Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 03-14-2006, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

I've heard Peter's vision used this way often, but is Peter's vision in Acts really about food, or is the food symbolic of the Gentiles?

But Jesus instructed his disciples to go into all the world in the gospels. If your interpretation is right it raises interesting questions about the dating of Acts and the gospels!

Phlox Pyros · 03-14-2006, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Phlox Pyros wrote:
I've heard Peter's vision used this way often, but is Peter's vision in Acts really about food, or is the food symbolic of the Gentiles?

Clivedurdle wrote:
If your interpretation is right it raises interesting questions about the dating of Acts and the gospels!

Here is the evidence my interpretation is planted in (Acts 10):

Cornelius (a gentile) of Caesarea has a vision from "the lord" about a man named Peter. Peter, then, has a vision at the Tanner's in Joppa about unclean food which he is told by God to eat: Acts 10:13 - "Get up, Peter, kill and eat. But Peter said, By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean. The voice said to him again, a second time, What God has made clean, you must not call profane."

The dream sounds like it is about God telling Peter not to worry about what kinds of foods he eats. However, in context, the unclean food appears to be sybolic of the gentiles....

Cornelius sends for Peter. Peter comes to Caesarea to meet Cornelius and says to Cornelius and those gathered around: Acts 10:28 - "You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without objection."

As for what this says with respect to questions about the dating of Acts and the gospels, I do not know. You would have to elaborate.

youngalexander · 03-15-2006, 02:24 AM

Roman Catholic: Sacrifice; Transubstantiation

Quote:

According to the Roman Catholic Church, when the bread and wine are consecrated in the Eucharist, they cease to be bread and wine, and become instead the body and blood of Christ. The empirical appearances are not changed, but the reality is. The consecration of the bread (known as the host) and wine represents the separation of Jesus's body from his blood at Calvary. However, since he has risen, the Church teaches that his body and blood can no longer be truly separated. Where one is, the other must be. Therefore, although the priest (or minister) says, "The body of Christ", when administering the host, and, "The blood of Christ", when presenting the chalice, the communicant who receives either one receives Christ, whole and entire.

It matters not what sophistry one places upon this, it is cannibalism.

It is primitive. It is very likely primordial.
It ain't civilised.
It is sick.

I have never understood why anyone accepts such vile barbarism.

Clivedurdle · 03-15-2006, 09:12 AM

On timing, it is quite simple. This is a dream of Peter - I think I agree with you - saying god has said it is OK to go to the gentiles with the gospel.

But why does he need a dream from god? isn't he an apostle? Had he not already heard it from Jesus' mouth?

This is probably quite strong evidence that even Peter did not know of a historical Jesus, and like Paul, this is a religion founded on visions of the leaders!

mdarus · 03-15-2006, 09:55 AM

A major issue that the apostles needed to process was how Jesus' death and resurrection was to change the way they expressed their faith. The books of Acts records the difficulty of the transition from Jewish temple worship to Christian discipleship. The Gentile issue caused some dramatic conflict. Jesus' teachings and ministry demonstrated inclusion of the Gentiles yet priority to the Jews. Paul even focused his ministry to Jews first then to Gentiles. Peter's dream fits into the progression of working out the implications of Jesus' teaching and the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Bible consistently demonstrates a progressive revelation of information from God. There is no assumption that it is all laid out at the beginning.

Be careful in your approach to interpreting the Bible that you use a consistant approach. You will probably not get accurate results if you treat one passage literalistically as proof that other passages are not valid at all.

Phlox Pyros · 03-15-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Had he not already heard it from Jesus' mouth?

I don't know. What gospel(s)/verse(s) are you referring to?

Quote:

This is probably strong evidence that even Peter did not know of a historical Jesus, and like Paul, this is a religion founded on visions of the leaders!

Hmm... I'm not sure I understand how you arrive at this conclusion from the previous information.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-15-2006, 09:12 AM	#14
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	On timing, it is quite simple. This is a dream of Peter - I think I agree with you - saying god has said it is OK to go to the gentiles with the gospel. But why does he need a dream from god? isn't he an apostle? Had he not already heard it from Jesus' mouth? This is probably quite strong evidence that even Peter did not know of a historical Jesus, and like Paul, this is a religion founded on visions of the leaders!

03-15-2006, 09:55 AM	#15
mdarus Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Arizona Posts: 196	A major issue that the apostles needed to process was how Jesus' death and resurrection was to change the way they expressed their faith. The books of Acts records the difficulty of the transition from Jewish temple worship to Christian discipleship. The Gentile issue caused some dramatic conflict. Jesus' teachings and ministry demonstrated inclusion of the Gentiles yet priority to the Jews. Paul even focused his ministry to Jews first then to Gentiles. Peter's dream fits into the progression of working out the implications of Jesus' teaching and the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Bible consistently demonstrates a progressive revelation of information from God. There is no assumption that it is all laid out at the beginning. Be careful in your approach to interpreting the Bible that you use a consistant approach. You will probably not get accurate results if you treat one passage literalistically as proof that other passages are not valid at all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.