jew, to the gentile as a gentile - because he was free in Christ to do so.

Peter also did the same, and ate with the gentiles their food.   When the Jews who held that the law must be kept came, Peter, who had been eating with the gentiles, changed his behavior because he was afraid of them, and Paul rebuked him for his hypocrisy

• Gal 2   11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision

This is not stating Peter ate unclean food.  This is when Peter kept company with the Gentiles and eat and had fellowship with them.  Then when the men from James came, Peter did not want them to see him in the company of Gentiles.  Peter pulled away and did not associate with the Gentiles because of his hypocrisy.  Paul rebuked him for this.  Again, nothing to do with eating unclean food.

2 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

They didn't remain kosher.

 

 

Show me in G-d's word where the apostles did not remain Kosher and did not keep the Judaic laws that were established.  Remember, when Jesus and the Apostles spoke of the scripture and referenced scripture, they were not speaking of the New Testament.   It did not exist.

3 minutes ago, Spock said:

Shar,

im not post but if I may get in on this....maybe the Apostles you referenced continued not to eat porky because they didn't want to be a stumbling block to their fellow Jews. See Romans 14.  

Also, didn't paul/Saul continue to practice some Jewish customs to show Jews, "hey, I'm still one of you guys, listen to my message!" (My paraphrase)

Stumbling block has to do with the marketplace issue I just addressed.  Paul practiced Judaism because the faith was a sect of Judaism. Paul stated that many times and it was referred to as such many times in Acts.  The faith was known as the sect "The Way".

4 minutes ago, post said:

again, not my logic, but what is plainly written in the Mark's gospel.
what could Mark have meant other than "Jesus declared all foods clean" 
when he (not post) said "Jesus declared all foods clean" ? 
or do you reject that the book of Mark is scripture? 
do you also reject Acts? 
what did Christ mean then, when He told Peter "what God has made clean, do not call common" ? 
do you also reject Colossians? 
what then did Paul mean when he said "do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink" ? 
do you think Christ and His apostles spoke of doing evil in order by metaphor to teach good? 
because if you do, we need to have an entirely different discussion before we can talk about food. 

as far as what the early believers did or did not do - don't you accept Acts? what was instructed by the council of Jerusalem? 
and do you accept that Justin Martyr was an early believer? 
what then did he mean when he said

We neither accord with the Jews in their peculiarities in regard to food nor in their sacred days.

-- Apologies Sec. 21

? 

i'm sorry that i'm new here, and apparently taking some things for granted. let's put all these things in the open then  
 

I would appreciate a response to my question.  If this is meant that all food is clean for consumption, they why did the Apostles and the early believers remain Kosher and keep the Levitical Laws, after Jesus died?  It is simple, because the dietary laws were not changed.  I clearly accept ACTS.  Read Acts 15.  They placed initially 4 laws on the Gentiles coming into the synagogue.  This was so they would be able to approach and be near a Jew so they could learn the faith.  It states that let's not make it difficult on them.  Moses is taught in the synagogue every Sabbath.  In other words, The Gentiles will learn as they study and learn the faith and then will be able to come more fully into what is required of them without overwhelming them,

18 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

They would not have.  They were still under the Old Covenant.

I think I would have to disagree that this would mean Jesus did not intend for His words to mean everything.

Later in Acts Peter is shown a sheet filled with all kinds of animals, including those unclean under the Old Covenant and he is told to kill and eat.

Paul later tells believers to eat anything they find in the market place and ask no questions -  meat in the market place were from animals offered to idols and these animals could be anything.  He tells them to eat anything put before them by their host, who could be pagan, at a feast and ask no questions.

 

All this ties back to Jesus' words here:

• “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 
  For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” 

 

The reason for the dietary laws was to teach them to be mindful of what they allowed in - food to their bodies, and what they allow into their heart.

This is part of the taskmaster Paul spoke of that a young child in school needs, and when one is a child, one needs very concrete lessons, for a child does not think abstractly.

But now that Christ has come and perfectly fulfilled all the law, The New Covenant is instituted and Paul, the Jew of the Jews, told his listeners that then, at that time, 

• Hebrews 8:13 In that He says, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

 

For me this presents one cohesive whole on how to understand this subject.

 

 

 

 

The sheet of unclean animals was not a new food plan.  It was a dream to show later that Jews were to not consider Gentiles unclean now because G-d had open salvation to them.  Hence, thereafter Peter went into the Gentile home of Cornelius to tell him of Yeshua.  Otherwise, Peter would have never stepped foot into the Gentile home.  Second, the marketplace.  Paul was clear in other scripture, not to eat meat you knew was sacrificed to idols.  However, in the marketplace you could not always tell for sure if it had been offered.  In this case, your conscience could be clear if you did so without knowing.  Again, did not say, go ahead and eat any meat.  Many types of animals, clean and unclean were offered in these pagan temples.  He was talking about clean meat offered and now in the marketplace.  Not porky the pig.