• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Seeking Messiah

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Site Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,978
8,072
✟542,711.44
Gender
Female
Faith
Messianic
In chapter 11 he is chided for going into mens house that were uncircumsised.
Think back to the times the houses would be unkosher because of their normal practice of eating. Cooking anything would have made it unclean yet he ate with them. We as kint de adonoi may not snub the hospitality of the goyim who are saved.
If we do we declare the same things that have been in every (christian) denomination. They don't follow my way therefore they are either unsaved or not saved enough.
Hopefully you can see through these early issues and get to the heart of the matter. God does not change, nor has He changed the beasts, or our understanding of what is good for us to eat. We are not to walk with condemning eyes into another's home because of this or that they do not abide by. We are to pray for them, help them learn the truth. Truth remains unchanged and as immutable as God Himself. We are all on different sections of the path of learning, and those who have learned much, much is required. Those who have little, they have much to learn.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟209,750.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
In chapter 11 he is chided for going into mens house that were uncircumsised. Think back to the times the houses would be unkosher because of their normal practice of eating. Cooking anything would have made it unclean yet he ate with them. We as kint de adonoi may not snub the hospitality of the goyim who are saved.
If we do we declare the same things that have been in every (christian) denomination. They don't follow my way therefore they are either unsaved or not saved enough

.
Thank you for getting to the heart of the matter, as it concerns many things that others don't talk on when it comes to seeing what actually happened within the scriptures...and understanding the principle of how the application of Mosaic law was not always the same as it was in the OT when Christ was present. The example of Christ with the tax-collectors/"sinners" is something else to keep in mind, in light of the fact that just because one was Jewish in the days of Christ didn't mean they led a kosher lifestyle...

Tax collectors were a trip...with most of them indeed WEALTHY, as it was with Zacchaeus ( Luke 19:1-3 /Luke 19 )..and for those who were tax-collectors, it's something that people often did not want to mix with ...even though Jesus often did went counter to the norms in connecting with them as He often did for those who were outcasts( Matthew 11:19,Matthew 11:18-20, , Matthew 21:31-33/ ,Luke 3:11-13 Luke 3 , Luke 15:1-3 Luke 15, Luke 18:8-10 /Luke 18, etc). When Matthew was called, he did not disguise his past or make any excuse for it, which was humility. Tax collectors were among the most hated and despised in society in society since the money they collected was often extorted for personal gain and partly a tax for Rome, which made them not only theives but traitors to the Jewish Nation. Also, regarding the text, one must keep in mind that there are generally 2 categories of tax collectors: 1.) gabbi collected general taxes on land and property, and a income, referred to as poll and registration taxex; 2.) mokhes colleted a wide variety of use taxes, similar to import duties, buisness license fees, and toll fees. Additionally, there were two categories of mokhes: great mokhes hired others to collect taxes for them; small mokhes did their own assessing and collecting. Matthew was a small mokhes ......and it is likely that there was representivitves of both classes attending Matthew's Feast---ALL of whom were considered social outcasts and of bad reputation. There was still stigma against him when he invited Jesus to come/dine in his home and others were still wondering "Why in the world is Christ fellowshipping with this person who is clearly a sinner?".

For anyone doing sincere research on the types of people who were often at tax-collevtor parties, it'll be apparent that it was not a matter of things being "prime/proper". ...as they were noted to be BUCK WILD!!! For the "religious", Heaven help them if they were there.....but for Christ, He decided to go counter to what many Judeas would've done---and what the Pharisees often did when it came to distancing themselves from anything they thought was unclean. Jesus, in his radical ideology, was able to maintain mobility that the religious leaders simply didn't have...

Christ associated with sinners at morally upright or at least morally neutral places, such as meals in people's homes .

However, because of his love for others, He was willing to go/do what many were not willing to do. I think Jesus was speaking directly to this issue here (Luke 10:25-39):
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:25-37)

Those who would have been considered as the most loving of Torah= in the above story not only did not help the half-dead man, but when they saw him they actually passed by on the other side of the road

Considering their positions as Priest and Levite, I’ll assume that they considered the man who lay dying on the side of the road to be unclean, as not only did they not want to help (touch) him, they went to the other side of the road to avoid any possible contact with him. They were more concerned for their own “clean-ness” than they were for the very life of the man bleeding, obviously needing aid, lying at the side of the road. Who did Jesus say to imitate? The consummate Law Keepers, a Priest and a Levite? No... He instructed the expert in the law to imitate the unclean man, a Samaritan.

