Only to people that think that moving Peter into the area of gentile evangelism "is meaningless" as compared to a rat sandwich concept.
<ROFL> You're leaving teeth marks all over the scenery mate. But for all that, the misdirection is too obvious.
But let me 'splain this to you engineer-like:
Two things going on there. First, God is showing St Peter that food he's always considered nasty is clean if God declares it so. Godis the one who classified some animals as "unclean" in the first place, and when He later declares them "clean" then it's nonsensical to claim that He didn't, especially when you get told it three times, each subsequent time with an implicit "
I said..." attached to it. So Peter goes away wondering what brought all that on.
Then the Gentiles show up at the door, and Peter has an "Oooooh, so
that's it!" moment. Got has sent him Gentiles to deal with, and was letting him know that it's OK for him to deal with them.... and maybe, almost unthinkable notion that it was,
to sit down and eat with them! And of course, he did both.
You're trying to present these two things, the cleaning of the animals and the cleaning of the Gentiles, as "Exclusive Or" stuff, where if one condition is true the other must be false. If God had meant to clean the animals then He couldn't have cleaned the Gentiles, but if He cleaned the Gentiles He couildn't have cleaned the animals
Two problems with that. One is that the Scripture plainly presents both things happening (although your doctrine requires you to gainsay one of them and act as though it didn't happen), and it also implies the idea of "
God can't...", which is always false. What you're actually dealing with is "And" logic, where both conditions are true, both have happened, and God has removed by fiat (He gets to do that; it's how He created the universe)
all the restrictions against associating with Gentiles.
You can't just arbitrarily disregard any act of God just because it steps on your doctrine. At best it's logically fallacious as well as really weird, at worst it's a matter of shouting "No!" to an act of God, which is doubleplus ungood.
Only to people that suppose that "God so loved the WORLD - not just God so loved the JEWS" concept "is meaningless" as compared to a rat sandwich concept.
The idea of rat sandwiches must be extraordinarily gross to you, but I don't find it all that offensive. If you'd spent any time around chickens, you'd know they'll eat anything that can't get away, and will peck kernels of undigested grain out of a cow pile or any some such nasty thing as eagerly as not. But they're "clean", aren't they? Fact is, the dietary laws were no more about health then the laws against mixed fabrics were. It was to set Israel apart and prevent them from mixing with unbelievers.
For those objective unbiased Bible students
Bwahahahahahah! Like
you, for instance? C'mon mate, you're about as objective and unbiased on this subject as I am about Millwall football.
that actually read Acts 10-15 it means that gentile evangelism was "the point" as Peter pointed out repeatedly - and not "rat sandwiches".
Not
XOR, Bob,
ANd; your doctrine notwithstanding.
It is fine with me if you want to claim that this glaringly obvious detail got past you.
Fortunately I can admit to the existence of both your "rat sandwiches" (available, of course, at every non-kosher eating place) and the permission to associate with Gentiles (and if my family isn't Gentile there ain't any in the phone book).
I have no problem with that.
Hence the aforementioned scenery chewing. <Laugh>
