— Perpetuity of God's Law--are you up to the challenge?

By on

Someone is reading my booklet, So, You Call Yourself A Christian... (80pp., 5.50 + P&H), which shows that God's Law was not abolished, and primarily thereafter shows that Peter's Vision had nothing to do with abolishing the dietary laws.  He emailed with some questions concerning how the average Christian thinks, and my replies are interspersed among his questions/comments. 

Please note: my use of FULL CAPS is not to be considered shouting; it is simply easier to use in email (at least, with my email program) than italics; even if I write the email in another medium and dump it into an email, all the boldface, underlining, italics, etc. is lost; so FULL CAPS are merely for emphasis, not shouting.



Q. For years I have wondered about the meaning of the vision of the sheet coming down from Heaven, full of unclean animals.  What puzzles me is this--and please understand that I am playing a sort of "devil's advocate" role here. I do not have any fixed opinions on the meaning of the vision:

OK  ...the work of the potter, as described in Jeremiah 18:1-6, was started when the northern tribes went into captivity. > Perhaps 750 years later, a major turning point was reached. God had sifted the House of Israel through the nations, > and had allowed the corrupted family lines in each tribe to die out, or become hopelessly mixed with the pagans. But > the vessels of honor had been preserved, along with SOME of the "bad guys", and now they were being positioned to > receive the promised Messiah...or, in some cases, to join with the Edomites, etc., in rejecting Him. > Prior to this time, it would have been unacceptable for the Judah/Benjamin remnant to mingle with them. It is > not clear whether they knew that these people were Israelites, but, whether or not they did, it was now time for these > Judah and Benjamite peoples to learn to broaden their horizons and accept that which had been unacceptable. GOD > did not change, but his work as a potter had changed His people, Israel, and now His task was to get the "elder son" > (of the parable) to change his attitudes and ideas. .........

My introductory comment at this point:

This all is utterly irrelevant as concerning the perpetuity of God's Law and God's Immutability. Morality does not change. That is the entire problem with true Israel (the true peoples of Christendom, literally descended from Biblical Israel) in blindness, modernly thinking that God changes. If He changes or changes morality in one area, what is to cause anyone to think He won't change another also? and thus race mixing is now considered wonderful by the entire "church" and homo-perversion is now considered wonderful by a large percentage of the "church".  It is hard to categorize or define the "church" since the majority of it is utterly apostate and not of God and not Christian, and the tiny percentage of that which is Christian, is not much better, as they have embraced the way of the heathen, and embraced the heathen, and in blindness, reject God by rejecting His Standard of Holiness: His Law for His people.  But if God changes in one area, He is not Immutable.  He commanded "Be holy for I am Holy" and therefore, our standard of morality cannot change because His does not change; that which is evil, immoral, sinful, never becomes good, wholesome, or moral.

Here is an unbelievable email that someone sent me, from someone who had sent it to him... incomprehensibly coming from a PASTOR; if he is a pastor (he should be put out to pasture, or sent directly to the glue factory), he clearly is a Baal priest or an apostate pagan idol priest like Micah. 

This email related:

"I was talking to a pastor the other day ... He told me that morality was subjective and open to interpretation. Example:  years ago woman wore long dresses now barely covers their bottoms.  Woman used to be ashamed of being pregnant without a husband. Today we give them daycare in high school and baby showers. A man can cheat on his wives write about it in a book and we are now going to elect him president. Whereas in the past he at least did not flaunt it.  A person can lie to your face and the next day deny it and be elected for president.   He told me that I was trying to live in a modern world with outdated values. And that I will continual to be depressed if I can't find a way to be accepting of today's "morals".  I question his use of the word "morality" as there seems to be none and it is now an obsolete word and should be removed from the dictionary."

This is the APOSTATE Church.  This is a pastor who has never done any true Bible study on his own and who does not understand simple logic.  This is a pastor who was merely produced off the seminary assembly line and cannot think outside the apostate seminarial trough.

True believers SHOULD BE depressed and offended.  RIGHTEOUS LOT WAS VEXED with the evil of "his day". God did not expect Lot to "roll with the punches" and "go with the flow" and "interface" with modern notions of (im)morality and loosen his tie and let his hair down.  THIS IS AN APOSTATE PASTOR, a FALSE PROPHET.



Q. ............ What I don't understand is this: God gave Peter the vision of the sheet, not to deal with food, but, rather, to deal with the need to experience an attitude adjustment. Thus, most people seem to think that Peter had to be given a parallel experience in regard to food--since, after all (SUPPOSEDLY!), Jesus had (Mark 7:19) "purged all meats", making all "foods" clean.  Now, He also said that previously forbidden people were "clean".  (I DO understand that the NIV translation of Mark 7:19, which adds to the KJV rendition of this verse, has caused terrible misunderstanding, as Jesus was merely referring to the digestive processes, and NOT to any change in the nature of pigs, etc.! But the usual understanding is that the dietary laws were abolished.)  .........


my reply at this point:

As I explain in my Commentary on Romans (800pp., pb., 40.00 + P&H), Paul says to those with understanding ALL THINGS THAT ARE LAWFUL are lawful to me.  He did NOT imply eating a ham sandwich, murder, a homo relationship, or worshipping a false god would have been lawful for him.  Those who think so reveal that they are yet UNREGENERATE.  The problem is the modern Christian is lobotomized and cannot comprehend simple logic and he cannot understand the Scriptures because the Scriptures must be spiritually discerned and he is CARNAL and SOLD UNDER SIN and UNCONVERTED.  Christ was not talking about food in general.  He was not talking about food. He was talking about unwashed hands!

[I remember an Ann Landers column from the newspaper years ago, that someone read to me, as I have never read a newspaper in my life... I believe the rough feel and the dirty ink that comes off on your hands as you read in indicative of the value of the content.  Regardless, someone asked, "Is it proper etiquette to eat fried chicken with my fingers?"  She replied, "No, eat the chicken first, and your fingers afterwards".  Thus, humorously by comparative logic, Christ was not saying that you could eat unclean animals, but that you could eat your hands even if you had not washed them.]

Christ was referring to the Pharisees' neurotic obsessive-compulsive disorder (due to their guilty consciences) that caused them to go through endless rituals of hand washing, especially before eating.  Christ's comments had NOTHING to do with meat, or food.  It had to do with what you eat (which would only be clean animals) WITH UNWASHED hands.  IF your hands were clean to begin with they did not need another washing out of neurotic ritual being imposed upon you. Christ similarly had told Peter at the footwashing before the Last Supper that he who is clean does not need his whole body washed, just his feet.  So Christ was NOT talking about eating with unwashed hands IF you had just been cleaning out your sceptic tank, or mucking out the cattle stall, or if you had just cleaned up vomit.  He was talking about people whose hands were actually clean because they had not done anything to defile them. Clearly, those whose hands are truly filthy don't need an invitation or reminder to wash their hand before they eat. But if someone's hands are clean, he does not need to wash his hands due to some pharisaic ritual and the little bacteria that is on them is no different than the bacteria in the air, and that little amount is easily neutralized by the gastro-intestinal fluids.  But, as we shall see, this was not really the main teaching.

Of course, in today's society full of aliens, third-world diseases, and homo-perverts washing ones hands before one eats anytime that one has been in public is a good idea... (as is washing and sterilizing ones hands once one gets into his car, where he can keep such sterilizing handwipes; because you don't want to stick a finger in your mouth or nose after touching something who knows what touched; everyone should be a MILD germaphobe if you want to be healthy in todays polluted society). 

BUT Christ's actual teaching was NOT really about washing dirty hands... that was merely the "springboard to the true lesson", which was moral-spiritual cleansing (clean the inside of the platter—the heart—not the outside).   Even as Christ, when he warned of the Pharisee's leaven, was not talking about bread (though the disciples—having not heard the story from their childhood into adulthood—did not understand Christ was speaking figuratively).

Christ kept the Law perfectly in all things to show us how to keep it, so only a brain-dead Christian (the most-common kind) would think that Christ abolished ANY part of the Law--especially since He declared NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE would pass from the Law, and that He did NOT come to destroy the Law.

The Law is perfect. Man's sinfulness is the problem (which Hebrews 8:8 tells us, "finding fault with THEM"--God's people who are all born with a sin nature; the problem was not the Law).

That which is immoral NEVER BECOMES "Moral"... once one FINALLY REALIZES THIS he will realize that every other question concerning such Scriptures IS A SMOKESCREEN and indicative of spiritual delusion.

Sinful Christians (even those who delude themselves into thinking that they are not sinful, but that they are spiritual) eagerly choose the LEAST-LIKELY and MOST-ABSURD possible interpretation of such passages, because they are carnal and they are eager to jump at the opportunity to declare their God to be mutable and imperfect while at the same time indulging in the sin that they so love, because they have no concept of holiness and have no desire to be holy.  Rather than seeing how close to God they can get, they see how close to the line of sin they can get without technically stepping over it (all the while, moving the line farther and farther away from God when they think that He is not looking).



Q. .......... My question, then, is: Why give Peter a vision which SEEMS to tell him to accept new ideas and practices about food, when in fact it does not really mean this? ..........


My reply at this point:

BECAUSE IT DOES NOT "seem" to say that except to a person who does not understand the most basic truths of Scripture, and thus he should not even be reading the Bible, but be sitting on someone's lap having Bible "stories" read to him to "entertain" him, until hopefully he matures to the point that he can actually understand truth, rather than children's stories: once he has progressed from baby food, to adult food.

[The Bible is not to be interpreted in light of modern delusion and sinful practices and polluted ideas, but in light of exactly what it meant when God gave it.  Our church and Christians are as handicapped in this area, as the state and all citizens are with the Constitution.  They interpret the Constitution as a fluid document, a blasphemous lie of a "living, breathing, changing" document.  Jefferson said that the Constitution was NOT to be interpreted in light of modern ideas, but according to the SPIRIT OF THE DEBATES WHEN IT WAS ESTABLISHED!  Our church and state are corrupt and on the verge of extinction for the the same reason: perverting the Standard in light of modern sinfulness and polluted ideas.]

God does not change. Morality does not change. That which is an abomination never becomes wholesome. This is beyond simplistic once one realizes the simple truth of Scripture. Maybe someone who has only read the Bible once in his entire life may make such an infantile false association (that is, that morality changes), but if someone (like ministers and Bible "experts" who have read the Bible HUNDREDS of times--or should have) cannot see such simple logic, then God has blinded his eyes and those who follow them will fall into the same pit headlong.

NO ONE in Peter's day would have thought that God was suggesting that He was giving him "new ideas and practices".  NO ONE.  The reason "Christians" do today, is because their minds are polluted by the world, they are in blindness, and their darkened hearts actually WANT to believe the opposite of the true interpretation because they love their sin.

The eating of unclean animals is an ABOMINATION and we make ourselves ABOMINABLE when we do so. God COULD NOT change that into something wholesome any more than He could make HOMO-PERVERSION wholesome, normal, or holy.  The issue again is the same in both church and state.  The method is dumbing down the populace and lowering the bar on the high jump, to the point that the bar is flat on the ground and even a cripple can belly crawl across it.  God said WOE unto those who call good evil and evil good--and that applies to dietary laws, race-mixing, homo-perversion and EVERY SINGLE OTHER LAW that God commanded, "THOU SHALT NOT" or "THIS THOU SHALT DO".



Q. ............. Since God wanted to get Peter to adopt some new ideas, why did he provide him a vision which, despite appearances to the contrary, focused on something which did NOT change? ..............


My answer at this point:

Because the point was that since the analogy was something that it COULD NOT MEAN on its surface or manifest level, then the only possibly interpretation was that the meaning was on the lower or latent level.  That is the purpose of an analogy.  It is not the superficial appearance of the analogy that is the point, but the subtle, hidden meaning.  If a person said that he was hungry enough to eat a horse, he doesn't go out and eat a horse.  If I am driving and someone blows by me and I said, "he passed me like I was standing still", all clearly know I was not standing still.  Those with confused minds give in to their confusion and believe in the FOG and SMOKE and MIRRORS rather than the truth that they should know is beyond the mystery—yet they choose to believe the mystery, the fictional tale, rather than what it is meant to convey.  This is why (as I shall discuss later) many people stopped following Christ: because they erroneously believed that the analogy was literal instead of figurative; but no analogy in Scripture can be literal if what it suggests IS SIN.

God used the analogy that would GET PETER'S ATTENTION at HOW REVOLTING TO GOD was Peter's attitude toward his own brethren of the diaspora (that's who these so-called "gentiles" were).

WHAT PERSON IN HIS RIGHT MIND, had God told Peter to make a POOP SANDWICH or put VOMIT or DIARRHEA on his spaghetti noodles and eat it would have though that is what God actually wanted Peter to do...?

[Excuse the crudeness, but that is the revulsion that God intended with this analogy... as I will explain.]

What person in his right mind would think that was what God really wanted him to do?—the same God who established so many laws of cleanliness and declared that someone who was rendered unclean had to remain outside the camp for a certain period of time...?!!!

[--which minor inconvenience taught people to do their best to AVOID defiling themselves; when Miriam tried to usurp Moses' authority and got in his face, God struck her with leprosy.  Moses prayed for her and the leprosy was removed BUT SHE WAS STILL required to go through a period of 7 days cleansing in which she was technically defiled and had to remain outside the camp for the allotted period of time until the priests inspected her and declared her to be clean—and the ENTIRE CONGREGATION had to wait for one (hopefully humbled) arrogant woman, because they could not travel again until she was declared clean, because it seems due to her age and her being a woman, she would not have been safe all alone outside the camp travelling at a distance behind everyone else.]

NO ISRAELITE would have thought that God actually wanted Peter to eat unclean animals and NO ISRAELITE would have thought that God was changing the dietary laws--WHICH WERE PART OF THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT THAT WE ARE HIS PEOPLE... and because unclean animals, when eaten DEFILE US and MAKE US ABOMINABLE and since God declared BE HOLY FOR I AM HOLY and due to the fact that God's Holiness DOES NOT CHANGE and He commanded that we be holy AS HE is Holy, therefore, our standard of holiness cannot change.  Darkness never becomes light--LIGHT DISPELLS and BANISHES DARKNESS.  Evil never becomes good.  Sin / abominations never become wholesome behaviour.  Evil and sin are to be PUT AWAY; they never become goodness.


As I explain in my booklet So, You Call... (I guess you have not read that far yet?) Acts clearly shows that 3 days later Peter REALIZED the MEANING of the vision--WHICH CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE MEANING WAS NOT that God had "abolished" the dietary Laws...

HOW can Christians be so stupid?... Peter never killed and ate and Scripture declares that the vision was NOT about food... hence, God did NOT "abolish" the dietary Laws (which Christ said He did not come to destroy and not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law and those who violated the least of the commandments and taught others to do the same would be called LEAST in the kingdom--if they even make it across the threshold).  Yet the majority of Christians (including the "experts" who are the blind leading the blind) believe THE VERY OPPOSITE in the face of ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.  In essence, God says, "NO EATING UNCLEAN ANIMALS" and yet the majority of Christians, "Bible experts" included, reply, "Okay, I hear what you are saying.  You are saying that it is perfectly fine for us to eat unclean animals; I understand you loud and clear.  Thanks for clearing that up in my mind."  BRAIN DEAD.  SPIRITUALLY DEAD.  HOW SAD.  Every tree is known by its fruit.  That is a dead tree!

FURTHERMORE, God said that He separated us from all other peoples even as He separated clean from unclean animals... so Peter realized that he was not to call any man (that is, he was not to call any ISRAELITE OF THE DISPERSION--which was the topic of discussion, when due to pressure from the Pharisees, Peter stopped eating with the Israelites of the dispersion who had been converted to Christ), Peter was not to call or consider or treat his brethren of the dispersion who came to Christ "unclean or common"...

and since God commanded separation and even compared the separation of other peoples to the separation of unclean abominable animals for use as food, only someone who is brain dead and spiritually dead, or who has no knowledge of the Scriptures, or who has a dark heart who loves sin, COULD EVER think that God was saying that all races were the same and we should mix it up and hybridize even though He commanded everything after its own kind and even though He commanded separation and holiness.  God did not change the biology of the pig (or shrimp, crab, lobster, eel, rabbit, etc.) and God did not change the biology of alien peoples.  God does not kow-tow to sinful man's politically correct perverse delusions.

Those who believe the very opposite of what God commanded are responsible for the destruction of Christendom and the pollution of Christ's body.  Even as those who violate the dietary laws pollute themselves and make themselves abominable in God's Sight, they also incur serious health problems (even if they don't arise immediately, the Law of the Harvest says that you reap what you sow and that the curse causeless shall not come and be sure your sin will find you out); and if you go to a cancer, heart, or allergy doctor, the first thing he will do is hand you a list of foods to STOP EATING and pork and shellfish top the list.  They are known to cause inflammation (a deadly killer underlying dozens of degenerative disease) as well as parasites that cannot be killed at any temperature and cannot be make "healthy" to eat.  Those who violate God's commands show that their god is their belly.  Even if some unclean animal was "shown by medical research" to curse disease, it would be a sin to ingest it in any way (whether eating, pill form, a drink, an injection, or a transdermal cream)... abominations are abominations and "seeking other gods" will not engender the favor of the one true God you claim to believe and obey and serve and worship.

Similarly, those who violate God's laws and marry outside the race, and bring aliens into the community and congregation are responsible for the destruction of Christendom and Christ's body (those who think otherwise, if you remember what the U.S. was like 50 years ago, you have to be in delusion to believe things are better; far from being better, we are swirling in the toilet about to go down the drain).  Really, how can people not see this?  The mainstream "church" and the government is EVIL TO THE CORE and they PROMOTE everything that God FORBADE and they DENOUNCE everything that God COMMANDED.  "Racism" is the most-heinous sin in the eyes of the world and the apostate church.  WHY do you think that is?  Satan's plan is to mongrelize the bride of Christ.  The Plan has been kicked into overdrive because Satan realizes that he does not have much time left.  God commanded SEPARATION and the governments and Pope and apostate Lutherans and Baptists and all other demon-inations are declaring that NO COMMUNITY WILL REMAIN HOMOGENOUS BUT WILL BECOME INTEGRATED.  And yet stupid Christians think this is a good thing.  Stupid leaders, wolves in sheep's clothing...? like David Jeremiah, reportedly claim this is a wonderful chance for us to witness to the third world by their invading Christendom.  THIS IS STUPID AND SUICIDAL because if we have learned ANYTHING in the past 50 years it is that aliens coming into Christendom destroy our faith from within the church since the denominational boards "vote" to change what they believe (often to make the aliens more comfortable), and aliens coming into our nation increase crime, prison population, taxes, disease, rape and mongrel offspring, integration, and an atomic explosion of millions perpetually on welfare robbing the nation... and it results in the change of our laws and the loss of freedom and our degeneration into a socialist, godless police state.  YET STUPID Christians, despite all the evidence, still think integration and the alien invasion is a wonderful thing--because they stupidly don't understand the Bible, that God does not change; His Standard of Morality does not change... and God commanded separation.  And just for those who are clueless, God called race mixing an abomination, commanded all alien wives and mongrel offspring to be sent away, the returning remnant from Babylon righteously REFUSED to allow the aliens in the land to have ANYTHING to do with worshiping God with them (so much for "converting the heathen" and the "integrated worship service" and "interfaith dialogue").... God called HOMOSEXUALITY an ABOMINATION and He called eating unclean animals AN ABOMINATION.  The only options are that either ALL ABOMINATIONS are now perfectly wholesome, OR NONE ARE.  In actuality, there is no alternative, if one thinks that God abolished His Law and made abominations to be wholesome, then he worships a false god, for it is not the God of the Bible.

Those who don't understand God and His Nature CANNOT understand the Bible. Theology CENTERS AROUND GOD, not man, and if man understands God, then he will understand the perpetuity of God's Law because God is Immutable and Holy and Holiness CANNOT change.... ABOMINATIONS CANNOT become good and wholesome and holy and clean.

Most Christians will only consider the truth if it leads in a direction they want to go. They are not of God. That is not worship. That is not obedience. That is not submission. It is merely a "coincidence"*  that God happens to be in the direction, from time to time, briefly, that they want to go, so there is a false appearance of the average Christian endeavoring to please or obey God, but it is a delusion.  NO ONE can EVER "obey by mistake".  One can without intending it, NOT "violate" a given law, but he cannot "obey"it by mistake.  Obedience is an active choice.

