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

[Dr. Walter]

This lame answer of yours was in agreement to Spiritualmadman's response to me. Again, here is his response to me:


But notice that he (as you) avoided my question. The question was, where in the text does God record His exact words to Peter.? SMM did not answer that question in his quote and you agreed with his answer and did not answer it either, and never have. I had to spell it out to you like a little child because of your obstinacy. The only place in the entire account where we have God's exact words quoted are here:

And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
(Acts 10:13)
And here:
And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)

What is this telling us? Since God is not telling Peter to rise and kill the Gentiles, we know that he is telling him to rise and kill unclean animals such as pork, something Peter protested against and refused to do. In fact he did so three times:

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. (Acts 10:14)
This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. (Acts 10:16)
--Three times Peter refused to eat the meat that God had called clean. He disobeyed the command of the Lord. All meat is clean and nothing to be refused. This is the only time the exact words of God are quoted in the passage--the only time. At other times we have Peter's rendition of what the Lord said to him. But here a voice from heaven comes, and his exact words are recorded by Luke, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the author of the book.

Bob, DHK makes an excellent point here. If in addition to God's literal words to Peter, if you look at Peter's later reactions you find his later reactions are in harmony with God's actual words that command him "to eat" and no longer regard such animals "unclean" but to consider them "clean."

1. Acts 10 we find him entering into a Gentile home which previously he regarded as "unlawful" for him to do

2. Gal. 2:12 we find him "EATING" with Gentiles

3. Acts 15 we find him, Paul, James and the whole church failing to include the dietary laws to Gentiles when it was known that Gentiles eat such.

CONCLUSION: Peter's actions after this vision are in OBEDIENCE to God's actual words that command him to "eat" and regard all these animals as now "clean."

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Bob, DHK makes an excellent point here. If in addition to God's literal words to Peter, if you look at Peter's later reactions you find his later reactions are in harmony with God's actual words that command him "to eat" and no longer regard such animals "unclean" but to consider them "clean."

1. Acts 10 we find him entering into a Gentile home which previously he regarded as "unlawful" for him to do

2. Gal. 2:12 we find him "EATING" with Gentiles

3. Acts 15 we find him, Paul, James and the whole church failing to include the dietary laws to Gentiles when it was known that Gentiles eat such.

CONCLUSION: Peter's actions after this vision are in OBEDIENCE to God's actual words that command him to "eat" and regard all these animals as now "clean."

If there was a way to give 'rep points' on this board, both you and DHK would certainly get them from me.

You have thoroughly debunked the Gentile Believers cannot eat foods that were considered unclean pre-cross myth.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

God said --
2Peter 1
"20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God"

Now I know you "could say" that I am wrong to claim that God said that - since it is only inspired scripture and Peter is the one actually writing - not God. But I believe that ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God - which is why I refer to scripture as "The Word of God" and not "The Word of Peter" or David or Moses.

Originally Posted by Dr. Walter

No one is denying that Moses wrote by inspiration! However, the first tablets were written directly by God without Moses. The latter Mosaic legistlation was by the handwriting of Moses. The Mosaic legislation in view here is the ceremonial ordinances found in Leviticus 10-23 or the laws of clean and unclean, the dietary laws, the ceremonial cleansing laws, the feasts, etc. They are no longer MANDATORY or part of the New Testament Covenant and the New house of God.

Hint: Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".

There is no such thing in the NT as "Delete these 14 chapters of scripture and keep the rest".

All such wild imaginings are good fiction for those who choose not to look in much detail at the text and simply seek an excuse for man made traditions - but very poor Bible study.

I never said these chapters were "deleted" from the scriptures as any fool can see they are still in the book of Leviticus.

Endless non-stop ranting as "The solution" to every Bible difficulty for Walter? Does it ever stop?

Your wild "Leviticus 10-23 or the laws of clean and unclean, the dietary laws, the ceremonial cleansing laws, the feasts, etc. They are no longer MANDATORY or part of the New Testament Covenant"

Is making up stuff right out of thin air and the Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" point illustrates that for all the objective unbiased Bible students.

It just does not get any easier than this.

So also the "deletes obedience" fiction below --

Walter -

But the New Testament deletes obedience to the OLD COVENANT and Colosians 2:14 deletes obedience to the ceremonial laws of clean and unclean found in those chapters! The ceremonial laws of clean and unclean have the moral law as their underlying principle

Again - wrong, wrong and "more wrong" answers as in the case of the above - where absolutely nothing of what is said above holds up in either the NT or the OT!

Col 2 was NOT given to "delete obedience" to any portion of the Word of God.

Heb 10 DOES address the point of sacrifices and offerings ended - and thus all ceremonial laws connected to them.

But simply "making stuff up" with Col 2 is not Biblically sound.

Your endless ad hominem and ranting may appeal to some readers here - but I cannot believe that all of them are so easily mislead.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by SpiritualMadMan
I just now went through all my commentaries on this passage of scripture and all of them made the "point" of Peter's Vision the forth-coming visit to Cornelius' House not whether it was lawful to eat certain foods or not.

Act 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
Act 10:18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
Act 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
Act 10:20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

And, Peter's own conclusion to the matter is as follows:

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

I am deeply saddened and disappointed that people I have had the utmost confidence in as regards to scriptural integrity would take a passage so completely out of context to prove a point.

Good point -

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.''

It is only a "good point" if you ignore all the rest of Peter's actions in regard to this issue (Acts 15; Gal. 2).

Wrong.

As I pointed out above - by "paying attention to the details" where Peter HIMSELF in inspired text explains the vision (something you and DHK are anxious to avoid at all costs) we SEE the meaning of the vision is NOT about "rat roasts" but is about "the Gospel going to the Gentiles".

In the same way that John 6 discussion is NOT about cannibalism - but is about the Words of Christ - the Gospel of salvation "being life".

It just does not get any easier than this. No matter SMM (who is inclined to agree with you on the issue of Lev 11) is so disgusted with the Bible-bending antics being used in Acts 10 for your rat-roast emphasis.

Walter

You make a big deal that Peter's statement in Acts 10 that he never violated God's laws but then ignore that he admits he is violating the law that forbid him to enter into the home of a Gentile in Acts 10.

Hint: there is NO LAW in the OT - given by God forbidding Jews to enter the home of a gentile.

The law Peter is reference in Acts 10 is the law of Jewish man-made-tradition - which as Christ said in Mark 7 "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men" is something that was condemned both pre-cross and post-cross.

It just does not get any easier folks.

How can you continually pretend to be befuddled??

There is no such thing as a "gentile foods" law in the OT or a "Don't go to a gentiles home" law in the OT.

Incredibly obvious to the Bible student.

So how in the world are you getting so befuddled on these simple points?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, DHK makes an excellent point here. If in addition to God's literal words to Peter, if you look at Peter's later reactions you find his later reactions are in harmony with God's actual words that command him "to eat" and no longer regard such animals "unclean" but to consider them "clean."

1. Acts 10 we find him entering into a Gentile home which previously he regarded as "unlawful" for him to do

2. Gal. 2:12 we find him "EATING" with Gentiles

3. Acts 15 we find him, Paul, James and the whole church failing to include the dietary laws to Gentiles when it was known that Gentiles eat such.

CONCLUSION: Peter's actions after this vision are in OBEDIENCE to God's actual words that command him to "eat" and regard all these animals as now "clean."

Walter you "set up the statement" AS IF you are about to show us a case where Peter eats rats, or cats or dogs. But INSTEAD of showing what you NEEDED to show - all you show is that "Peter eats with Gentile Christians" - as if that is supposed to mean "eats rats".

Your argument does not hold water.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Walter you "set up the statement" AS IF you are about to show us a case where Peter eats rats, or cats or dogs. But INSTEAD of showing what you NEEDED to show - all you show is that "Peter eats with Gentile Christians" - as if that is supposed to mean "eats rats".

