Kosher Relevance

[Burning one]

Shlama Khulkon:
Kashrut is good but not binding upon the Christian whether Jew or Gentile, for we are one Body in Meshikha. It is important to note that YHVH Elohim directed Noakh that everything that moves shall be food for the human race. (Genesis 9:1-4). I understand that Shimon Kepha's vision included many creatures in a large blanket held by four corners. This passage makes a parallel between the treatment of Gentiles by Jewish brethren rather than kashrut persay but the two are linked in the vision. (Acts 10:9-17). It is Israel that was given kashrut within the bonds of Torah, to make them a "separate people". Meshikha was born "under the LAW" and observed all of Torah, including kashrut laws. However, the Apostle Paul, James and Shimon Kepha were in agreement with the Rukha d'Kadusha to release Gentiles from the burdens of Torah including circumcision and most of kashrut. In Acts 15:19-21. the Apostles make a clear distinction so that Gentiles will not grossly offend their Jewish brethren.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->

Shlama akhi Stephen,

the four-cornered sheet with the creeping animals in it, which Keepha understood to be unclean, and then later realized symbolized the Gentile peoples -- the link i see is that in multiple books of the T"NK, Gentile nations are symbolically represented by unclean animals, and for Keepha to be told to "eat" them, means obviously to "accept" those from the nations that are being called by the Father. although i am sure that there are surely many very applicable ways to symbolically approach that particular text.

as for Acts 15, i'm of a different persuasion, obviously. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> i don't think it was releasing them from the burdens of the Torah, but opening up the essentials in order to fellowship. remember how the P'reeyshe' brought the whole thing up (v. 1 & 5) with demanding they must be circumcised or else they aren't even saved? i think the Peshitta does well to show that the apostles were speaking directly against that particular false doctrine by their ruling, when Peter makes the clever word-play with P'rash in verse 9. that sect had lain upon the peoples a burden that the Father never gave - since people had always been allowed to worship Him w/o the demanding of circumcision. i personally believe the best route of explanation lay in that context, and not an abrogation of the entire Instruction. of course, that is just my opinion - worth all of two shekels - hopefully!

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy