Peter's Vision

[Bosco]

Whether you eat biblically clean or unclean is up to you. But one of the passages that has been used to show that all food is now clean is Peter's vision. I thought I would share my thoughts on it and see what kind of discussion we can have. For me, context is important, and I simply do not see how these verses can be used to show all foods as clean.

Before I begin, I need to share a few observations concerning visions and dreams. We have many plain examples of dreams and visions in the Scriptures. Lets start with one of my favorite stories in the bible, that of Joseph. If you haven’t read the story of Joseph’s life, it really is a must read. It starts in Genesis 37 and runs continuously through Genesis 50. During this story, Joseph is in captivity and has bounced in and out of favor with Egypt’s leaders. So as not to ruin the story for those who have yet to read it, I will cut to my point. The Pharaoh of Egypt was plagued by what are essentially nightmares, the recurring one being that he saw 7 fat well-fed cows and 7 lean cows, sickly and near death. He was unable to determine what these things meant, so Joseph, who had accurately interpreted dreams of other men, was called before Pharaoh. At this point the Pharaoh relived his dreams for Joseph, who took a moment and interpreted the dreams. The dreams were literal, in that behind the "symbology of the cows," a literal meaning stood in the background. In this case, the 7 fat cows were showing Pharaoh what God was about to do, they indicated 7 years of plenty, 7 years of great harvest, much food. The 7 lean cows on the other hand, were indicating 7 years of bad harvests, a scarcity of food. Joseph was able, through this interpretation, to warn Pharaoh and help to create a way that not only Egypt survived the 7 bad years, but his family survived and even prospered as well. My point in using this example is to show that the cows were nothing more than symbols declaring an unrelated (to the symbols) truth.

So we look at Peter’s vision now, which is written as follows:

Acts 10:9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: (10) And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, (11) And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: (12) Wherein were all manner of four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. (13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. (14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. (15)And the voice spoke unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (16) This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. (17) Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, (18) And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. (19) While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. (20) Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

For context, you need to read the first 8 verses, which I paraphrase now by simply saying that a man named Cornelius who was a captain in the Italian Army, obviously a Gentile and a believer, was visited by an angel. The angel said for Cornelius to send men to Peter and ask him to come to him. What you might not realize, is that anyone who was not a Jew was considered unclean by Jews according to Jewish "custom." To eat with a gentile, to sleep at a gentile’s home, to hang out with gentiles, this was simply not something a Jew did, not even a Messiah believing Jew. Reading all of chapters 10 and 11 will make this clear to you. So, Peter goes with the men, and Cornelius comes out to meet them as they arrive. Now watch closely what Peter says to him:

Acts 10:28 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."

How did God show Peter that he shouldn’t call any man common or unclean? Could it have been the vision? Moving on, we see that Peter stays with Cornelius for a time, preaches the Good News to them, and watches God work Spirit filled miracles through them. He baptizes them, and a few days’ later, leaves and heads back to Jerusalem. Once there, Peter is approached by the other apostles and brethren in Messiah. (Chapter 11) The Jews then contended with Peter saying:

Acts 11:3 Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Peter, knowing this was coming, retold his entire vision concerning unclean animals. He told them how when he was finished, gentiles were all but waiting at the door, sent by an angel of God to take him to Cornelius. He told them of the works they did, how the Spirit of God fell on those gentiles just as it had the Jews in the beginning. When Peter finished his defense as to why he was “hanging out” with unclean men, did the Jews who contended with him say “Peter, you dupe, that vision said we can eat all foods because they are all clean now”? No, of course not, Peter shared with them how the vision, which used unclean ANIMALS as symbols, was indeed declaring that those MEN whom God had made clean should not be called unclean. So instead, when Peter finishes sharing his experience and vision, those Jews responded in this manner:

Acts 11:18 when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

So like Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream, or like the many other dreams and visions within scripture which used symbols to deliver a literal message, Peter’s vision likewise used symbols, in this case unclean foods, to declare a literal message. In Joseph's case, had the "symbols" within the vision been taken literal, then farmers beware...never put fat healthy cows in the same pen with sick skinny cows, they will be eaten.

What was God’s message to Peter and to us? Clearly, when we come to Messiah despite our racial, cultural, or national background, we are clean and should not be called anything less. That man's law (dogma) does not EVER supercede God's will. Thus, Peter’s vision cannot be used to declare all foods to be clean. His vision had nothing at all to do with biblical dietary laws.

Peace.
Bosco

[themuzicman]

I don't think most folks use the presence of food as a direct command, but rather as a representation of a general principle of the New Covenant, which includes eating unclean food.

You see, in the Old Covenant, Peter would never have been allowed to and eat with Cornelius in his (Cornelius') house. It would have been against the Law. Peter's vision demonstrates to us that the Old Covenant system of "clean" and "unclean", in all respects (including women being put out of the camp for 1 week a month, and food laws) was finished.

The particular application of this principle at that moment meant that Peter could go and stay with Cornelius without concern for violating God's Law, for the Old Covenant law, at least with respect to clean/unclean, was finished.

The more general application of this principle includes eating of the foods that Peter was presented with.

[Bosco]

I don't think most folks use the presence of food as a direct command, but rather as a representation of a general principle of the New Covenant, which includes eating unclean food.

It is your position then that the new covenant includes us being able to eat anything we want?

You see, in the Old Covenant, Peter would never have been allowed to and eat with Cornelius in his (Cornelius') house. It would have been against the Law. Peter's vision demonstrates to us that the Old Covenant system of "clean" and "unclean", in all respects (including women being put out of the camp for 1 week a month, and food laws) was finished.

Respectfully, I would disagree with you here. I do not know of any “old covenant” command by God that says an Israelite was not able to eat with a gentile. That decision is rabbinic in origin, part of Jewish Halacha, and not a command of God. This man made command is no different than the wall of enmity placed around the Temple to keep the gentiles from setting a foot in that holy area. Again, that wall, like the rule not to eat with gentiles, is not Torah, it is man made dogma… which Paul comments on here:

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

The word for “ordinance” is dogma, which is never used to describe Torah, rather, it deals with civil, religious, or ceremonial laws of man.

I believe, my friend, that we as Christians make the mistake of lumping the Torah (God’s Laws) together with the old covenant. A covenant is one thing, Torah is another, and though the Israelites agreed on the terms in Torah, that does not join those two words together… it joined those who accepted the terms and God together. Torah predates Sinai, as seen in Gen. 26:5.

The particular application of this principle at that moment meant that Peter could go and stay with Cornelius without concern for violating God's Law, for the Old Covenant law, at least with respect to clean/unclean, was finished.

Again, there is nothing in the Tanach, anywhere, which prohibits a person of God from hanging out with gentiles. In fact, if you just read the account of the exodus, you will see that many non-Israelites came out with them. (Exd. 12:49) In addition, Torah was given both to the Israelite and the foreigner (see last reference) who was with them AND it was Israel’s charge when Torah was given to take it to the world, (ref. upon request) which they did not do.

The more general application of this principle includes eating of the foods that Peter was presented with.

While I respect your right to believe that, and would not stand in your way to draw this conclusion, I disagree. Never are the symbols used in visions the literal… they are the metaphor which points to the literal. If the Pharaoh’s vision was literal as presented, we can’t place healthy cows in the same pen with sick cows because we know from that vision that the sick cows will eat the healthy cows. Now, we know that isn’t true and it’s the reason I used this example. The cows were symbols which pointed to a literal message, just as the unclean food (a symbol Peter would have understand all too well) was used to point to the literal. In this case, man. For it was “Jewish tradition” and not Torah that said gentiles were unclean.
Peace.
Bosco

[RCNicholas]

I think St. Paul is pretty clear...
"For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him....I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean....Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense." Romans 14:2-3, 14, 20


Basically, if you don't think it's right to eat something, don't eat it. Also, don't cause another brother to stumble by eating something you know they think is wrong. But also, don't judge others because they'll eat things you won't.

[Bosco]

I think St. Paul is pretty clear...
"For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him....I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean....Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense." Romans 14:2-3, 14, 20

I understand and respect your right to see this passage in this manner. I do not, and if you don't mind, I will share why.

First, you have to start from the premise that everything from Yehoshua (Jesus) forward is a new thing. That God has changed, and the things he called everlasting, didn't quite make it. Second, we have to view the writings of Paul through those same eyes, and assume he too believes that Torah has been done away with. He said otherwise:

Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

This was the charge against Paul. Immediately after this, he took the vow of a Nazirite with 4 other men, something which most Christians would say falls into the "ceremonial law" category. Some time after, Paul answers the charges in the verse above:

Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

So we quote Paul in one place where it seems like he is preaching contrary to Torah, but is he? His own words would seem to indicate that was not the case. So lets look at Romans 14.

In the day of Paul, pagans were converting to the faith. (Jews weren't converting of course, those that believed in Yehoshua thought of themselves as good Jews for accepting the promises found throughout the Tanach (OT) of the coming Messiah) We are talking about pagans who had relations with temple prostitutes, would eat the food of idols, etc. So they come into the faith, and some eat only vegetables while others eat meats. Because I eat meat does not give me the right to judge those that eat vegetables, nor them I. Then he goes on speaking about the keeping of days. There are set apart days, the moedim (feasts) and then there are other days considered holy that are not in scripture. Yehoshua, it seems, kept at least one of these days, Hanakhah (John 10:22). Not a scriptural appointed day, but also not a pagan day... a holy day based on things God did to preserve his people. Are we to judge another for keeping that day? If so, why?

In the last 10 years of my walk, I have found myself to be in amazement over how many "Paul experts" we have within Christianity despite Peter saying:

2Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Basically, if you don't think it's right to eat something, don't eat it. Also, don't cause another brother to stumble by eating something you know they think is wrong. But also, don't judge others because they'll eat things you won't.

I don't judge any man for anything unless that thing causes another to stumble. I am simply sharing a different perspective than most are exposed to, and you all are free to accept or reject it based on it's aligning to scripture and not according to another I say or believe.

Peace to you and thanks for the discourse!
Bosco

[RCNicholas]

[QUOTE]

I understand and respect your right to see this passage in this manner. I do not, and if you don't mind, I will share why.

I look forward to it.

First, you have to start from the premise that everything from Yehoshua (Jesus) forward is a new thing.

You're saying I am starting from that premise? Certainly not. You're not starting off well, but I'll still give you a chance to recover later on.

That God has changed, and the things he called everlasting, didn't quite make it.

Not at all. Again, not doing too well in your analysis...but I'm still reading...

Second, we have to view the writings of Paul through those same eyes, and assume he too believes that Torah has been done away with.

Paul made it clear that we are not longer under the Mosaic Law and that Gentiles were not obligated to keep it.

He said otherwise:

Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.



This was the charge against Paul. Immediately after this, he took the vow of a Nazirite with 4 other men, something which most Christians would say falls into the "ceremonial law" category.

You're avoiding what occurs just a few verses later, where the elders say,

"But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality." (verse 25)

Some time after, Paul answers the charges in the verse above:

Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

Of course. Paul made it clear that it was his policy to be a Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greeks. This is hardly an endorsement for all believers to follow the OT dietary laws.

So we quote Paul in one place where it seems like he is preaching contrary to Torah, but is he? His own words would seem to indicate that was not the case. So lets look at Romans 14.

Let's do.

In the day of Paul, pagans were converting to the faith. (Jews weren't converting of course, those that believed in Yehoshua thought of themselves as good Jews for accepting the promises found throughout the Tanach (OT) of the coming Messiah) We are talking about pagans who had relations with temple prostitutes, would eat the food of idols, etc. So they come into the faith, and some eat only vegetables while others eat meats. Because I eat meat does not give me the right to judge those that eat vegetables, nor them I. Then he goes on speaking about the keeping of days. There are set apart days, the moedim (feasts) and then there are other days considered holy that are not in scripture. Yehoshua, it seems, kept at least one of these days, Hanakhah (John 10:22). Not a scriptural appointed day, but also not a pagan day... a holy day based on things God did to preserve his people. Are we to judge another for keeping that day? If so, why?

All that's peachy keen. That doesn't allow you to sidestep the plain fact that Paul comes out multiple times and says "All things are clean."

In the last 10 years of my walk, I have found myself to be in amazement over how many "Paul experts" we have within Christianity despite Peter saying:

2Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Personally I think the "Messianic Jew" movement has fulfilled this Scripture in more ways than most.

I don't judge any man for anything unless that thing causes another to stumble. I am simply sharing a different perspective than most are exposed to, and you all are free to accept or reject it based on it's aligning to scripture and not according to another I say or believe.

And I thank you for your perspective. I didn't see anything in what you said above that can avoid the plain language of Romans 14, but maybe you can clarify in a follow-up. Thanks!

[UrbanMonk]

His vision had nothing at all to do with biblical dietary laws.

Peace.
Bosco

Yah, it was about opening his mind to the oneness of Jew and Gentile in Christ (the Son of God). However, twenty years later, Peter was still struggling with this issue. He was taken to task by a visiting P(s)aul, who exposed the hypocrisy of eating with Gentiles, and then withdrawing from the Gentiles whenever Jews came calling. And this is the "rock" that Jesus is supposed to have built his church? No, the "rock" is the willingness to recognize our brother as the Son of God, beyond national-ethnic appearances. This is what it means to forgive. Otherwise, we're just blowing smoke.

[Bosco]

Yah, it was about opening his mind to the oneness of Jew and Gentile in Christ (the Son of God). However, twenty years later, Peter was still struggling with this issue. He was taken to task by a visiting P(s)aul, who exposed the hypocrisy of eating with Gentiles, and then withdrawing from the Gentiles whenever Jews came calling. And this is the "rock" that Jesus is supposed to have built his church? No, the "rock" is the willingness to recognize our brother as the Son of God, beyond national-ethnic appearances. This is what it means to forgive. Otherwise, we're just blowing smoke.

I agree with you, the "rock" was not a man, the rock was the bit of information Peter understood. Yehoshua is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. As for Peter having trouble with his vision later, I would probably agree, though I would question whether it was 20 years or not. (Not important though) Peter was a man.... think of John the Baptist! Here he is "preparing the way of the LORD" and announcing Yehoshua was the Lamb of God and going as far to say that he wasn't worthy to tie (loosen?) his shoes.... and then when in jail sends 2 of his disciples to Yehoshua to ask, "are you the one to come or do we seek another?" Doubt... by the one who announced him to the world.

So it doesn't surprise me Peter would give in to the incredible pressures of Jewish Law (not to be confused with God's laws) from time to time.

Peace.
Ken

[UrbanMonk]

the rock was the bit of information Peter understood.

Peter is supposedly to have guessed that Jesus was the "Son of God", among a variety of misguessed opinions of others about who the "son of man" really is. The "son of man" is a generic term for anyone born of a man and woman. Peter's recognition is what was rewarded with the status of "rock", meaning, the Son of God is the the truth about the son of man. Conversely, the son of man is the lie about the Son of God...what hides the identity of the Son of God. Now, in order to built a "church" on this truth, we must be willing to recognize the truth about anyone who is born of a man and woman. The truth is that they are the Son of God, and the lie is they are a man or woman. This is the truth that edifies the "church". Otherwise, the Son of God is torn down and made man. This is exactly what the orthodoxy does. It cuts God down to the size of man, and, by mixing God and man, glorify man in God's place. Peter's recognition is worthless if it applies only to Jesus. That is how the "church" is torn down. It only has meaning if it applies to anyone and everyone unfortunate enough to believe that God could be a man...and consequently have been born of flesh. The Son of God is a universal truth, not an exclusive truth. The truth is, what is true about Jesus is true about all. This is the only way that anyone can be saved. If we deny the Son of God universal truth, then we deny ourselves what saves us from illusions of ourselves as "men" and "women". There is no male or female in the Son of God. "Christ" is a non-gender based perfection that has a monopoly on reality. We are all that, or we are what we imagine we are. The "son of man" is what we've imagined.

[Sparko]

Col 2:16Therefore 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. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.


20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

[Bosco]

Col 2:16Therefore 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. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.


20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

God's "Torah" is a "basic principle of this WORLD?" The world is at emnity with God my friend. Torah is not of this world. Understanding this requires a look into the culture of that day, as well as an understanding of what they were dealing with in regards to converts. (for lack of a better word) Pagans, people who ate the idol's foods, sleep with temple prostitutes, kept "holy days" like Saturnalia, SUNday, and many other "pagan holy days" came into the faith, and many were unwilling to give up those days. Paul writes:

Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Gal 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
Gal 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

These Galatians were in times past a people who did not know God. These are they who served false gods. (see vs. 8) But then they come to God through Messiah, and were weak in the faith to the point of wanting to return to what Paul calls bondage. The days, times, and years were not biblical holy days like Passover, these were times like celebrating the birth of the sUn. (Mithras) But the dispensational mindset we are born into forces us to conclude this is speaking of the old covenant or Torah, both items by the way, said to be everlasting.

Why would anyone judge us if we are doing something correct? They wouldn't, and that is all Paul is saying here. Reason through this, don't take any man's word for anything. Take another look:

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of DOGMA that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

The dogma (a civil, ceremonial, or religious law but NEVER used to describe God's Law or Torah) that was against us (man made additions to God's law which made it impossible to be obediant) has been nailed to the cross. He spoiled the worldy powers... so now we shall not let any man judge us in regards to what we eat, drink, or in regards to the Appointed days, Sabbath, or new moon. Why, because we can do them freely now that the man made garbage attached to them has been nailed to the cross and we are now free through Messiah to be obediant without fear of condemnation from man or God.

The only other way to go with this is to say that we are free from God's laws... which means we operate according to our own will and desires. We call Torah bondage, David called it a delight. Who do you think might better have a feel for God's will in this regard, the world in which we live or the man after God's own heart?

In closing, when Paul wrote his letters, there was no NT and wouldn't be for another couple of hundred years. So when he said that "all scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteouesness," what do you think he was refering to? With no NT at the time, and ONLY the Torah and Prophets accepted as "scripture" in that day, might Paul not be as clearly understood as most teach?

2Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peace.
Ken

[Bosco]

UrbanMonk, I wouldn't say Pater "guessed" at his answer to Messiah as to who Messiah was. Unless I am mistaken, Yehoshua said the Father revealed this to him.

Peace.
Ken

[UrbanMonk]

UrbanMonk, I wouldn't say Pater "guessed" at his answer to Messiah as to who Messiah was. Unless I am mistaken, Yehoshua said the Father revealed this to him.

Peace.
Ken

Ok. Let’s go with “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you (Peter)”. Meaning, the recognition of a spiritual reality (the Son of God) is aided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit recognizes the beloved Son of God in everyone, just as Peter recognized Christ ( the Son of God) in Jesus. Personally, it appears to me that this passage is part of an inter-apostolic rivalry. It was basically the Peter group vs the Thomas group. Rather, it is Thomas how recognized Jesus most authentically, while the others guessed incorrectly. This episode is told much differently in Thomas’ gospel. The pop gospels are told from the side of the Peter group. The Peter group is about fattening a sacrificial lamb (Messiah, Son of God), and getting it ready for slaughter. This group imposes it's own "guess" as to what and whom Jesus is...and is all about. The Thomas group simply find's Jesus to be beyond what words can tell. This is a more accurate description of what the Son of God is...a reality beyond words.

[Bosco]

Ok. Let’s go with “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you (Peter)”. Meaning, the recognition of a spiritual reality (the Son of God) is aided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit recognizes the beloved Son of God in everyone, just as Peter recognized Christ ( the Son of God) in Jesus. Personally, it appears to me that this passage is part of an inter-apostolic rivalry. It was basically the Peter group vs the Thomas group. Rather, it is Thomas how recognized Jesus most authentically, while the others guessed incorrectly. This episode is told much differently in Thomas’ gospel. The pop gospels are told from the side of the Peter group. The Peter group is about fattening a sacrificial lamb (Messiah, Son of God), and getting it ready for slaughter. This group imposes it's own "guess" as to what and whom Jesus is...and is all about. The Thomas group simply find's Jesus to be beyond what words can tell. This is a more accurate description of what the Son of God is...a reality beyond words.

I don't see your point. First, since scripture calls Yehoshua the ONLY begotten of the Father, and NEVER his ONLY Son (see Greek Majority manuscripts and the Peshitta), you will need to provide more than one verse which shows us as the Son of God in the sense you are using it. Second, Thomas called Yehoshua "My Lord and My God" without rebuke from Yehoshua. Since the Tanach (OT) points to this Messiah being God himself (see Isaiah 9:5, chapter 35, 40:3, Zech 12:10, etc.) then in Peter saying "thou art the Messiah the Son of the Living God," he was acknowleging the divinity of Yehoshua. Lastly, I seriously doubt you and I see "the Lamb of God" in the same sense. Scripture states that God hates human sacrifice, and seeing Yehoshua was not inspected by priests, quartered, burnt, killed on an alter... and was even killed outside the gates, then we again are looking at types and anti-types, or types and shadows, and not a literal human sacrifice before God. Note... I am not saying he did not sacrifice himself for us, he did! Just saying it isn't exactly as we have always been taught, IMO.

Peace.
Ken

PS... I also see no division in scripture between the disciples as you do. If you are getting that from scripture, I believe you might be reading into it a little too much.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Just trying to come to grips with the purpose of your post, Bosco: Are you arguing (a) Christians should obey the OT dietary laws; or (2) Christians should not relate Peter's vision to actual food, because it's a metaphor for people, not animals?

The (the first is wrong, but the second I would agree with) Curtmudgeon