Peter's vision explained: How people and food are linked in the Torah
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ค. 2024
- Peter’s vision in Acts 10 has become a major source of contention with our Hebrew Roots friends. And most every attempt to explain away the food in the vision misses a critical point taught in the Torah. That is what we examine in this video. And we also dismantle the most common argument from our “Torah observant” friends about this passage.
WHAT GOD HAS MADE CLEAN (Book)
www.amazon.com/dp/B0CMKK7DFT
DONATE TO OUR MINISTRY
TheBiblicalRoots.org/#donate (Thank you!)
OUR LINKS
linktr.ee/rlsolberg
CHAPTERS
00:00 Introduction
00:37 Peter’s Vision
05:46 Food and People in the Torah
11:58 Peter in the house of a Gentile
14:22 The Hebrew Roots Argument
16:30 Wrap it up, Professor
![[ LIVE ] Rank เล่นแต่แครี่ ยาวๆถึง 100ดาว “วันนี้มีกิจกรรมลุ้นรับสกินมาบอกต่อ โก๋แก่ช็อกโกบอล x ROV”](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5NNgkhWj57Y/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 4](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/e7Oqqo90x_w/mqdefault.jpg)
The thought/lesson being conveyed extends into Acts Chapter 11, where the literal act of EATING FOOD with Gentiles is described.
Holey moley, I've never looked at that part of Acts 11 apparently. I know of the passage where Paul rebukes Peter for falling back into his Jewishness by withdrawing from the Gentiles, but Acts 11 is pretty direct!
Good call
Do you mean Acts 11:17-18?
17 Therefore, if God gave them the same gift as He also gave to us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has also granted to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”
@@nickylouse2I believe they were talking about Acts 11:3
_and said: "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them."_
The concept of not eating with Gentiles was an “oral man made tradition” still practiced in Judaism today. It was not a commandment of God.
This tradition is called Bishul Akum
One of the lesser-known kashrut requirements is that food must be cooked by a Jew or for a Jew to at least participate in the cooking in some way. [1] Food that was cooked by a non-Jew is referred to as bishul akum and may not be eaten. This is true even though the food is otherwise kosher. [2] Food must be bishul yisrael - cooked by a Jew.
I love the way you teach. I was under the impression that Peter’s vision was strictly and contextually speaking about people. The way you explained this make so much sense.
I never heard of Rob until a week ago. A breathe of refreshing air, and good spiritual nourishment. Love his style. Easy to learn with his style.
@@JeffSmith-it4tm you are dazed and confused. Find an actual Christian fellowship with a pastor/ teacher who teaches systematic theology in a contextual manner. Rob is rock solid in his teaching.
@@rayray4192 You are the one dazed and confused. God is talking about calling man common or unclean, because the wall between the Jew and Gentiles was broken down and Cornelius was converted. Peter says it him self. Dont call any man common or unclean. It has nothing to do with food. How deceiving some people are to others. To many false pastors today.
@@JeffSmith-it4tm AMEN AND AMEN .
My Wife has started keeping the mosaic sabbath and eating Kosher; so for the last 2 weeks I have been listening to debates on youtube, visiting youtube channels like the 119 Ministries and other Hebrew roots folks. I can say that I am completely confused and very frustrated. My biggest frustration is with the fact that most mosaic law keepers say that if you are not obeying the mosaic laws that you are living in disobedience to God’s commands. If we were intended to keep the mosaic laws why would we even need Jesus? Is Jesus dying on the cross only so that we don’t have to have a sacrifice for our sins? Is that the only reason Jesus was crucified? Please tell me which of the 613 mosaic laws are still in effect because if not one jot or tittle has changed than I guess I will have to change my job because I am not allowed to grow a beard. Not trying to be sarcastic, I love my Lord and Savior. It is because of him that I have received the promise of eternal life and rest in HIM. However I am trying to gain understanding and truth. Especially because I want to be the spiritual leader in my house. Shalom.
People were often referred to as unclean animals throughout scripture. Here is just a couple examples. This was the meaning behind Peter’s vision in Acts 10
Isaiah 43:19-21 NKJV
- Behold, I will do a new thing, Now it shall spring forth; Shall you not know it? I will even make a road in the wilderness And rivers in the desert. The beast of the field will honor Me, The jackals and the ostriches, Because I give waters in the wilderness And rivers in the desert, To give drink to My people, My chosen. This people I have formed for Myself; They shall declare My praise.
These animals are not literally animals but symbolic of people. People that were not in a right relationship with God but later repented and turned back to Him. These people appear to be Gentiles and not of the nation of Israel and is actually a prophecy for when the Gospel goes out to the gentiles.
Isaiah 11:6-10 NKJV - "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, The leopard shall lie down with the young goat, The calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; Their young ones shall lie down together; And the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play by the cobra's hole, And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper's den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover the sea. "And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, Who shall stand as a banner to the people; For the Gentiles shall seek Him, And His resting place shall be glorious."
Here we see clean and unclean animals joined together. These are symbolic of Jew and Gentile joined together in faith to the Root of Jesse; the Son of David; whom we now know as Yeshua/Jesus.
Matthew 15:26-27 NKJV -
But He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs." And she said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
Here we see Jesus referring to gentiles as a dog; an unclean animal
That's a great exposition of Acts10 in line with the OT food laws Thank you.
THIS IS THE BEST REVELATION I EVER HEARD ABOUT THIS, IT IS THE PIECE I WAS MISSING! NOW I UNDERSTAND!
Phenomenally Helpful
All food is indeed clean. But what did God define as food? Levitucus 11 clearly tells us what food is. Sure, you can eat your heater's air filter, but it doesn't make it food...
Under the law, God named specific animals as unclean TO YOU (Those under old covenant relationship) They were not unclean to those outside the old covenant because God allowed them to be sold to the strangers and sojourners. God doesn't tempt anyone to evil, so the eating of those animals by those outside the covenant could not be sin.
Noah was permitted to eat all animals. So were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The designated diet was a sign of Israel's sanctification from the other nations. Just as they were told not to intermarry with the nations.
Joseph, in Egypt before the law, was told by God to marry an Egyptian woman. Joseph's two sons were half Egyptian and half Jewish.
Are you wearing a paper hat, or perhaps a tin foil hat, wannabe Jew pompous Pharisee? I enjoyed Thai food last night; do you have a problem with Thai food? Provide a list of approved wannabe Jew approved cuisine.
@@heather602 so by your reasoning, having sex with a pig was not a sin if a person was outside the covenant??? This is how the devil has joined the church to deceive. God defined clean and unclean animals in Noah’s day and to the nation of ISreal BEFORE the Sinai covenant.
Exodus 8:26 ESV - But Moses said, "It would not be right to do so, for the offerings we shall sacrifice to the LORD our God are an abomination to the Egyptians. If we sacrifice offerings abominable to the Egyptians before their eyes, will they not stone us?
The Word does not say that they were eating unclean animals.
Though He gave every plant for food does not mean we are to eat Castor bean salad.
@@DBaldwin111 Your comment is extremely disturbing. I pray you repent.
@@heather602 repent of what? I’m only pointing out that your reasoning is flawed. God had one law for Jew and gentile alike. His words and not mine.
Exodus 12:49 NKJV
"One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you."
The same law was for the native and foreigner. (Jew and gentile)
Leviticus 24:16NKJV
- 'And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death.
Numbers 15:14-16 NKJV
- 'And if a stranger dwells with you, or whoever is among you throughout your generations, and would present an offering made by fire, a sweet aroma to the LORD, just as you do, so shall he do. 'One ordinance shall be for you of the assembly and for the stranger who dwells with you, an ordinance forever throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD. 'One law and one custom shall be for you and for the stranger who dwells with you.' "
We should define the terms. There are three terms used in this passage: clean, common, and unclean. And at NO point in the passage was Peter told to eat an unclean animal. He was just told to eat. Peter could have selected a clean lamb from the animals to eat, but why didn't he? Because he thought the clean animals were made common because they touched the unclean animals and could then not be eaten either. The words common and unclean do not have the same meaning, hence the reason Peter used both terms.
Common means defiled by something. Clean is what God said is clean - things like lambs that are food and we can eat. Unclean is what God said is unclean - things like pigs that are not food and that we can't eat. We don't get to choose on our own what is clean or unclean.
Peter was told in Acts 10:15 that "what God has made clean, do not call COMMON.” He was NOT told, "what God has made clean, do not call UNCLEAN." There is a huge difference between these two things. Again, he could have selected one of the clean animals, but because of his incorrect beliefs about a clean animal being made common and uneatable, he wouldn't eat even a lamb. The whole point of this story is that believers in Yeshua are made "clean" by God and just because they are Gentile, this does not make them "common," they are not defiled. It took the analogy of the mixed sheet of clean and unclean animals for Peter to finally grasp the idea that he can associate with a believer in Yeshua who is Gentile.
Blessing to you all!
Peter's vision had absolutely nothing to do with food!!!
Hi, WDYD! in addition to the Torah’s connection between food and people that we looked at in this video, there are three more problems with that interpretation. First, the vision was literally about food. God told Peter to “kill and eat” the animals. So to say it had nothing to do with food just isn’t true. Second, on what basis are we willing to allow for a change on the issue of people but not food? That’s pretty arbitrary. Third, if the vision about food was solely intended as a metaphor for the Gentiles, then Jesus taught something false. He was essentially saying, “Look, Peter. I realize I’m telling you in this vision that all food is clean, but that’s not really true. It’s just a metaphor to explain that hanging out with Gentiles is okay now.” No, God doesn’t teach false things in the visions He gives people.
R.
@@TheBiblicalRoots We dont read the Torah. We read the true word of God where the truth is.
@@janaelana1872your comment makes no sense. The 66 books are all Gods words and yes the Lord God changed things when He made a NEW covenant nullifying the old one . NEW covenant comes with NEW rules. Most baby christians can understand this. If you dont then maybe you are not actually a Christian
@@adamguy33 My comments do make sense. Its you that dont make sense because you refuse to look up the truth. God says you can lead a horse to the water but you can't make him drink. Im done with this worthlessness. I hope you get right with God and ask Him to show you the truths and not let the devil pervert your judgment and blind you to the truths. I think your the baby of whatever. Theres no common sense with you. I dont remember even talking about a Covenant. The rest of us were talking about Peters vision. Dont have clue where you are.
@@janaelana1872@janaelana1872 you have fallen from grace following the doctrines of demons. Satan knows the old covenant is done away with and JESUS Christ is the TRUTH. It makes perfect sense that satan would come and bring gentiles under bondage to an old dead covenant. This is exactly what Paul had to deal with except he was dealing with Jewish judaizers . today we deal with gentile judaizers it is so ironic, but satan is good at what he does. You are simply blinded by the lies never coming to the knowledge of the TRUTH.
Man i'm really thankful i found this channel. Lot of good explanations
Your out of context Mr Soberg. (Acts 10:28 KJV) And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
The vision as Peter understood is in this verse and not about allowing unclean food at all. Peter did not eat the unclean meat. Did he? Read it for yourself
Read the whole chapter in context.!
Sda also using the same false arguments😅
SDA are deceivers of the worst kind.
They obfuscate their true intentions and are accepted largely. Privately, they believe all who do Sunday worship are damned.
Have family members in Armstrongism, wich is even stricter.
Thank you Rob. Thank you for bringing the truth of the new covenant to those who are being decieved into going into the bondage of the old covenant. I know you get a lot of hate from these people that just dont understand the truth and are trying to put a yoke on themselves and others that is just not nessasary. The crazy part is that most are not even Jewish who are teaching such things. God bless you. I know this is helping others for sure.
Thank you, Adam!
Rob
Shabbat Shalom! ... And well, here's what most people fail to understand & consider from Acts 10...
#1. The sheet of animals in the vision was a "mixture" of "common" animals ( aka: biblically clean animals that had come into too close contact with unclean animals, thus then making them non-kosher or "unclean".. which is actually Not forbidden in the Written Torah, but is a Rabbinical prohibition from within their Oral Tradition/ The Mishnah Talmud )...
Notice that The Lord only made reference of the "common" animals, in His reply back to Peter in Acts 10 : 15 !?...
Then Peter finally figured it out and concluded that he was to call "No Man" - "common"/ or "unclean".
#2. ... And even after all that, Peter still had a hard time getting use to the idea that it was actually "ok" to fellowship with the gentile believers, per his example of the hypocrisy being called out by Paul in Gal. 2 : 11 - 14, in separating himself from the gentile table, while at the same time trying to "Judaize" them.
#3. Mark 7 Does Not imply that Christ made "unclean animals" good for food..
That is an "added" interpretation/mistranslation into the context.
#4. Even The Apostle John still distinguished the clean from the "unclean bird" in Revelation 18 : 2 ...
If he was under the impression that all birds were now "clean", then why would he even have mentioned it?...
#5. The "yoke"/ or "heavy burden", was all the extra-biblical rules and traditions of men, that the rabbis had "added to" Yah's Written Commandments (i.e - the ritual washing of the hands etc.. - Matt 15, Mark 7, Matt 23 : 4 )
( There is even a lot of extra - added Pharisseical rules around the Judaic ceremony of circumcision...
Circumcision of the flesh, in and of itself is still a wise and good thing to do for health & hygiene purposes alone ..
Many "christians" still keep with the practice of it any way for their newborn sons!...( Deut 4 : 5 - 8 )
And like Father Abraham, it was not a "requirement for salvation" when The Most High called him out of Mesopotamia/ Babylon either... ( Genesis 12 ) ... But the original intent of circumcision from the beginning was always a matter of "faith" in the promises of YHWH God ( Genesis 17 )... contrary to how *some rabbis taught & teach it from their "own interpretations" of Moses / The Rabbinical Oral Law. ( Acts 15 : 1 )
Excerpt From: My Jewish Learning Site:
“Abraham was 48 years old when he came to know his creator. Yet he was not commanded to circumcise himself at that time and waited until he was much older - 99 years of age.
Why? In order not to close the door upon proselytes, however advanced in years.”
Actually, There Is No Explicit Commandment In The Torah Requiring Circumcision (or immersion) For Proselytes. The Talmud -the Oral Law-is where the laws and debates about initiation rites are found. There was general, though by no means universal, agreement among the rabbis that male converts must undergo both circumcision and mikveh [immersion in a ritual bath]. (Women only have to immerse.)"
@@ChrisTian-tz3eq true christians and not under the law of moses at all including food laws , we are even required not to go under it or back to it. If so we have fallen from Grace. Moral laws predate the law of Moses. Food is not moral or immoral same with feasts, new moons or sabbath. Circumcision is not moral or immoral. God created man uncircumcised , it was a sign for Abraham of a cutting away of the flesh andd the starting of a distict people that the Lord would use to bring the MESSIAH . Then when the MESSIAH came He has done away with the law of Moses and opened up salvation to all people apart from law , but by Grace through Faith. The key to understanding the relationship between the Christian and the Law is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to reveal to the Israelites how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments, for example). Some of the laws were to show the Israelites how to worship God and atone for sin (the sacrificial system). Some of the laws were intended to make the Israelites distinct from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the Old Testament law is binding on Christians today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).
In place of the Old Testament law, Christians are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). If we obey those two commands, we will be fulfilling all that Christ requires of us: “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:40). Now, this does not mean the Old Testament law is irrelevant today. Many of the commands in the Old Testament law fall into the categories of “loving God” and “loving your neighbor.” The Old Testament law can be a good guidepost for knowing how to love God and knowing what goes into loving your neighbor. At the same time, to say that the Old Testament law applies to Christians today is incorrect. The Old Testament law is a unit (James 2:10). Either all of it applies, or none of it applies. If Christ fulfilled some of it, such as the sacrificial system, He fulfilled all of it.
“This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). The Ten Commandments were essentially a summary of the entire Old Testament law. Nine of the Ten Commandments are clearly repeated in the New Testament (all except the command to observe the Sabbath day). Obviously, if we are loving God, we will not be worshiping false gods or bowing down before idols. If we are loving our neighbors, we will not be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them. The purpose of the Old Testament law is to convict people of our inability to keep the law and point us to our need for Jesus Christ as Savior (Romans 7:7-9; Galatians 3:24). The Old Testament law was never intended by God to be the universal law for all people for all of time. We are to love God and love our neighbors. If we obey those two commands faithfully, we will be upholding all that God requires of us.
Interesting perspective. So you are saying the Hebrew roots population or those who believe the dietary laws are ignoring what is plainly stated. And that if all food wasn’t made clean then Jesus would be asking Peter to sin.
So let me ask
IF the message was not about food, even though the analogy used food, would Jesus be asking Peter to sin?
I would like for you to show me where any covenant done away with a previous covenant.
Noah knew clean from unclean . Very long time for GOD to realize maybe HE had made a mistake.
"For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance-now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant."
~ Hebrews 9 : 15
The maker of a covenant has to die before you can inherit from Him.
"Do you not know, brothers and sisters-for I am speaking to those who know the law-that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him.... So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."
~ Romans 7 : 1-2, 4-6
You cannot inherit eternal life under the Mosaic covenant until the maker of that covenant dies.
You cannot remarry - become the Bride of Christ - until your first husband dies.
Great stuff. Hebrews is an amazing book of Hope (⚓️Heb 6.19!)
Thank you so much for making these videos; each one I watch brings more and more healing to my soul regarding these issues.
Do you have a video covering once saved always saved?
Thanks, David! I have not done any videos yet covering “once saved always saved.“
Rob
Onorato Diamante has a lot of videos on that.
@@TheBiblicalRootsMr. Rob solberg now I really know that you don’t know the scriptures: here are some text that is abominations to God, Proverbs 6:16-19, 20:10, 8:7
Leviticus 20:13
Isaiah 8:16-17, 65:2-5 and 66:16-17 read those text.
An abomination is an abomination, one cannot be an abomination and the other is not, they are all abomination and if God say they are, they are.
Ezekiel 22:26
@@kingPerry34 Right, the Hebrew word there is תּוֹעֵבָ֥ה, and it refers things that are abhorrent and sinful. And under the Old Covenant law, certain animals were considered תּוֹעֵבָ֥ה by Yahweh. Those animals were not תּוֹעֵבָ֥ה _before_ the law was given (Gen. 9:3). And they aren't תּוֹעֵבָ֥ה _after_ the Old Covenant law has ended (Mark 7:19, Acts 10:9-16, Rom. 14, etc.).
Not all of God's commands apply at all times to all people. We are each only responsible for obeying the command that apply to us. And the kosher food commands do not apply to Christian's today. And, in fact, they have _never_ applied to Gentiles!
Shalom Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots Rob, I’ll stick by my words. You don’t understand the scriptures, God didn’t make mistake, he’s the one who created the animals and knows which is clean and unclean 7 clean and 2 unclean God said that!.
In Gen. 9:3-5 God is saying that man is going to eat everything on the earth, but the irony is that the animals is going to eat you ( man )
If it is sinful and abhorrent in the Old Testament it is not sinful and abhorrent in the New Testament, my brother sin is sin, God cannot stand sin. What was sin then it is sin now, it cannot become not sin.
In Mark 7:19 and Roman 14 what you send me, unclean animals is not food, God calls it abomination, ( sinful and abhorrent) so when Jesus talks about food, it is what the father say we should eat, and the scripture was not talking about unclean animals but to eat with your hands dirty.
You are a theologian as you say, Acts chapter 10 and 11 Peter is the one tell his story, and Peter gave the conclusion of his story of what the vision means, to add anything to Peter’s story is conspiracy and blasphemy, don’t add to the words or taken from it, say exactly what he say.
According to Peter it was not about food, God was giving Peter a metaphor and by the way Peter use the same phrase that Ezekiel uses in Ezekiel 4:14 Peter knew the prophets.
Perfect combination between the Old and the New Testament .
Big time fan! Purchase and Read the Torahism book. I watch all your TH-cam videos! I’ve been seeing a lot of “deconstructionist” state that Jesus did not fulfill any Messianic Prophecy. Is this a topic you would be willing to cover in a video? One person in particular points to passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah.
Yes I've seen them emphatically state that Jesus was not the Messiah & that the New Covenant hasn't taken place yet... & yet they fabricate whole new systems of belief & ways of (allegedly) "observing" Torah that would not/could not be accepted by non-messianic Jews.
You can add words in Peters mouth, he ubderstood it was not about food, it was about people.
did you know him personally? or did god tell? BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
Literally about food in Acts 11.
It was about both and thats obvious, you are taking away the obvious because you love the bondage and hard yoke of the old covenant which does nothing to make you more holy or acceptable to God , but rather does the opposite because you are basically saying you want the old covenant over the NEW . and your probably not even Jewish which is ironically worse SMH
@@adamguy33 thats not smart. Whats the difference between oks covenant ans new? The torah in your heart tbat will cause you to do it.. same covenant, different mediator better promises, but torah is torah..
