Which Abominations are OK?

[DamianWarS]

they don’t understand that God was teaching Peter a lesson about his incorrect understanding about rejecting the clean animals on the sheet, which was also indicative of him rejecting the Gentiles who were coming into the sheep fold of Israel.

Peter called the clean animals on the sheet “common”, and rejected them - this was because of the oral law(traditions of the fathers, now called Talmud)

They would not eat clean animals that had been around unclean animals in Peter’s day.

that is why God said “what God has cleansed, do not call COMMON”.

there is a difference between common and unclean, which is why Peter used 2 different words.

the clean animals represent God’s people

the unclean animals represent pagans

Peter was rejecting clean animals on the sheet, and he was also following manmade commandments about not hanging out with, or receiving Gentiles

this was his response when he understood the vision

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.

Peter was correct to reject the unclean animals on the sheet - he was in error to reject the clean(the ones he called common) animals. This was a vision to teach him a lesson on his misunderstanding for 2 areas.

Everything on the sheet is clean (Israel) and implicitly everything not on the sheet is unclean. So if a pig or a lobster are on the sheet they are clean and if a sheep is not on the sheet it is not clean. This doesn't declare that pigs and lobsters are universally clean but it also doesn't declare that sheep are universally clean it simply says that everything on the sheet is declared clean. The biggest revelation this exposes is God gets to declare whats clean not a predefined list.

we see something similar on the ark. although clean animals get a preference (7 of each kind) unclean animals are also rescued (2 of each kind) and there is a greater diversity among unclean animals than clean so I don't think clean outnumbered the unclean. The ark foreshadows salvation and baptism and has parallels to Peter's dream here with the ark acting as the sheet. but there are also many clean and unclean alike that were not on the ark so it wasn't good enough that an animal was "clean" or it wasn't bad enough that an animal was considered "unclean" all were represented on the ark and all were also represented off the ark.

 

[HARK!]

Again you can't have it both ways.

You can't have it both ways. Peter rejected what was on the sheet three times; and he accepted three Gentiles coming to Messiah.

 

[HARK!]

apparently divine revelation is speculation now. Who said anything about pass away anyway? Something fulfilled doesn't loose it's meaning it completes it's meaning.

My Bible doesn't say fulfill. I use a literal translation.


(CLV) Mt 5:18
For verily, I am saying to you, Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring.

You have to dig deep to come up with fulfill.

1. to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
   
   
2. to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
   1. of events
3. to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
   1. of men appearing in public
4. to be made, finished
   1. of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5. to become, be made

G1096 - ginomai - Strong's Greek Lexicon (KJV)

Here is another statement that Yahshua made about the law:


(CLV) Lk 16:17
Yet it is easier for heaven and earth to pass by than for one serif of the law to fall.

It's interesting that my Bible does use the word fulfill in this verse:

(CLV) Ro 8:4
that the just requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who are not walking in accord with flesh, but in accord with spirit.

It's altogether a different Greek word.


πληρωθη
plErOthE
FILL cause, FILL, fulFILL, fill full, complete
G4137

 

[HARK!]

I'm not sure what your trying to be, but I don't understand your references about "James and his boys".

King James' boys translated the different Hebrew words to the same English word. My Bible translates them to two different English words; but when I take those words to the dictionary; they are both defined with same and similar words. You brought up the difference. Would you care to explain to us why this difference is relevant? Apparently all the Kings horses, and all of the kings men, didn't understand the relevance. I don't understand the difference; and the difference is at the bulls eye of the purpose of this thread. Please share.

 

[HARK!]

I am referring to its instruction and meaning not it's physical presence. Just like the law is not a thing we stare at, it is instruction to live by so is the dream, the dream itself is law as they mirror each other. We may write down law and dreams and turn it into "things" but we miss the point if that's all we care about.

Again, three times Peter refused to break the law. This is significant. When the three Gentiles who were coming to messiah, knocked on his door, Peter obviously didn't miss the point of the dream. Later when he was talking about the event; he reiterated that he held fast to the law.

 

[DamianWarS]

You can't have it both ways. Peter rejected what was on the sheet three times; and he accepted three Gentiles coming to Messiah.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, Peter was also corrected 3 times.

My Bible doesn't say fulfill. I use a literal translation.

perhaps you should read 5:17 then

King James' boys translated the different Hebrew words to the same English word. My Bible translates them to two different English words; but when I take those words to the dictionary; they are both defined with same and similar words. You brought up the difference. Would you care to explain to us why this difference is relevant? Apparently all the Kings horses, and all of the kings men, didn't understand the relevance. I don't understand the difference; and the difference is at the bulls eye of the purpose of this thread. Please share.

they are relevant because you are deliberately using a version that makes them the same even when this version has historically not been your preference. it feels cherry-picked simply because it better supports your argument and lacks transparency which then makes it feel agenda motivated not what the actual text says.

Again, three times Peter refused to break the law. This is significant. When the three Gentiles who were coming to messiah, knocked on his door, Peter obviously didn't miss the point of the dream. Later when he was talking about the event; he reiterated that he held fast to the law.

3 is a special number with Peter and it is often used for correction with him. I don't see why in this case it better supports your view

 

[Hammster]

I wonder why Peter withdrew from the Gentiles when the Judaisers showed up.

Hmmm

 

[HARK!]

perhaps you should read 5:17 then

Let's do that.

(CLV) Mt 5:17
"You should not |infer that I came to demolish the law or the prophets. I came not to demolish, but to fulfill.

Yes, you are correct. This is a different word than is used in the next verse. ave all of the prophecies been fulfilled? No.

Paul said that the law is to be fulfilled in us:

(CLV) Ro 8:4
that the just requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who are not walking in accord with flesh, but in accord with spirit.

Shortly before Yahshua ascended, one of the last things that he made clear, is that the law and the prophets had not been fulfilled.

(CLV) Lk 24:44
Now He said to them, "These are My words, which I speak to you, still being with you, for all must be fulfilled that is written in the law of Moses and the prophets and psalms concerning Me."



(CLV) Mt 5:18
For verily, I am saying to you, Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring.

He says essentially the same thing here, in case there is any confusion:


(CLV) Lk 16:17
Yet it is easier for heaven and earth to pass by than for one serif of the law to fall.


(CLV) Mt 5:19
"Whosoever, then, should be annulling one of the least of these precepts, and should be teaching men thus, the least in the kingdom of the heavens shall he be called. Yet whoever should be doing and teaching them, he/ shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.

Do we annul any precepts of the law? Do we teach others to annul them? No.

(CLV) Mt 5:20
For I am saying to you that, if ever your righteousness should not be superabounding more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, by no means may you be entering into the kingdom of the heavens.

What is righteousness?

Definition of righteous

1 : acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin
Definition of RIGHTEOUS

 

[Junia]

YHWH hasn't called Israel into the land. We are in exile. Otherwise I would be there.

Not all Jews have returned yet. Somae are returning though, mostly from the Ukraine, Russia and surrounding areas (I believe this may be the Land of the North that is referref to inend times prophecy but am not 100% sure). But Jews have been scattered all over the globe, and so many still have to return from the four corners of the earth. Some Jews from Ethiopia also are returning to Israel. as the end times play out, more will come.

 

[HARK!]

Not all Jews have returned yet. Somae are returning though, mostly from the Ukraine, Russia and surrounding areas (I believe this may be the Land of the North that is referref to inend times prophecy but am not 100% sure). But Jews have been scattered all over the globe, and so many still have to return from the four corners of the earth. Some Jews from Ethiopia also are returning to Israel. as the end times play out, more will come.

Did you watch the video? It a summary of an extensive series I was watching. These guys dig deep into scripture, history, and ancient maps, to make their case; but they're not the only ones who have come to the conclusion that YHWH's people are still in exile.

The Rabbis Speak Out

 

[DamianWarS]

Let's do that.

(CLV) Mt 5:17
"You should not |infer that I came to demolish the law or the prophets. I came not to demolish, but to fulfill.

Yes, you are correct. This is a different word than is used in the next verse. ave all of the prophecies been fulfilled? No.

Paul said that the law is to be fulfilled in us:

(CLV) Ro 8:4
that the just requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who are not walking in accord with flesh, but in accord with spirit.

Shortly before Yahshua ascended, one of the last things that he made clear, is that the law and the prophets had not been fulfilled.

(CLV) Lk 24:44
Now He said to them, "These are My words, which I speak to you, still being with you, for all must be fulfilled that is written in the law of Moses and the prophets and psalms concerning Me."



(CLV) Mt 5:18
For verily, I am saying to you, Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring.

He says essentially the same thing here, in case there is any confusion:


(CLV) Lk 16:17
Yet it is easier for heaven and earth to pass by than for one serif of the law to fall.


(CLV) Mt 5:19
"Whosoever, then, should be annulling one of the least of these precepts, and should be teaching men thus, the least in the kingdom of the heavens shall he be called. Yet whoever should be doing and teaching them, he/ shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.

Do we annul any precepts of the law? Do we teach others to annul them? No.

(CLV) Mt 5:20
For I am saying to you that, if ever your righteousness should not be superabounding more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, by no means may you be entering into the kingdom of the heavens.

What is righteousness?

Definition of righteous

1 : acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin
Definition of RIGHTEOUS

I never stated the law has passed away or is abolished so please don't force that language in my responses. Clearly Christ did fulfill even if you don't accept the entirety of the law and here we have an explicit example of this happening so why reject it? BTW - so nice to see you embracing the CLV again.

 

[HARK!]

they are relevant because you are deliberately using a version that makes them the same even when this version has historically not been your preference. it feels cherry-picked simply because it better supports your argument and lacks transparency which then makes it feel agenda motivated not what the actual text says.

I see. So it's a personal matter, based on feelings; and it has nothing to do with what YHWH is attempting to convey?

Is that why you won't explain the difference to us?

Because you don't know the difference either?

 

[HARK!]

Clearly Christ did fulfill even if you don't accept the entirety of the law and here we have an explicit example of this happening so why reject it?

Reject it? I sustain it; that I might fulfill it.

(CLV) Ro 3:31
Are we, then, nullifying law through faith? May it not be coming to that! Nay, we are sustaining law.

(CLV) Ro 8:4
that the just requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who are not walking in accord with flesh, but in accord with spirit.

(CLV) 1Co 11:1
Become imitators of me, according as I also am of Christ.

 

[nolidad]

This verse has nothing to do with eel. It has to do with the traditions of men and washing hands before eating bread.

This has everything to do with eating anything! Nothing (repeat NOTHING) that goes into a man will defile a man! So the dietary laws God established with Moses are null! Remember before God gave Moses the 613 Commandments there was no dietary restrictions except blood!

Genesis 9 King James Version (KJV)
9 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

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

4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Eating a pork chop is an abomination according to our creator. Some random guy on the internet doesn't trump my creators word.

So you are saying that James okayed all Gentiles to commit abominations? For the Jerusalem counsel never prohibited pork or any of the dietary laws Moses was given to the gentiles!

I guess also God said it was okay for every one from Noah to Moses to commit abomination in his sight when he okayed all living things to eat!

And yes the verse I used from all three synoptics say the same thing- nothing you put in your mouth will defile you, for it goes into the belly and out the draught! You are in error as to what Jesus was referring to!

 

[Dkh587]

Everything on the sheet is clean (Israel) and implicitly everything not on the sheet is unclean. So if a pig or a lobster are on the sheet they are clean and if a sheep is not on the sheet it is not clean. This doesn't declare that pigs and lobsters are universally clean but it also doesn't declare that sheep are universally clean it simply says that everything on the sheet is declared clean. The biggest revelation this exposes is God gets to declare whats clean not a predefined list.

we see something similar on the ark. although clean animals get a preference (7 of each kind) unclean animals are also rescued (2 of each kind) and there is a greater diversity among unclean animals than clean so I don't think clean outnumbered the unclean. The ark foreshadows salvation and baptism and has parallels to Peter's dream here with the ark acting as the sheet. but there are also many clean and unclean alike that were not on the ark so it wasn't good enough that an animal was "clean" or it wasn't bad enough that an animal was considered "unclean" all were represented on the ark and all were also represented off the ark.

You don’t seem to understand the difference between common & unclean?

All the animals on the sheet were not clean, hence Peter distinguishing between the 2 groups of animals on the sheet.

 

[HARK!]

This has everything to do with eating anything! Nothing (repeat NOTHING) that goes into a man will defile a man! So the dietary laws God established with Moses are null! Remember before God gave Moses the 613 Commandments there was no dietary restrictions except blood!

You're contradicting yourself; or do you consider blood nothing? Adam was a vegetarian. Noah was granted permission to eat insects, after the flood. You might want to look up the definition of the word in the manuscripts, instead of the word used in your corrupted translation, before you attempt to refute this.

