Non Veg

[Sketcher]

It's not in the King James, which primarily uses the later Greek manuscripts. It is in the translations that use the earlier manuscripts, though I am not certain which earlier manuscripts have it. However, if you go with the King James, we have -

"Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?"

This amounts to the same thing as the parenthetical remark.

 

[Zunalter]

This man has it right. Though I will contest the last sentence. It is clear throughout the New Testament that Gentile Christians are equal to Jewish Christians, yet Gentile Christians are allowed to eat pork according to Acts 15:28-29.

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell."


He didn't. Peter's vision was in agreement with Jesus in Mark's record (and it should be noted that Mark was a disciple of Peter).

I am sorry, I think we might have a misunderstanding as to my point here. The acts 10 Passage of Peter's Vision had dual meanings. First and foremost it had to do with the viewpoint the Jewish Christians had of the Gentile Christians. Here is a commentary that deals with this chunk of text (All scripture references listed unless otherwise specified are in Acts):

Luke stressed four things in this conversion story particularly. First, the Christians initially resisted the ideas of evangelizing Gentiles and accepting them into the church apart from any relationship to Judaism (10:14, 28; 11:2-3, 8). Second, God Himself led the way in Gentile evangelism and acceptance, and He showed His approval (10:3, 11-16, 19-20, 22b, 30-33, 44-46; 11:5-10, 13, 15-17). Third, it was Peter, the leader of the Jerusalem apostles, whom God used to open the door of the church to Gentiles rather than Paul (10:23, 34-43, 47-48; 11:15-17). Fourth, the Jerusalem church accepted the conversion of Gentiles apart from their associating with Judaism because God had validated this in Cornelius' case (11:18).

Luke's reference to
Peter's hunger, which God evidently gave him, explains partially why God
couched His vision in terms of food. Food was what was on Peter's mind....

the point is that the Lord's command frees Peter from any scruples about going to a Gentile home and eating whatever might be set before him. It would be a short step from recognizing that Gentile food was clean to realizing that Gentiles themselves were 'clean' also.


Peter resisted the Lord Jesus' command strongly but politely, as Ezekiel had done when he received similar instructions from God (Ezek. 4:14). He had either not understood or notremembered Jesus' teaching in which He had declared all foods clean(Mark 7:14-19, cf. Rom. 14:14).

So, in a nutshell, I was not trying to undermine your arguments, dear brother, just pointing out that the context was not specifically aimed at dietary restrictions, though it was the means used to get the message across.

 

[Sketcher]

Right, and the diet had been part of the dividing wall. Before that, Gentiles were unclean pigeaters. After Peter and Paul had done their job, they were most of the Christians in the world.

 

[childofGod31]

HEB 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming - not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.


COL 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.


HEB 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,

These verses mean that the law was symbolic of Christ and everything Christ did. When Christ said he came to fulfill the law, he meant: I AM the FULLFILLMENT of all those things written in the law as symbols of ME.

For example, Sabbath is a symbol of salvation.

Hebrews 4:1 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.
HEB 4:9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;
10 for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.
ISA 11:10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.


Sacrifice is a symbol of Jesus (being the sacrifice).
Don't eat bread with yeast - is a symbol of "get rid of your sins"

1CO 5:7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast - as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
​

Circumcision is a symbol of - putting on the new person (inner person) and a cutting of an old person (flesh)

COL 2:11 * In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ,
GAL 6:15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.
1CO 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.


​

I believe that pigs being unclean probably is symbolic of something like the rest of the law. I just don't know what, except maybe "unclean people", those who weren't cleansed from their sins?