@@kimartist its acts 10 bud not acts 11.
Revelation 18:2, explain the unclean birds and beast
The chapter is about Gentiles not being unclean, it is not unclean foods
The words are such as might signify a sinful fall, or apostacy; and what is here, is true of it in that sense; idols in Scripture being ordinarily called devils: but they seem rather to be understood of a penal fall, for such is that spoken of Isaiah 21:9, after which it should become a habitation of devils, and a cage of unclean birds. See the like spoken of literal Babylon, Isaiah 13:19-21; wild beasts and hateful birds usually frequenting desolate places.
Wolf in sheeps clothing , your handle explains things well. A gentile judaizer more then likely. A Trans-jew trying to put gentiles under the law of Moses . We are under the law of Christ which supersedes the law of Moses . Making the law of Moses dead unable to save anyone. The new covenant does not put us born again believers under such bondage of dont touch this or that food.
Jesus himself with his own mouth said what a man eats doesn't defile him. So did paul
Romans 14:1-8 KJV
[1] Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. [2] For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. [3] Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. [4] Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. [5] One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. [6] He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. [7] For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. [8] For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
bible.com/bible/1/rom.14.2.KJV
This guy is one reason why i don't wear suits and ties. They don't make a man wiser😂
In saying this jesus made all foods clean ? Added into scripture later i was told
Hi Rob.
Let see if you would answer these comments.
1) Peter said explicitly what God showed him in that vision.
The answer is in verse 34.
This has nothing to do with food. It has to do with people.
2) Scollers say this happened about 20 years after Jesus went to heaven.
Why, if Peter walked with Jesus for 3 years, would he still have not eaten anything common or unclean? Didn't he get the message while he was walking with Jesus?
3) 3 times God showed Peter tge vision, 3 men were knocking at the door.
This is not about unclean food, it's about clean people
So why does Acts 15:29 say new converts have to stay away from blood and things strangled? Those are Old Covenant laws.
Also in Mathew 5:18, Jesus says not one letter will pass away from the law, meaning either all of the law is still valid or none of it is.
The law was fulfilled by Jesus if it wasn't than he accomplished nothing. The unsaved will be judged by the law not the saved romans 4:15.
@@fightingwithtruth1698
Jesus fulfilled it by being perfect, he did not abolish it. The very definition of sin is violating God's law (1 John 3:4). We are saved by grace through faith, but It pleases God when we follow his law and those who ignore the least commandments and teach others to ignore them will be the least in heaven (Mathew 5:19).
The Seventh-day Adventists also teach this verse refers to Gentiles, not food, just like Torah thumping Christians.
SDA, Armstongism, Hebrew Roots all came from the Millerites. Satan can only lie about what he knows.
Thank you! Where were you 30 years ago? But then again, where was the internet 30 years ago...
This is the exact language God used in Genesis 9:3 ✝
I love how many people in the comments simply say "It's not about food" but then do not scripturally or even logically refute any of the three points in this video on why it 'not being about food' doesn't make sense. Guys, did you even watch the video? Do you have any counterpoints whatsoever?
Finally, I'll add one more point for the 'it's not about food' crowd: if it's just a metaphor for people, and specifically NOT food, then it can't be a metaphor, can it? Metaphors by their very nature need to have something in COMMON to make them work.
You see my point? If the voice was trying to make the point that people have been cleansed, then using an example of something that has NOT been cleansed is totally counterintuitive. If the voice had pointed out that they were using that as a CONTRAST, that's one thing, but they didn't. Peter awoke from his vision, and recognized that what the voice had said about FOOD applied to PEOPLE as well; the voice didn't say anything about people. So this passage is EXPLICITLY about food, and IMPLICITLY about people, via a comparative metaphor.
In addition, if God had only cleansed the Gentile people & not the food they eat, then they would become unclean again by eating their unclean food thus nullifying Jesus' cleansing.
Basically it makes no sense except as means to frighten people into keeping kosher food laws so that they might obtain the cleansing that Jesus couldn't effectuate for them...
Which, again, makes no sense at all.
It must be about food. The Jews were meticulous about their food, because God gave them their food laws. Jesus said it didn't matter what food we ate. Love how all the different Sabbath keeper believers pick and choose which Mosaic laws they want to follow. 100% the don't follow all of them. There are death penalties for breaking Sabbath laws.
Did God teach Abraham a lesson about murdering Isaac being acceptable or was there a different lesson at hand?
Rob, are you stating that the Jews started living as Gentiles under the New Covenant? Or am I misunderstanding you? Because that would be in complete contradiction with the Jerusalem Council of Acts 14, where Paul and Peter are discussing which rules Gentiles should stick to, as they weren't familiar with Jewish law, traditions, and customs.
Hi, LD! I am stating that Peter's vision in Acts 10 confirms that the Old Covenant dietary are no longer in effect. And FYI we know from Gal. 2:14 that Peter was a Jew who lived like a Gentile on this issue.
Blessings, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots Isn't Paul blessing out Peter in Gal 2:14 akin to those of the "party of circumcision" showing up and accusing Jesus of eating with sinners and tax collectors? Yet Jesus didn't step away (out of fear) like Peter did.
I find your concepts fascinating, just don't know if it is a rock that should be stood upon, but fascinating.
By the way if you cared to research even science supports the wisdom to observe the Kashrut laws. Like the time it takes to kill a clean animal and the risk of stress poison release. One of the suspected source of COVID was a strange animals markets.
Thank you brother so much for sharing the truth
The natural conclusion for any jew upon reading this account in Peter is to simply reject this book altogether as the law says to do. It's way too obvious
Only a nonjew would say to themselves "ah sure. The guy says this contrary command comes from God. Must be true"
Indeed. Jesus makes all the difference!
R.
@@TheBiblicalRoots what makes all the difference is tossing logic out the window😂
Although my beliefs differ from yours, I enjoy watching your videos to challenge myself and what I believe. I appreciate how you present your thoughts and beliefs respectfully and honestly. I watched this video twice before replying because I feel like you skipped over a section that may go against your argument. You say several times that even though he was stubborn and had to be told three times to eat the unclean animals, Peter ultimately understood his dream because he understood the Torah. However, verses 17 and 19 seem to say that Peter did not in fact understand the meaning of the dream (even after being told three times). He was perplexed internally by the dream (vs 17) and was still pondering its meaning (vs 19) when the Spirit had to explain to him that three men were looking for him and that he should go with them (three men, three repetitions in the dream). I’m not trying to debate your point as I’ve already said that my beliefs differ from yours, and that’s ok. But I would have liked to see you address verse 17 and 19 without skipping all the way to 28, since those verses seem to counter what you said about Peter understanding his dream. Thank you again for what you do (and how you do it), from one Rob to another.
Hi, Rob! Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You ask a legitimate question about verses 17 and 19. I probably should have taken my time to mention those two verses, instead of skipping directly to the end result in verse 28. So right after the vision, it says,
"Now while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean, behold, the men who were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood at the gate and called out to ask whether Simon who was called Peter was lodging there. And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.” (Acts 10:17-21).
So after he came out of the trance, Peter had a very human reaction, wondering what that daytime vision was all about. Why did God give him that particular vision? What did it mean? And then he gets an answer when the men sent by Cornelius showed up. The Spirit helps Peter to understand the vision by acting on it instead of merely continuing to contemplate it. Either way, Peter finally put two and two together and realized the vision in which he was commanded to eat unclean animals was given to prepare him to share the Gospel with Gentiles. No more food restrictions meant no more social barriers between Jews and Gentiles.
Blessings,
The Other Rob
Thank you, Rob for taking the time to reply and address those two verses! -rob
Acts 10 is chronologically around 14 years after the resurrection… Are we expected to believe that Peter, the person, the rock that the church is built on has not yet got the memo that he can now eat anything! Why wait around 14 years to correct Peter?? Furthermore, why did Peter not even understand that all food was clean 😅
@Warlands--- leave the Bible alone. Your a mess and you messing God's word up. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these other things will be added unto you. "
Absolutely! The ending of the food laws was a radical change for a first century Jew. It was something that Peter and his family and his people had been living under for 15 centuries. Peter wasn't superhuman and he wasn't a robot that could be instantly reprogrammed. He was just like any of us, who struggle with change. Especially change on that scale! First-century Jews were being pressured not only by family and friends who didn't believe in Jesus, but also by the Judaizers. The years following Jesus' resurrection were a time of great theological confusion, which is what much of the NT was written to address. So it only makes sense that Peter had to be reminded about the food laws at least two times that we know of: by Paul in Gal. 2 and by Jesus in Acts 10.
RLS
@@TheBiblicalRoots You also do not know what you are talking about. Never, ever read of what you are saying. Its not in the true word of God. All you are saying is foreign. And made up.
@@janaelana1872but let me guess........YOU are the one who knows what they are talking about.😅😅😅😅😅 dunning-kruger effect much. No experience yet knows more then 99% of theologians ever. Confidence in ingnorance. Nice one
Also remember, Peter was the apostle appointed to the Jews. Probably food laws were never an issue there…until later. Why would he have been instructed to “kill and eat” if that pertained to people? That doesn’t make sense. Kill means slay, eat means consume. Jesus told Peter “what (not who) God has cleaned, don’t call unclean.”
What would you say is "all foods" anything alive that you kill? Any limits at all? Some animals, even just ones some culture eats somewhere at anytime? Any animal whatsoever? Anything you cam manage to cut up small enough and swallow? Roadkill ? Broken glass? Used motor oil?
that's exactly what he's saying humans too.....but i think he's got it twisted
If Jesus "declared all foods are clean" His ministry would have ended right there and then as a false prophet. I wonder why didn't Peter remember that day when Jesus told the Pharisees that all food were clean when he had his vision?
He denied Jesus 3 times. Peter had issues. Paul rebuked him in Galatians 2.
@@salpezzino7803 "Peter had issues." - Final answer? We are not going to mention how Acts 10 and 11 tells us WHY the vision was given? Paul argued with many doesn't make him right or wrong?
The reason for the vision ..by Peter " 8And God, who knows the heart, showed His approval by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for He cleansed their hearts by faith." ~ Acts 15
@@AndreColon you lost me when you said Paul can be wrong. Judaizers stoned him then are still doing so today
@@salpezzino7803 Did Paul keep the Law? Did he teach his people that it's ok to eat anything because "all foods are clean" ? Did Peter? or any disciple?
