₦airaland Forum

Many people read the bible and often get diverse interpretation and understanding. Is the proper message sent therein adequately understood and appreciated for beneficial use?
Let's take a few if we can. Acts 10:15:
And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

What does this verse really mean?

I appreciate all thoughts and comments and particularly invite
@Sirtee15
@Gabrielshow24
@Gabrielshow26
@Tenq
@Antiislam
@Fxmasterz
@BlackfireX
@Riggtchannel
@doffman
@honesttalk21
@Sagenaija
@kobojunkie
@Lordreed
@Deepsight
@Budaatum
@ikeepgoing
@Antlisiam
@JimRohn all all other nairaland members
@AntiChistian

The question was answered by Peter to whom God showed that vision.

He said:

“Now I truly understand that God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him" Act 10:34-35

The symbolic food items referred to the people of the nations who weren't part of God's covenant so when Peter received the message he got the understanding that God was talking about Cornelius who's house supposed to be forbidden for Peter to enter! Luke 7:6

Explore2xmore:
Many people read the bible and often get diverse interpretation and understanding. Is the proper message sent therein adequately understood and appreciated for beneficial use?
Let's take a few if we can. Acts 10:15:
And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

What does this verse really mean?

I appreciate all thoughts and comments and particularly invite
@Sirtee15
@Gabrielshow24
@Gabrielshow26
@Tenq
@Antiislam
@Fxmasterz
@BlackfireX
@Riggtchannel
@doffman
@honesttalk21
@Sagenaija
@kobojunkie
@Lordreed
@Deepsight
@Budaatum
@ikeepgoing
@Antlisiam
@JimRohn all all other nairaland members
@AntiChistian

you have asked a question You will see how Christains here will answer you

But when we ask question concerning Islam you become deludelu and insulting

And oh nobody is your dhinmi

Can you elaborate the question and the purpose

Don't be scared -- we are well equipped

Explore2xmore:
Many people read the bible and often get diverse interpretation and understanding. Is the proper message sent therein adequately understood and appreciated for beneficial use?
Let's take a few if we can. Acts 10:15:
And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

What does this verse really mean?

I appreciate all thoughts and comments and particularly invite
@Sirtee15
@Gabrielshow24
@Gabrielshow26
@Tenq
@Antiislam
@Fxmasterz
@BlackfireX
@Riggtchannel
@doffman
@honesttalk21
@Sagenaija
@kobojunkie
@Lordreed
@Deepsight
@Budaatum
@ikeepgoing
@Antlisiam
@JimRohn all all other nairaland members
@AntiChistian

Maxindhouse has largely answered the question. I'll just do a rejoinder.

The verse you quoted is a message from a vision God gave to Peter as a way of instructing him that his former ideology about unclean humans should be thrown into the trash can.

To understand the verse, you need to understand Peter himself to whom God sent the vision. He was a Jew who believed that only the Jews have a right to God and to salvation. Traditional Jews still believe this till today. Others who are gentiles have no such rights. Hence after Jesus' ascension, the Jewish Christians preached the gospel ONLY to fellow Jews. If you're not a Jew, they would never tell you about Jesus and His salvation. The Jews regarded non-Jews as unclean beings with whom they must not associate, the same way they also have unclean foods which they must not eat. It was God who gave them instructions regarding this in the Old Testament. That time, God was dealing with Israel alone, but now God's attention has shifted to the whole world. Peter and the rest of the believers didn't know that God's salvation and Grace is for the whole world, even though the law was for only Israel. Peter clearly understood the vision. That's why, before preaching the good news of salvation to Cornelius and his household who were gentiles, he told them:

Acts 10:28:

"He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean."

The tradition of preaching only to Jews continued among the Christian Jews until Acts 15 when during a meeting of all Christian leaders, some people accused Paul and Barnabas of associating with uncircumcised gentiles. Paul and Barnabas actually preached to gentiles while others never did. It was this same Cornelius episode that Peter used to convince his fellow believers that God has included gentiles in His plan of salvation:

Acts 15:7-12:

"After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles (referring to Cornelius and his household) might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” Then the whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.".

I believe that by now, you have fully understood that verse. The whole import of this verse you quoted and the answers that have followed is that God has already concluded the matter of salvation for the whole human race ever before Mohammed came to bring a contrary message.

FxMasterz:
Peter was a Jew who believed that only the Jews have a right to God and to salvation.

Somehow you missed something vital here!

Peter and the other twelve apostles heard Jesus telling them to go and preach to people of all nations {Matthew 24:14; 28:19-20; Act 1:8} so they knew very well that they must also preach to people of other nations but the issue they had with gentiles is the same issue the Pharisees also have back then.

Jews believe that when it comes to being corulers with the Christ only Jews supposed to be chosen!

The Pharisees themselves believe that Jesus supposed to associate with them since they are custodians of the law so after Jesus has spent all his days in the ministry with only his Jewish disciples they assumed that it's only Jews that will be chosen as the Christ's corulers and of course that's what was written in the scriptures but Jesus made it clear through several illustrations that since the Jews refused to respond urgently to his message people from other nations will become part of the chosen rulers with him in his kingdom.

So when Peter saw that the gift of God's holy spirit manifested in the lives of Cornelius and those who were with him despite being gentiles he realized that the barrier has been broken so now people from other nations will be chosen to rule with Christ in his kingdom though the rest of obedient mankind will enjoy everlasting life on planet earth under the rulership of Christ and his corulers! Matthew 5:5; John 3:16; Psalms 37:29; Surah 21:105

MaxInDHouse:
Somehow you missed something vital here!

Peter and the other twelve apostles heard Jesus telling them to go and preach to people of all nations {Matthew 24:14; 28:19-20; Act 1:8} so they knew very well that they must also preach to people of other nations but the issue they had with gentiles is the same issue the Pharisees also have back then.

Jews believe that when it comes to being corulers with the Christ only Jews supposed to be chosen!

The Pharisees themselves believe that Jesus supposed to associate with them since they are custodians of the law so after Jesus has spent all his days in the ministry with only his Jewish disciples they assumed that it's only Jews that will be chosen as the Christ's corulers and of course that's what was written in the scriptures but Jesus made it clear through several illustrations that since the Jews refused to respond urgently to his message people from other nations will become part of the chosen rulers with him in his kingdom.

So when Peter saw that the gift of God's holy spirit manifested in the lives of Cornelius and those who were with him despite being gentiles he realized that the barrier has been broken so now people from other nations will be chosen to rule with Christ in his kingdom though the rest of obedient mankind will enjoy everlasting life on planet earth under the rulership of Christ and his corulers! Matthew 5:5; John 3:16; Psalms 37:29.

That verse is actually not about rulers or co-rulers. It's just about God's dispensational.shift.

God's plan of salvation for the world followed a definite pattern:

Seth - Noah - Shem - Abraham - Israel - The World.

In that same Acts 15, James declared that God's stage in the salvation project is now The World stage. No longer just Israel:

Acts 15:13-21:

"13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name[/b,]. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, [b]just as it is written:

16 ‘After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the Lord who does all these things.’

18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works (James immediately understood that this has been God's plan from Adam, and that He has been working it through the generations of Seth). 19 Thereforen[b]I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God[/b], 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

The conclusion that Moses already has those who preached him is a clear distinction indicating the shift from preaching Moses for the Jews to preaching Jesus for the world. Even James came to realize at that point that Moses was for the Jews but Jesus is for the world. So, anyone who wants to maintain the status quo of Moses for the Jews should understand that there are preachers of Moses 'even outside of our circle. ' Time to preach Jesus for the world. No need compel circumcision. Everyone is saved by Grace through faith in Christ alone. Circumcision or no circumcision..

FxMasterz:
That verse is actually not about rulers or co-rulers. It's just about God's dispensational.shift.

When Jesus said:

And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” Matthew 28:19-20

"But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a, and to the most distant part of the earth.” Act 1:7

Are you saying Peter and other apostles didn't agree with Jesus' command?🤔

MaxInDHouse:
When Jesus said:

And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” Matthew 28:19-20

"But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a, and to the most distant part of the earth.” Act 1:7

Are you saying Peter and other apostles didn't agree with Jesus' command?🤔

They agreed but they misunderstood. They probably thought He was talking about the dispersed Jews among the gentiles. There was a Moses stronghold on their minds that wouldn't allow the truth of that message to penetrate. Thank God for Paul.

FxMasterz:
They agreed but they misunderstood. They probably thought He was talking about the dispersed Jews among the gentiles. There was a Moses stronghold on their minds that wouldn't allow the truth of that message to penetrate. Thank God for Paul.