Your argument does not hold water.

in Christ,

Bob

1. He eats Gentile foods.
2. God told him all food was clean and nothing to be refused.
3. He was commanded by God to rise and eat, even though he had never eaten unclean food before.
4. The vision was not simply to show Peter that he should go to the "unclean" people or Gentiles, but also that he can and should eat with "unclean" people and eat their "unclean" food. For God has declared both clean. And Peter should not call either unclean.
5. Paul reiterates the same thing in 1Tim.4, where he states that all meat is clean and nothing is to be refused.
6. In other Scripture Paul also says: "Whatsoever is set before you that eat, asking no questions for conscience sake."

Taking the above Scripture and facts into consideration your position is quite untenable.

 

[BobRyan]

1. He was told to "eat Christ's flesh" in John 6. But he knew this was symbolic - of teaching - of the Gospel.
2. He was told not to eat the leaven of the pharisees in Matt 16 - and was later informed that this referred to the teaching of the pharisees not to literal leaven.
3. He was told to eat rats in Acts 10 -- and then explained THREE TIMEs (for those slow to get the point) that this was about "Calling no man unclean".
4. In the "Eat whatsoever is set before you and ask no questions" text of the NT the point is made explicitly that the "question" or the "information" that is missing is "whether the meat was offerred to an idol" such that IF they do include that information then -- DO NOT eat it. (The key portion of the text DHK carefully avoids when referencing it)

5. At no point in all of scripture has "going to a gentile home" been taken to imply that anyone going there must literally eat rats.

The point is obvious.

The point remains. All the silly rabbit trailing to get around it not withstanding a careful review of the text of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Acts 15:28-29 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

I find James' letter to the Gentile Believers to be the most telling concerning what Gentiles were allowed to eat.

James reveals that it was not just good to he and the other Apostles, but it was also good to the Holy Ghost that no greater burden concerning the dietary laws be laid upon the Gentiles other than that they abstain from blood and from things strangled.

Had the Holy Ghost been wrong? Jesus said in John's Gospel that the Holy Ghost would guide into all truth, and here we see that the Holy Ghost was not wanting the Gentile Believers to be held to the dietary laws of the Mosaic Law.

James did not put a provender in his letter saying 'no greater burden for now,' No such provender at all. And if we continue reading the Word of God, there is no demand laid upon the Gentile Believers to begin following the dietary laws prescribed in Leviticus or any other book in the Torah.

DHK and Dr Walter are spot on... Gentile Believers can eat any food as long as they receive it with thanksgiving and they pray over it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Walter you "set up the statement" AS IF you are about to show us a case where Peter eats rats, or cats or dogs. But INSTEAD of showing what you NEEDED to show - all you show is that "Peter eats with Gentile Christians" - as if that is supposed to mean "eats rats".

Your argument does not hold water.

in Christ,

Bob

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.

1. Paul does not say Peter merely entered the Gentile house but actuallly did "eat" with the Gentiles.

2. The circumcision believed in the dietary laws of Moses and it is the circumcision that Peter was "fearing" in regard to EATING Gentile food.

3. There are many foods eaten by Gentiles that the circumcision would regard as "unclean" without it being "rats"

4. You go to the extreme of "rats" because you lack any objectivity and capability to deal with scriptures that oppose your position.

5. You cannot deny that AFTER Peter saw the vision he did things that he admitted formerly were unlawlful for him to do in regard to ceremonial uncleaness or the laws of clean and unclean due to the actual words God said to him:

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.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.


Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Gal. 2:12For 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

God actually told him to "eat" things that were formerly regarded unclean for a Jew to eat and actually told him to no longer call "unclean" what God hath cleansed and Peter from that point forward did things that formerly he would never have done but now does because of those precise words.

You have a "seared conscience" and no amount of Biblical evidence will make any dent in your thinking. That is why you lack complete objectivity and honesty with the scriptures.

 

[Dr. Walter]

3. He was told to eat rats in Acts 10 -- and then explained THREE TIMEs (for those slow to get the point) that this was about "Calling no man unclean".

Bob do you know the difference between the word "said" and the word "shewed"?

The text explicitly says what God said and the words are right there and it is those words that are repeated three times.

God neither "said" or "explained" to Peter that this vision meant "calling no man unclean."

If God had "explained THREE TIMES" this was about "calling no man unclean" then explain why AFTER the vision Peter was still in the dark about the meaning of this vision?

Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,

19 ¶ While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

Second, the vision says nothing about "rats" but all "creeping things" so why do you choose to select "rats"? There are many meats the Gentiles could eat other than "rats" - pork for instance, like most Americans eat!

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 15:28-29 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

I find James' letter to the Gentile Believers to be the most telling concerning what Gentiles were allowed to eat.

Acts 15 does not bring up any dispute at all about what Gentiles or Jews eat - except to point out that they were not to eat meat offerred to idols or to violate the Levitcal laws regarding the eating of meat with blood.

Acts 15 also does not deal with the issue of God creating the world in a real 7 day week or loving God as yourself as Deut 6:5 says or loving your Neighbor as yourself as Lev 19:18 says. None of these OT points were under dispute.

Neither is there an "eating rats--- good? or bad?" question being raised in Acts 15.

The question is Acts 15 is stated in Acts 15:1-2 clearly --

1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ""Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.''

2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

Trying to insert the issue of whether it is ok to eat rats into Acts 15 is an extreme wrenching of the text.

In Acts 15 James argues the point that the Jews and the Gentiles are hearing the OT text of scripture every Sabbath in the Sanctuary - (as we see in Acts 13 - with both Christian and non-Christian Jews and Gentiles -- all in the Synagogue Sabbath after Sabbath.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
Bob, DHK makes an excellent point here. If in addition to God's literal words to Peter, if you look at Peter's later reactions you find his later reactions are in harmony with God's actual words that command him "to eat" and no longer regard such animals "unclean" but to consider them "clean."

1. Acts 10 we find him entering into a Gentile home which previously he regarded as "unlawful" for him to do

2. Gal. 2:12 we find him "EATING" with Gentiles

3. Acts 15 we find him, Paul, James and the whole church failing to include the dietary laws to Gentiles when it was known that Gentiles eat such.

CONCLUSION: Peter's actions after this vision are in OBEDIENCE to God's actual words that command him to "eat" and regard all these animals as now "clean."

Walter you "set up the statement" AS IF you are about to show us a case where Peter eats rats, or cats or dogs. But INSTEAD of showing what you NEEDED to show - all you show is that "Peter eats with Gentile Christians" - as if that is supposed to mean "eats rats".

Your argument does not hold water.

Gal 2 -- 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.

1. Paul does not say Peter merely entered the Gentile house but actuallly did "eat" with the Gentiles.

Indeed. You have translated "eats WITH Gentiles" into "eats rats". An extreme abuse of the text of scripture for which you apparently have no excuse.

Meanwhile in Acts 10 Peter states clearly that not once has he engaged in the rat-roast that you so fictionalize.

Walter
2. The circumcision believed in the dietary laws of Moses and it is the circumcision that Peter was "fearing" in regard to EATING Gentile food.

Pure eisegesis on your part. You might as well insert "circumcision believed that God created the world in 7 days". You are trying to insert the idea that the Gentiles are eating rats - when the text says no such thing!

The careful Bible student "will notice" such a glaring blunder in your eisegesis. You need to at least try to make it look good.

Walter said
5. You cannot deny that AFTER Peter saw the vision he did things that he admitted formerly were unlawlful for him to do in regard to ceremonial uncleaness or the laws of clean and unclean due to the actual words God said to him:

Wrong again. The law spoken of in Acts 10:28 is the one mentioned in Mark 7 - where Commands and laws were being "invented" by the Jews -- even before the Cross. (Something even you yourself are prone to do as it turns out). You know this is true as you have no

In fact the Samaritan woman in John 4 mentions this same violation of man-made law of the Jews to Christ.

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.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.


Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

The law spoken of in Acts 10:28 is the one mentioned in Mark 7 - where Commands and laws were being "invented" by the Jews -- even before the Cross. (Something even you yourself are prone to do as it turns out). You know this is true as you have no text at all from God's Word saying that it is not lawful to keep company with a gentile or come into their house. You simply hope that your own readers will be too busy to stop and notice what you are doing.

You are so centered on ad hominem and ranting that you are losing the Bible points being covered in the discussion.