@@AndreColon Paul did and didn't. Yes he did and yes. Do you spend any time in the Bible or do you only listen to the Satan worshiping false teachers of the Hebrew/Jewish roots?
The Lord said that the Isrealites would be scattered to the four corners of the earth and forget who they are. If they have forgotten who they are, how can they follow the food laws? Only after the second exodus will they know who they are.
John 16:12, 13
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
What does the Bible say truth is? Psalm 119:142&160. For Yeshua to change what his Father instructed through Moses would make him a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 13.
Was it possible for a Gentile to be "like a native of the land"? Or were there different laws for Gentiles than there were for Israelites? Lastly, was Cornelius a God-fearing Gentile?
Exodus 12:48
Numbers 15:16
Acts 10:1
Hi Nicky!
1. Yes. For example, Gentiles were to be treated kindly, as if they were a native of the land. “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God" (Lev. 19:33-34).
2. Yes, there were different laws for Gentiles than there were for Israelites. For example, there was a difference in the dietary commands. God said to the Israelites, "Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to the Lord your God" (Deut. 14:21).
3. Yes, Cornelius was a God-fearing Gentile. "He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly" (Acts 10:2).
RLS
Very Informative as always.
I have noticed that you must keep the dietary laws doesn’t not come from people who are Messianic Jews(Ethnic Jews who are Christians)but from people who are Gentile and not Ethnic Jews via Hebrew roots/Torahism, and the Hebrew Israelites FKA black Hebrew Israelites crowd in particularly the One West sects.
Are you saying they don't keep dietary laws, or they don't encourage others to keep them?
There are no Jews. Would not ethnic Hebrew be a more accurate description? I’m asking. I’m ignorant on the topic, but scripture teaches there are nonJews or Greek. I’m new here and have much to learn. Rob is easy to listen to.
@@tbishop4961Does being invited to a crab feast by a Jewish Family count?
@@joshuamelton9148 doesn't exactly answer my question. There are many many jews who don't keep kosher
@@joshuamelton9148 but those who do keep it would never in a million years insist that you should keep it
Does the passage say he was eating "Unclean" food ? 🤔
Do you know how to read>?
Acts 11:3
It would be naive to assume dreams have literal meaning and not figurative especially when you consider Pharos dream on cows eating cows. He also assume that we aren't grafted to the law. What are the new laws God was to write in their hearts.? Beyond the religious limitations we all know that the forbidden foods are a health risk. Like fish without scales have higher mercury residue and pig worms are a disaster
Dear Rob whats your opinion on dispositionalist theology?
Hey, Goblin! I don't subscribe to dispensationalist theology. I think it offers some great observations and insights. But it also introduces some problematic ideas and sort of forces a framework on the Bible that, in my opinion, doesn't always fit.
Blessings, Rob
The laws in Leviticus were aimed towards the Levi Rabbi’s not the ordinary common person
There are lots of commands for the Levitical priesthood in Leviticus, that's for sure. However, the food laws were for _all_ the Israelites, not just the priests. "And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth..." (Lev. 11:1-2).
Blessings, Rob
Acts 8 comes before Acts 10 help me to understand I believe the Ethiopian was the first gentile to become a believer that shown in scripture not Cornelius. Is that true.
He was a Jewish proselyte Acts 8:27b He had come to Jerusalem to worship
He was a gentile,
@@salpezzino7803 he was a gentile.
@@jwils9679 no what is wrong with you?
One Peter said it was the people that was clean 2 Jesus is very mad on His return Isaiah 66:17
👍
Contention sources must be exposed 🎉thanks so much hallelujah 🎉
NASB says “what God has cleansed…..” not WHO. One small word with a lot of impact here.
Hi, Gigi. The Greek word there is καθαρίζω (katharizō), which means "cleansed" or "made clean."
(FYI It's the same Greek word used in Mark 7:19: "thus [Jesus] declared all food clean.")
Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots
Gigi is talking about the word WHAT not cleansed .
@@TheBiblicalRootsyeh I was referring to the what and the who. I’m not into Torahism at all.
Apparently "hos" (Greek) can be translated: who, which, what, that; interrog. wherefore, why
Which I know doesn't help nail it down for you, but Mounce Reverse Interlinear chose to translate it "what" for that particular passage (showing the English only; YT freaks out when you put the Greek):
"But the voice replied a second time from heaven, 'What God has made clean, you must not consider common.'"
@@kimartistit’s interesting that the translators used the word “what” when translating. Since it is in English, my mind sees that as a thing and not a person. Not being argumentative, just find it interesting 🧐. That said, I basically see this passage as having a two fold meaning. Either way, God is declaring that which was unclean to now be clean.
Hello, Peter did not understand the vision after he had received it. However, in Acts 10:28 Peter now knows what the visiin was intended to show him:
"Acts 10:28 KJV
[28] And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."
This allows me to come to the conclusion that the message of the visuon was to show Peter any man is now clean ... Peter himself stated it in Vers 28 ...
Why did you not comment on that verse which reveals the meaning of that particular vision?
it is about Food, Ya all food is clean and all men are clean. Stop listening to Satan
Then why did Peter get rebuked for EATING WITH Gentiles in Chapter 11?
@@kimartist it was not God who rebuked him... People called Jesus being obsessed in the Bible. But of course I guess you would not agree. Same with your statement.
Anyway, after they rebuked him, He told the story what happened. And again, focus was on the fact that now Paul could be sure that the Gospel is to be brought to the Gentiles as well. By the way, it was a vision. Hence, it does not necessarily be understood literally. And, as I already said, some verses after the vision Paul gave the meaning of that vision himself.
By the way, Paul said that he could not understand the meaning after he got it. So I conclude that the vision was not to be taken literally.
@@kimartist Peter didn't in Chapter 11 whatever that means. He did in Galatians 2. I see you have a Zero knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. Is it the meds that you are on, or just your low IQ?
@@andreasstarzacher189 what are you talking about, Paul or Peter and you are teaching the doctrine of self. CraZy
You still missing a big part of the story. Remember The 12 were tasked to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 9 of the 12 good turned his face from after the kingdom split and were deemed as unclean animals. This you see when Jesus talked to the Samaritan women at the well, How the Jew have dealing with them though Jacob is both their fathers. That was the battle Peter had to deal with this the parties of the New Covenant .
For in those days will I make a new covenant with a house of Jacob and House of Israel?
I can't take the stupidity of your comment. Why the same vomit over and over again??? Satan please give them something else.
You still missing a big part of the story. Remember The 12 were tasked to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 9 of the 12 good turned his face from after the kingdom split and were deemed as unclean animals. This you see when Jesus talked to the Samaritan women at the well, How the Jew have dealing with them though Jacob is both their fathers. That was the battle Peter had to deal with this the parties of the New Covenant .
For in those days will I make a new covenant with a house of Jacob (Jews) and House of Israel?
So you are of the Two House Theology I see. More than that it is safe to assume that you hold to the One Law One People Theology as well correct?
@@joshuamelton9148 kinda... For those in the kingdom there is one law.
Revelation 22:14-15 KJV
[14] Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. [15] For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
But until we pass under the rod of the New Covenan (See Ezekiel 20:around verse 37), we are still under the curse of the law this having to answer to non godly masters.
1 Peter 2:13-17 KJV
[13] Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; [14] or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. [15] For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: [16] as free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. [17] Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
The New Testament uses these terms interchangeably. It was not until Armstrongism came along later and popularized the idea of the lost tribes and Jews as separate entities, which was later picked up by Hebrew Rooters and the "Two House Theory". It is a false teaching, and here is why:
There are three major flaws.
1. The Two House theory is built upon the presupposition that the Northern Tribes were lost among the nations and have forgotten their true identity. In general, biblical and historical data show conclusively that the Northern Tribes were never lost.
2. The Two House theory ends up having all or most believers in "Yeshua" being the descendants of the Northern Tribes of Israel. Yet God’s plan of salvation is for all the nations, not just the descendants of Jacob.
3. The Two House Theory teaches that only when believers realize they actually are descendents of the Northern Tribes can the prophecies of the union between Judah and Israel be fulfilled. But the Scriptures teach that the union of Israel and Judah comes as an event distinct from the salvation of the nations.
Can Gentiles eat strangled meat with blood in it now?
where are you going to find it??????
It sounds disgusting, but there's no law against it.
The craziest thing is reading some of the comments saying god never called certain animals food. When God himself said “ what I have cleaned you do not call common” a direct command from god telling Peter if anything it should be a warning to any believer.
So God says we can eat anything?
@@Jamie-Russell-CME in context Peter said I never ate unclean meat… god said what he made clean don’t call common. So he’s for sure dealing with foods he called unclean under the old law.
“Therefore let us not judge one another any longer, but rather judge this, not to put an obstacle or a stumbling-block in our brother’s way. I know and am persuaded in the Master יהושע that none at all is common of itself. But to him who regards whatever to be common, to him it is common.”
Romiyim (Romans) 14:13-14 TS2009
“If, then, you died with Messiah from the elementary matters of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to dogmas: “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle” - which are all to perish with use - according to the commands and teachings of men? These indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed worship, humiliation and harsh treatment of the body - of no value at all, only for satisfaction of the flesh.”
Qolasim (Colossians) 2:20-23 TS2009
Scripture supports all over that food has no value in the kingdom of God. So it sounds like there’s wisdom in eating certain foods and clean and unclean, but according to the new covenant. It’s pointless
COMMON... Being the key word
@@craiglees5631 I think the important part is the whole passage and theme of the scripture. Singling out one word doesn’t change the context of anything.
Maybe you can prove to me from the new covenant that we should eat only clean food. With full context scriptures
@@MrGaines we would first need to define New Covenant. From scripture.
But my question would go back to my original statement: does Jesus literally want us to drink blood. To be logically consistent you apply the same logic to Peter's vision. Either its literal, figurative or both?
the vision in Acts 10 WAS NOT literally about food. We see the Lord use this exact imagery and symbolism else where in scripture.
Eze 39:17-20 NKJV
And as for you, son of man, thus says the Lord GOD, 'Speak to every sort of bird and to every beast of the field: (These we’re not “literal animals” but symbolic of people.) "Assemble yourselves and come; Gather together from all sides to My sacrificial meal Which I am sacrificing for you, A great sacrificial meal on the mountains of Israel, That you may eat flesh and drink blood. (God was not commanding Ezekiel to “literally” kill and eat the flesh of people here. People that were symbolized by animals)18 You shall eat the flesh of the mighty, Drink the blood of the princes of the earth, Of rams and lambs, Of goats and bulls, All of them fatlings of Bashan. 19 You shall eat fat till you are full, And drink blood till you are drunk, At My sacrificial meal Which I am sacrificing for you. 20 You shall be filled at My table With horses and riders, With mighty men And with all the men of war," says the Lord GOD.