The responses of the priest and the Levite are truly some of the highlights of the story since they would have become ritually "unclean" by touching what seemed to be a dead person, Leviticus 22:4----with the implications for us being very striking since we in Christ have been made into priests ourselves/in many ways are as they were, 1 Peter 2:8-10

It brings up the point: If someone around the world in Nigeria is taking care of orphans and widows (or the elderly) in the name of Yeshua--and yet another claiming to know all of the secrets of the Torah is barely able to say "Hi" to their neighbors or show any concern because they don't see them as "spiritual", who would be considered he most observant? Romans 2 automaically comes to mind on the matter, as it concerns what the apostle noted...

And with the Good Samaritan parable, it's fascinating to see how the hero of the Story was one who was considered to be the most "unclean" in the day---a Samaritan, one whom many would call a "half-breed" compared to their acts of righteousness.....and yet the Samaritan kept the true SPirit of the Law more than those who should have known better.

In speaking on that, I'm reminded of some of the scenarios I grew up with on the Mission field--both abroad and locally, as one can be a missionary within their own culture---and concerning the Inner City/Urban culture, the issue of the Good Samaritan always was a big deal. For my major (Human Services), I did my Senior Internship at an organization aiding those on the streets and working in the Children's Church department with impoverished children at the organization called-City of Refuge-Bringing Hope to Those Who Live on the Margin. For more, one can also go here

And amazing seeing the myriad of people we'd have to deal with on the block---from single mothers to prostitutes to drug-dealers/many various shades of "homeless" people and others in wild lifestyles.

Got to actually pray for/witness to a person hooked on crack on Valentines's Day....with him being amazed that God would even consider loving him. The places many lived---from the projects invested with garbage/rats to having homes where the conditions were often unsanitary to the streets, for those homeless---to the food they ate that was often non-healthy, you saw people in REAL LIFE.

And yet LOVE made the difference. Eating what was given out of respect/concern....talking to them/hanging out. The amount of stories I'd hear from those who used to be hopeless on the streets and in the realm of being qualified by others as “not deserving of aid/help” and how someone looked past the flaws and showed compassion on them in such a way that they truly saw the love/mercy of Christ and it made the difference in them being solid disciples/aiding others today.

If the example of Christ is to be followed, it needs to be followed fully and not selectively.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟209,750.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
In chapter 11 he is chided for going into mens house that were uncircumsised.

Think back to the times the houses would be unkosher because of their normal practice of eating. Cooking anything would have made it unclean yet he ate with them. We as kint de adonoi may not snub the hospitality of the goyim who are saved.

If we do we declare the same things that have been in every (christian) denomination. They don't follow my way therefore they are either unsaved or not saved enough.
On what you note..when you're truly living life with real people, it's hard not to be reminded of the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-31, alongside all the other ones spoken, were shared in light of the Pharisees looking down upon the tax-collectors (deemed traitors/crooks by the Jewish people ) and the prostitutes (unclean, immoral, etc).
Luke 15
The Parable of the Lost Sheep

1 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”


3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
The Parable of the Lost Coin

8 “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins[] and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’ 10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

The Parable of the Lost Son

11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.


13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.


17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.


“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.


21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

25 “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’
28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in.’”
The three parables on the subject of being lost and found were never primarily about Gentiles being brought back into the Jewish community (in regards to anyone saying "older brothers" are those Jews who don't believe Gentiles are meant to be the same in stance as the Jews). The portrayal of the elder son and his resentment was in many ways a subtle criticism of the grumbling Pharisees and scribes toward those within the Jewish community who they deemed to be lower-class Jews...ones who weren't as "Worthy" of salvation as they were. It is no small issue when Yeshua noted that the tax collectors/prostitutes were entering in before the religious leaders of Christ's day..as they understood their need of salvation (Matthew 21:30-32 )


In regards to the greater context of Luke 15, why were the Pharisees and teachers of the law bothered that Jesus associated with the people he did? The religious leaders were always careful to stay "clean" according to the OT law. In fact, they went well beyond the law in their avoidance of certain people and situations and in their ritual washings. By contrast, Jesus took their concept of "cleanness" lightly. He risked defilement by touching those who had leprosy and by neglecting to wash in the Pharisees' prescribed manner, and he showed complete disregard for their sanctions against associating with certain classes of people. He came to offer salvation to sinners, to show that God loves them...and he wasn't concerned with the accusations brought to him by being with the "wrong crowd."

For the Lord associated with sinners because he wanted to bring people considered beyond hope the Gospel of God's kingdom...just as the shepherd was not concerned so much with the bigger flock as much as he was about that one lost sheep. And with the parable Jesus shared, the younger brother was a perfect example of the Jewish indivduals who went away from the Lord/were redeemed and loved just as strongly by the Father as the older/"righteous" brother was. It was hard for the older brother to accept his younger brother when he returned after living a notoriously sinful life--but the Father had to show him that love required forgivness and compassion.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟209,750.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
In Roman culture, food is highly important in social gatherings. To be a good host, food and drink must be provided in abundance. Since non-Jews did not keep Kosher, Jewish people did not visit a Romans home. (Roast mouse was a big delicacy in Rome, but hardly Kosher). The Roman lifestyle and food made them ritually unclean, even as a Gentile according to the subset of laws for Gentiles residing in the land. So, for a Jewish person to enter the home of a Roman/Gentile meant the Jewish person was entering an unclean home and would have to snub the person culturally, not participating in the most important social convention of the society.

Acts 11:11 Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him, 3 saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

That Peter went to uncircumcised men and ate with them was the issue.

I agree, we are not to snub others hospitality, when we go to their homes. Eating unclean foods does not make a person unclean if they have been cleansed by Yeshua.

Amen. To see that Yeshua was able to handle being unclean and then say that one isn't honoring the Lord going into unclean homes/snubbing hospitality is an insult to Him and what he actually lived out, IMHO.
 
Upvote 0
A

aniello

Guest
Hi Talitim,

What does "kint de adonoi " mean? I googled but still haven't a clue.

Just an old man's curiosity.

Thank you.

P.S.
About smoking tobacco. I come from a tobacco using culture, the Lakota(Sioux) of my dad's family. It was used ceremonially and casually in the culture,even medicinally. For me, due to health reasons, it has been a rather big issue(COPD). I have found a considerable aid in cessation from the affinity for tobacco. If you're interested let me know and I'll share what helped me. I do not consider smoking tobacco a sin, just not good health-wise. On the other hand some people are digging their grave with their teeth. Everybody has something or other bringing them short of "perfection", whatever in the flesh that means.;)
 
Upvote 0

talitim

Newbie
May 22, 2012
44
1
Ohio
✟22,669.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I would be happy to hear what did it for you. I smoked cigarettes for seventeen years and my grandfather saw me struggle to quit.. he finally suggested the pipe as a more dignified alternative.
I tried to quit to no avail finally realiIng it was ptsd that was the kicker. I studied it and only 4 percent of ptsd'rs are able to quit their addictions and 70 percent of them return. Thank God it was only tobacco and alcohol for me. I have control over the alcohol in the idea I have been a binge drinker. Going without alcohol as prescribed by AA is a bad idea as it promotes binge drinking. Learning healthier habits from the veterans I associate with has eliminated the binge desire. So I enjoy a beer or glass of wine when I feellike I wouldlike it and then I don't drink til I'm feshnickered.
As for kint de adonoi. Thes is messianicized yiddishe. You are mor likely to find this among yiddishe speaking christians than among the hebrew catholics or messianic jews. It simply means children of the lord. the original would have been kinder (pronounced kind'a) ya'akov or kinder Av or Avram.
The I in kinder is pronounced short I as in the word in.
 
Upvote 0

yedida

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!
Oct 6, 2010
9,779
1,461
Elyria, OH
✟40,205.00
Faith
Marital Status
In Relationship
Easy G (G²);61492620 said:
Amen. To see that Yeshua was able to handle being unclean and then say that one isn't honoring the Lord going into unclean homes/snubbing hospitality is an insult to Him and what he actually lived out, IMHO.

