Doctrines of Demons - 1 Tim. 4:1-2

[Dr. Walter]

Three times in Acts 10 Peter is given the "eat cats and rats" command and THREE times Peter says "By NO MEANS LORD for I have NEVER eaten anything unholy or unclean". (Hint -- Jews were NOT chomping at the bit hoping one day to be able to eat rats!).

Peter is making his statement not in rebellion but in an appeal to the Word of God as if this is a test of faithfulness. Affirming his loyalty to the word of God.

Bob you don't care what God's word says do you? Like Satan you call God a liar! God three times COMMANDED Peter to kill and eat and Peter REFUSED to obey the command given him by God and what was God's response to his refusal Bob? Did not God follow his refusal "PETER YOU ARE AN OBEDIENT SERVANT" as you are suggesting??? - No! God rebukes him after each refusal

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.


God condemns for his refusal but Bob interprets as a commendation for faithfulness? I think I will take God's view of his refusal instead of Bobs!

God's rebuke is in perfect keeping with the fact that Paul, a Jew, a Pharisee of Pharisees says"

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

Paul is talking to Timothy and the church at Ephesus that had both Jews and Gentile members and for any Jew to say "EVERY CREATURE OF GOD IS GOOD" followed by "NOTHING is to be refused" is a direct condemnation and repudiation of the Levitical dietary Laws.

Colossians 2:13-16 is a direct repudiation of the whole Ceremonial law. To say "let NO MAN condemn you" for "meat or drink" includes the Jew!

Peter then in Acts 10:17 is "perpexed" not knowing the MEANING of the vision. Hint this is not Peter - eating rats (as much as the gospel-diverting group that wants this whole thing to be about eating rats may be dissappointed by the details of this text!)

Then in vs 28 Peter "Explains" the vision saying that God showed me "not to call any RAT unclean" --oopS!! That is NOT what Peter said the lesson is - rather Peter said that the lesson was "do not call any MAN unclean". So instead of a rat-roast at Cornelius' house we see Gospel EVANGELISM and baptism! How shocking and said for the rat-agenda group.

You cannot spin the scriptures in this manner and be objective and honest with scriptures.

1. Genesis 2-3 - God's law restricted food for man to plants

2. Genesis 9:3 - God changed his dietary law

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Clean and unclean only referred to animals acceptable for sacrifice to God nothing to do with diet.

3. Leviticus 11 - God changed His dietary law again to restrict certain animals with certain characteristics from the menu.

4. Colossians 2:14-16 the cross changes the dietary law back to Genesis 9:3


Your spin will not stand up to scripture. The levitical ceremonial laws were designed to teach moral and practical truths and God simply reveals why God restricted the eating of such animals - they were types of uncirumcised heathens. gentiles. When God cleansed the Gentiles he repudiate the dietary law.

 

[BobRyan]

For those who care about God's Word in Acts 10-11 we have

Three times in Acts 10 Peter is given the "eat cats and rats" command and THREE times Peter says "By NO MEANS LORD for I have NEVER eaten anything unholy or unclean". (Hint -- Jews were NOT chomping at the bit hoping one day to be able to eat rats!).

Peter is making his statement not in rebellion but in an appeal to the Word of God as if this is a test of faithfulness. Affirming his loyalty to the word of God.

Notice the CONTRAST between this case and the Matt 16 case where Peter is MISTAKEN in his affirmation of loyalty. I Matt 16 Peter says "NO Lord may it never be!" Not THREE times - but just ONCE!. And the immediate response is "Get thee behind Me satan". When Peter's actions are in the form of rebellion in the very presence of God - condemnation is immediate!

Peter then in Acts 10:17 is "perpexed" not knowing the MEANING of the vision. Hint this is not Peter - eating rats (as much as the gospel-diverting group that wants this whole thing to be about eating rats may be dissappointed by the details of this text!)

Then in vs 28 Peter "Explains" the vision saying that God showed me "not to call any RAT unclean" --oopS!! That is NOT what Peter said the lesson is - rather Peter said that the lesson was "do not call any MAN unclean". So instead of a rat-roast at Cornelius' house we see Gospel EVANGELISM and baptism! How shocking and said for the rat-agenda group.

Peter RETELLS this story AGAIN in Acts 21 and in 21:8 emphasizes again his point of LOYALTY to the Word of God "No Lord for nothing unholy or unclean has entered my mouth". (Hint: this is the SAME Peter told by Christ in John 6 that he would need to EAT Christ's flesh and drink Christ's blood - and yet instead of BITING CHRIST as the rat-agenda would have it - Peter LISTENS to Christ saying "you have the WORDS of Life").

So true to form - Peter tells the true meaning of the vision AGAIN in Acts 21 "God has granted to the gentiles also the repentance that leads to life". vs 18.

Hmm - again the focus is on evangelism NOT - a rat roast.

And then in Acts 15:7 again Peter states that this was God's command that by Peter's own mouth the gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel.

Hmm - not one single time is the lesson -- a rat roast.

Rat roasts and cannibalism are indeed where one might go who is not accustomed to the symbols used in John 6 and Acts 10. But Peter will not join you in that.

Bob you don't care what God's word says do you? Like Satan you...(obligatory ad hominem deleted here)

Let the Bible student determine which of the two paths above they choose to follow.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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

Paul is talking to Timothy and the church at Ephesus that had both Jews and Gentile members and for any Jew to say "EVERY CREATURE OF GOD IS GOOD" followed by "NOTHING is to be refused" is a direct condemnation and repudiation of the Levitical dietary Laws.

You and DHK have been sooo careful to "lift that text" out of the chapter and avoid vs 5 at all costs.

So we will simply include the scripture IN that you are so anxious to avoid so as to see the context.

Originally Posted by BobRyan
I am always amazed at the proclivity of some to turn a Gospel teaching into nothing more than a complaint about why they are not allowed rat, cat, dog and bat sandwiches that God says are "not food" in Lev 11.

Oh well - to each his own. God has sovereignly chosen to allow each of us the priviledge, responsibility and consequences of free will decisions - no matter how those decisions reach for the cat-sandwich over the word of God.


The text of 1Tim 4 says that that which is approved by the Word of God is to be eaten.


The eisegetical snippet-quote out-of-context bend-and-wrench of the text of scripture you are attempting is more than a little obvious to the objective unbiased Bible student that takes the time to "actually read" the text of scripture you are abusing.

Hint:
"4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;
5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

The Word of God is not as favorable to rat sandwiches as your wild ideas would have the reader believe.

In the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" model - "the Bible matters" and so "sanctified by the word of God" would not mean "Think of Lev 11 as doctrines of demons" -- as it turns out.

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

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

God three times COMMANDED Peter to kill and eat and Peter REFUSED to obey the command given him by God and what was God's response to his refusal Bob? Did God follow each refusal with "PETER YOU ARE AN OBEDIENT SERVANT" as Bob inteprets it? - No! God rebukes him after each refusal

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

God condemns for his refusal but Bob interprets as a commendation for faithfulness? I think I will take God's view of his refusal instead of Bobs!

God's rebuke is in perfect keeping with the fact that Paul, a Jew, a Pharisee of Pharisees says"

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


Paul is talking to Timothy and the church at Ephesus that had both Jews and Gentile members and for any Jew to say "EVERY CREATURE OF GOD IS GOOD" followed by "NOTHING is to be refused" is a direct condemnation and repudiation of the Levitical dietary Laws.

Colossians 2:13-16 is a direct repudiation of the whole Ceremonial law. To say "let NO MAN condemn you" for "meat or drink" includes the Jew!




Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Peter then in Acts 10:17 is "perpexed" not knowing the MEANING of the vision. Hint this is not Peter - eating rats (as much as the gospel-diverting group that wants this whole thing to be about eating rats may be dissappointed by the details of this text!)

