David_jay: Why did Peter tell God he was still obeying kosher laws and had never broken them during the vision at Acts 10:12-14? Was Peter lying? Didn’t Jesus abolish kosher laws too along with the Sabbath? If so, why did Peter tell God he still ate kosher? Around 50 CE Paul writes that Peter was still eating kosher and it was an issue of contention at Galatians 2:11-13. Wouldn’t Peter have already understood that the Mosaic Law was abolished?
It would be simple to deduce that’s why Paul reproved Peter in the matter as he also confronted “Cephas” which is the context of Galatians 2. Perhaps Peters motive was not to cause strife between the Jews and the Gentiles in the church, or Perhaps Peter might not have fully understood there was no further distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles anymore that merited special consideration as inscribed by verse 14. But the WTS bases their assertions on the written words, not their own presumptions. There was still plenty to understand fully from Jesus parables, and God’s Holy Spirit was the one thing they could count on to receive exact knowledge. Even Barnabas became confused.
The point here would be, through Jesus sacrifice, the Gentiles were Given the same opportunity for salvation as the past chosen people (Israelites). Everyone had become equal in the eyes of God. Even though some ancient laws have come to duration by Jesus Sacrifice? There were still others that would continue, thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, etc.
The perception between languages regardless if Christendom calls the meditator (Messiah) or the Jews referring to him as the “Son of Man” as a regular prophet, it becomes inconsequential sense it all boils down to what GOD instructs man through his holy spirit to do. If God suggested to humanity “this is my son, Whom I have chosen; Listen to him!” Luke 9:35 Then the implication is NOT as a regular prophet, but as the “Son of God”, then it would be correct to apply the Son of Man as well since the redemption would be for humanity, not just the Jews. So, the assertion the WTS erred in its understanding, therefore falls under one’s own interpretation as I cited earlier.