Here is what Peter himself says about the teaching in Acts 10 --

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.''



in Christ,


Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Indeed. You have translated "eats WITH Gentiles" into "eats rats". An extreme abuse of the text of scripture for which you apparently have no excuse.

After a while I just feel sorry for someone who has been so thoroughly proven wrong that all they can do is repeat their errors like a parrot hoping everyone has a short memory! This is the case with bob! Notice again, he insists that "rats" are the only possible item on the Gentile meal ticket that can be regarded as unclean. That is how desparate Bob is that he cannot even respond rationally and objectively. Indeed, rats have been eaten as the only obtainable staple to keep people alive in many instances in history. However, "rats" have never been a staple food in Antioch or the near East. However, Gentiles there would eat "pork" and many of the foods listed in Leviticus 11 that either did not have cloven hoofs but chewed the cud or had cloven hoofs but did not chew the cud or the great variety of other foods listed there besides "rats." However, this simply shows how desparate Bob's defense is! Notice throughout bob's whole response his position is so weak that he has only one response and it is "rats."

Pure eisegesis on your part. You might as well insert "circumcision believed that God created the world in 7 days". You are trying to insert the idea that the Gentiles are eating rats - when the text says no such thing!

This is such an irrational and foolish response by Bob that it hardly deserves to be answered. Common sense is sufficient to see that Bob does not know what he is talking about. Common sense will point out what Peter was doing - he was EATING with Gentiles! Common sense will point out what was his reaction when those Paul calls the "circumcision" caught him EATING with the Gentiles - he stopped eating with them and withdrew from the Gentiles. Common sense should tell Bob that this reaction to "circumcision" had to do with the laws of clean and unclean held by the circumcision which Peter previously held to and confessed that what he did at the house of Corneilius was "unlawful."

Here is indisputable proof that Bob's mind has been "seared" by the false doctrines of demons to the point he cannot even exercise common sense! The very term "circumcision" is meaningless apart from the Ceremonial laws of clean and unclean! The reaction of Peter to the "circumcision" to anyone with a bit of common sense had to do with what he was doing and who he was with - both of which were condemned by the circumcision as Peter admits himself in Acts 10!

Walter said
5. You cannot deny that AFTER Peter saw the vision he did things that he admitted formerly were unlawlful for him to do in regard to ceremonial uncleaness or the laws of clean and unclean due to the actual words God said to him:

Wrong again. The law spoken of in Acts 10:28 is the one mentioned in Mark 7 - where Commands and laws were being "invented" by the Jews -- even before the Cross. (Something even you yourself are prone to do as it turns out). You know this is true as you have no

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."

What? Is not Bob's own interpretation of the vision that the previous unclean animals where types given by God to dipict the Gentiles as unclean and thus to be separated from by the Jews but now made clean and therefore now can be treated as clean????? If that is what God "hath shown me" then how can Bob say the former part of this verse is man made tradition when it corresponds perfectly with such unclean animals representing gentiles??????

So which Bob do we believe? The Bob that argues that the real message behind unclean animals is separation from Gentiles or the new Bob's interpretation that such an intent as previously perceived by Jews was merely traditions of men and not God's intent behind this law????????

Bob disproves Bob! All the rest of his argument is based upon this contradiction with himself.

Peter acknowledged that he never ate such unclean animals before (Acts 10:12-13). He acknowledged that he never went into the homes of Gentiles much less eat with them before (Acts 10:28).

However, after this vision, Peter refused to demand that Gentiles abide by dietary laws (Acts 15) when Peter, Paul, James and the whole church at Jerusalem knew very well the diet of Gentiles.

However, after this vision, Peter not only went into gentile homes but did "EAT" with them (Gal. 2:12) and it was not necessary "rats" but many edible items that could be listed in Levitius 11 that were well known staples in all Gentile homes in that time and that is exactly why "the circumcision" did not enter their homes or "eat" with them.

Paul directly addressing both Jews and Gentiles in regard to their diets says "NOTHING is unclean of itself" (Rom. 14:15) and yet the doctrine of demons is there remains dietary laws of clean and unclean that both Jews and Gentiles must abide by! This is the doctrine of demons and those with "seared minds" are the ONLY onese teaching these doctrines.