Then in vs 28 Peter "Explains" the vision saying that God showed me "not to call any RAT unclean" --oopS!! That is NOT what Peter said the lesson is - rather Peter said that the lesson was "do not call any MAN unclean". So instead of a rat-roast at Cornelius' house we see Gospel EVANGELISM and baptism! How shocking and said for the rat-agenda group. - end quote


You cannot spin the scriptures in this manner and be objective and honest with scriptures.

1. Genesis 2-3 - God's law restricted food for man to plants

2. Genesis 9:3 - God changed his dietary law

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Clean and unclean only referred to animals acceptable for sacrifice to God nothing to do with diet.

3. Leviticus 11 - God changed His dietary law again to restrict certain animals with certain characteristics from the menu.

4. Colossians 2:14-16 the cross changes the dietary law back to Genesis 9:3


Your spin will not stand up to scripture. The levitical ceremonial laws were designed to teach moral and practical truths and God simply reveals why God restricted the eating of such animals - they were types of uncirumcised heathens. gentiles. When God cleansed the Gentiles he repudiate the dietary law.

 

[BobRyan]

1. Genesis 2-3 - God's law restricted food for man to plants

2. Genesis 9:3 - God changed his dietary law

Gen 7 God states that the clean unclean animal distinction exists.

Gen 8 Noah is clearly aware of the clean vs unclean animal distinction. No unclean animal is offerred up to God in sacrifice.

1. There were only TWO of each kind of unclean animal according to Gen 6 and 7 – so eating even one of the pair would be “instant extinction”.
2. God gives the animals AS he gave the green plant. Just as we cannot in real life eat every green plant we see – so we cannot eat every animal.
3. Gen 6:21 God says to take into the ark those foods which are “edible”. It is a fact that taking a bunch of birch trees or poisonous plants into the ark – would have resulted in starvation for many/most animals. You simply cannot eat anything that is green.

At no point has God changed what is clean or unclean -- not even in Gen 9. No mention of clean or unclean as stated in Gen 7 and 8 "changing".

In actual Context -- Moses is the author of both Genesis and Leviticus -- his readers would have had to go to Lev 11 to see the "definition" for the clean-unclean terms in Gen 7.

Your spin will not stand up to scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

THREE times in John 6 Jesus said to "Eat my flesh"

THREE times in Acts 10 Peter is given the eat cats rats dogs command.

In BOTH cases Peter does not "bite".

God three times COMMANDED Peter to kill and eat and Peter REFUSED to obey the command given him by God

And THREE TIMES Peter RETELLS this story - not once does he add "I now eat rat sandwiches"!

Pretty sad for the cannibal and rat-roast agenda guys - I must admit.

But really good news for those interested in the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

God's rebuke is in perfect keeping with the fact that Paul, a Jew, a Pharisee of Pharisees says"

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


Paul is talking to Timothy and the church at Ephesus that had both Jews and Gentile members and for any Jew to say "EVERY CREATURE OF GOD IS GOOD" followed by "NOTHING is to be refused" is a direct condemnation and repudiation of the Levitical dietary Laws.

This is a great clue for the unbiased objective Bible student that your argument is wayy out in left field. Your bible bending not only "lifts vs 4 out of context" to carefully avoid vs 5 - you ALSO "try" to dump "sola scriptura in the trash" entirely by having the oral tradition of Paul in 1Tim 4 declare written scripture in Lev 11 to be "condemned" in your words.

By contrast we have my prior post debunking your "condemn scripture" idea above.

Bob said -

You and DHK have been sooo careful to "lift that text" out of the chapter and avoid vs 5 at all costs.

So we will simply include the scripture IN that you are so anxious to avoid so as to see the context.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
I am always amazed at the proclivity of some to turn a Gospel teaching into nothing more than a complaint about why they are not allowed rat, cat, dog and bat sandwiches that God says are "not food" in Lev 11.

Oh well - to each his own. God has sovereignly chosen to allow each of us the priviledge, responsibility and consequences of free will decisions - no matter how those decisions reach for the cat-sandwich over the word of God.


The text of 1Tim 4 says that that which is approved by the Word of God is to be eaten.