[* that is, from a human perspective, in regard to man actually endeavoring to obey, please, serve, and worship God.  It is not that man plans it, it is that he superstitiously throws God a bone every now and then when it does not interfere with what man wants to do.]



Q. ..... I hope I have expressed my confusion adequately. Please know that I do not accept the usual view concerning how the vision was meant to change the food laws. Still, I cannot figure out why God, who is NOT the author of confusion, would present a vision He KNEW would be misunderstood. ..........


My reply at this point:

BECAUSE GOD KNEW THAT IT WOULD NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD BY PETER AND THAT IT WOULD NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD BY THE ISRAELITES OF PETER'S DAY, and God knew that it WOULD NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD BY THOSE WHO ACTUALLY READ HIS WORD AND BELIEVE HIM, in that He does NOT CHANGE and therefore, neither can morality.  The only reason it is misunderstood today is because the masses are not of God, and the majority of "Christians" are not worthy of knowing the truth (because even if they knew it they would not obey it), so God has blinded their minds and sent a spirit of delusion so they will be confused and believe a lie because they are not of His sheep (or, at least, hopefully, the Good Shepherd has not YET brought them back into the fold).


Q. ........... Was it to trap those who accept the established teachings of many centuries? ..............


My reply at this point:

It was no trap. Peter wasn't fooled. No other Israelite in Peter's day was fooled. The early Church Councils were not fooled.  Christ said that His sheep know His Voice, and follow (obey) Him and that the voice of another they will not follow.  Therefore, those "Christians" who do not know Christ's voice, do not obey Him, and if they follow someone else's voice--thinking that Christ "abolished" the Law even though He said that He did NOT come to abolish* the Law and even though Christ said that NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE would pass from the Law.... such "Christians" clearly are not Christ's sheep (or at least, they have not ceased to be wild / lawless and the Holy Spirit has not yet led them back to the fold to true conversion, which will result in obedience because of the Holy Spirit's indwelling which will lead a true Christian to obey God, not live in sin, with the delusion that sin is no longer sin.

[* --and neither did Christ "abolish the Law by mistake" accidentally kicking it over and breaking it, like Catherine O'Leary's cow allegedly kicked over an oil lamp in the barn and started the Great Chicago fire.  That sounds like good political disinformation and in reality, it would be an improvement if Mrs. O'Leary's cow was still here to kick over another lamp in Chicago (and NY, LA, Miami, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Dallas, Washington D.C., etc.]

The only ones fooled were those true Israelites (the true peoples of Christendom) who are in BLINDNESS BECAUSE they are in blindness and because the majority have no desire to be called out of darkness into His Marvellous Light because they prefer darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.

There is no trap. If someone can comprehend simple logic in any other area of life, if he then stumbles and falls face down in the mire when it comes to simple Biblical logic (and if he thinks that the mire is as delicious as chocolate pudding and has no desire to arise) then THE PROBLEM IS NOT WITH THE SIMPLE BIBLICAL LOGIC.  The problem is a darkened heart and mind deluding itself into thinking that it is a Christian.  As the evangelist and former head of the Sword of the Lord Foundation, Curtis Hutson used to preach, "getting people saved is the easy part; getting them lost is the hard part"; that is, getting them to realize that they are not good, that they are sinful (even though the measure their own life by the standard of someone more sinful than they are, rather than measuring themselves to the standard of what God commands) and that they need to repent and ask God for forgiveness through Christ's Sacrifice: for if they don't they will be paying the price for their own sin for an enternity.



Q. ......... That is a frightening thought [i.e., that it could be a "trap"]--but I cannot see any other reason why He would have chosen this strange method of teaching Peter to accept something new. ............


My reply at this point:

This is not a strange method and the issue was not to teach something "new".

It is a simple dranconian method that gets the message across.

I remember reading that Corrie Ten Boom when she was an 8 year old or so, at one time heard the word "sex-pot", in public, or read it on a billboard or magazine in the liberal Netherlands, and asked her father what it meant.  Her father had a heavy briefcase of books and asked her to pick it up and carry it for him, as they were on a train and ready to depart. She tried and replied that she could not, that it was too heavy for her. He replied, something to the effect, "so it is with some words, so leave them be". This is similar to God's method in Peter's Vision.  Christ earlier had made a similar analogy, unless a man drink my blood and eat my flesh he has no part in me and cannot be my disciple... and many stopped following him because they did not understand. Why then did he not use an analogy that they could understand? because they were not meant to know, they were meant to stop following Him.  Christ knew and foreordained those who would not believe and it was His Will that He stop following Him and as we are told elsewhere, Christ is the Rock of Offense and Stone of Stumbling to those who cannot believe because they were not ordained to believe.

One time a guy who worked where I worked, decades ago, was trying to get me to go out with the whole group dancing at a bar. I explained I did not dance; I am an athlete, I dance with a soccer ball or any other ball, but see no sense in making useless gyrations, looking like a fool, and getting good clothes all sweaty. He asked if I ever tried dancing before.  I said no.  He asked how do you know you don't like it if you've never tried it?  I could see he simply wanted to try to control me, for whatever reason (possibly debauch me with him so we could all have a good time on the same perverse level) and I could see that he was not about to relent, wanting to prove himself right--unless I gave him a "wake up call" so that he would (figuratively) "get off the train at the next stop".  I waited a few minutes, then asked him if he ever had sex with a man (and he was of course strongly hetero, his reason for dancing was probably to meet women to further defile). He was shocked and said with disgust, NO!, with a revolted look on his face, and then when he recovered, asked "WHY?"  I then parroted his own words, "how do you know you don't like it if you never tried it". The light dawned in his mind and he realized my point, crude as it was, and never brought up the topic of me dancing again.

That's little different than God's analogy. The point in both was to cause revulsion.


NEVER! he said, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. ".

Peter wasn't confused. He didn't say, "GREAT, I've been wanting to try this new bacon, ham, double-cheese burger with clam sauce and shrimp fries!"

He was revolted.

Any other Israelite with whom he shared God's analogy WAS REVOLTED.  NONE of them were so ignorant or dead hearted that they thought for a moment that God was changing the UNCHANGABLE MORAL LAW.

The dietary laws are a MORAL issue, even as race mixing is a MORAL issue. EVERY law of God is a moral issue.  Whether "Thou shalt do this" or "THOU SHALT NOT...." God declared BE HOLY FOR I AM HOLY.  IT IS ALL A MORAL ISSUE.  God no more changed the dietary laws than He changed who His people are—yet blind Christians believe that He changed both! --even though both were given as a perpetual unconditional Covenant!

There was not anything "new" that God was trying to get Peter to try. The issue was that GOD WAS REVOLTED at Peter shunning the Israelites of the dispersion who had been convert to Christ, but who had not yet learned God's Moral Rules in all areas... and God was as revolted at Peter's attitude as Peter was revolted at the notion of eating unclean animals.

Christians today have had their minds POLLUTED by the world, and they do NOT REALIZE HOW ABOMINABLE AND PERVERSE AND IMMORAL AND REVOLTING their sin is. Because their whole lives they have eaten unclean animals... they think that it is a mere menu choice.  They think sin is normal and natural and not even sin (yet hypocritically, are morally indignant and offended when someone else sins greater than they do, committing acts that are still generally considered sinful, rather than merely committing acts that are sinful that the Apostate church has given its seal of approval upon).

IT WAS NOT a mere "menu choice" FOR PETER and IT IS NOT FOR ME (having not knowingly eaten anything abominable for 31 years*) and IT IS NOT a matter of a mere "menu choice" in God's Mind and it SHOULD NOT BE considered a mere menu choice in the minds of any of God's children.

[* --though many Christians have looked at me with a strange look over the years when I would not defile myself... They don't understand that you can't just pick the pepperoni off the pizza or pull the sausage out of the spaghetti sauce; it is not a matter of not liking it... it has polluted the entire pie or pot, even as if a dog poop fell into it.  If dog poop dropped onto your pizza would you just brush it off and keep eating or if it fell or was thrown into your pot of spaghetti sauce would you just ladle it out and serve the sauce?  THIS is the revulsion that God elicited from Peter by His use of the vision and this is the revulsion we SHOULD have because that is what an abomination is.  If someone was deathly allergic to peanuts and a bunch of peanuts were in the Teriyaki stir fry that you were serving, would you just tell them to pick the peanuts out?  Death seems so unimportant when it applies to someone elses body.  The average Christian's mind is polluted with selfish humanism and he views everything from the perspective of what sinful self likes, or what his experience has always been, whether that experience is moral or not.  Sinful Christians downgrade the perversity of sin by their common experience with it--and that is why they are not of God.  It has nothing to do with man's perspective and everything to do with God's and if man feels no shame or remorse or desire to repent, then he is not of God and is unconverted.  "Christians" have had their minds POLLUTED their whole lives in regard to what God declared to be ABOMINATIONS, all they humanistically think of is "their experience" and think that it is wonderful.  Yes, robbing a bank is wonderful when you get away with it and your are then rich (IF you have no morals or conscience); and so is mass whoredom "wonderful" (IF you have no morals or conscience).  God sees it differently and His Perspective is the only reality.  Those who see it from their perspective and their experience are not Christians, but humanists.  God's Law is not "pick and choose", "mix and match".  It is all or none.  If you violate one point you are guilty of all.  If you think any laws don't matter, you will either be the least in the Kingdom or shut out of it.  It is not the keeping of the Law that saves.  It is the Holy Spirit, Who if truly present as the result of TRUE conversion, will change the heart and mind and desires so that the Christian DOES NOT WANT TO SIN; this does not mean that he will not slip and fall, but that he will not want to slip and fall and when he does he will repent and get back up!  The response should not be, "Well, if you violate one law you are guilty of all and I am already guilty so why the hell should I even try?"  The only TRUE response indicative of TRUE conversion is to repent.  Those who don't are not of God.  Those who don't consider the words written here concerning the dietary laws (or any other law) do not worship God, but themselves, their belly.  Choosing which laws they will keep is not obedience.  It is tokenism and a fraud and God is not fooled.  Why do you think that God is judging His people?  He is judging us for our sin.  He is PURGING His chosen vessel of the dross.  He is winnowing away the chaff from His wheat.  Christ will not return for a DEFILED BRIDE and God said that we defile ourselves and make ourselves abominable when we eat unclean animals and when we join together with aliens.]

What God declared to Peter "Kill and eat" with the vision of the sheet of unclean abominations, in order to put it into revolting perspective to the Christian today (who has no clue about holiness and the morality of God's entire law) would be as if God was walking with him along the road and came upon a nice ripe roadkill, a skunk or an opossum--and told him to peel it up off the asphalt and eat it... or if they walked past a hospital and there was an aborted baby in the "medical waste" and God said to him to eat it... or if a dog had dropped a fresh steamy pile on the sidewalk and God said to eat it.

THAT is the REVULSION that Peter experienced and THAT IS WHAT GOD INTENDED.  The reason modern "Christians" can't comprehend the vision is because THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT SIN IS, they DON'T KNOW WHAT ABOMINATIONS ARE.  I remember a missionary telling us 4 decades ago that when he was serving as a missionary in England, he was speaking one time and told a joke about a bossy woman, and then said, "I guess you know who wears the pants in that family".  No one laughed.  He later asked why.  The reason, it seems, was because in England, pants are called "trousers".  The joke would have produced the desired effect if he used the word trousers.  However, the word pants in England (at least, at that time) meant "underwear".  Thus, the listeners in their minds did not have a clue what he was talking about.  SO IT IS WITH SIN.  The average Christian does not have a clue what God is talking about, so naturally they do not understand Peter's Vision or many other passages of Scripture.

Abominations NEVER become wholesome. Those who think that the dietary laws and racial laws have been "made wholesome" HAVE NO moral or spiritual ground to claim that gender-perversion laws have likewise not been superseded and made holy.  Christians don't realize the perversity of their sin because they think it is "natural" and "normal" --and they love it.  Abominations are forever abominations, regardless of modern political correctness, regardless of the humanism of the apostate antichrist church.  We are seeing the results of their multiculturalism--the destruction of Christendom.  Not until the tyranny and crime and evil DESTROYS THEIR ENTIRE HOUSE will they then begin to "consider their ways"--but their minds are so polluted they will simply be like a bird that has flown into a platen glass window and sits dazed, in bewilderment on the ground, where it remains easy prey for any predator.

Also, understand what Peter's Vision DOES NOT say.  So many Christians believe ANTI-theology instead of theology.  God told Peter, "call not unclean or common that which I have cleansed".  And yet, the average Christian thinks that this means that we are to call clean and holy THAT WHICH GOD HAS NOT CLEANSED.  Did Christ not say "give NOT that which is holy to the dogs and cast NOT pearls before swine, lest they turn and rend you"....?  THAT is what we are seeing in the alien invasion and the result will be the destruction of Christendom, and true to His Promise, "the curse causeless shall not come".

If you think this would help others I will remove your name and email around. Robert >


Q. ..........I have to wonder how many other so-called "orthodox" teachings are really false! Thank you!


This person whom I was answering, then replied in a new email to my comments above:

Q. ............... Hello, Robert, Yes, by all means, remove the contact information and send this to whomever you choose. This could be issued as an addendum to "So You Call...", if you decide to revise that book.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I need to re-read it several times, as I am sure that I am missing some points. But this is an excellent response to many questions--not only to questions about the food laws.

I inadvertently keep the dietary laws myself, because pork products aggravate my gastrointestinal problems, and also because the high fat content messes up my blood sugar control. As I found out about ten years ago, excessive fat in meat dishes, soups, etc. slows down metabolism--at least so far as control of diabetes is concerned. I used to wonder why EVERY TIME, after eating kielbasa, I would have high blood sugar readings the following morning. I have not eaten kielbasa for about ten years now. As for shellfish and other related seafood products, I simply have never liked them.


My reply at this point:

Well, understand NO ONE "inadvertently keeps" the dietary laws or any other law.  You cannot "keep" a law by mistake or serendipitously.  Obedience is a conscious, cognitive, positive action, not merely the passive absence of action.  While indeed you may be able to "not violate" a law inadvertently, you CANNOT "keep" a law inadvertently if you do not intend to obey it, but it merely "works out" that way.  Obedience is a choice.  A decision.  An action.... not a "default".  A man and woman who are merely shacked up living together are NOT man and wife UNLESS they vowed to each other TO BE man and wife, accepting that responsibility and offering that dedication.  A piece of paper from a corrupt state or an apostate church does not make a marriage.  What is called "Common Law Marriage" is not a marriage in God's eyes, unless the man and woman actually vowed to each other to be man and wife, and were so dedicated, though they chose to not go before a corrupt state or church and bow down to them and ask for the state/church's permission or recognition or blessing.  Thus, if a person has a food allergy, or a health issue that does not allow him to eat what God has forbidden, that is NOT "keeping" God's dietary laws.  It is simply not violating them, but not by choice but by circumstances imposed upon him; it is not obeying God but merely pragmatically preventing unpleasant health problems.  That is humanism and self-serving, not obedience to God.  Obedience is worship.  It is offering our lives as a living sacrifice.  No one can inadvertantly or mistakenly obey God or keep God's Law any more than he could mistakenly or inadvertantly worship God.  Worship (and hence obedience) must be in spirit and in truth; not mere default or accident.  As I have written in various books of mine: The true test of obedience is not doing something that one wants to do anyway (such as being ordered, "Eat that hot fudge Sunday and I want to see a smile on your face!"); the true test of obedience is doing what one was commanded when it is something that he does not want to do, but doing it with the attitude as if it was something that he wanted to do.  Going through the motions with a cold, hateful, bitter attitude is not obedience; it is mere compliance.

By the way, you can get all-beef or all-turkey kielbasa in the grocery store; the beef will have higher fat than the turkey, the turkey will be essentially fat free, but the beef should be lower in fat than pork, and of course, not be a defiled meat.  However, you do have to read the ingredients carefully, and even call the 800 number, because many companies will use pork casings and not list that they are pork and some may even add bacon fat for flavoring!  God will certainly honor our desire to obey, even if in ignorance someone fools us.  However, non-vigilant intentions only go so far.  If you drink a jigger of Draino instead of Ni-Quill you will probably go to sleep a little longer than you expected, and not as peacefully.




[I've seen "Ezekiel Bread" for sale in the health food stores, but they always leave out one main ingredient: I wonder why? read on...]

Ezekiel 4

1Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and portray upon it the city, even Jerusalem:

2And lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it, and set battering rams against it round about.

3Moreover take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the house of Israel.

4Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity.

5For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.

6And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

7Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and thine arm shall be uncovered, and thou shalt prophesy against it.

8And, behold, I will lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege.

9Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof.  [that is, enough bread to last him as his only food for 390 days]

10And thy meat [meal, that is, his bread] which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it.

11Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink.

12And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

13And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.

14Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.

15Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.

16Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment:

17That they may want bread and water, and be astonied one with another, and consume away for their iniquity.

It is uncertain whether God intended the dung to actually be an ingredient in the bread, or whether the dried dung was to be used as a fuel to bake the bread... as is common in Africa and other places.  Dried cow dung is like dried peat because it is mostly digested grass, hay, and straw (cellulose), and when dried, is a slow burning fuel in places in which wood is scarce. 

However, dung that cometh out of a man would not have fuel value (I don't think) because it would be missing all that dried grass and hay (wood fiber / cellulose).  However, if the diets of people back then had a WHOLE lot more fiber and FAR LESS meat, eggs, cheese, than our diets do, it is possible that the human dung could be used as fuel, but it seems doubtful.  The issue seems to be that both the human dung and the cow dung were fresh--otherwise, the revulsion effect would have been a bit lost, when Ezekiel showed the people what he was doing and they did not realize what the dried out human dung was and had to be told.  I believe the issue was that the dung was fresh, and there was no doubt in anyone's mind what is was; and then their utter revulsion when they saw him kneed it into his bread dough.

EITHER WAY, the notion is ABOMINABLE... and the lesson again was that Israel would eat UNCLEAN, ABOMINABLE animals in their captivity, in their SINFULNESS, in their eventual BLINDNESS... not because of any antichrist fairy tale that God had abolished His Holy Standard and Moral Code--but because they would be SINFUL!


Regardless, God in His Kindness informed Ezekiel that the use of human dung was only for "show value" before the people, and that the bread that Ezekiel would later actually eat would be made with cow dung. 

[Sort of like those food cooking shows on tv where the host shows you how to prepare a certain meal from start to finish, but then pulls out of the oven the fully cooked, completed meal that he had actually started many hours earlier, and the meal that he just prepared before your very eyes that he just stuck in the oven, would not be ready for many more hours (and hopefully they actually cooked it and did not just throw it out).  Thus, Jeremiah prepared for visual effect the human-dung bread dough, but later only ate the bread that was made with cow dung; and each subsequent batch that he made for over a full year, he made with cow dung... as I will explain below.]

Substituting cow dung for human dung in ones bread recipe is not really that great a substitution if the ingredient was actually added to the bread dough (rather than being the fuel; but note that it DOES seem that the dung was added to the dough, not used as fuel, for Ezekiel did not say that he had never used anything unclean for fuel to cook a meal, but that no unclean thing had ever touched his lips)... so maybe the amount of dung was very very small and the issue was one of revulsion, not actual health.  But notice that God did not have Ezekiel substitute PIG dung.  While dung is still dung, since an unclean animal is unclean of itself, its dung is even "uncleaner".  Human dung is "uncleaner" too, because diseases can be transmitted to humans from it.  That is why God commands humans to carry a paddle or shovel into the woods or wilderness when "camping" or relieving themselves AND BURY IT (not just tokenly, like a cat does, but truly give it a good burial.  However, nowhere in Scripture does God command us to follow along behind our cows and sheep and collect and bury their dung.  It is used as fertilizer, even as their blood.  However, unclean animals are not even to be raised, and therefore (I am inferring), their blood and dung should not be used as fertilizer on our crops that we eat.

However, the key point is that, as with my illustrations above concerning eating feces or aborted babies or vomit... GOD HIMSELF draws that very analogy of DUNG as being JUST AS ABOMINABLE as eating UNCLEAN ABOMINABLE ANIMALS.  This is no mistake.  The dietary laws are a MORAL issue.  They are an issue of HOLINESS.  Their violation is a SIN.  Their violation is an ABOMINATION and those who violate them make themselves ABOMINABLE and DEFILE themselves and that is how God sees them. 

Finally, while Ezekiel ate the cow-dung biscuits, Peter did not kill and eat any unclean animals and God revealed to him that the issue was never about eating unclean animals, which will ever and always be an abomination and forbidden.