Thirty years might be too high, but most scholars agree that the events in Acts 10 occurred anywhere from 10 to nearly 20 years after the death of Christ.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
At this point in time, Peter had NEVER eaten anything common (koinos) OR unclean (akathartos).
Up to that particular point in time that may have been true. BTW, when Peter said he never ate what was “common” what did that mean? What is the biblical basis for that claim?
It wasn't "may" have been true. It was true. Peter HAD never eaten anything common or unclean. Never. Ten to twenty years AFTER the death of Christ.
Here's why this is significant: Peter knew Christ personally. Peter was personally TAUGHT by Christ. Taught by Christ when incarnate and TAUGHT by the resurrected Christ.
Peter NEVER ate anything common OR unclean. That means that the Lord, Jesus Christ, never taught that the food laws he had created were now obsolete.
Look at it again.
It WAS not and IS not a teaching of Christ that the scriptural food laws the Christ created are done away with. It simply wasn't done.
“Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the Lord out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem," (Isa. 66:20)
If this is still far in our future, how do you explain the language using ancient implements of transport? Do you really expect us to believe that Jews from all over the world, millions of them, will come up to Jerusalem in horse-drawn wagons and with mules and camels? Is El Al going to stop flying?
It's certainly possible. And even if this is figurative it represents transportation.
One of us is following the traditions of the rabbis, and one of us if following the commandments and examples of Jesus and His apostles. I’ll stick with Jesus.
You're just wrong. I've shown you that it wasn't a teaching of Jesus or his apostles. It's a teaching of the early Roman church that wished to distance itself from anything that resembled Judaism. This is the tradition you follow.
So it was the Cornelius events you had in mind. I thought you were speaking of some much later event.
Here's why this is significant: Peter knew Christ personally. Peter was personally TAUGHT by Christ. Taught by Christ when incarnate and TAUGHT by the resurrected Christ.
OK, so if Peter had all this face time with Jesus, why then did God need to speak to Peter in a vision for him to get the correct perspective on the gentiles almost a decade after the resurrection?
If, in spite of all those years with Jesus, Peter didn't get the gentile connection correct, how do we know that he got the food issue correct?
Your argument cuts both ways.
It WAS not and IS not a teaching of Christ that the scriptural food laws the Christ created are done away with. It simply wasn't done.
And I say it was, and most scholars agree with me.
It's certainly possible. And even if this is figurative it represents transportation.
Thanks for the admission. And by the same reasoning “Jerusalem” represents figuratively the new Jerusalem, the Church, not the old earthly Jerusalem. God punishes those who come against His people, the body of Christ.
You're just wrong.
Could be, but you have not proven that to be true at this time.