The eisegetical snippet-quote out-of-context bend-and-wrench of the text of scripture you are attempting is more than a little obvious to the objective unbiased Bible student that takes the time to "actually read" the text of scripture you are abusing.

Hint:
"4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;
5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

The Word of God is not as favorable to rat sandwiches as your wild ideas would have the reader believe.

Instead of your "condemn scripture" solution - Paul in 1Tim 4 argues for

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


Which is the very verse you keep trying to avoid as you "lift vs 4" out of context - time after time for all to see.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Gen 7 God states that the clean unclean animal distinction exists.

Gen 8 Noah is clearly aware of the clean vs unclean animal distinction. No unclean animal is offerred up to God in sacrifice.

1. There were only TWO of each kind of unclean animal according to Gen 6 and 7 – so eating even one of the pair would be “instant extinction”.

The only cause for distinguishing between clean and unclean animals during this time was for sacrificial purposes not dietary law. This should be obvious since no animals were edible before Genesis 9:3 and yet God refused the vegetable offering of Cain and accepted the BLOOD sacrifice of Abel. God offered up animals for the skins to clothe Adam and Eve when no animals were not for diet. The clean and unclean animals prior to Genesis 9:3 were distinctions for sacrifice not for eating.

2. God gives the animals AS he gave the green plant. Just as we cannot in real life eat every green plant we see – so we cannot eat every animal.

God never placed restrictions on any plant or any animal for food in Genesis 9:3. Man's choice was the only restriction for either. What man would choose or not choose to eat was up to man.

3. Gen 6:21 God says to take into the ark those foods which are “edible”. It is a fact that taking a bunch of birch trees or poisonous plants into the ark – would have resulted in starvation for many/most animals. You simply cannot eat anything that is green.

IF man wanted to take birch bark to eat that was his choice and he would live or die with the consequences. The edibility was man's choice.

At no point has God changed what is clean or unclean -- not even in Gen 9. No mention of clean or unclean as stated in Gen 7 and 8 "changing".

Why didn't you start in Genesis 3-4 if "at no point has God changed what is clean and unclean"??????

Obviously the purpose for "clean" and "unclean" before Genesis 9 had no application for diet as they as the only thing clean for diet was vegetation! Meat was forbidden and thus regarded as unclean for eating!

You do not accept Gods word in the New Testament just as 1 Tim. 4:1-2 says you wouldn't even though God says through Paul "EVERY CREATURE OF GOD" and "NOTHING TO BE REFUSED" which is totally misleading language when Paul only had to say don't eat "unclean" food!

 

[BobRyan]

Gen 7 God states that the clean unclean animal distinction exists.

Gen 8 Noah is clearly aware of the clean vs unclean animal distinction. No unclean animal is offerred up to God in sacrifice.

1. There were only TWO of each kind of unclean animal according to Gen 6 and 7 – so eating even one of the pair would be “instant extinction”.
2. God gives the animals AS he gave the green plant. Just as we cannot in real life eat every green plant we see – so we cannot eat every animal.
3. Gen 6:21 God says to take into the ark those foods which are “edible”. It is a fact that taking a bunch of birch trees or poisonous plants into the ark – would have resulted in starvation for many/most animals. You simply cannot eat anything that is green.

At no point has God changed what is clean or unclean -- not even in Gen 9. No mention of clean or unclean as stated in Gen 7 and 8 "changing".

In actual Context -- Moses is the author of both Genesis and Leviticus -- his readers would have had to go to Lev 11 to see the "definition" for the clean-unclean terms in Gen 7.

The only cause for distinguishing between clean and unclean animals during this time was for sacrificial purposes not dietary law. This should be obvious since no animals were edible before Genesis 9:3

1. The text does not say anything about which animals are "edible" in Genesis. For the exact list Moses' reader needed to go to Lev 11.

2. The pre-flood people were not reading the book of Moses. I agree that the POST-flood sacrifices indicate consistent with the other books of Moses that only clean animals were sacrificed. I agree with you that we can conclude that the same PRE-flood standard existed for the definition of clean vs unclean and what was valid to sacrifice to God.

