Should I eat breakfast or not?

[sentipente]

I wonder where Harvey got the idea that Simon the Tanner was a gentile or that he was preparing a gentile diet for Peter. (#15)

 

[MRHarvey]

I wonder where Harvey got the idea that Simon the Tanner was a gentile or that he was preparing a gentile diet for Peter. (#15)

Actually, whether Simon the Tanner was a Jew or a gentile is not that important. The following five points are important and relevant, though:

1. Peter was struggling with the question of whether it would be right or wrong to meet and share the gospel with a gentile.
2. In those days -- it is common knowledge -- when you met with a person in his or her house, he or she always offered you food.
3. Once offered food while staying as a guest in another person's house, it was considered the ultimate insult to refuse it.
4. Cornelius was a gentile, and therefore he would not have kept the kosher dietary laws.
5. Therefore, for Peter to meet with Cornelius in his home would have required Peter to eat unkosher or non-kosher food!

As I said before, this vision wasn't just about food, nor was it just about people; it was about both! If the vision were not at least partially about food, God would not have used such a phrase as, "Kill and eat!" Nor would Peter have even brought up the fact that he had never anything "impure or unclean" before (NIV), if the vision were not at least partially about food!

Finally, if the vision were only intended to be about people, God would not have said, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." (verse 15) Instead, He would have said, "Do not call anyone impure whom God has made clean," or something to that effect!

In short, to say that the vision is only about people, and not about food at all, is to say that the Bible doesn't mean exactly what it says!

 

[sentipente]

Actually, whether Simon the Tanner was a Jew or a gentile is not that important.

It is important because you said that he was a gentile and had prepared food for Peter. You can't just brush it off now. "Rise, kill and eat" is not dispositive because Peter would not have seen anything to kill and eat.

 

[MRHarvey]

It is important because you said that he was a gentile and had prepared food for Peter. You can't just brush it off now. "Rise, kill and eat" is not dispositive because Peter would not have seen anything to kill and eat.

Sentipente, you obviously read only the opening sentence of my message! And who is accusing whom of "brushing it off"? I do not insist that I am always right when it comes to interpreting the Bible, but please, read my posting in its entirety before you try to refute it!

 

[sentipente]

Sentipente, you obviously read only the opening sentence of my message! And who is accusing whom of "brushing it off"? I do not insist that I am always right when it comes to interpreting the Bible, but please, read my posting in its entirety before you try to refute it!

I was not referring to your latest post but to the one in which you said, unequivocably, that Simon the Tanner was a gentile.

 

[MRHarvey]

I was not referring to your latest post but to the one in which you said, unequivocably, that Simon the Tanner was a gentile.

I don't want this to turn into an argument, much less a flame-war! But I never said that Simon the Tanner was a gentile! If you inisist that I did, show me exactly where I said, "Simon the Tanner was a gentile"!

That said, I am definietely, absolutely NOT infallible! If I made any factual errors in one of my earlier posts, please do not throw the baby out with the bath-water! That is to say, please do not brush off the very valid points I made in my most recent post (#42), even if I may have -- and I stress the words may have -- made a very small mistake in one of my earlier posts!

God bless you, sentipente!

God bless all of you reading this posting!

With love in Christ,

Mark

 

[MRHarvey]

... "Rise, kill and eat" is not dispositive because Peter would not have seen anything to kill and eat.

Yes, he DID see things to kill and eat; he saw all the reptiles, birds, four-footed creatures, and other animals in the vision!

Please re-read the passage ... especially verses 11 through 14!

 

[sentipente]

Yes, he DID see things to kill and eat; he saw all the reptiles, birds, four-footed creatures, and other animals in the vision!

Please re-read the passage ... especially verses 11 through 14!

It was a vision. There was nothing in his room for him to kill and eat.

Peter himself did not see it as referring to his diet. He told the Gentiles "God has shown me that I should call NO MAN common or unclean." He may have been wrong and you could be right. But one thing is certain. That vision did not result in a change in his diet.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

But one thing is certain. That vision did not result in a change in his diet.

That is certain?

BFA

 

[sentipente]

That is certain?

BFA

Because he is human. He was bold enough to resist a message he was convinced was from God in the beginning. Understanding that the message referred to men would only solidify his previous dietary habits. Humans don't change unless they have to.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Because he is human. He was bold enough to resist a message he was convinced was from God in the beginning.

It would be interesting to know whether Paul strictly followed the kosher lifestyle that he learned during his Jewish upbringing.

Understanding that the message referred to men would only solidify his previous dietary habits. Humans don't change unless they have to.

Without God, I can't imagine that a human would ever change for the better.

BFA

 

[sentipente]

Without God, I can't imagine that a human would ever change for the better.

What does "without God" mean? Nobody lives without God. Who do you think enables us to breathe and eat, regardless of our theological positions?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

What does "without God" mean? Nobody lives without God. Who do you think enables us to breathe and eat, regardless of our theological positions?

Haven't you just articulated a point that is at the very least very similar to the point that I was making?

BFA

 

[sentipente]

Haven't you just articulated a point that is at the very least very similar to the point that I was making?

BFA

If you think so then you have not been clear in what you said. Your "without God" implies that some people cannot act because God was not working with them.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

If you think so then you have not been clear in what you said. Your "without God" implies that some people cannot act because God was not working with them.

You read much that isn't there.

BFA

 

[sentipente]

You read much that isn't there.

BFA

I suggest you take another look at your last sentence in post #51.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I suggest you take another look at your last sentence in post #51.

You seem to be reading into that sentence more than what was intended. Perhaps a direct answer to a direct question is in order.

Q: Does man create good works independent of God?
​

BFA

 

[AzA]

You both seem to agree that nothing happens without God. Nothing at all.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

You both seem to agree that nothing happens without God. Nothing at all.

Thanks. That's what I thought too. Thus my confusion regarding my exchange with Sentipente.

BFA

 

[sentipente]

You seem to be reading into that sentence more than what was intended. Perhaps a direct answer to a direct question is in order.

Q: Does man create good works independent of God?
​

BFA

Why do we need the "good" qualifier for the question to be valid. We can do nothing without God because without Him we would not be here. None of us.