They're talking about eating bread with dirty hands, not about cannibalism, blood, and strangled animals. We shalt not drink the Jim Jones Kool-aid. Despite what Satan might tell us; we will die.

 

[Dkh587]

This has everything to do with eating anything! Nothing (repeat NOTHING) that goes into a man will defile a man! So the dietary laws God established with Moses are null! Remember before God gave Moses the 613 Commandments there was no dietary restrictions except blood!

Genesis 9 King James Version (KJV)
9 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

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

4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.



So you are saying that James okayed all Gentiles to commit abominations? For the Jerusalem counsel never prohibited pork or any of the dietary laws Moses was given to the gentiles!

I guess also God said it was okay for every one from Noah to Moses to commit abomination in his sight when he okayed all living things to eat!

And yes the verse I used from all three synoptics say the same thing- nothing you put in your mouth will defile you, for it goes into the belly and out the draught! You are in error as to what Jesus was referring to!

“Nothing” is used in the context of what the biblical understanding of “food” is.
There is a phrase that says “what’s understood doesn’t have to be explained”.

The Messiah was a teacher of God’s law - to teach people to disobey God’s law would disqualify him from being the Messiah & a true prophet of God.

He was speaking to people who already knew that eating unclean animals was defiling - the topic was about being defined based on not washing your hands according to the ritual of the Pharisees/Fathers before you eat.

“Nothing” has a context

it’s like when the Messiah said “ask for anything in my name and I will give it to you”.

obviously he’s not gonna give us sinful and evil things if we ask for them, yet he said ask for ANYTHING.

 

[nolidad]

“Nothing” is used in the context of what the biblical understanding of “food” is.
There is a phrase that says “what’s understood doesn’t have to be explained”.

The Messiah was a teacher of God’s law - to teach people to disobey God’s law would disqualify him from being the Messiah & a true prophet of God.

He was speaking to people who already knew that eating unclean animals was defiling - the topic was about being defined based on not washing your hands according to the ritual of the Pharisees/Fathers before you eat.

“Nothing” has a context

it’s like when the Messiah said “ask for anything in my name and I will give it to you”.

obviously he’s not gonna give us sinful and evil things if we ask for them, yet he said ask for ANYTHING.

Then I guess you have a problem with Paul as well! He condemned the Judiazers for trying to get the gentiles to obey the Mosaic dietary laws!

1 Timothy 4 King James Version (KJV)
4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

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

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

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

Gentile believers are not bound to the Mosaic dietary laws. Neither are Jewish believers unless their conscience is weak and they believe they must refrain!

Romans 14 King James Version (KJV)
14 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

I have no problem with one who wishes to follow the Mosaic dietary laws! That is their privilege in Jesus. But if they seek to impose their individual liberty on others, I am sorry I will resist them!

 

[nolidad]

You're contradicting yourself; or do you consider blood nothing? Adam was a vegetarian. Noah was granted permission to eat insects, after the flood. You might want to look up the definition of the word in the manuscripts, instead of the word used in your corrupted translation, before you attempt to refute this.

They're talking about eating bread with dirty hands, not about cannibalism, blood, and strangled animals. We shalt not drink the Jim Jones Kool-aid. Despite what Satan might tell us; we will die.

Well the Hebrew word is remes and means creeping, gliding and moving things according to Gesenius and Keil and Delitsczh.

All things just like the herb was given for food for Noah! Blood was forbidden. That is why animal meat has been drained after killing for millenia!

So if you can show me why you are a better Hebrew exegete than these three giants of Hebrew language- I think I will stick with them.

Besides Paul said all things are lawful for believers to eat if it is partaken of with thanks!

 

[HARK!]

Well the Hebrew word is remes and means creeping, gliding and moving things according to Gesenius and Keil and Delitsczh.

All things just like the herb was given for food for Noah! Blood was forbidden. That is why animal meat has been drained after killing for millenia!

So if you can show me why you are a better Hebrew exegete than these three giants of Hebrew language- I think I will stick with them.

Because these Europeans know the language better than those who speak it every day?

רֶמֶשׂ
insect, bug
Morfix Dictionary | רֶמֶשׂ באנגלית | פירוש רֶמֶשׂ בעברית
רֶמֶשׂ
insect
רֶמֶשׂ - Translation into English - examples Hebrew | Reverso Context

Besides Paul said all things are lawful for believers to eat if it is partaken of with thanks!

No he didn't. Don't drink the Kool-aid.