3. There is no statement at all before Gen 9 that clean animals were in fact unclean.

So "no change" in clean vs unclean before or after the flood.

It does not matter that God did not want them eating flesh - they still had the clean and unclean animal distinction pre-flood Gen 7 and post flood - Gen 8 -- and the definition for what is clean for the reader of Gen 7 was only available in Lev 11. (Since Moses was the author of both - both were available to the reader).

God never placed restrictions on any plant or any animal for food in Genesis 9:3.

Gen 6:21 shows that God specifically wanted the plants that were actually "food" to be taken on the ark. no huge stash of poisonous plants "Would do"

IF man wanted to take birch bark to eat that was his choice and he would live or die with the consequences. The edibility was man's choice.

God told Noah specifically to take the plants that "were food" that "were edible". Read Gen 6:21.

Why didn't you start in Genesis 3-4 if "at no point has God changed what is clean and unclean"??????

No mention of clean vs unclean in Gen 3 and 4.

However from Gen 7 we may conclude that there was the SAME clean vs unclean animal distinction in Gen 3 and 4 as there is in Lev 11 - so the only definitin we have for what that is - is given in Lev 11.

This is true even if the PURPOSE for the clean is - to know what constitutes a valid sacrifice.

Thus Abel is not offering up pigs or rats to God as burnt offerings.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You do not accept Gods word in the New Testament just as 1 Tim. 4:1-2 says you wouldn't even though God says through Paul "EVERY CREATURE OF GOD" and "NOTHING TO BE REFUSED" which is totally misleading language when Paul only had to say don't eat "unclean" food!

Hmm let me see if I remember the right answer for that one..

It is around here some place... where did I put that one...

Oh yes! Here it is "again" -- Paul specifically mentioned that which is "sanctified by scripture" - in his standard sola-scriptura model of affirming and testing instruction.

Bob said -

You and DHK have been sooo careful to "lift that text" out of the chapter and avoid vs 5 at all costs.

So we will simply include the scripture IN that you are so anxious to avoid so as to see the context.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
I am always amazed at the proclivity of some to turn a Gospel teaching into nothing more than a complaint about why they are not allowed rat, cat, dog and bat sandwiches that God says are "not food" in Lev 11.

Oh well - to each his own. God has sovereignly chosen to allow each of us the priviledge, responsibility and consequences of free will decisions - no matter how those decisions reach for the cat-sandwich over the word of God.


The text of 1Tim 4 says that that which is approved by the Word of God is to be eaten.


The eisegetical snippet-quote out-of-context bend-and-wrench of the text of scripture you are attempting is more than a little obvious to the objective unbiased Bible student that takes the time to "actually read" the text of scripture you are abusing.

Hint:
"4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;
5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

The Word of God is not as favorable to rat sandwiches as your wild ideas would have the reader believe.

 

[Dr. Walter]

1. The text does not say anything about which animals are "edible" in Genesis. For the exact list Moses' reader needed to go to Lev 11.

We are not talking about "the readers" we are talking about the dietary practice of those living between Genesis 2 and Genesis 9! NO animal was "clean" for edible practices because ALL and EVERY animal was forbidden to be eaten between Gensis 2 and Genesis 9. Therefore the designations "clean" and "unclean" before Genesis 9 had nothing to do with dietary law and only could refer to what was "clean" versus "unclean" in regard to use on the sacrificial altar!

It is rediculous to suggest that "clean" prior to Genesis 9 was understood to be animals edible as all animals were regarded as forbidden for consumption purposes.

Your "seared" conscience does not care what God's Word says and God's word says clearly and explicitly:


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

Paul is talking to Timothy and the church at Ephesus that had both Jews and Gentile members and for any Jew to say "EVERY CREATURE OF GOD IS GOOD" followed by "NOTHING is to be refused" is a direct condemnation and repudiation of the Levitical dietary Laws.


15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

 

[Dr. Walter]

THREE times in John 6 Jesus said to "Eat my flesh"

THREE times in Acts 10 Peter is given the eat cats rats dogs command.

In BOTH cases Peter does not "bite".

The fly in your ointment is that each time Peter did not obey God in Acts 10 he was REBUKED by God for disobedience. Each time Peter called such animals unclean God rebuked him for calling them unclean. Peter stopped calling them unclean and went into gentile houses after that and ATE THEIR FOOD until people like you came from Jerusalem and he yeilded to advocates of the dietary law instead of God's Word and once again God rebuked him through Paul.

11 ¶ But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

We know the Judiazers not only condemn EATING with the Gentiles but even entering their homes as they considered their food no kosher as well as their homes and person - all unclean.

Peter finally learned his lesson. You haven't! You are the modern day "circumcision" when it comes to dietary laws of clean and unclean.

 

[BobRyan]

In Matt 16 we see Peter rebuked "get thee behind me Satan".

But in Acts 10 Peter is left confused - wandering what the vision might mean.

And THREE times Peter retells the true meaning. Sans the much expected rat roast.

Peter states that God commanded him to call no MAN unclean - and not once do we see Peter doing it. No rebuke needed. Peter accepted the teaching from God. And still - sad for the rat-agenda guys -- No rat sandwiches.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

In Matt 16 we see Peter rebuked "get thee behind me Satan".

But in Acts 10 Peter is left confused - wandering what the vision might mean.

And THREE times Peter retells the true meaning. Sans the much expected rat roast.

Peter states that God commanded him to call no MAN unclean - and not once do we see Peter doing it. No rebuke needed. Peter accepted the teaching from God. And still - sad for the rat-agenda guys -- No rat sandwiches.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob's words are: "Peter states that God commanded him to call no MAN unclean"

Now Bob, will you please quote the exact chapter and verse that quotes God's words to Peter.

 

[Dr. Walter]

In Matt 16 we see Peter rebuked "get thee behind me Satan".

But in Acts 10 Peter is left confused - wandering what the vision might mean.

Peter was not confused at all! He had been rebuked twice for calling these animals unclean and twice had been told that God has now cleansed them. The fact that He went and ATE in Gentiles homes non-kosher food (Gal. 2) demonstrates he was not confused at all, but intimidated by Judiazers who believed in keeping the ceremonial laws of clean and unclean.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible says --

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.
17 Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate;


But Watler said: "Peter was not confused at all! "


The Bible said: "17 Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, "


but Walter said: "Peter was not confused at all! "

What part of this glaring contrast in the form of exact contradiction of scripture by Walter is supposed to have slipped past the objective unbiased Bible student?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob's words are: "Peter states that God commanded him to call no MAN unclean"

Now Bob, will you please quote the exact chapter and verse that quotes God's words to Peter.

Here is the Word of God - so instructive for the unbiased objective Bible students.

Acts 10
28 And he said to them, ""You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

Wow! no "rat roast" lesson as the inspired take away for that vision!

Three times Christ said "eat my flesh" in John 6
Three times Peter is told to eat rats and cats in Acts 10

Instead of the cannibalism and rat-roast outcome many had hoped for - what we see in both cases is "The Gospel"!

Acts 11:18
""Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life”

Acts 15:
7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ""Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Acts 11
7 ""I also heard a voice saying to me, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat.'
8 ""But I said, "By no means, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
9 ""But a voice from heaven answered a second time, " What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.'
10 ""This happened three times, and everything was drawn back up into the sky.
11 ""And behold, at that moment three men appeared at the house in which we were staying, having been sent to me from Caesarea.
…
18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, ""Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.''

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Bible says --

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.
17 Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate;


But Watler said: "Peter was not confused at all! "


The Bible said: "17 Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, "


but Walter said: "Peter was not confused at all! "

What part of this glaring contrast in the form of exact contradiction of scripture by Walter is supposed to have slipped past the objective unbiased Bible student?

in Christ,

Bob

Peter was not confused at all about what God said. He was not confused that God said to rise and eat. He was not confused that God rebuked him for calling such unclean. He was not confused that God said such has been cleansed.