The only thing this chapter says is that these people were gentiles. Are they believers? Then the "food" was probably kosher. If not, the text does not say that Peter ate what he should not have eaten, it only says that he ate with them. I often eat with other people, but that does not mean that I eat every single thing that is served (even if it is all "kosher" does not mean that I will eat a portion of everything served). People make too many assumptions here rather than figure that Peter, being a Jew followed God's commands.
 
Upvote 0

yedida

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!
Oct 6, 2010
9,779
1,461
Elyria, OH
✟40,205.00
Faith
Marital Status
In Relationship
In chapter 11 he is chided for going into mens house that were uncircumsised.
Think back to the times the houses would be unkosher because of their normal practice of eating. Cooking anything would have made it unclean yet he ate with them. We as kint de adonoi may not snub the hospitality of the goyim who are saved.
If we do we declare the same things that have been in every (christian) denomination. They don't follow my way therefore they are either unsaved or not saved enough.

Why would cooking anything make a house unclean? I don't follow? :confused:
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟209,750.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The only thing this chapter says is that these people were gentiles. Are they believers? Then the "food" was probably kosher. If not, the text does not say that Peter ate what he should not have eaten, it only says that he ate with them. I often eat with other people, but that does not mean that I eat every single thing that is served (even if it is all "kosher" does not mean that I will eat a portion of everything served).



People make too many assumptions here rather than figure that Peter, being a Jew followed God's commands.
The chapter coming after it doesn't indicate that it was only about eating unclean food that was an issue. To be in the home of a Gentile was to become unclean since they didn't have the same rituals (including removing pottery that had unclean animals on it and other things ). Just because one doesn't eat non-kosher food doesn't equate to them being ceremonially clean if going strictly from dietary laws (Leviticus 11 /Deuteronomy 14 )--many of those laws including animals relevant to the land and not being indicative of all types of animals on earth. The attempt at only eating kosher foods as a barometer for thinking onself to be clean doesn't add up many times since there was more to the ceremonial cleanliness code than food alone. There's also other concerns of having a clean home:
Many other things besides that could have been present.....all of that being present when it came to Jews not wanting to eat with Gentiles who had differing standards and thus were deemed to be unclean.

What Peter did with Cornelius in choosing to have lunch with a Gentile was big since it would not have mattered if Peter ate kosher food. What would be known was that Gentiles, deemed as unclean in their lifesytles, were being touched by the apostles. That's really not that different from Christ when he went to unclean places, touched unclean people and had no issue. Jesus could touch a woman with a discharge of blood (Mark 5:25-34, Matthew 9:20) who was ceremonially unclean (Leviticus 15:25-28) and not permitted to enter the temple section reserved for women nor was she permitted to be in public without making people aware that she was unclean. Her hemorrhaging would have cut her off from many social and religiopus relationships. And in seeing Jesus, she was desperate. When she touched Jesus, she technically rendered him ceremonially unclean (Leviticus 15:19-23), but Jesus is greater than ANY Purity Laws...for he makes her clean by HIS Power instead of becoming unclean Himself (Mark 1:41, Mark 5:41). Jesus made clear to the woman that her faith in Him made here both physically and spiritually healed....and the woman's faith in Jesus for physical healing at the same time becamse faith in him for salvation from sin.

If it was possible for her despite being in the times she was, how odd it is when people in our times act as if Jesus somehow has LESS power to make one clean unless they operate within the bounds of an OT Law that cannot be fulfilled anyhow due to their not being an Aaronic Priesthood set up/all of the civil aspects of the Law in place for our time...paticularly with inspection required by the priests when one was unclean. Jesus is truly superior....and as it stands, its interesting to see how that often played out in his own life. In Matthew 8:2-4, where he healed a leper, its interesting to see how when Jesus examination and treatment of those with a variety of skin diseases, generally called leprosy, many of which were highly contagious touched him he was healed and Jesus did NOT become unclean. That's striking, in light of how the OT provided specific guidelines for the (Leviticus 13-14)----for not only was leprosy a disease, but it made the leper as well as anyone who touched him ceremonially unclean (Lev 13:45-46, Numbers 5:2-4, etc). Jesus was far stronger than any of that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,636
61
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Why would cooking anything make a house unclean? I don't follow? :confused:

If they are gentile, they could be offering the food to other deities behind your back. That is why many orthodox will not drink wine opened by a gentile, or at best, will only drink if it is opened in front of them. No spilled libation to some deity that way.
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Site Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,978
8,072
✟542,711.44
Gender
Female
Faith
Messianic
That is why it is not the way of Yeshua, snubbing because through faults or no faults of their own are not perfect. I agree that if they are followers of the Way, they will be abiding by the Acts basic entry level for starters. Of course, the Acts 15 from the council of Jerusalem confirmed it later. Cornelius was called righteous gentile for a reason, it was his observance and respect for the Jewish people and Judaism faith.

Acts 10:22
The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people.....

Being the kind of man that he was, Cornelius would not even think to insult Peter with unclean food served to him when he came to visit..
 
Upvote 0

Qnts2

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2012
1,323
111
✟2,056.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
That is why it is not the way of Yeshua, snubbing because through faults or no faults of their own are not perfect. I agree that if they are followers of the Way, they will be abiding by the Acts basic entry level for starters. Of course, the Acts 15 from the council of Jerusalem confirmed it later. Cornelius was called righteous gentile for a reason, it was his observance and respect for the Jewish people and Judaism faith.

Acts 10:22
The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people.....

Being the kind of man that he was, Cornelius would not even think to insult Peter with unclean food served to him when he came to visit..


The problem is, if a righteous Gentile who is permitted to eat non-Kosher food and still be a righteous Gentile, purchased meat, like beef, and brought it into his home, it would not be Kosher. Even if a Gentile purchased meat from a Kosher butcher, and prepared it in their home, it would most likely not be Kosher.

There are ways to prepare Kosher meat in a non-Kosher home in this day and age, which were not easily available back then. So Cornelius was a righteous Gentile and God-fearer ( and could be without knowing a thing about Jewish people) but it is only an assumption, and very unlikely that Peter and friends were served Kosher food. That is why they were asked about eating with an uncircumcised family. Peter did not respond, not to worry, they served us Kosher food.
 
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,636
61
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
The problem is, if a righteous Gentile who is permitted to eat non-Kosher food and still be a righteous Gentile, purchased meat, like beef, and brought it into his home, it would not be Kosher. Even if a Gentile purchased meat from a Kosher butcher, and prepared it in their home, it would most likely not be Kosher.

There are ways to prepare Kosher meat in a non-Kosher home in this day and age, which were not easily available back then. So Cornelius was a righteous Gentile and God-fearer ( and could be without knowing a thing about Jewish people) but it is only an assumption, and very unlikely that Peter and friends were served Kosher food. That is why they were asked about eating with an uncircumcised family. Peter did not respond, not to worry, they served us Kosher food.

I think you are confusing clean with kashrut. Many of the rules in Judaism today concerning what is kosher were not part of life back then. Meat and dairy come to mind. If they observed any separation of the two, it would most likely only have been cow milk with cow meat, etc. They didn't get strict for many centuries after that time.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟209,750.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
If they be followers of the way they would not offer meat to idols. Besides going into their house could be unclean if they didn't completely kosher the house. So you are forced to snub anyone who isn't orthodox of chasid.
Making certain the home is ceremonially clean in all aspects at all times can be a real battle...
 
Upvote 0

Qnts2

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2012
1,323
111
✟2,056.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
I think you are confusing clean with kashrut. Many of the rules in Judaism today concerning what is kosher were not part of life back then. Meat and dairy come to mind. If they observed any separation of the two, it would most likely only have been cow milk with cow meat, etc. They didn't get strict for many centuries after that time.

I think you are confusing animals from actual edible clean meat. Just because meat comes from a cow doesn't mean it is Kosher/fit to eat. This has nothing to do with separating milk and meat.

Many of the accepted methods to actually do the law had already been established, and were actually more binding (in a sense), then they are today. Whatever was established by legitimate courts of judges was a requirement and in scripture, the penalty for not obeying the priests and judges was a penalty of death. I have come across people who wonder why Paul backed down when he found he was speaking to the High Priest. It was because of the scriptural authority of the High Priest. So, the High Priest did indeed have the authority to define the methods to keep the scriptural laws, as did the Sanhedrin. Certain circumstances can render the cooking vessel unclean, and any food prepared in an unclean vessel is also unclean. Not Kosher.

Deut 17:10 You shall do according to the terms of the verdict which they declare to you from that place which the Lord chooses; and you shall be careful to observe according to all that they teach you. 11 According to the terms of the law which they teach you, and according to the verdict which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left. 12 The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the LORD your God, nor to the judge, that man shall die; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.
 
Upvote 0

talitim

Newbie
May 22, 2012
44
1
Ohio
✟22,669.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Now we come to another conundrum. Meat is only kosher if killed properly. The usda kills the meat packing it in its own blood. The only kosher meat comes from kosher stores. To follow the law as a means of salvation even if taught that you must follow it after salvation is quite a heavy burden. One burden if done in devotion is beautiful but if placed as a means of salvation one must follow the letter of the law. Mashiach said his yolk was easy and his burden is light. Not to be confused with oover easy :).
Now I am not saying don't follow the law because it is beautiful when done out of devotion.
The last thing I would say is this. If you break the law &ecause you forgot or because yhou wanted a cheese burger you have not broken the law for the law and the prophets hang in the balance only on Veahavta and that alone. I won't be writing for a couple of days out of devotion to God creating me. I will indeed observe the shabbat.
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Site Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,978
8,072
✟542,711.44
Gender
Female
Faith
Messianic
Now we come to another conundrum. Meat is only kosher if killed properly. The usda kills the meat packing it in its own blood. The only kosher meat comes from kosher stores. To follow the law as a means of salvation even if taught that you must follow it after salvation is quite a heavy burden. One burden if done in devotion is beautiful but if placed as a means of salvation one must follow the letter of the law. Mashiach said his yolk was easy and his burden is light. Not to be confused with oover easy :).
Now I am not saying don't follow the law because it is beautiful when done out of devotion.
The last thing I would say is this. If you break the law &ecause you forgot or because yhou wanted a cheese burger you have not broken the law for the law and the prophets hang in the balance only on Veahavta and that alone. I won't be writing for a couple of days out of devotion to God creating me. I will indeed observe the shabbat.
There is a difference between biblical kosher and rabbinic kosher.
 
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,636
61
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
I think you are confusing animals from actual edible clean meat. Just because meat comes from a cow doesn't mean it is Kosher/fit to eat. This has nothing to do with separating milk and meat.

From your earlier post:
"The problem is, if a righteous Gentile who is permitted to eat non-Kosher food and still be a righteous Gentile, purchased meat, like beef, and brought it into his home, it would not be Kosher. Even if a Gentile purchased meat from a Kosher butcher, and prepared it in their home, it would most likely not be Kosher."
If the food was clean and prepared with clean hands and dishes, it would be clean. Not kosher by today's standards, but clean, which is the biblical standard.

Many of the accepted methods to actually do the law had already been established, and were actually more binding (in a sense), then they are today. Whatever was established by legitimate courts of judges was a requirement and in scripture, the penalty for not obeying the priests and judges was a penalty of death. I have come across people who wonder why Paul backed down when he found he was speaking to the High Priest. It was because of the scriptural authority of the High Priest. So, the High Priest did indeed have the authority to define the methods to keep the scriptural laws, as did the Sanhedrin. Certain circumstances can render the cooking vessel unclean, and any food prepared in an unclean vessel is also unclean. Not Kosher.

I don't think that they were stoning people for eating with gentiles at the time. Paul also knew that the High Priest was more in line with his beliefs than with the Saducees, who were among those persecuting him. He managed to drive a wedge nicely between them which blunted their attack.

The only unclean vessel which could not be used after washing would be one which a dead animal fell into, or one with mold in it. I don't think even the gentiles would have kept one after that anyway. If the gentile knows the requirements of Torah, there is no reason to doubt that they could serve meals which would be clean.
 
Upvote 0