Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
So, Peter see's that the unclean animals have been clumped with the clean ones and have made the clean animals ritually unclean. So both kinds of animals are in there, but they're both now unclean. That's why Peter doesn't pick out a "clean" one but instead says he's never eaten anything unclean (unclean animals) or common (ritually unclean or unpure animals).
So your saying that God sent down a bag of mixed animals, and Peter saw they were all on top of each other from all their weight gravitating to the center of the sheet which by now resembled an upside down parachute.
God hadn’t realized that their weight would cause this to happen, so when it settled on the ground, these crushed and broken bodies of the smaller animals had been smashed from the weight of the larger ones, the horses and cows, and camels, and pigs and lions snakes and dogs and etc. and Peter knew the blood and broken flesh had defiled all the animals, so God could understand when peter said, Not so Lord.
OK, I can understand your logic here, and also, can you imagine the bloody mess after the third drop? (^g^) JH
I know how people who believe they have to keep all the laws and ordinances think, and that part hasn’t changed. Just ask around eight days after someone has a son, and see if I’m not right.
Peter never did kill and eat any of the animals. He refused to despite God asking him three times. To believe your view, we would have to think that Peter deliberately disobeyed God and got away with it. He didn't because the dream was symbolic of jews and gentiles.
He didn’t obey because he thought God was testing him to make sure he was still being a good Jew. Peter had no idea what God was telling him, and it was the next day before he realized it was to show him there was no longer anything that was considered common and unclean anymore, so he greeted the Gentiles, but still hadn’t put the whole picture together yet.
(^g^) JH
God didn't order them to eat every plant and herb, he left it up to them to decide. Adam and Eve were farmers, and God taught them the trade so they knew the differences between poisonous plants and non poisonous ones, and Noah, just because God gave them the authority to eat any of the animals, that didn't mean he couldn't choose between desirable and non desirable looking ones.
Noah was 600 years old when God gave him every moving thing that liveth for his meat, he wasn't stupid, he had accomplished a feat few could have done in building the ark, he had watched all these animals during the flood, and now you think he was going to start grabbing poisonous snakes and scorpions and spiders and munching down on them? Please
(^g^) JH
lol...no! It was a vision, a dream, Peter was in a trance or a deep sleep. In other words, it didn't happen in physical reality or else there would have been a lot of surprised people around. As far as bloody and broken it wouldn't have to be, if I remember right the oral torah prohibited eating any clean animal penned with an unclean animal. Not sure about that though.
That's moot anyways since it's clear it was symbolic. The whole chapter and the next is about gentiles and their introduction to the church.
If they did that would be purely their choice because it's clearly not the teaching of the church. These are cut and pasted from literature put out by the church:
While it is true that many aspects of the Sinai covenant are no longer in effect (circumcision, animal sacrifices, civil laws, etc.), Christ's instructions about the Sabbath are explanations of how to observe it, not claims that He was abolishing it.
It is the circumcision of the heart, not circumcision of the flesh, that identifies the spiritual children of God.
I did a Google search on circumcision on United website...here are the results.
Read the links...there is no way the church condones or teaches that it's needed. If someone does it, they're not doing it because of church teachings.
Peter never did kill and eat any of the animals. He refused to despite God asking him three times. To believe your view, we would have to think that Peter deliberately disobeyed God and got away with it. He didn't because the dream was symbolic of jews and gentiles.
He didn’t obey because he thought God was testing him to make sure he was still being a good Jew. Peter had no idea what God was telling him, and it was the next day before he realized it was to show him there was no longer anything that was considered common and unclean anymore, so he greeted the Gentiles, but still hadn’t put the whole picture together yet.
Exactly where in scripture does it say that Peter thought God was testing him? Or that he ever "put the whole picture together"? His dream meant what he said it meant IN THE BIBLE. That God told him he wasn't supposed to call any MAN common or unclean.
Washing of hands brought up the subject, but the word “defile” brought in a whole new subject matter. Look what all Christ tied this incident to.
Mt 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2. Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4. For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6. And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8. This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
10. And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
And you say all this was about was washing hands? Continue reading this account, it goes on for another 19 verses, and Jesus ends the subject with this.
V-20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man
Jesus told them what defiles a man, but there is no mention of anything that goes in the mouth doing it, and certainly not unwashed hands.
(^g^) JH
So you acknowledge that they couldn't really eat ALL plants, correct?
Noah was 600 years old when God gave him every moving thing that liveth for his meat, he wasn't stupid, he had accomplished a feat few could have done in building the ark, he had watched all these animals during the flood, and now you think he was going to start grabbing poisonous snakes and scorpions and spiders and munching down on them? Please
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herb.
So you admit that when God said Noah could eat EVERY animal that he didn't really mean EVERY animal, correct? It was EVERY animal that was created to be eaten by man...correct? Heck, had to be. I don't think God would want Noah to somehow think that all those poisonous animals he had observed had been turned into non-poisonous ones.
Turd polishing.
Just kidding. :)
BigMack
Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.
The chapter starts because the Pharasees are pissed that Christ didn't scrub his hands up to his elbows before eating bread. He recognizes this as hypocritical behavior. He says that God never taught gave that as doctrine, it was doctrine of men. Then he calls the crowd over:
Mat 15:17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters in at the mouth goes into the belly, and is cast out into the waste-bowl?
Mat 15:18 But the things which come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile the man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies;
Mat 15:20 these are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.
Jesus certainly was talking about handwashing. If they thought for one minute that he was talking about eating pork or whatever, they would have called him on it. They would have brang him up on charges. They would have accused him of eating unclean foods. They would have done something to indicate that he was teaching totally against the written law. None of this happened because HE WASN'T talking about eating unclean food. He was talking about the their supposed teeny bit of uncleaniless you might ingest if you didn't do their ritualistic handwashing.
But it ain't for human consumption.
Since Noah probably ate them, and the majority of the known world at that time ate them for almost 2000 years until God made them unclean for Israel, just like he made the Gentiles unclean, then you are free to believe as you wish.
How did God choose which to make clean, and which ones would not be clean? God chose the creme de la creme for Israel, and on a scale of 1 to 10, the pig was probably around 6, but God also knew they were eatable for man, but he told Israel, they shall be unclean to you.
Breakfast ham, sausage or bacon once or twice a week is all I ever eat of what the Bible calls unclean meats, and even though I know there are many others that may taste good, I usually choose Turkey, chicken, or Florida Grouper fish which taste like white chicken meat, but the reason I don't eat lobster or clams or eel or crustaceans, is not because I think they are unclean, it because there are others that I prefer over them.
(^g^) JH
lol...I was trying to find a scriptural response and I think I found the orgin of the phrase "Eat S**t":
Eze 4:12 And you shall eat it as barley cakes, and you shall bake it with dung of the excrement of man, in their sight.
Believe it or not!
Of course I believe that unclean animals have been unclean since almost the beginning of time because sacrifices have been made since the time of Adam. It defies belief to think that God would find unclean foods unacceptable sacrifices for him, but would be okay for the people he created in his own image to eat. It's unbelievable that Noah would have clean and unclean animals and be able to eat the unclean ones but NOT be able to sacrifice them to God. It's inconsistent and makes no sense at all.
Your saying Jesus spent an entire chapter on the washings of hands?
That's like saying the parable of the tares was about wheat, or the fig tree with green leaves and no fruit was why he cleansed the temple.
Jesus let many small subjects lead into many principals of life, and when he said a man can't be defiled by what he puts in his mouth, he meant just that, regardless of whether or not it was the subject of hand washing that started it or not.
What did hand washing have to do with honoring your parents? He was covering the subject of defilement, and he said nothing you can put in your mouth can defile you, and you're saying, yes it can.
Show me a place in the New Testament where some one defiles themselves by what they put in their mouth, and I'll show you 25 that defiled themselves by what came out.
(^g^) JH
It's because you don't understand what unclean is. You seem to think it’s like a contamination, as if caused by exposure from uranium or something that causes a chemical reaction, but unclean was a word God gave to Israel, and no one else.
He allowed Israel to sell or give unclean food to the gentiles, and it made no difference whether it was unclean from dying of it self and not being Kosher by proper bleeding or not, it was still unclean, and God told them it was alright to sell it to someone other then an Israelite.
God knew it wouldn't hurt anyone else, but to a Jew it was unclean, and if they hadn't sold it, they would have had to get rid of it.
This proves that unclean was for Jews only, and had nothing to do with Gentiles, and Douglas, I hate to tell you this, but I'm pretty sure your a Gentile, or did your ancestors come out of Egypt with Moses?
(^g^) JH
No, not correctly, they could eat anything they could get in their mouth, they were given free agency to do what they pleased,.... but it wouldn't necessarily be expedient to do so. But apparently they figured out which ones stayed down the best. Lol
So you admit that when God said Noah could eat EVERY animal that he didn't really mean EVERY animal, correct? It was EVERY animal that was created to be eaten by man...correct? Heck, had to be. I don't think God would want Noah to somehow think that all those poisonous animals he had observed had been turned into non-poisonous ones.
This is an inane argument, you seem to think that when God gives you free will agency, we loose all common sense, and go running off half cocked and act like idiots.
That's what the Holy Spirit does for us, it gives us wisdom and discernment, and Noah certainly had God's Spirit in him.
(^g^) JH
Right next to where it says the animals were stacked in a bloddy pile because God didn't have a shipping and packaging department to get them down to earth in a condition that Peter could see what was clean and unclean among them. LOL
(^g^) JH
Just don't let it become a millstone to you.
In Christ, JH To bed with me, ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz,,,,,,,
Did God create and design those plants for human consumption...as a matter of fact, do you think God created and designed any plant for human consumption?
So you admit that when God said Noah could eat EVERY animal that he didn't really mean EVERY animal, correct? It was EVERY animal that was created to be eaten by man...correct? Heck, had to be. I don't think God would want Noah to somehow think that all those poisonous animals he had observed had been turned into non-poisonous ones.
This is an inane argument, you seem to think that when God gives you free will agency, we loose all common sense, and go running off half cocked and act like idiots.
That's what the Holy Spirit does for us, it gives us wisdom and discernment, and Noah certainly had God's Spirit in him.
It is not an "inane" argument, it's the crux of the matter. You said that God TOLD Noah that he could eat every animal. Now you are trying to tell me that after watching God do exactly as he promised with the flood and the ark, and then issuing the commandment that Noah still had to decide for himself whether or not he could *really* eat every animal or not. That in essence God was telling him he could eat eat every animal and at the same time not telling him that there were poison animals he shouldn't eat. He didn't give him any guidelines, instructions, rules or nothing.
Of course the obvious answer is that God made certain animals for human consumption and certain animals not for human consumption. The evidence is that there were two classes of animals, clean and unclean that Noah took on the ark. The food classification ALREADY existed. Of COURSE Noah knew what animals were fit for human consumption because God (or someone who passed it on) had told Noah about clean and unclean animals.
This of course has to be twisted to mean that it was "only for sacrifice" which again begs the question why are unclean animals an unacceptable sacrifice for God, but acceptable food for the people he created in his own image?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.