"What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common."
The Lord did not compartmentalize that statement only to sentiments toward Gentiles, even though Gentiles are part of the context. The actual imagery is animals the Mosaic Law had declared as unclean ONLY to Israel, historically and biblically for the purpose of them being set apart from all other nations. Believers in Christ, both Jews and Gentiles, are no longer under the Mosaic Law requirement for being set apart by way of such practices and restrictions! THAT is what those groupings are missing. The Lord Himself is the ONLY distinction He wanted for us to show the world as our being set apart, and called out from! Nothing else will ever have the impact for that separation, and going back to such mundane and impractical exhibitions, which only add what will only cloud the Christ-distinction we should live in this world, and you end up with an attempted mixture of Christ with things in the world. That is NOT what the Lord wants!
Amen
Ironic that God’s pre-cross prohibition to Israel against "mixing" turns into an amalgam of confusing mixtures by HRM 😢
@@kimartist It's only confusing to those who perpetrate eisegetical interpretations rather than exegetical.
@@kimartist What's confusing to you?
@@musicinspire1745 Mixing law with grace & calling themselves clean & pure & everyone else dirty & deceived. Picking & choosing which laws to "observe" & ignoring the rest & claiming "compliance" with said laws & spiritual superiority over the "lawless" whilst condemning those "lawless" to he|| even though they've self-condemned by not keeping the very law they claim to keep. Shall I go on?
I understand that you disagree theologically with Torah observant fellow believers, but does it enhance your argument to be condescending?
It does not! And if something I said in this video came across as condescending, I apologize. That was not my intent.
Blessings, Rob
The food was in a vision and never declared clean. Once again, we see the classic Baptist reading into the text what they desperately want it to be.
The food in the vision was literally declared clean.
Nope. There was no definitive declaration, only a test. @@josephlarrew
I think it's a fallacy to assume that Peter's vision is about food because "it was literally about food."
Well then, is John's vision of the Beast in Revelation about a literal beast coming out of the sea, or is it symbolic of something else. And in Genesis, Pharaoh's dream wasn't about literal skinny and fat cows, it was symbolic about a famine. Is God being deceptive by using symbolism?
How come we can accept those visions as symbolic of a deeper interpretation, but for Acts 10 we have to assert it's about food. Without this assertion, then you cannot use Acts 10 to say we can eat pork and the such. You'd have to move to 2 Colossians 2:16, no?
(Or you could move to Mark 7:19, or Roman 14, or 1 Cor. 10, or 1 Tim. 4.) Notice that in those other visions you mentioned, there is nothing commanded or endorsed that is not true. In Peter's vision, he is commanded by Jesus to eat animals that were prohibited in Old Covenant law. So if those dietary laws were still in effect, Jesus was commanding Peter to break God's law and sin.
RLS
"So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, 'You went into the house of UNCIRCUMCISED MEN and ATE with them.'"
~ Acts 11 : 2ff
You are correct, it is a fallacious statement. The definition of symbolism says: Symbolism is something that stands for or suggests something other than the literal meaning. Notice in his response to you that he avoided your actual question by re-directing the subject to be about giving a commandment, not about symbolism in visions. Furthermore, he continues the misdirection by then changing the purpose of the vision into Jesus giving a new commandment to Peter. So is the vision symbolic, literal, or a new commandment? His entire response could be considered a red herring fallacy.
@@TheBiblicalRoots But isn't that the reason Peter was confused about the vision in the first place. How could God ask something that goes against his own word. He finally realizes it wasn't about food, it was about People.
The Jewish people didn't just hang out with the Gentiles because they were worried about what to eat. There was a honor and shame culture at the time. Hanging out with certain people was considered shameful. That's why in some passages it's mentioned that Jesus is sitting with tax collectors. Is being a tax collector a sin, if I work for the IRS am I a sinner? No, but they were hated by the people, so nobody associated with them. Same thing with the Gentiles.
That's why later Paul has an argument with Peter because when he was alone with the Gentiles, he would act one way, but when the Jews would show up, he would act differently. God was trying to teach him that he cannot deny somebody that God called to be part of his kingdom, Peter doesn't have the authority to do so. And Cornelius was a righteous man, you don't think if that he if invited a Jewish person to his home, he would've tried to make accommodations? Was hospitality not a thing in the 1st Century?
Now Mark 7:19, it doesn't say the words "Thus Jesus (or he) declared". Anybody here can download the free version of Logos and look at it for themselves. It does say "all foods clean", which is why in some translations, like the KJV, it reads as "19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?"Which means, what goes into the body, whether I wash my hands or not, gets cleaned anyway. And the disciples were not even eating meat, they were eating bread. It's not about food, it's that the Rabbis added to the law, and were condemning people as if they were breaking Torah. The whole section is addressing that.
The rest of the passages have to do with meats sacrificed unto Idols. Rome had imperial cult worship, so a lot of meats were being offered to idols. People were worried about it, should you eat meat that's dedicated to another god? Acts 15 prescribed that new believers abstain from pollutions of idols. It has nothing to do with eating pork or other unclean animals. And funny enough in 1 Tim 4:5 is says "for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer." The only word of God at the time was the Torah and the Prophets, they didn't have a copy of the New Testament. And if the argument is, "well they're foreigners, it doesn't apply to them." Ephesians 2:19, "Consequently, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens of the saints and members of the household of God"
@@kimartist Eating with somebody was not just about eating food, it was about fellowship. That's where the expression comes "breaking bread." If I eat a meal with you, it means we're in a sort of fellowship. In 1st Century Rome, they had a honor and shame culture. People they deemed shameful, they wouldn't associate with. That's why it's mentioned that Jesus sat with tax collectors. If I work for the IRS, it doesn't mean I'm a sinner, but they were hated by the community, so no one associated with them. And it was the same thing with the Gentiles.
And later on, Paul has an argument with Peter because he would behave with the Gentiles one way, and then act another way whenever there were Jews around. It's not about food, it's about people.
And you don't think that they didn't know Peter was Jewish? You don't think Cornelius would've made accommodations for him? And what about meats offered to idols? A lot of the meat in Rome was offered to idols, and Acts 15:29 states that new believers should abstain from those meats. Do you think Peter would just eat any meat then?
brother, you need Holy Spirit to guide and teach you the mysteries of the Kingdom😮 your way out on this one😊 misunderstanding is running rampant in these days😮😊
Maybe its the Holy Spirit guiding Rob and your own spirit guiding you. The NEW covenant is here and yes it's different then the old one.
He isnt your brother, your father is the Father of Lies Your dad pulled the same crap years ago, using Torah Keepers to plague the Church - check it - Acts 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.” and you Cultists have been stoning Paul for 2000 years - Acts 14:19 But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead
@arkayweber534 The mystery of Christ is the unification of Jew & Gentile via the cross:
"For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility."
~ Ephesians 2 : 14ff
@@adamguy33 allowing yourself to be deceived is no good either, unclean foods are no longer, food doesn't defile our temples, everything is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer. Amen
@@kimartist Ephesians 3:4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is[a] that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Jesus rebuked Peter once ...'satan get yea behind me'.... But even when Christ told Peter he would deny him in Luke 22:31 he was gentle and loving....told him 3 times to feed his sheep, no rebuke , i think.... God showed him the vision 3 times , Peter's first reaction was to be expected... he was troubled by Christ's 'instruction' to rise and eat...he was not necessarily defiant .... maybe just expressing how abhorrent it seemed to him....Christ saying don't call what God has cleansed unclean seems informative rather than a rebuke to me.... no mention of him resistant the second and third time he was shown the vision, i think....ill check ...my 2 cents, maybe I'm wrong 🤔
@@JeffSmith-it4tmthe whole old covenant has been done away with and a NEW covenant has come. It is not the old plus the new. It is all NEW. We true christians are under the law of Christ and not the law of Moses. This includes all the feasts, sacrafical system , new moons and sabbaths and food restrictions. Moral laws are universal to all men at all times from Adam to now. Foods are not a moral issue and if someone says they are , well they lack understanding.
@@JeffSmith-it4tm in acts 11 it is stated Peter ate with the gentiles I believe... I'm working at the moment...after a lifetime of eating kosher... Christ made changes...a new covenant Jeremiah 31 ...I think...not like the covenant made at Sinai
@@donaldmonzon1774Jeff is our regular hit and run troll.
@@Gigi2four thanks...what motivates some folks is a mystery 😵💫
✔️ Promo'SM
Why didn’t Jesus just eat unclean things outright to show them that law was done away with?
Hi Jeff! Jesus said this about Paul: “This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel” (Acts 9:15). So to reject Paul is to reject Jesus, who sent him.
Shalom, RLS
Torah is repeated in Matthew 23:3 when Yahushua commands us to observe what the scribes and Pharisees tell us to do. It connects to Acts 15:21 since they were in the seat of Moses.
Acts 15:21 sends no one anywhere. Just read it??? Acts 21 call you Satan worshiping false teachers Liars - vs 25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled,[d] and from sexual immorality.” -- James never repeated your Lie. Fear God
@@salpezzino7803 be careful who you call liars. Did you read Matthew 23:3?
@@believer8091 thanks you liar
@@salpezzino7803 tell me what the lie is if you are sincere about correcting.
@@believer8091 Define Torah - here this is the Lie 'Torah is repeated in Matthew 23:3 when Yahushua commands us to observe what the scribes and Pharisees tell us to do. It connects to Acts 15:21 since they were in the seat of Moses." Who is Yahushua? Why do you mix Hebrew with english? Have you been drinking?
The dietary laws in Torah still stand today. They will not cease before heaven and earth pass according to Matthew 5:17-19.
Paul speaks of a change in Torah and not a disappearance of Torah. Torah under the old covenant says there is a
Priesthood
Circumcision
Sacrifice
Under the renewed covenant those 3 things still exist. The old covenant has passed away with the inception of the renewed covenant that was made with better promises and stipulations renewed at Calvary.
Priesthood went from the family of Cohen to Messiah now being the High Priest after the order of the Melek Zedek or Melchizedek. Psalms 110:4
The Circumcision went from flesh to heart. Jeremiah 31:31-34 and other places.