First of all this clarified what i've been telling you people on this forum that it's not everything they understood after they were baptized with holy spirit they gradually got things clearer as time passed but then Jesus said:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit. Matthew 28:19

Was he also talking about only Jews in this verse?🤔

Is it the case that the bulk of Acts 10 were a vision not certainly physically real event?
What precisely did God mean by what I have made clean, do not call common?
Peter himself says in Acts 10:28 that God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean but exactly how is a concern for me. He didn't talk about food or any dietary categories.
Clarification about people is made in Acts 10:34-35 which confirms the theological conclusion he drew that God shows no partiality, and in every nation the person who fears Him and acts rightly is acceptable to Him. Questions regarding Jews, Israel and the rest of the world get raised here.
The interpreter does not need to work hard as the text's own protagonist provides the exegesis. The cultural and historical context reinforces this reading. Jewish exclusivity in early gospel proclamation was not merely a preference but a deeply held theological conviction, gentiles were categorically outside the covenant, ritually impure, their households forbidden territory for observant Jews. Luke 7:6 shows this was a live social reality even before Cornelius. The vision's use of food imagery was not incidental; it deployed categories Peter already understood viscerally to communicate something he would otherwise have resisted entirely.
That the interpretation held beyond this single episode is confirmed by Acts 15, where Peter uses the Cornelius precedent explicitly to argue against imposing the Mosaic yoke on gentile believers. The vision was not a private mystical experience it became foundational ecclesiological precedent.
However, one question the text leaves genuinely open is how does one establish with certainty, in any subsequent case, whom God has declared clean? At Cornelius's house the confirmation was dramatic and unambiguous, the Spirit fell visibly before any human authorization. Peter could not argue against what he was witnessing. But that mechanism was a unique unrepeatable event, not a transferable procedure. Acts 15 itself still required council deliberation despite the Cornelius precedent, which tells you the early church did not treat Acts 10 as having resolved all future boundary questions automatically.
The text establishes that God determines cleanness unilaterally. It does not provide any human institution the authority to certify that determination in subsequent cases with equivalent certainty. The conclusions in another contribution that Acts 10 preemptively settles the question against later revelatory claims is a conclusion the text does not support and does not need to support. The passage makes a strong enough case on its own terms without being conscripted into arguments external to its context.

What is your point?

Explore2xmore:
Is it the case that the bulk of Acts 10 were a vision not certainly physically real event?
What precisely did God mean by what I have made clean, do not call common?
Peter himself says in Acts 10:28 that God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean but exactly how is a concern for me. He didn't talk about food or any dietary categories.
Clarification about people is made in Acts 10:34-35 which confirms the theological conclusion he drew that God shows no partiality, and in every nation the person who fears Him and acts rightly is acceptable to Him. Questions regarding Jews, Israel and the rest of the world get raised here.
The interpreter does not need to work hard as the text's own protagonist provides the exegesis. The cultural and historical context reinforces this reading. Jewish exclusivity in early gospel proclamation was not merely a preference but a deeply held theological conviction, gentiles were categorically outside the covenant, ritually impure, their households forbidden territory for observant Jews. Luke 7:6 shows this was a live social reality even before Cornelius. The vision's use of food imagery was not incidental; it deployed categories Peter already understood viscerally to communicate something he would otherwise have resisted entirely.
That the interpretation held beyond this single episode is confirmed by Acts 15, where Peter uses the Cornelius precedent explicitly to argue against imposing the Mosaic yoke on gentile believers. The vision was not a private mystical experience it became foundational ecclesiological precedent.
However, one question the text leaves genuinely open is how does one establish with certainty, in any subsequent case, whom God has declared clean? At Cornelius's house the confirmation was dramatic and unambiguous, the Spirit fell visibly before any human authorization. Peter could not argue against what he was witnessing. But that mechanism was a unique unrepeatable event, not a transferable procedure. Acts 15 itself still required council deliberation despite the Cornelius precedent, which tells you the early church did not treat Acts 10 as having resolved all future boundary questions automatically.
The text establishes that God determines cleanness unilaterally. It does not provide any human institution the authority to certify that determination in subsequent cases with equivalent certainty. The conclusions in another contribution that Acts 10 preemptively settles the question against later revelatory claims is a conclusion the text does not support and does not need to support. The passage makes a strong enough case on its own terms without being conscripted into arguments external to its context.

MaxInDHouse:
First of all this clarified what i've been telling you people on this forum that it's not everything they understood after they were baptized with holy spirit they gradually got things clearer as time passed but then Jesus said:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit. Matthew 28:19

Was he also talking about only Jews in this verse?🤔

Everything they misunderstood and misinterpreted were all corrected within the Bible and not outside of it.

Like in this particular matter, correction came in Acts 10 and was established in Acts 15.

So, we don't have an incomplete Bible.

MaxInDHouse:
What is your point?

We will arrive at it together; hopefully. We appear in fair level of agreement regarding the non exclusivity of the Jews and or Israelites but there are still grey areas regarding the authenticity of the vision isn't it?

Note that Luke wrote Acts decades after the events, raising standard source and transmission questions primarily for reference to a vision in a trance-state experience reported secondhand through a narrator, not direct prophetic utterance
The Acts 15 council's continued deliberation suggests even contemporaries did not treat the Cornelius episode as settling all questions definitively

FxMasterz:
Everything they misunderstood and misinterpreted were all corrected within the Bible and not outside of it.

Was the Bible in one big volume when the Apostles were all alive or it was later compiled after most of them died misunderstanding and misinterpreting the message?
For instance apostle John wrote his own gospel account in the year 98 C.E. by then all the other apostles have died and it was in the last chapter of his gospel account that he corrected one big misconception regarding what Jesus told Peter:

So when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, what about this man?” Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” John 21:21-23
Was the misunderstanding of Jesus' statement corrected by the apostles or it has lingered in the minds of Christians in the first century for decades until apostle John wrote his own gospel account?

FxMasterz:
Like in this particular matter, correction came in Acts 10 and was established in Acts 15.
So, we don't have an incomplete Bible.

You didn't answer the question:

Did Jesus meant they should preach to only Jews at Matthew 28:19?
If not what is the difference between this command and that of Matthew 10:6?

Explore2xmore:
We will arrive at it together; hopefully. We appear in fair level of agreement regarding the non exclusivity of the Jews and or Israelites but there are still grey areas regarding the authenticity of the vision isn't it?

Please count Jehovah's Witnesses out of such thing because Jesus wasn't talking about preaching for salvation in some instances for example @ Matthew 10:6 he specifically instructed his disciples not to preach to anyone except Jews only in fact he excluded Samaritans who were also Israelites in the message so there is a difference between preaching to gather Christ's future corulers {Matthew 10:6} and preaching for the salvation of obedient mankind. Matthew 28:19

Explore2xmore:
Note that Luke wrote Acts decades after the events, raising standard source and transmission questions primarily for reference to a vision in a trance-state experience reported secondhand through a narrator, not direct prophetic utterance
The Acts 15 council's continued deliberation suggests even contemporaries did not treat the Cornelius episode as settling all questions definitively.

Luke wrote all the information he was able to gather regarding how the apostles and elders in Jerusalem established Christianity so whoever is found opposing their stance is no longer a Christian because Jesus said regarding Peter and the other apostles:

"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my congregation, and the gates of the Grave will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you may bind on earth will already be bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loosen on earth will already be loosened in the heavens.” Matthew 16:18-19

The death of An·a·niʹas and Sap·phiʹra occurred because they lied to that group (Apostles) that's why God's angel struck them instantly people in the first century began calling the group a cult after the death of that couple but then anyone disobeying the apostles on any settled matter will be excommunicated {Romans 16:17; 2John 10-11} so in the first century the group known as Christians have the same line of thought {John 17:22; 1Corinthans 1:10} and whoever doesn't agree with the decision made by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem can't question their authority just as we have among Jehovah's Witnesses today such ones can go ahead and form their own religion but no member of Jehovah's Witnesses will count such a person or his religion as part of our faith! 1John 2:19
So it's these anonymous religionists claiming Christians that are confused regarding God's word not JWs!

MaxInDHouse:
Was the Bible in one big volume when the Apostles were all alive or it was later compiled after most of them died misunderstanding and misinterpreting the message?

For instance apostle John wrote his own gospel account in the year 98 C.E. by then all the other apostles have died and it was in the last chapter of his gospel account that he corrected one big misconception regarding what Jesus told Peter:

So when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, what about this man?” Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” John 21:21-23
Was the misunderstanding of Jesus' statement corrected by the apostles or it has lingered in the minds of Christians in the first century for decades until apostle John wrote his own gospel account?

That misunderstanding was not doctrinal. It doesn't affect the Gospel in anyway. It was a mere perception about John. It has nothing to do with the Gospel. God made sure to clarify anything that has to do with doctrines. God is not a God of confusion, and the Bible is a complete Book.

And yeah, the Bible was not written in one big volume, but God made sure every ingredient necessary for a future Bible was perfectly ready.

You didn't answer the question:

Did Jesus meant they should preach to only Jews at Matthew 28:19?
If not what is the difference between this command and that of Matthew 10:6?

He meant they should preach to all nations including Jews and Gentiles but Jesus at that time did not address their Mosaic mindset of 'only Jews can be saved' That notion remained because even though the Gospel was for all, the 12 disciples have a ministry for Israel alone. The person to break out of the Jewish jurisdiction was Paul, and at that time, he was not yet a believer. Eventually, Peter came to realize the difference between himself and Paul. Paul narrated the encounter here:

"7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision (gospel to the gentiles ) was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision (gospel to the Jews ) was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.)

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen (the gentiles), and they unto the circumcision (the Jews)." Galatians 2:7-9.

So, as I was saying, Jesus didn't correct their Jews Only misconception immediately because the ministry for the gentiles was not for them but for someone else who was not yet in the gathering - Paul. And, when the fullness of time came, God Himself clarified it to Peter. God is not a God of confusion, and the Bible is a complete Book.

FxMasterz:
That misunderstanding was not doctrinal. It doesn't affect the Gospel in anyway. It was a mere perception about John. It has nothing to do with the Gospel. God made sure to clarify anything that has to do with doctrines. God is not a God of confusion, and the Bible is a complete Book. And yeah, the Bible was not written in one big volume, but God made sure every ingredient necessary for a future Bible was perfectly ready.

I'm not talking about doctrine but what the first century disciples of Christ were telling themselves and definitely telling people about John that he will not die until Jesus returns. John 21:22-23
So they were expecting Jesus to return before the death of apostle John and since it wasn't corrected by Peter and the other apostles till they all died do you think any sincere observer who heard it will not call first century Christians "false prophets" since Jesus never returned as they spread the misconception? 🙂

FxMasterz:
That notion remained because even though the Gospel was for all, the 12 disciples have a ministry for Israel Jews alone.

What were they to preach to only the Jews?
Samaritans are Israelites too yet Jesus excluded Samaritans in this setting:
"Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter any Sa·marʹi·tan city; but instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, preach, saying: ‘The Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near'" Matthew 10:5-7

So why did Jesus exclude Samaritans if the message is for all Israelites?🙂

MaxInDHouse:
I'm not talking about doctrine but what the first century disciples of Christ were telling themselves and definitely telling people about John that he will not die until Jesus returns. John 21:22-23
So they were expecting Jesus to return before the death of apostle John and since it wasn't corrected by Peter and the other apostles till they all died do you think any sincere observer who heard it will not call first century Christians "false prophets" since Jesus never returned as they spread the misconception? 🙂

No, it was not a misconception carried by everyone. Even John made a clarification about it in John 21:23

"Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, 'If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you,."

John himself clarified that Jesus never said that.

What were they to preach to only the Jews?
Samaritans are Israelites too yet Jesus excluded Samaritans in this setting:
"Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter any Sa·marʹi·tan city; but instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, preach, saying: ‘The Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near'" Matthew 10:5-7

So why did Jesus exclude Samaritans if the message is for all Israelites?🙂

The Samaritans were not Israelites. They were people from other nations that were resettled in Samaria after the northern tribes were taken away captives during the reign of Sennacherib king of Assyria. They original Israelites were exiled. The new inhabitants of Samaria were foreigners from other nations. They were not descendants of Jacob. Not even of Abraham. This was why the Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans.

Explore2xmore:
Is it the case that the bulk of Acts 10 were a vision not certainly physically real event?
What precisely did God mean by what I have made clean, do not call common?
Peter himself says in Acts 10:28 that God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean but exactly how is a concern for me. He didn't talk about food or any dietary categories.
Clarification about people is made in Acts 10:34-35 which confirms the theological conclusion he drew that God shows no partiality, and in every nation the person who fears Him and acts rightly is acceptable to Him. Questions regarding Jews, Israel and the rest of the world get raised here.
The interpreter does not need to work hard as the text's own protagonist provides the exegesis. The cultural and historical context reinforces this reading. Jewish exclusivity in early gospel proclamation was not merely a preference but a deeply held theological conviction, gentiles were categorically outside the covenant, ritually impure, their households forbidden territory for observant Jews. Luke 7:6 shows this was a live social reality even before Cornelius. The vision's use of food imagery was not incidental; it deployed categories Peter already understood viscerally to communicate something he would otherwise have resisted entirely.
That the interpretation held beyond this single episode is confirmed by Acts 15, where Peter uses the Cornelius precedent explicitly to argue against imposing the Mosaic yoke on gentile believers. The vision was not a private mystical experience it became foundational ecclesiological precedent.
However, one question the text leaves genuinely open is how does one establish with certainty, in any subsequent case, whom God has declared clean? At Cornelius's house the confirmation was dramatic and unambiguous, the Spirit fell visibly before any human authorization. Peter could not argue against what he was witnessing. But that mechanism was a unique unrepeatable event, not a transferable procedure. Acts 15 itself still required council deliberation despite the Cornelius precedent, which tells you the early church did not treat Acts 10 as having resolved all future boundary questions automatically.
The text establishes that God determines cleanness unilaterally. It does not provide any human institution the authority to certify that determination in subsequent cases with equivalent certainty. The conclusions in another contribution that Acts 10 preemptively settles the question against later revelatory claims is a conclusion the text does not support and does not need to support. The passage makes a strong enough case on its own terms without being conscripted into arguments external to its context.

In summary, God has done away with ceremonial cleanliness. This was the Mosaic kind of cleanliness that made Jews consider themselves above others. God's standard has moved from ceremonial cleanliness to spiritual cleanliness. Spiritual cleanliness is the new standard. And ONLY JESUS PROVIDES THAT.

Explore2xmore:
We will arrive at it together; hopefully. We appear in fair level of agreement regarding the non exclusivity of the Jews and or Israelites but there are still grey areas regarding the authenticity of the vision isn't it?

Note that Luke wrote Acts decades after the events, raising standard source and transmission questions primarily for reference to a vision in a trance-state experience reported secondhand through a narrator, not direct prophetic utterance
The Acts 15 council's continued deliberation suggests even contemporaries did not treat the Cornelius episode as settling all questions definitively

Luke actually wrote the Gospel and Acts by interviewing the disciples directly, especially Peter.

IF ACTUALLY CHRISTIANITY WAS GOLD THE COLONIALIST WOULDN'T HAVE FORCE IT ON AFRICA

TODAY WE ARE BEGGING THEM TO SHOW US HOW TO TECHNOLOGICALLY PRODUCE SOME THINGS BUT THEY REFUSED BUT FORCE THE SO CALL GOD ON US BEFORE SLAVE TRADE BEGAN


*Portuguese and Spanish coastal enclaves, 15th-17th c.*
- In Angola, São Tomé, and parts of West/Central Africa, Portuguese missionaries worked with local rulers who converted for trade and military alliances.
- In some cases, colonial administrators tied access to trade, education, and jobs to baptism. Refusal could mean exclusion from those systems.

*Belgian Congo, late 19th-early 20th c.*
- Missionaries operated under King Leopold II’s administration. The state supported Catholic and Protestant missions as part of its “civilizing mission.”
- Historical records show pressure on communities to send children to mission schools, where conversion was a condition for literacy and basic services.

*British, French, German colonies, late 19th-20th c.*
- Direct forced baptism was rare in British and French territories.
- Indirect pressure was common: colonial law, courts, and schools often favored Christians. Chiefs who converted often gained colonial backing. Traditional religious practices were sometimes banned under colonial ordinances, e.g., outlawing certain ceremonies as “public nuisance” or “fetish practices.”

3. *Mechanisms of forced or coerced adoption*
Where it happened, it usually worked through:
- *Political pressure*: Rulers converted to gain alliance with colonial powers, then their subjects followed.
- *Legal and administrative bias*: Colonial law favored Christian marriage, inheritance, and court testimony.
- *Economic and educational access*: Missions ran most schools and hospitals. Attendance often required baptism or at least renouncing traditional practices.
- *Military force*: In rare cases during conquest campaigns, colonial forces destroyed shrines and compelled conversion as part of pacification.

AFTER THE RELIGIOUS CONVERSION THEN CAME THE SLAVERY AND THE SLAVES TRADING

FxMasterz:
No, it was not a misconception carried by everyone. Even John made a clarification about it in John 21:23
"Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, 'If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you,."
John himself clarified that Jesus never said that.

John said:
So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. John 21:23
Jesus said this statement in the year 33.c.e and nobody not even apostles John himself corrected it until the year 98.c.e when he wrote the gospel.
So if it's not a misconception among the first century Christians why didn't John correct it until 98.c.e?🤔

FxMasterz:
The Samaritans were not Israelites. They were people from other nations that were resettled in Samaria after the northern tribes were taken away captives during the reign of Sennacherib king of Assyria. They original Israelites were exiled. The new inhabitants of Samaria were foreigners from other nations. They were not descendants of Jacob. Not even of Abraham. This was why the Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans.

So why didn't Jesus expose the lady at the well as a liar when she said:

“Sir, you do not even have a bucket for drawing water, and the well is deep. From what source, then, do you have this living water? You are not greater than our forefather Jacob, who gave us the well and who together with his sons and his cattle drank out of it, are you?” John 4:11:12

Why didn't Jesus say she lied claiming Jacob (Israel) is her forefather?🤔

The Europeans who brought the Bible aren't Christians!🙂

NetbizBoss:
IF ACTUALLY CHRISTIANITY WAS GOLD THE COLONIALIST WOULDN'T HAVE FORCE IT ON AFRICA

TODAY WE ARE BEGGING THEM TO SHOW US HOW TO TECHNOLOGICALLY PRODUCE SOME THINGS BUT THEY REFUSED BUT FORCE THE SO CALL GOD ON US BEFORE SLAVE TRADE BEGAN


*Portuguese and Spanish coastal enclaves, 15th-17th c.*
- In Angola, São Tomé, and parts of West/Central Africa, Portuguese missionaries worked with local rulers who converted for trade and military alliances.
- In some cases, colonial administrators tied access to trade, education, and jobs to baptism. Refusal could mean exclusion from those systems.

