GOD'S SABBATH AND THE REAL TRUTH OF COL 2:14-17 WHO DO WE BELIEVE GOD or MAN?

[trofimus]

there's no mention of eating meat before Noah; each time Adam is instructed about food, it is about plants.

So, what does "clean animal" mean in the context of Noah.

 

[posthuman]

Good post. If What God hath cleansed we are not to call common included the cleansing of animals that were made unclean to us then they would not be unclean anymore and John through the Revelation of Christ was confused and out of the Spirit when he said in disobedience in Revelation 18:2 "Every unclean and hateful bird".

not if clean/unclean exists as a sacrificial distinction.

 

[trofimus]

These verses bring to our attention a distinction between the common and unclean. The Common was cleansed not the unclean.

God's answer through the Spirit, "What GOD has cleansed call thou not common."

No mention of cleansing that which is unclean only the common.

There are no three groups of food: clean, common and unclean.

Only two: clean and unclean/common. Common is a synonym for unclean.

 

[posthuman]

So, what does "clean animal" mean in the context of Noah.

it means there are things we don't know

it seems more likely to me to have to do with sacrifice than food. if God had not given any animal for food previous to Genesis 9, after 'washing' the earth, it would be altogether moot to have distinguished between kinds you could eat ((but not eat)) and kinds you could not eat ((and really not eat)). but we don't know.
this is the next thing we know about clean/unclean animals after we read that such things exist:

All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds—everything that moves on land—came out of the ark, one kind after another. Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.​

(Genesis 8:19-20)​

which puts 'clean' in a clear context of sacrifice, not food.

 

[trofimus]

it means there are things we don't know

it seems more likely to me to have to do with sacrifice than food. if God had not given any animal for food previous to Genesis 9, after 'washing' the earth, it would be altogether moot to have distinguished between kinds you could eat ((but not eat)) and kinds you could not eat ((and really not eat)). but we don't know.
this is the next thing we know about clean/unclean animals after we read that such things exist:

All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds—everything that moves on land—came out of the ark, one kind after another. Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.​

(Genesis 8:19-20)​

which puts 'clean' in a clear context of sacrifice, not food.

Or these were later judaistic insertions into the text. We must consider that its text thousands of years old. It does not have to be original.

 

[lightbearer]

There are no three groups of food: clean, common and unclean.

Only two: clean and unclean/common. Common is a synonym for unclean.

You should look into that more. I got to go. Have a nice day.

 

[posthuman]

one thing about Peter's vision is that if one insists that believers are still under the dietary sections of the Law, you have God three times commanding Peter to sin, and chastising him for not doing so, just to make a metaphorical point about something completely different than what He is showing him.

kind of like saying God gave you a vision commanding you to rape everyone, because He was trying to make you understand that you should love your neighbor. we'd reject that immediately if someone came to us saying that, right?

could anyone tell me where else in the Bible you have God giving a person a vision where the vision is false but the analogy is true? they must be connected in some way, if other examples exist.

 

[posthuman]

When did God make Pork and shellfish and eagles and slugs clean? Peter sure must have missed the memo. He was healing people with the Power of the Holy Spirit, He was the head of God's Church and yet he had no clue for 14 or so years that Jesus had made all things clean? And even after the vision there is no mention that Jesus/God made unclean animals clean. We know He sent evil spirits into pigs and not sheep. We know what Peter said the vision was about. That when He cleanses a man, this Man is cleansed regardless of his DNA. No mention that pork is now clean.

Maybe there is someplace else that teaches this, but it isn't Acts 10.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, (The Word which became Flesh)preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all.

How can you say that this is talking about the removal or elimination of any of God's Laws? Where is it? We have a religion that "Transgressed the Commandments of God by their own Traditions, a religion that "taught for Doctrines the commandments of men", we have Peter who was treating "strangers" in direct opposition to the Law and Prophets.

Where is there any teaching that Jesus eliminated or cancelled any of God's Commandments?

so you've got God commanding Peter to sin, three times in a row

"rise, Peter: kill and eat" ​

where else do you find God commanding someone to sin?
these things would all be connected in some way.

thanks for your help studying

 

[trofimus]

You should look into that more. I got to go. Have a nice day.

Or, you can post a verse with dietary laws dividing it into three groups...? After you will return.

 

[posthuman]

Does anyone have a scripture that Commands, instructs or teaches that the Church is required to gather on the Sabbath each week?


JPT

i gather that Studyman believes Colossians 2:14 implicitly commands us to keep kosher diet, to keep feasts, to keep new moon festival, and to keep weekly sabbaths. you know, completely opposite to the plain reading of the text.

IMO it's because he thinks he's baptized into Moses rather than Christ, and that the only thing "new" about the "new covenant" ushered in by His advent was the ousting of Levi from the priesthood, and H2O baptism.

 

[posthuman]

Or, you can post a verse with dietary laws dividing it into three groups...? After you will return.

if there is such a thing, it's indistinguishable from the dichotomy.
God replies don't call common/impure what He has declared clean. so common = "not clean" = unclean.

it's hard to avoid the implication that what He has three times commanded Peter to kill and to eat falls under the "declared clean" category. . . unless of course you altogether ignore the details of the vision, focusing only on the application to humankind ((re:Gentile/Jew)).

 

[Studyman]

The division of animals to clean and unclean was a symbol of separation of God´s people from gentiles. Thats why the vision of Peter was about killing and eating unclean animals and the context of it was about accepting Gentiles into the gospel preaching.

Its interconnected, you cannot say "its just about accepting Gentiles, but some animals are still unclean for eating".

Its the same as to say "weekly Sabbath was a symbolic expression of rest in Christ, we got it, but we still need to keep the weekly shadow".

Law was fullfilled.[/QUOTE]

I know this is the mainstream teaching, but the Word of God says just the opposite.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

There are many prophesies that have yet to be fulfilled by the Messiah. Not the least of which is His 2nd Coming and the "Rest" He speaks of for His people. This too, has not yet been fulfilled. That is why the Commandment is "Remember to Keep His Sabbath Holy". So to say Jesus "fulfilled" Everything is also Biblically incorrect, although this too, is taught by the "many" who come in Christ's name.

So why do you preach "ALL" has been fulfilled, when it is absolute Biblical fact that "ALL" has not been fulfilled?

Think about this. You are preaching that God eliminated instructions that He Himself said He did not eliminate.

There is Holy and Unholy, there is Clean and Unclean, Sanctified and not sanctified. Truth and lies. These things exist in our World. The question is who defines these things for a "Believer"? The Word which became Flesh, or religious man.

I think you mean well, but your information about God has been filtered through religious man the same way the Mainstream Preachers of His Time filtered God's Word to the Jews. Jesus warned about this.


Matt. 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

There is only one group of people on the planet who "Comes in Christ's name", and that preaches that Jesus is truly the Christ. It isn't Islam or Atheists. The only group of people on the planet that fit this description is "Christianity". This also is simply a fact.

So far we see they teach Jesus fulfilled everything, when it is obvious He didn't. They teach Jesus made "ALL THINGS" clean for food, when it is obvious He didn't. They teach Jesus eliminated His Fathers Commandments, but Jesus says just the opposite.

What if Jesus is right? What if religious man has corrupted God's Word like Jesus warned?

What if God has a reason for His Commandments that you can't see or understand? Does your unbelief make His Word Void?

 

[gb9]

still waiting on you to comment on why Peter would say the jewish leaders killed Christ out of ignorance, in Acts 3. I thought, according to you, they purposely ignored Scripture. ( which Jesus said they searched).

can't come with how to spin this Scripture , huh?

 

[Studyman]

17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. 18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” Mark 7:17-19

• thus purifying all foods?

Paul learned from this statement and taught the Gentile Churches this:

• I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself;

14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. Romans 14:14-18


Mark 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

Not a commandments from God, but a religious ritual of man.

4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

The Mainstream Preachers of Christ's Time were faulting the Apostles, not because they were disobedient to God's Commandments, but because they were disobedient to their religious traditions.

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. ( Not God)

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

This is why I stay out of organized religion. You guys preach that this chapter is about Jesus elimination a Commandment of God. You do this by quoting the scripture you quoted in support of your ancient religious traditions regarding what is food, and you completely ignore the very reason Jesus was there in the first place.

I'm supposed to believe that Jesus just rebuked the Pharisees for "Transgressing GOD'S Commandments by their own religious traditions, then teaches us to "Transgress the Commandment of God by our own religious tradition".

20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Disobedience, rebellion, dishonor, selfishness, pride, these all defile a man. But eating with unwashed hands do not defile a man.

Lev. 11:1 And the LORD (Word which became Flesh) spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.


Nothing is unclean of itself. Jesus, as the Word of God created what is clean and what is unclean. All we have to do is believe Him. It isn't the Pork that defiles you, or the naked woman, or the unwashed hands or the man who does you wrong. It is the rebellion and stiff-necked, disobedient, prideful, lustful, hateful, selfishness that is within that defiles a man.

Mark 7 does not destroy any Law of God, it teaches just the opposite of what you preach. Jesus may have destroyed the difference between what is clean and what is unclean somewhere in the Bible, but it wasn't in Mark.

 

[Studyman]

i gather that Studyman believes Colossians 2:14 implicitly commands us to keep kosher diet, to keep feasts, to keep new moon festival, and to keep weekly sabbaths. you know, completely opposite to the plain reading of the text.

Actually it says not to let folks like you judge those who Love God and Trust Him enough to follow His Words over the "rudiments of the World and tradition of man".

IMO it's because he thinks he's baptized into Moses rather than Christ, and that the only thing "new" about the "new covenant" ushered in by His advent was the ousting of Levi from the priesthood, and H2O baptism.

I just go by what God says His New Covenant is. It's in your Bible. Your unbelief doesn't make the Word's of God Void. IMO.

 

[Studyman]

if there is such a thing, it's indistinguishable from the dichotomy.
God replies don't call common/impure what He has declared clean. so common = "not clean" = unclean.

it's hard to avoid the implication that what He has three times commanded Peter to kill and to eat falls under the "declared clean" category. . . unless of course you altogether ignore the details of the vision, focusing only on the application to humankind ((re:Gentile/Jew)).

Yet, Peter never did eat. Is that also a detail of the vision?

And given he was a Jew, the elimination of God's commandments regarding what was food and what was not, would be a big deal. A very big deal.

And yet he never once even suggested such a thing after this vision that remotely even starts to address God's Food laws. In fact, if it wasn't for the ancient religious tradition of transgressing this commandment, we wouldn't even think about this scripture as regarding the elimination of God's Food Laws, rather, exposing the deceit that was still in Peter given that it wasn't against the Laws of God for a Jew to eat with a repentant gentile.

34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

 

[Studyman]

still waiting on you to comment on why Peter would say the jewish leaders killed Christ out of ignorance, in Acts 3. I thought, according to you, they purposely ignored Scripture. ( which Jesus said they searched).

can't come with how to spin this Scripture , huh?

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

[gb9]

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Peter said they killed Jesus out of ignorance. you say they purposely threw out the Torah in favor of their own laws

who am I to believe ? Peter? or the man who thinks Jesus had no authority to change anything from the O.T., though He was God in the Flesh.

i'll go with Peter. not your own private religion you created.

 

[Studyman]

Peter said they killed Jesus out of ignorance. you say they purposely threw out the Torah in favor of their own laws

who am I to believe ? Peter? or the man who thinks Jesus had no authority to change anything from the O.T., though He was God in the Flesh.

i'll go with Peter. not your own private religion you created.

32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.

 

[trofimus]

Yet, Peter never did eat. Is that also a detail of the vision?

And given he was a Jew, the elimination of God's commandments regarding what was food and what was not, would be a big deal. A very big deal.

And yet he never once even suggested such a thing after this vision that remotely even....

"You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them."
Acs 11:3

"For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group."
Gal 2:12

---

Do not expect Gentiles to eat a kosher food. Eating with them was eating their food.