He was confused about the immediate application God had in mind for this vision.

Soon he was not confused about the immediate as well as overall application as we find him EATING formerly unclean food in the home of Gentiles - thus recognizing God had cleansed what was formerly unclean as well as the people who ate unlcean food. Peter soon connected the vision to both food and people whom Peter had previously consider unclean but now clean.

However, it was people like Bob who came upon Peter eating formerly unclean food with unclean people that caused him to fear and bolt from the revelation God gave him and God rebuked him again through Paul for being intimidated by the "Bob" like legalist:

11 ¶ But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.


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. - Rom. 14:14

Paul was speaking in context of days, food and drink and as a Jew could have never said this if he believed that the Levitical dietary law was still in effect. It is clear that he believed the Levitical dietary law had been abolished (Col. 2:16; 1 Tim. 4:4-5) just like in Peter's vision.

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

Bob can't say "every creature of God is good" or say "NOTHING to be refused"! Bob cannot say "THERE IS NOTHING UNCLEAN"! Bob and his ilk are the very ones that Paul is warning about in 1 Tim. 4:1-2.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Acts 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

1 Tim. 4:5 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
----snip----
The contextual reason given for this prohibition is not the Law of God but rather not to refrain for the sake of being able to witness to LOST Jews:
----snip----

I am very disappointed in you Dr. Walter.

The very strained exegesis you complain and rail against, you yourself have commited...

There is *no* need to comform scripture to prove your point. As there is ample specific scripture for the cause. If only people would listen.

This portion of scripture had a *very* limited and specific reason for being...

Peter explains it as such...

Act 10:28 He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.



Both the Messianics and Seventh Day Adventist, among others, have this restrictive doctrine concerning many of the obsolescent Ceremonial Laws of Clean and Unclean things.

Again, as I have found with a few of those of my own household, once decieved to this practice being a neccesity fear, as opposed to God's Love, compels them to continue the practice no matter what Sound Scriptural Arguman is brought forth.

He who fears is not perfected in Love...

The enemy of our soul brings fear...

satan Condemns without giving recourse, The Holy Spirit Convicts and points to Jesus' Cross and the resultant Grace and Mercy as The Solution.

And, I tire of:

 

[Dr. Walter]

I am very disappointed in you Dr. Walter.

The very strained exegesis you complain and rail against, you yourself have commited...

There is *no* need to comform scripture to prove your point. As there is ample specific scripture for the cause. If only people would listen.

This portion of scripture had a *very* limited and specific reason for being...

Peter explains it as such...

Act 10:28 He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.



Both the Messianics and Seventh Day Adventist, among others, have this restrictive doctrine concerning many of the obsolescent Ceremonial Laws of Clean and Unclean things.

Again, as I have found with a few of those of my own household, once decieved to this practice being a neccesity fear, as opposed to God's Love, compels them to continue the practice no matter what Sound Scriptural Arguman is brought forth.

He who fears is not perfected in Love...

The enemy of our soul brings fear...

satan Condemns without giving recourse, The Holy Spirit Convicts and points to Jesus' Cross and the resultant Grace and Mercy as The Solution.

And, I tire of:

You need to put what Peter said in Acts 10 in the overall context of how Peter applies this altogether with Galatians 2 and you will see that he not only applies it to the Gentiles who were also unclean according to Levitical laws but to the food they ate.

11 ¶ But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

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. - Rom. 14:14


Paul was speaking in context of days, food and drink and as a Jew could have never said this if he believed that the Levitical dietary law was still in effect. It is clear that he believed the Levitical dietary law had been abolished (Col. 2:16; 1 Tim. 4:4-5) just like in Peter's vision.

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

Bob can't say "every creature of God is good" or say "NOTHING to be refused"! Bob cannot say "THERE IS NOTHING UNCLEAN"! Bob and his ilk are the very ones that Paul is warning about in 1 Tim. 4:1-2.