*Belgian Congo, late 19th-early 20th c.*
- Missionaries operated under King Leopold II’s administration. The state supported Catholic and Protestant missions as part of its “civilizing mission.”
- Historical records show pressure on communities to send children to mission schools, where conversion was a condition for literacy and basic services.

*British, French, German colonies, late 19th-20th c.*
- Direct forced baptism was rare in British and French territories.
- Indirect pressure was common: colonial law, courts, and schools often favored Christians. Chiefs who converted often gained colonial backing. Traditional religious practices were sometimes banned under colonial ordinances, e.g., outlawing certain ceremonies as “public nuisance” or “fetish practices.”

3. *Mechanisms of forced or coerced adoption*
Where it happened, it usually worked through:
- *Political pressure*: Rulers converted to gain alliance with colonial powers, then their subjects followed.
- *Legal and administrative bias*: Colonial law favored Christian marriage, inheritance, and court testimony.
- *Economic and educational access*: Missions ran most schools and hospitals. Attendance often required baptism or at least renouncing traditional practices.
- *Military force*: In rare cases during conquest campaigns, colonial forces destroyed shrines and compelled conversion as part of pacification.

AFTER THE RELIGIOUS CONVERSION THEN CAME THE SLAVERY AND THE SLAVES TRADING

MaxInDHouse:
John said:
So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. John 21:23
Jesus said this statement in the year 33.c.e and nobody not even apostles John himself corrected it until the year 98.c.e when he wrote the gospel.
So if it's not a misconception among the first century Christians why didn't John correct it until 98.c.e?🤔

What made you think nobody corrected it until the year 98AD? So, it's only the Book that can be used as a medium of correction? John himself didn't have the notion from onset. It was some brethren who thought so. The notion that John won't die only appeared in that John 21. It never resurfaced anywhere again in the whole Bible. It was not sustained. Just a momentary thing. While John was writing in 98 AD, he didn't say 'the belief was still being held till today 'And if it were so, it's typical of John to mention that.

So why didn't Jesus expose the lady at the well as a liar when she said:

“Sir, you do not even have a bucket for drawing water, and the well is deep. From what source, then, do you have this living water? You are not greater than our forefather Jacob, who gave us the well and who together with his sons and his cattle drank out of it, are you?” John 4:11:12

Why didn't Jesus say she lied claiming Jacob (Israel) is her forefather?🤔

The Samaritans had come to recognize themselves as children of Jacob for religious purposes. Jesus understood that. The Samaritan woman was not talking about biological ancestry.

FxMasterz:
What made you think nobody corrected it until the year 98AD? So, it's only the Book that can be used as a medium of correction? John himself didn't have the notion from onset. It was some brethren who thought so. The notion that John won't die only appeared in that John 21. It never resurfaced anywhere again in the whole Bible. It was not sustained. Just a momentary thing. While [b]John was wrong in 98 AD, he didn't say 'the belief was still being held till today'[/b]And if it were so, it's typical of John to mention that.

So you believe God's word is wrong shey?
That's all i want you to confess publicly however the same thing still happens among true Christians (JWs) till today as some of our brothers do carry their misconception for decades making people like you to call us false prophets. I'm so happy that instead of you to admit that the same thing happened among first century Christians also you condemned God's inspired word for showing you that what makes you people call us false prophets is found among first century disciples of Christ!🙂

FxMasterz:
The Samaritans had come to recognize themselves as children of Jacob for religious purposes. Jesus understood that. The Samaritan woman was not talking about biological ancestry.

I just want you to prove that you don't believe in God's word at least Jesus did not say the woman lied even when Jesus told her that salvation is of the Jews! John 4:22

Farewell!🙂

MaxInDHouse:
So you believe God's word is wrong shey?
That's all i want you to confess publicly however the same thing still happens among true Christians (JWs) till today as some of our brothers do carry their misconception for decades making people like you to call us false prophets. I'm so happy that instead of you to admit that the same thing happened among first century Christians also you condemned God's inspired word for showing you that what makes you people call us false prophets is found among first century disciples of Christ!🙂



I just want you to prove that you don't believe in God's word at least Jesus did not say the woman lied even when Jesus told her that salvation is of the Jews! John 4:22

Farewell!🙂

It is you that's saying what God's Word didn't say. That's why we call you guys false prophets. Not because of your misconception but because of your deliberate falsifying of God's Word.

I'm happy you even used the word 'misconceptions', meaning you're aware that you have been wrong about many things. And you're still wrong about thousands of other things. The truth is that, the Chur h seeks knowledge as a body. And whatever knowledge the church has acquired and have been established as a general biblical doctrine, an isolated group that has a contrary opinion not biblically grounded is an heretic group. It's like science discovering atomic theory, then a splinter group of scientists somewhere remain in archaic beliefs regarding the same theory. Such a group is going to be relegated in the scheme of things.

You wait for decades or even centuries to discover what the church has already discovered and have moved on to higher things. You're false prophets as long as your doctrines have no biblical grounding.

John clearly said Jesus didn't say he was not going to die. I'm sure it wasn't John alone that knew that. Peter knew Jesus didn't say he'll not die. Several other disciples didn't hold that opinion that John won't die. A few who misunderstood were the ones who spread the rumor. The rumor was never stated in other gospels. It was not stated in Acts. It was not stated in any Epistle. Such an important prophecy of someone who'll live till Jesus comes would take prominent positions in the gospels, the Acts and the Epistles. Why didn't it take position? Because it was not believed to be true.

But, you're here wanting to force us to believe the contrary - that the belief was held generally by early Christians even when the Bible never said so. Even the spreading of rumors is not the same as the proliferation of belief. Rumors can spread without it being believed. And all John said was that the rumor was spread. He didn't say the church held to it as a belief.

This is all the evidence i need from you:

FxMasterz:
John was wrong in 98 AD.

So if you say John who is God's inspired Bible writer was WRONG in what God's holy spirit inspired him to pen down for us what else is there to discuss with you again?🙂

FxMasterz:
It is you that's saying what God's Word didn't say. That's why we call you guys false prophets. Not because of your misconception but because of your deliberate falsifying of God's Word.

I'm happy you even used the word 'misconceptions', meaning you're aware that you have been wrong about many things. And you're still wrong about thousands of other things. The truth is that, the Chur h seeks knowledge as a body. And whatever knowledge the church has acquired and have been established as a general biblical doctrine, an isolated group that has a contrary opinion not biblically grounded is an heretic group. It's like science discovering atomic theory, then a splinter group of scientists somewhere remain in archaic beliefs regarding the same theory. Such a group is going to be relegated in the scheme of things.

You wait for decades or even centuries to discover what the church has already discovered and have moved on to higher things. You're false prophets as long as your doctrines have no biblical grounding.

John clearly said Jesus didn't say he was not going to die. I'm sure it wasn't John alone that knew that. Peter knew Jesus didn't say he'll not die. Several other disciples didn't hold that opinion that John won't die. A few who misunderstood were the ones who spread the rumor. The rumor was never stated in other gospels. It was not stated in Acts. It was not stated in any Epistle. Such an important prophecy of someone who'll live till Jesus comes would take prominent positions in the gospels, the Acts and the Epistles. Why didn't it take position? Because it was not believed to be true.

But, you're here wanting to force us to believe the contrary - that the belief was held generally by early Christians even when the Bible never said so. Even the spreading of rumors is not the same as the proliferation of belief. Rumors can spread without it being believed. And all John said was that the rumor was spread. He didn't say the church held to it as a belief.

MaxInDHouse:
This is all the evidence i need from you:



So if you say John who is God's inspired Bible writer was WRONG in what God's holy spirit inspired him to pen down for us what else is there to discuss with you again?🙂

That typo is not an evidence. It was a typo and it was corrected. Look at the statement, what's John wrong about in 98 AD? Can you tell me from that statement itself! It was a typographic error. Even the word 'wrong' does not make any sense in the statement.

Here's what I intended to write:

"While John was writing (not wrong) in 98 AD, he didn't say the belief was still being held till today."

FxMasterz:
"While John was writing (not wrong) in 98 AD, he didn't say the belief was still being held till today."

John said:

The saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” John 21:23

The question is:

Do you agree with the scriptures that at a point in time Christians were saying among themselves that Jesus will return in the first century before apostle John die?🙂

MaxInDHouse:
John said:

The saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” John 21:23

The question is:

Do you agree with the scriptures that at a point in time Christians were saying among themselves that Jesus will return in the first century before apostle John die?🙂

The saying went out. It was discussed. Can you confirm that it became a doctrine or was actually believed?

If we're to agree to your postulations, then John would read. "The saying went out among the brothers that this disciple should not die. And this saying was believed among the brethren. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die..."

Was this how John put it?