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.[/COLOR].[/SIZE]

 

[BobRyan]

The reaction of Peter to the "circumcision" to anyone with a bit of common sense had to do with what he was doing and who he was with - both of which were condemned by the circumcision as Peter admits himself in 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."

Hint - there is NT Law against entering the house of a gentile and Walter knows it. He simply seeks an excuse for bending the text.

The Law that Peter mentioned to Cornelius - that Cornelius himself was well aware of -- is the law of Jewish man-made tradition that Christ himself complained about pre-cross.

No Wonder Christ said in Mark 7 --

7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

The rat-roast agenda that many seek to strain from Acts 10 in wild efforts to avoid the lesson Peter himself states as the real GOSPEL lesson, is hung on the idea of making man-made tradition "into scripture" regarding the law of entering a gentile home.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.''

 

[BobRyan]

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

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.''


Three times Peter explains that in the Acts 10 vision he was being instructed by God to "Call no man unlcean" -- and 3 times in Acts 10 Peter is told to "kill and eat".

The First time --

48 "" I am the bread of life.
49 "" Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 ""This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51 "" I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.''

52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, ""How can this man give us His flesh to eat?'


The Second time --

53 So Jesus said to them, ""Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

The Third time --
55 ""For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
56 ""He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.



And only once does Christ say "My words are Life" in that Chapter - showing the true meaning of the symbol. Yet in Acts 10-11, and 15 we are told THREE times the meaning.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Hint - there is NT Law against entering the house of a gentile and Walter knows it. He simply seeks an excuse for bending the text.

You miss the point! In Peter's mind it was "unlawful" to have such social intercourse with Gentiles and nothing is more intimate than making house visits and prior to that vision he did not enter into the homes of Gentiles. However, as a result of that vision, he understood that this vision permitted him to do what formerly he believed he was not permitted to do.


Leviticus 20:25-26 says, "Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean; and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto Me; for I, the LORD, am holy, and have separated you from other people, that ye should be Mine.

However, the spirit of the Old Testament laws of clean and unclean supported Peter's previous view of Gentiles and intimate social contact. . There is no greater intimiate social contact than coming into anothers home and eating. Gentiles and their lands were explicitly stated to be "defiled" by God (Ezek. 9:11). They were commanded not to marry Gentiles and marriage could not happen except first there was exactly this kind of social intercourse between Jews and Gentiles. Also, houses were condemned as "unclean" if they had been defiled by plagues (Lev. 14). Anyone uncircumcised was considered unclean. Gentiles were regarded as unclean and therefore their homes would have necessarily been regarded as unclean.

The fact is, that Peter did things after the vision that formerly he would never have done by his own admission and he attibutes this change directly to the vision. (1) Enter the homes of Gentiles "but God hath shewed me"- Acts 10:28; (2) Eat with Gentiles (Gal. 2:12). (3) Omit dietary laws for obedience by Gentiles (Acts 21:25). He agreed with Paul that such ceremonial laws of clean and unclean, in which circumcision arises, were abolished by the cross - Acts 15: 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

 

[DHK]

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.''


Three times Peter explains that in the Acts 10 vision he was being instructed by God to "Call no man unlcean" -- and 3 times in Acts 10 Peter is told to "kill and eat".
.....
Bob

You are good up to here in your post Bob, but then you digress to another part of the Bible which has nothing to do with this passage of Scripture.

Let's review again. Three times Peter was told to arise and eat.
Arise and eat what? Arise and eat that which was unclean; that which he had never eaten before.
Peter's objection was that he had never eaten anything unclean before.
Three times the command came with the stern rebuke Do not call unclean that which I have cleansed.
This statement was in direct reference to food. It referred to the cats, dog, swine, etc., that was right in front of Peter.

Then some Gentiles come knocking at his door. Peter realizes by application of the vision that he is now to go with these Gentiles to the Gentiles and preach the gospel to a certain gentile man, named Cornelius.
But first he must not only enter into his house, he must also eat with him. That would be eating Gentile food, the same food that he saw in the vision. Gentiles had no Jewish dietary restrictions. This is Acts 10, not chapter 15. He had to eat that which was set before him. Why?
1. The Lord told him to. He was commanded through the vision that all animals were clean and nothing was to be refused.
2. He was also taught that it was not wrong to enter, associate, and eat with the unsaved Gentile.

Thus we conclude that Peter was eating food that was outside of the restricted Levitical diet of Lev.11.

I don't know how you survive in this world, Bob, without being an offense to others. Refusing to eat whatever is set before you is an offense to others. It is an insult not to eat what is on the menu, what your host has prepared for you. What did Paul say?

If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. (1 Corinthians 10:27)

Do you travel? Or do you just stay at home to avoid "sticky" situations.
What if you were here:

In some parts of Asia, newborn mice and rats — sometimes called "pinkies" — are eaten whole, either crispy fried or grilled, such as the way author Jerry Hopkins samples them in his 2004 book Extreme Cuisine (Periplus Editions). Hopkins had them like spring rolls: with a traditional Vietnamese dipping sauce of ginger, garlic, chilies, cilantro, fish sauce, and rice vinegar.

http://ca.delish.com/food-fun/scary-food?click=main_sr

There is also a picture at the above link. (slide #3)
And if you are visiting, and they are set before you, what is the attitude you are to have as a Christian?

 

[Dr. Walter]

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"!

Soooo, you believe that the Gospel is God's design behind the dietary law just as the gospel is behind eating Christ's flesh and drinking Christ's blood. Both symbolize the Gospel????

There is one fly in your ointment! John 6 is directly applied to the actual person of Christ and the immediate context does clearly and explicitly identify eating and drinking with coming and believing in Christ (Jn. 6:35,47-48), however, eating the unclean animals in Acts 10 is directly applied to the persons of Gentiles and not to the person of Christ according to Peter:

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Acts 10:34 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Tell me, when was the gospel or the person of Christ "unclean" where God had to "cleanse" the gospel or the person of Christ?????????

Obviously, the unclean animals do not represent Christ or the gospel but were types of the Gentiles. Indeed the ceremonial dietary laws of clean and unclean are directly applied to separation from the Gentiles in the book of Leviticus as such were to be considered defiled or unclean:

Leviticus 20:25-26 says,

["Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean; and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto Me; for I, the LORD, am holy, and have separated you from other people, that ye should be Mine.

Note that the separation from clean and unclean animals is placed on the same level as separation from "other people"! The only "other people" outside of Jews are Gentiles! This statement is also the Biblical basis for what Peter said was "unlawlful" in Acts 10:28.

God had to first cleanse the actual animals formerly considered "unclean" before He could command Peter to associate with what those animals ceremonially represented. Peters actions demonstrated that he regarded both the animals now cleansed and edible as well as the Gentiles now appropriate for association when cleansed by God's Word.

 

[BobRyan]

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.''


Three times Peter explains that in the Acts 10 vision he was being instructed by God to "Call no man unlcean" -- and 3 times in Acts 10 Peter is told to "kill and eat".

The First time --

48 "" I am the bread of life.
49 "" Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 ""This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51 "" I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.''

52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, ""How can this man give us His flesh to eat?'


The Second time --

53 So Jesus said to them, ""Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

The Third time --
55 ""For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
56 ""He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.



And only once does Christ say "My words are Life" in that Chapter - showing the true meaning of the symbol. Yet in Acts 10-11, and 15 we are told THREE times the meaning (regarding the Gospel going to the gentiles).

Soooo, you believe that the Gospel is God's design behind the dietary law just as the gospel is behind eating Christ's flesh and drinking Christ's blood. Both symbolize the Gospel????

In Matt 16 yeast represents the teaching of the pharisees.

In 1Cor 5 yeast represents sin in the church.

In John 6 eating Christ's flesh represents accepting His teaching.

in Acts 10 the command to eat rats - is stated by PETER to mean "Call no MAN unclean" -- THREE times!

No biting Jesus in John 6 and no eating rats in Acts 10

It does not get any easier than this for the actual objective unbiased Bible student.

in Christ,

Bob