The sacrifice went from animal blood to Messiah's blood at Calvary.Hebrews 10:4
These are the only changes Paul was speaking of in Hebrews. There was a CHANGE in Torah and not a disappearance of Torah as today's Christian doctrine declares.
Hi Thomas. “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. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.”
Colossians 2:16-17
@@TheBiblicalRoots You left out the words "but the body of Messiah." Now turn to the prophet Isaiah 66:17 and 22-24. Then flip over to Zechariah 14:16-21.
What you are trying to do is make the Torah of no effect with the renewed covenant. That's just simply not true. Matthew 5: 17-19 says so.
The Torah never passed away with the change in Torah. Hebrews 7:12. 3 things in Torah changed, but the Torah NEVER PASSED with the old covenant.
Under the old covenant the Torah says there are a
Sacrifice
Circumcision
Priesthood.
Under the renewed covenant made at Calvary there is still a
Sacrifice
Circumcision
Priesthood. Same Torah!!
Sacrifice went from animal blood to the blood of Messiah. Hebrews 9:23 and 10:4-8
Circumcision went from flesh to written on the heart. Jeremiah 31: 31-34, Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6, Ezekiel 36:26-27, Hebrews 10:16-18
The Priesthood High Priest went from the family of Cohen to the Messiah after the order of the Melek Zedek or Melchizedek
Psalms 110:4
The Torah still governs in the renewed covenant as it did in the old Covenant.
There was a CHANGE in Torah, not a disappearance in Torah.
The dietary laws remained the same as did the Biblical Feasts. Matthew 5:17-19 says " not one YOTHE or tittle shall on no wise pass away until the new heavens and earth are created." And that's true. The law never passed but just changed to better promises and a better sacrifice.
This is what Paul is saying in Hebrews 7:12.
We are saved not by the law but by the shed blood of Messiah at Calvary. After salvation the law/ Torah is written on our hearts. Deuteronomy 10:16, Moses prophesied.
"practical social barrier"??? So the diet had nothing to do with physical health or quality of life?
Exodus 15:26 He said, “If you listen carefully to the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you.”
Are you clueless to the connection between diet and physical health? Are you afraid to talk to nutritionists?
The ALL clean heresy is for those whose GOD IS THEIR BELLY!!!
Your out of context (Acts 10:28 KJV) And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
The vision as Peter understood is in this verse and not about allowing unclean food at all.
Shabbat Shalom! ... And well, here's what most people fail to understand & consider from Acts 10...
#1. The sheet of animals in the vision was a "mixture" of "common" animals ( aka: biblically clean animals that had come into too close contact with unclean animals, thus then making them non-kosher or "unclean".. which is actually Not forbidden in the Written Torah, but is a Rabbinical prohibition from within their Oral Tradition )...
Notice that The Lord only made reference of the "common" animals, in His reply back to Peter in Acts 10 : 15 !?...
Then Peter finally figured it out and concluded that he was to call "No Man" - "common"/ or "unclean".
#2. ... And even after all that, Peter still had a hard time getting use to the idea that it was actually "ok" to fellowship with the gentile believers, per his example of the hypocrisy being called out by Paul in Gal. 2 : 11 - 14, in separating himself from the gentile table, while at the same time trying to "Judaize" them.
#3. Mark 7 Does Not imply that Christ made "unclean animals" good for food..
That is an "added" interpretation/mistranslation into the context.
#4. Even The Apostle John still distinguished the clean from the "unclean bird" in Revelation 18 : 2 ...
If he was under the impression that all birds were now "clean", then why would he even have mentioned it?...
NutZ. 1st the Apostle John sat on the Jerusalem Council which said No to the law of Moses, so not what he is speaking of in Rev 18. 2nd Nothing was added to Mark 7, it was a writer's note, Mark wrote what he learned from Peter. Even without the note it doesnt change then meaning. Matthew 15:10 And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” - How long have you been sitting under the Satan worshiping false teaching of the Hebrew/Jewish roots?
@@salpezzino7803... Isaiah 65 : 15 - 17
"For, behold, YHWH will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
For by fire and by his sword will YHWH judge all flesh: and the slain of YHWH shall be many.
They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith YHWH."
@@ChrisTian-tz3eq Amen, God is speaking about your Cult - A prophetic declaration is given of the Lord's vengeance on all enemies of his church, especially that of all antichristian opposers of the gospel in the latter days. And you have the wrong chapter. You need to read the right side of the Book
@@salpezzino7803 ... You don't even realize that ISRAEL IS The Church! Romans 11... And our Messiah is "Jewish"!...
You're more inline with the Pharisees "Noahide Laws and traditions for "Gentiles" than you are for Christ. : (
Have a good night.
I haven't finished watching but, what I find interesting is that - if we stay with this premise, both God and Jesus are probably 'face planting' their heads into their hands! Because nobody, Peter, Paul, John..... No one is eating BBQ pork and shrimp cocktails. Yet, both the Father and the Son shrug shoulders, and let these Apostles continue to write the NT even though they are not doing all that is claimed to be allowed now. A 'do as I say, not as I do' kinda situation. Very interesting.
Thank you so much, Terri! God is so good.
Blessings, Rob
Agreed. For Paul to be preaching: "Eat bacon!" is for Paul to be saying 'do as I say, not as I do'. Thus, the replacement theology thrives on the premise of hypocrisy.
To make a video on literally the worst point and weakest point against Hebrew roots is crazy! I actually love this guy’s personality and he’s usually pretty fair in my opinion . but it is insane to think that this verse is about eating whatever you want... You only have to read like one verse after to see that it’s one of the only parts of the Bible that literally explains itself clearly and plainly which is to say that we were supposed to be converting gentiles. BIG RISK ON THIS VIDEO Hebrew roots just won a lot of fans from this one.
God does not tell us to eat snake, bats, pork, or anything else that is viewed as an abomination in his eyes… by the way, most of the food that is not allowed is really bad for you anyways so you shouldn’t be eating it at all for health reasons alone.
Lord does not necessarily mean Jesus .
David was called lord .
Lord is just showing respect to someone .
Anyone with authority was addressed as lord .
And yes many times GOD the Almighty was addressed as LORD.
But by the context you know which lord or how they are using it .
So who do you think it was then? David?
@@tekttonics
Was not David .
I am saying that just because they called Jesus lord does not mean they think or believe that he is GOD .
They also called Jesus master .
@@jimharmon2300 Gotcha. So who is Jesus if not God?
@@tekttonics
Jesus was called
The son of man
Son of GOD
Messiah
Lord
Master
High priest
Even Trinity believers say he is a separate person from the FATHER.
Which scripture shows they are in great error .
GOD said
Isaiah 44:24 (KJV)
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Alone , by myself .
Isaiah 43:11 (KJV)
I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour.
Isaiah 44:6 (KJV)
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.
Isaiah 44:8 (KJV)
Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any].
If Jesus is GOD then he cannot be setting beside the FATHER.
He can be all those listed above but not a GOD equal to the FATHER.
Are you denying the sovereign Lord who bought you?
Are Hebrew roots people following all the Mosaic law? And requirements for those who were not Jews were for those who lived with them. God was quite clear on who the Jews were and what was required of them in the Mosaic law? Im 100% certain none of you are following all of it. Why? Because there are death penalties for breaking it. Its all or nothing. And im not referring to Temple laws. There isn't one right now. Don't be mixing up the old covenant with the new. It was also conditional upon the Jews to follow it. The didn't. Messianic Rabbis are against all of this. Jesus fulfilled the law and we have a New covenant in Jesus. And the Apostles worshipped on the 1st day. Jesus started His church on the 1st day sending the Holy Spirit on the 1st day. You wish to worship on saturday. Fine. Just don't think those who don't are disobeying God's commandments, because they aren't. And at creationthe 7th day didn't end. God is telling us that, that day is Holy and pointing towards our rest in Jesus. Because God is not still resting.
Peter did not eat the unclean meat. Read it for yourself.
2:37 Great grand elder, Yahudim elect Khepha is no Peter 🍆😡
Kyrios 🔯 is noted as Father YaHU'aH 🔯.. and not king Yahu'shua 🔺
This channel "Depending" the Biblical roots of Christianity.."Depending" must be replaced with "Twisting" you are twisting many passages in the scriptures...Here is one evidence..You lied here. Why dont you let Peter explains his own vision?He is under the influence of the Holy Spirit when he said in Acts 10:28 " The vision is about Gentiles..He didn't even said any single word regarding unclean animals.. What 's my proof? You cannot find any passage that says Peter ate or even told Christians to eat unclean meats..its simply common sense issue..You can mislead others but not all..
This is what happens when you get a teacher that doesn’t understand scripture. God‘s People was Israel. Everyone who belong to God was part of Israel even Gentiles. There were Gentiles who grafted into Israel as they left Egypt. There was one law for all of them. it wasn’t just one law for Israel and one law for Gentiles and so on. This is why most teachers on TH-cam don’t know what they’re talking about. Verse 28 explains the meaning of the chapter. God was talking about not calling men unclean, not animals.
Jesus literally said that what goes into a man defiles not a man but that with comes out of a man. Jesus said all food are clean. In regards to the vision in acts, if the laws of clean and unclean are no longer in effect then it applies to both men and animals. If you are attempting to follow the law you have fallen from grace. Who has bewitched you?!
@@whatistruth2810nice post. I like the “ who has bewitched you” question.
Hi, T411! Hi, In addition to the Torah’s connection between food and people that we looked at in this video, there are three more problems with your interpretation. First, the vision was literally about food. God told Peter to “kill and eat” the animals. So to say it had nothing to do with food just isn’t true. Second, on what basis are we willing to allow for a change on the issue of people but not food? That’s pretty arbitrary. Third, if the vision about food was solely intended as a metaphor for the Gentiles, then Jesus taught something false. He was essentially saying, “Look, Peter. I realize I’m telling you in this vision that all food is clean, but that’s not really true. It’s just a metaphor to explain that hanging out with Gentiles is okay now.” No, God doesn’t teach false things in the visions He gives people.
R.
The thought/lesson being conveyed extends into Acts Chapter 11, where the literal act of EATING FOOD with Gentiles is described.
@@kimartist hood post. We don’t eat with enemies.
Hello, I need an answer for a muslim guy. In Leviticus 20:9 according to the law of Moses a rebellious child has to get stoned to death. And there are many verses which say an adulterous person shall be stoned to death. Now when Jesus came, He said in Matthew 5:17 KJV [17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Why does Jesus say He came to fulfill the law but He doesn't stone an adulterous woman to death? Also a rebellious child still can be stoned to death. I hope you can answer me because I know Jesus is Lord but I just don't know how to answer to this. God bless you in Jesus Christ's mighty Name ♥️♥️♥️
Hi Dario! First of all, Lev. 20:9 isn't merely speaking of a "rebellious child" as we think of it today. It is about someone who _curses_ their parents and treats them with contempt. The Torah's penalty applied in the ancient theocractic nation of Israel but does not apply to Christians today. We are still expected to honor our parents, of course, but there is no longer a civil penalty attached to it.
As for Jesus not stoning the adulterous woman, technically the penalty would be the stoning of both participants in the adultery. But the Pharisees only brought the woman to Jesus, not the man. So the strict legal requirement could not be carried out. More importantly, Jesus' fulfilling of the Law and the Prophets (Matt 5:17) means that everything changed! The Old Covenant law is no longer in effect.
Blessings,
Rob
Peters vision had nothing to do with food. God was telling him not to call anyone unclean. It had nothing to do with food . Peters vision was for the purpose telling him that the wall between Jew and Gentile was broken down. And Cornelius was converted.
Let me get this straight God said 6 times 'KILL and EAT' Peter said twice 'i put nothing unclean in my MOUTH' and you are saying it has NOTHING to do with FOOD ... BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
@@salpezzino7803 Thats right! If you keep reading the scripture, Peter tells us himself, that God said not to call any "MAN" common or unclean. God used that vision to make a point. Read all of Acts 10:28.
@@janaelana1872 maybe I will. Help me here, since you seem to be a theologian, How come 2000 years of Christian men of God missed Acts 10:28. Jesus's Bride has been eating Pig for 2000 years has it been wrong? So many men of God throughout the centuries disagree with you. You should write a Bible commentary. Better yet, read one
@@salpezzino7803 You are really confused. We are not lean-to our own understanding of scriptures. I hear nothing but your own interpretation of God's word. You dont even make sense. God said compare scripture with scripture, line upon line, ( meaning the same thing , word for word.) . Dont know what crazy Bible you are reading of Satan's counterfeits, but you really dont make sense. Never read what your talking about. And if i was to try and help you, you would the same as you have already done. God said not to do anyone's searching for them. He gave us a mind and he wants us to use it. I am no theologian. You have everything wrong.
Hi, Jana! in addition to the Torah’s connection between food and people that we looked at in this video, there are three more problems with that interpretation. First, the vision was literally about food. God told Peter to “kill and eat” the animals. So to say it had nothing to do with food just isn’t true. Second, on what basis are we willing to allow for a change on the issue of people but not food? That’s pretty arbitrary. Third, if the vision about food was solely intended as a metaphor for the Gentiles, then Jesus taught something false. He was essentially saying, “Look, Peter. I realize I’m telling you in this vision that all food is clean, but that’s not really true. It’s just a metaphor to explain that hanging out with Gentiles is okay now.” No, God doesn’t teach false things in the visions He gives people.
Shalom, Rob
Your opening comment 'because Peter's vision in Acts 10 clearly ..." This opening comment clearly is in error. As we can see by the comments from those in the Satanic Cult the Hebrew/Jewish roots 🤪🤪😇😇😜😜
Seriously...
1. if the vision was so "clearly" about food, why would Peter ponder its meaning?
2. Even if it was about food, you're saying that things NEVER considered food was now considered food (Ex: cat, dog, pig)?
3. Why do you insist on ignoring what Peter said his vision meant, and therefore create a whole new meaning (adding to the Word)?
4. Wouldn't it just be easier for you to just say that you believe it's ok to disobey God?
5. If you ever want to have a discussion/debate with someone who actually studies and knows the Bible, you just let me know. Or you can keep having debates with "videos" that can't refute your position.
1st did Noah say 'God you are adding to your word?' God told Noah he could eat animals after the Flood. Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. - 2nd In the New Covenant God opened the Kingdom to all 'people' Gentilles. So, Gentiles ate pig, we never see God telling them not to eat Pig, Oh, Abraham ate Pig, He was a Gentile. 3rd, Explain how Jesus's Bride misses the fact they shouldn't have eaten Pig fpr 2000years??? Debate You? Why, you have little to no understanding of the Holy Scriptures. == I wonder why Peter didn't repeat your Cult's lie in Acts 11:5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. 6 Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. 7 And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8 But I said, ‘By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9 But the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, do not call common.’10 This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven.-- Anyone with an IQ higher than a walnut could understand this. - ‘What God has made clean, do not call common.’- Shalom
@@salpezzino7803some people want to argue just for the sake of hearing themselves.
Praying for rebbe that his religious spirit be removed is the right thing to do.
Thank you so much for your response and Shalom ❤️
@@MaryShmee Thank you, I think it is worse than a religious spirit, the false teachers in this Cult have the spirit of the Antichrist.
Hello, Daniel!
1. I believe Peter was pondering what it meant that such a vision was given to him. Wouldn't you do the same if God appeared to you in a vision in the middle of the day? _What is God trying to tell me?_ And while Peter pondered, the men arrived for him, giving him his answer.
2. The biblical definition of "food" is anything that is eaten. Under the Old Covenant, some animals were labeled ritually clean for eating by the Israelites, while others were ritually unclean. Under the New Covenant there are no longer clean/unclean food categories. Jesus declared all food clean.
3. If you watch my video, you'll notice my conclusion is exactly what Peter said his vision meant.
4. I do not believe or teach its okay to disobey God.
5. I assume you're referring to yourself? Where can I learn more about you and what you have to bring to a debate?
Here's my question for you: How do you explain the food aspect of the vision in which Jesus commanded Peter to kill and eat unclean animals?
Shalom, Rob
1. If you read Acts 11:4-10, you'll see Peter recalling his experience. Verse 11 tells us what happened right after his vision. Verse 12 shows what the vision was referring to. You'll notice not once AFTER that (no where in the Bible) does it ever record a believer reading an unclean animal. If it was simply about eating an unclean animal (a huge deal, by the way) you would have seen that recorded in the NT after that initial vision. So, there is no place, AT ALL, that shows the results of Peter's vision leading people to eat unclean animals.... Ever!
This is so sad 😢. You are leading so many into death.
What is faith
I realized what faith is when I came into truth.
Faith is believing God faith is trusting God.
Here's my testimony.
I didn't start walking into the commandments because I believed it was the only way I would be saved,
I let go and said ok God I believe you and I'm going to start doing what you say.
Now I believe with all my heart and all my soul that these law's are good for us. IF God says it then there is a good reason why he tells us to do it, most of the time it's for our own good.
Obedience is walking in the commandments of God faith is believing and trusting him even when we don't understand the why.
There is not one single prophet, apostle not even our Savior himself that you will find eating anything not a single bite of something God defines as unclean. The prophets and apostles were serving as an example of how to Walk in faith and obedience.
The law means nothing without our faith and faith means nothing without our obedience.
Thanks, Amber! Just to make sure I'm understanding you, are you saying that keeping a kosher diet is a matter of eternal life? (You said I was " leading so many into death.")
Thanks, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots obedience is doing the commandments of God faith is trusting and believing what God says is true. Yes if we can't find a single scripture where the prophets apostles and our Messiah was eating even one unclean thing I'm going to strongly suggest that we should follow the dietary laws laid out in the old testament.
@@amberharrison2954 Thanks, Amber. But you didn't answer my question.
I agree that Jesus ate kosher His whole life. He was a Jewish man born under the law (Gal. 4:4-5). He never taught us to eat kosher. In fact he told HIs disciples, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)" (Mark 7:18-19).
Which is why the apostles did not require anyone to eat kosher (Acts 15:28-29). And it's why Paul can write, "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of *food and drink,* or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." (Col 2:16-17).
If you want to eat kosher, go for it! Doing so has never been prohibited. But it's also not required. And it's certainly not required for salvation!
Shalom, Rob
Mark 7 and Mathew 15 had NOTHING to do with eating or not eating any type of food. The whole context was about rebuking the Pharisees for doctrines of men which was eating bread with unwashed hands. Read the verses for yourself people and let no one deceive you. Jesus opens and closes with the whole topic of this teaching.
Matthew 15:2, 20 ESV - "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." ... These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone."
@@TheBiblicalRoots do you believe what Jesus says? When we are told to walk as he walked? 1 John 2:6..
If Jesus wasn't doing it then why would we?
Have you looked at the anatomy of the animal's that God says are clean and unclean? I did and I've noticed a common not so coincidence.
Cow's goats and sheep have 3 stomachs while the swine only has one. Maybe there is a really good reason why God says not to eat certain animals. Some animals were created for one purpose while others we're created for human consumption. It is your responsibility to research and know these things.
I have no authority to dictate who will be saved and who will not be saved. What I do know is the evidence that the commandments still stand is overwhelmingly evident that they will still be valid until heaven and earth pass away as our Messiah stated in Matthew 5:17-19.
Every argument I've heard for these commandments not being valid for gentiles or for our generation is very weak and most pastors and preacher's are relying heavily on symbolic interpretation, metaphors and ignoring the context of scripture altogether not one single literal interpretation can you use to defend your argument. You are leading your followers to their destruction and on the day that we are to be judged what do you think our Messiah will say to you when that day comes?
Well my guess is Matthew 7:22-24.
I believe these words are speaking to you, if we don't repent and start listening to his commandments. In all their purity and in all truth. Believing them and practicing them with all the desire of our hearts is what faith is what faith is. Was Abraham not justified by faith and works was he not obedient when God told him to sacrifice Isaac to him?, did he hesitate or protest? No because he understood no matter what the outcome was he trusted God.
The dietary laws separate a believer from a non-believer. A person who believes in the God of Israel and a person who does not. When a gentile does not know who that is and they convert the same rule now applies to them. Reading acts, chapter 10 and you can clearly see that Peter himself was confused after the vision was over. He did not understand the vision because it was conflicting with Torah. So the Holy Spirit interprets it for him and reveals that the gentiles or not to be considered unclean. The pharasaic law of Peter was used to made him a racist even in Galatians 2, the middle wall of separation is not the commandments of God but rather hostility, caused by men, distorting the word of God. A gentile knows Jews do not eat unclean given that Cornelius was well aware he was going to invite Peter over the food he would have set before him would not have been pork and shrimp. He’s inviting an apostle to his house that observes Torah, how dumb it would’ve been for him to start laying out the lobster as if he has any clue about a new covenant difference when he doesn’t even know about the old covenant, which is why Peter is there to explain it in the first place.
Nowhere throughout the New Testament, is this story repeated to be interpreted specifically in regards to food. Every word spoken in the book of Acts concerning this vision only refers to Gentiles being clean not to unclean food. And Mark chapter 7, where Jesus says all foods are
declared clean is not part of the text. The codex sinaiticus is Latin, given that the NT was originally conducted in Hebrew then Aramaic and Greek then Latin there is too much translation between the original and the oldest codex still around. Such a statement
Makes no sense in the context of eating bread with dirty hands, no one is even considering eating unclean and it makes no sense for Messiah to say that in regards to the Pharisees being angry over their man made washing of the hands ceremony. If he declared unclean foods clean at that moment there would have been a major uproar from them in regards to breaking the laws of God. Jesus even makes it clear that they prefer their traditions over Gods commandments, obviously they get mad but not as mad as if he made pork available and disregarded Lev 11 and Deut 14 at that moment. The disciples don’t even respond in the situation with “we can eat unclean now, please explain that?” Because someone inserted their own comment into the text. This is why unclean birds, beasts, and frogs are still considered unclean in
Revelation 16:13, 18:2
Tell me frogs are clean to eat but still considered unclean in Rev 16:13 or the fact that pork is still unclean and so is mouse when Messiah returns in Isaiah 66:17
This is why 1 Timothy 4 says that food is sanctified by the word of God and bechato (his prayer)
Food in scripture is defined, pork is not food. Therefore in the word of God there is a section telling you what food is separate from animals not to be considered food. Which is exactly what 1 Tim 4:1-5 says
please explain how Jesus's Bride missed all that you wrote for 2000 years? Where were you when they needed you? It amazes me that Cultists like yourself worship a god that neglected to tell the Church to stop eating pig. Every idiot in your Cult repeats the same vomit that Satan taught them. Noah and Abram ate pig. The Kingdom of God, Christianity couldn't spread around the world with dietary restrictions. Please give 1 scripture where anyone instructs the Church to keep the law of Moses. Fear God
Romans 3 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since God is one-who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31
>>>>Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
@@AndreColon I love God's Holy law. You added the verse that puts Paul in context, vs27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. -- So Not the law of works - You cultists are quick to point to Peter saying Paul was hard to understand. They claim it is Christians who don't understand. Funny thing is Peter was speaking of Torah Keepers. They were plaguing the Church, they were KILLING Christians, They followed Paul around and kept trying to kill him. - You need to get away from the false teachers of the Hebrew/Jewish roots cult before it is too Late.
@@AndreColon This is pretty clear which law Paul is speaking of - 2 Corinthians 3:7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? 9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. 10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.
@@AndreColon an observant man does not boast about how good he is for eating clean, he boast in God and respects God enough to change his life for anything God commands. It is this arrogance of the Torah the Pharisee specifically had that they were better than anyone for having the Torah but it’s not theirs it’s God’s. And if they were truly humble they wouldn’t act like they did
Deception and misleading the believer seem to be the objectives of Rob Solberg's story-telling. First, notice where the focus is for Rob Solberg to make an argument for eating unclean food. He starts at Acts 10:9, completely ignoring the subject matter at hand. The subject at hand is Cornelius; the objective is to bring someone to this gentile who fears God. But first, the Lord has to reveal to Peter a lesson on how he is going to see gentiles in a new light. So the Lord uses unclean animals. The objective was to have Peter understand that salvation would also be granted to the gentiles, which is what Peter saw in his vision. So the question that Rob cannot and won't ask himself is: Why would the Lord cause Peter to break one of God's commands? Would Yeshua cause Peter to sin against God? Was that Yeshua's objective? Wake up, Rob; all you want is to make money by deceiving your viewers. In a court of law, you would be dismissed.
As I said in the Previous post. The only people that hold that the Mosiac law in particular the Dietary Law, Sabbaths and Feast days are enforce for Jew and Gentiles alike are Non ethnic Jews period.
The Hebrew roots movement is broken at its very core with bad bible hermeneutics and faulty Presuppositions.
Ironically enough what the Hebrew roots advocates don't realize is that they are practicing replacement theology.
I came to the same conclusion as Rob, long before "meeting" Rob, just by reading the texts for myself.
You also can't solve the paradox:
If Gentiles had truly been made clean by Jesus' death/resurrection that also redeemed all of creation (except for Gentile food according to you?), then Gentiles would either be continuously clean no matter what they ate, or continuously defiled by eating their unclean food & thus nullifying Jesus' atonement work on the cross.
@@kimartist As I mentioned before, the worldview of Hebrew roots is broken.
@kimartist so the question we must ask oneself, Did Messiah die for both unclean man and unclean animal, or was it for man only?
Peter went to Cornelius, a man who feared Elohim, so he probably ate clean. Cornelius knew Yahweh, but did not learn teachings of Yahushua.
Peter is spreading the good news to nations with people that fear Elohim, so they probably eat clean.
Acts 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Yahweh cleaned people in other nations already. The voice said what Yahweh has cleaned, do not call common. The voice did not say all Gentiles are clean.
Kill and eat is like baptizing to death and eating people into the body of Yahushua.
Your claim that Peter was raised his whole life a "good Torah observant Jew" is not recorded anywhere in the Bible for fact. Peter was raised likely as every other Jew of his day as a "traditions of the fathers" oral Torah observant Jew. Oral Torah known today as the Talmud/Mishna is the Takanot and Ma-aseem of the Pharisees, the same man made rules and regulations Yeshua fought against and condemned during his ministry. You are correct, the Torah does not prohibit Israelites (Gods people) from generic interactions with Gentiles (not Gods people) on the contrary Israelites were encouraged to Share their faith to the whole world as priests and kings, ambassadors for God. Jesus said "I come not, but for the lost sheep of the house of Israel" the great commission. Your claim that "the voice" is Jesus is an assumption made by you, the voice clearly says: "What God hath cleansed" not What I hath cleansed. Kurios could be used to address anyone with respect, in only a very few cases lord was translated from despot, every other time (and it's alot) lord is translated from Kurios. Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean...Deuteronomy 13 tells us God will test us to know weather we love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 1John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, Paul tells us in Galatians 1:8 But though we or an ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Peters reaction to this "vision" is very appropriate because Yeshua never never never said ("if it fits in your mouth, you may eat it legally, everything and anything is now considered food") never said that. Deut 4:2 and 12:32 You shall not add to, nor diminish ought from my word which I command you. I am the LORD I changeth not...In the beginning was the Word-the Word was God-the Word became flesh, God, Yeshua, and the Word are echad one and the same equal, unchanging (I'll talk about the priesthood later if it needs to be discussed)
Ok now why this crazy vision...WE know that it is not against the Torah for a man who is a Jew to keep company, or to come unto one of another nation...but Peter says to these Gentiles "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing" talking to these Gentiles. We know eating unclean things is against the Torah. While Peter doubted he realized that taking the vision literally, places him in the position where he is keeping mans law while breaking Gods law, and after seeing the three Gentiles, he understands and correctly expounds the vision to mean Gentiles, not Gentiles and food, no, just Gentiles, Peter did not add that, the creator of this video did, along with other things... If this video had to be made without adding to or taking away anything from the written text...I don't think it would have been made.
Peace
you lost me right after you said 'Your'
Sadducees disagreed about the resurrection, and that's about it, the "Traditions of the fathers" were observed by anyone not wanting to be a societal outcast eating locust and wild honey. Yeshua did not follow the traditions, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me" . Yeshua did not observe Channukah, it was Jerusalem, feast of dedication, it was winter, Yeshua was there walking in the temple, in Solomons porch, those are facts. Those who were there celebrating that man made feast, asked him to tell them plainly if he is the Christ. Yeshua replied "ye believed not" "But ye believe not" "ye are not of my sheep" "I give my sheep eternal life" "my sheep follow me" then they took up stone again to stone him. How in the world do you get Yeshua observing Channukah from that??? The sheep follow the shepherd, the shepherd does not follow the disobedient sheep.
Exodus 23:4-5 are incumbent upon all no matter what day of the week it is, and I have no idea what that has to do with the Oral Law?
The Pharisees sit in Moses seat: All therefore whatever HE (Moses) bid you observe, observe and do; but do not ye after their works; for they say (Moses), and do not (Moses). Get it?
Jewish Halloween is your final thought? Really you're going to end on that...really?
Back up and take another run at it, but before you do please realize, I'm the one saying "obey all of Gods commands" someone else is asking "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Peace
@@minnesota630 The Word is silent if He did or didn't celebrate Hanukkah. He did go to the Temple as a good Jew, that is where they went to Celebrate. The funny part of the Pharisees sit in Moses seat, Jesus was rebuking them. Pharisees were man-made and were the One who wanted Jesus Dead. Would you do 'All therefore whatever HE (Moses) bid you observe, observe and do; but do not ye after their works; for they say (Moses), and do not (Moses)' ???? Also you added to Jesus's Word, that is a No No. Your Cult is no different that those Pharisees. For him that is taught in the word to give respect to him that teaches, is commendable; but for him that teaches, to demand it, to be puffed up with it, is sinful. How much is all this against the spirit of Christianity! = Lastly this all happened Before the Cross.
@ShiaDiscourse sorry, they worshiped a false god, as do the Orthodox Jews
Not entirely silent, although I somewhat agree with you on that point, I gave my commentary based on Yeshua's behavior in that situation.
He did go to Temple, I would not say "as a good Jew" flipping over tables, making whips of chords and driving out people, calling it a den of thieves, withering fig trees, disrupting-interrupting ceremonies with loud cries, prophesying it's destruction, regularly being threatened with stoning. Calling out hypocrisy declaring the abrogation of their authority fulfilling Gen49:10 insisting that indeed Shiloh has come.
Yeshua was simply saying that the Pharisees claim to have the authority of Moses, so then just do what Moses said, but don't do after their works, for they say Moses but don't actually do Moses. I added my words in () to make it obvious to anyone those are my words to give clarity to Yeshua's brevity. Moses words are Yeshua's words, In the beginning was the Word, with God, was God, became flesh, is Yeshua, yes I will observe all he says.
I am no member of any cult, my doctrine glorifies Yeshua, Word, God, Spirit, and is no contradiction. I give respect to the written word, and all honor belongs to Yeshua.
Peace