Floatingaxe Posted April 12, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Shalom, What happened to the other thread??? I am so happy it was deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickilynn Posted April 12, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 138 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/13/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2007 The Lord has shown me this: The vision is indeed symbolic, as it it is telling Peter that God is not a respecter of persons, foremost. "Go and include the Gentiles for My people" is what He is saying. The vision does speak to the issue of food, as it is stated that Peter was hungering, and God told Peter three times to eat of the animals. It is not a major emphasis, but neither is it NOT there. Shalom FA, One thing that is a constant is that G-d will never "show" someone something that is contrary to Scripture. In fact, that is one way that we know we are hearing from G-d, what we believe He is showing us, lines up with Scripture. In this case, saying the vision has anything to do with making pork clean is simply not in the Scriptures. That is not what the Bible says about the vision and man has inserted something that the Scripture does not say. The truth is, that is adding to Scripture to make it say what we wish it would. The vision does not speak to the "issue" of food, for there is no issue. G-d's designation of clean and unclean animals was and is clear. Nothing has changed in that regard. The vision does not have a dual meaning, it only has one, the one the Bible says it has. If someone wishes to read into the Scriptures to justify their position on eating pork, but it is not Scripture - that's the difference. And, we should be mindful of these Scriptures: Matthew 5 7"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickilynn Posted April 12, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 138 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/13/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2007 Shalom, What happened to the other thread??? I am so happy it was deleted. Shalom, There are other opinions here. I thought it was a good thread. I'm not happy it was deleted. But it was, so be it. I'm sure there will be others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted April 12, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2007 So glad Worthy isn't my source for teaching. As I said, the problem lies in your insistence on making the vision literal instead of symbolic. The reason you are incorrect in your mode of interpretation is that it goes contrary to how visions are interpreted and handled in EVERY other part of Scripture. When Daniel had his vision of the statue made of gold, silver, bronze iron, clay, etc. The various metals and elements represented various empires. The vision was understood as symbolic. When Joseph had his dream of starts sun moon bowing to him, the vision was understood to be symbolic. I EVERY place we find a vision, the images or elements present in the vision symbolic. However in THIS vision, you are violating rules of interpreting visions and are trying to say the anmials represented something else. You are trying to make the animals literal and in doing so, you are going outside the Word of God. The Bible interprets the vision for us, twice. It tells us that the animals were symbolic of the Gentiles at the meaning of the vision was solely pertaining to the Gentile nations. The fact that the Bible omits any interpretation to include an abrogation of the dietary commands means that you must defer to human reasoning to support your case. Doesn't it make you wonder why, if God meant, in that vision, that He was removing the dietary commandments, why didn't Peter mention that? Don't you wonder why didn't God also give a confirmation through any of the other original apostles relative to that vision, that it stood for a revocation of these laws if that is what it meant? If God wanted to make it clear that He was abrogating his dietary laws in that vision, not only would Peter have mentioned it in his recounting of the vision and his interpretation, but the meaning of the vision would have been confirmed through other apostles indpendently as well. As it stands, the ONLY interpretation that is confirmed by the apostles is that it refers solely to Gentiles and their inclusion in the covenant, nothing more. You simply don't have the evidentiary support you need. I realize that a lot of preachers teach that this vision means that God was telling Peter that pork was clean. Even if 1 million preachers say it, that doesn't make it true or valid. Truth is not based upon a majority vote. Nothing is true just because your preacher says it, or because that is the way you were always taught. Truth stands on its own independent of anyone's teachings. I do not believe the dietary commandments are binding, but there are better ways of demonstrating that than with a vision that does not even speak to the issue. The Lord has shown me this: The vision is indeed symbolic, as it it is telling Peter that God is not a respecter of persons, foremost. "Go and include the Gentiles for My people" is what He is saying. The vision does speak to the issue of food, as it is stated that Peter was hungering, and God told Peter three times to eat of the animals. It is not a major emphasis, but neither is it NOT there. God told me we're only supposed to eat ham sandwiches from this same passage of scripture. Which one of us is right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted April 12, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Starting out with a loving post today are we? Of course you would not be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickilynn Posted April 12, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 138 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/13/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2007 Starting out with a loving post today are we? Of course you would not be right. Shalom FA, Yes dear, it IS loving to tell someone the truth in love. That is Scriptural and what we are supposed to do as brothers and sisters in the Body Of Messiah. Ephesians 4 14As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in (D)deceitful scheming; 15but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, 16from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. I'm not saying that I'm right, I'm saying the Scriptures are right, that the point. It is not right privately adding a meaning to what's there. That's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricH Posted April 12, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2007 I do not believe the dietary commandments are binding, but there are better ways of demonstrating that than with a vision that does not even speak to the issue. Folks seem to be ignoring this portion of Shiloh's response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Press Forward Posted April 12, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 186 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/25/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2007 (edited) As I said, the problem lies in your insistence on making the vision literal instead of symbolic. The reason you are incorrect in your mode of interpretation is that it goes contrary to how visions are interpreted and handled in EVERY other part of Scripture. I wonder which part of the following scripture is symbolic. Colossians 2 NIV 16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. 20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. 1 Timothy 4 NIV 1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They 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. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. 6If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. 7Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. 8For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. I'm still confused when they told Peter to get up, kill and eat....what was he suppose to kill....the gentiles? It sounds like some folks on this board follow deceiving spirits according to scripture.. Edited April 12, 2007 by Press Forward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickilynn Posted April 12, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 138 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/13/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2007 I do not believe the dietary commandments are binding, but there are better ways of demonstrating that than with a vision that does not even speak to the issue. Folks seem to be ignoring this portion of Shiloh's response. Shalom Eric, Which part of you referring to, the first part or second? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickilynn Posted April 12, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 138 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/13/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 12, 2007 Press Forward said 16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, etal. Who's judging anyone? I don't see any judgemental comments. It sounds like some folks on this board follow deceiving spirits according to scripture.. Shall I consider this a judgemental statement on your part?? Shalom tmrfiles, Don't let it concern you. It seems that people get very defensive and lash out when they are challenged to think beyond their comfort zone of saying "I don't have to do _________(fill in the blank) because I'm under GRACE now". On this topic, do you abstain from pork only, or other Biblical unclean foods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts