Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
Regarding my misreading Acts, not sure what you meant. Jesus kept the law. Therefore, it isn't impossible. And Peter said, "I have never eaten anything unclean". Either Peter lied or the word never means never. So, seven years after Christ's death, Peter is seen strictly following dietary restrictions. Am I misreading that?
|
hullo mr.aron
simple simon says, does peter's strict following of the law's dietary restrictions mean that he kept the whole law? Is the law made up of only dietary restrictions? I think from what I've gathered on this thread, to keep the law you must keep the whole law. Or is the poster who wrote that mistaken? So even if peter had never eaten anything unclean in his life (as he declared) before the demanding rigorrs of the law he was still guilty. But it looks like you take another view.
also, aren't you ignoring the context of that episode you've brought up? the context is that peter was being challenged by God to eat unclean animals (even though they symbolized the gentiles). why would God choose a metaphor like this, if staying away from eating unclean animals is the essence of being perfect in the eyes of the law, as you are insinuating? and besides, didn't Jesus declare unclean animals fit to eat before he was even crucified? Mark 7:17-19. what do you make of that?
In india, where I lived for many years, they hold cows to be most sacred and they do not eat them. that's the law and, if you dare, you eat them at the peril of your life. cows are considered deities in india. I knew of no indian who, like peter, ever ever ate beef. they observe that 'restriction strictly'. my question is, would you think strict observance makes them holy and righteous, as you think peter must have been because of his own strict observance of the jewish dietary laws?
moreover, I have friends who are muslims. I have never known a muslim to eat swine flesh. they will lie, cheat, steal, even drink alcohol (which is forbidden under general islamic law, called 'haram'), but they will, with as much resolution as peter displayed, never, never, never, ever eat swine flesh! they are perfectly ready to die before they ever violate that 'dietary restriction'. in your opinion, does this make them holy and righteous? because it would seem it would, in line with the argument that you've made in your post.
finally, back in the gospels, after Jesus was done teaching the crowds, he instructed peter to lower his nets into the sea despite the fact that he had fished all night and caught nothing. the catch of fish he made, however, at the Lord's behest almost sank the ship, and peter cried
'depart from me for I am a sinful man, O' Lord. for he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes they had taken' Mark 5:5-9
could it be that peter, in that moment, suddenly realized how sinful he was when he saw that he couldn't hope to eat all that fish in one go, and therefore inadvertently break the 'strict dietary restrictions' that had made him holy and righteous all his life, and which he had never ever violated?
I'm trying to apply your interpretative framework to that episode, and that's what I come up with. but what do you think?
simple simon is done saying.