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

[Studyman]

Why such strong expressions? I just said that Jesus made all food clean. Dietary laws were temporal, symbolic.



I had this place in mind:

"...because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus purifying all foods.)"
Mk 7:19, BLB

ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ’ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.


There is no Law from God that forbids the Apostles from eating without washing their hands first. It was a religious tradition of the mainstream preachers of the day.

It is against God to "Transgress His Commandments". I think it is a mistake to use this scripture as proof that's it's OK to "transgress God's Commandment. Maybe someplace else shows this is OK Biblically, but this scripture actually teaches against rebellion, disobedience and man made religious traditions.

 

[trofimus]

But if you believe in the Word which became Flesh, and that it was Him which created clean and unclean animals, that is, Animals which were created for food and animals which were created for something else.

God's Word must have a part in this question. This one ambiguous verse doesn't destroy the entire Law and the Prophets in my opinion.

Peter, the head of Christ's church, must have missed this teaching of yours (Mainstream teaching) for some 14 years. How is it Peter never said after his vision that there is no more clean or unclean? Did he miss the memo? Why did Jesus cast the evil spirits into swine and not sheep?

My argument isn't telling you what to eat, my issue is the twisting of scriptures to mean something they don't.

Matt. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

I do not believe that some animals were created clean and some unclean.

I think it was just a religious distinction, a symbol of Israel´s separation from gentiles. And thats why it was cancelled in the same time when gentiles were included into the gospel, like other shadows.

 

[trofimus]

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.


There is no Law from God that forbids the Apostles from eating without washing their hands first. It was a religious tradition of the mainstream preachers of the day.

It is against God to "Transgress His Commandments". I think it is a mistake to use this scripture as proof that's it's OK to "transgress God's Commandment. Maybe someplace else shows this is OK Biblically, but this scripture actually teaches against rebellion, disobedience and man made religious traditions.

When we use Matthew, we can get to your point - its about unwashed hands.

When we use Mark, we can see its about clean/unclean food and unwashed hands were a different context.

I see some inconsistency between gospels, there. Matthew is adding the note about hands after Jesus´ saying and so changing the context.

 

[Studyman]

I do not believe that some animals were created clean and some unclean.

I think it was just a religious distinction, a symbol of Israel´s separation from gentiles. And thats why it was cancelled in the same time when gentiles were included into the gospel, like other shadows.

The scriptures teach that Jesus didn't cancel anything in the Law and Prophets. He changed the way God's Laws are administered, He changed the way sin is forgiven, (Jer. 31, Hebrews 7) but according to scriptures He didn't "Cancel" one jot or title.

Both Mark and Matthew speak about the Pharisees tradition of some kind of hand washing ceremony or practice before eating and both Mark and Matthew speak of "Transgressing the Commandments of God by religious tradition." This behavior is BAD, not according to the "Many" who come in Christ's name, but according to the Word which became Flesh. Neither Mark or Matthew speak about reversing or eliminating God's Words regarding his Creation of animals created for food and animals created for something else. It was important enough to the Word which became Flesh to preserve this creation after the Flood through Noah. Jesus clearly told us about the Change in the Priesthood in the OT. He would have said something about the elimination of any of God's Commandments that were changed or removed. Paul taught from the Law and Prophets just as Jesus did.

It's a big stretch to use Matthew or Mark as teaching God's Commandments were altered. Constantine started this stretch when He created the RCC.

I know you believe what you have been taught regarding this issue. But the scriptures you quote do not make the leap you attribute to them, IMO. They can be used to teach just the opposite of Mainstream teaching in this matter.

 

[posthuman]

Dude if you don't like what the Bible says, your dispute is against God, not post.

Write Him a letter. Maybe He'll agree to your changes.

 

[posthuman]

I do not believe that some animals were created clean and some unclean.

I think it was just a religious distinction, a symbol of Israel´s separation from gentiles. And thats why it was cancelled in the same time when gentiles were included into the gospel, like other shadows.

Aye.

A person would have a really big problem with God's covenant given to Noah if they thought otherwise.

 

[trofimus]

The scriptures teach that Jesus didn't cancel anything in the Law and Prophets. He changed the way God's Laws are administered, He changed the way sin is forgiven, (Jer. 31, Hebrews 7) but according to scriptures He didn't "Cancel" one jot or title.

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
Acts 10:15

If this is not about Jesus´s words as Mark recorded, what else this can be about? When did God make that animals clean?

 

[posthuman]

Paul, speaking by the Spirit of God, calls Genesis "the Law" ((re: Galatians 4:21-31))
this is in Genesis:

Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; ​

I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
(Genesis 9:3) ​

not canceled ?

 

[posthuman]

It's a big stretch to use Matthew or Mark as teaching God's Commandments were altered. Constantine started this stretch when He created the RCC.

first of all, it's a big stretch to go from "you are not under law but grace" to 'you are under law, not grace'

then it's another big stretch to go from "you have died and your life is now hid in Christ" & "the law has no more power over anyone who has died" & "He has made us competent as ministers of the new covenant, not after the letter but the Spirit, for the letter kills but the Spirit gives life" to "God's commandments were altered"

so after you've limbered up from all that stretching, you might want to consider that it was Mark who wrote the gospel of Mark, Paul who wrote Romans and Galatians and Colossians, and Luke who wrote Acts, and God Himself who told Noah all living, moving things were clean to eat and God Himself who gave Peter a vision instructing him to rise and both kill and eat animals that he, in obedience to his prior baptism into Moses, considered unclean.

not Constantine.
no matter how much you hate him.

 

[posthuman]

I do not believe that some animals were created clean and some unclean.

I think it was just a religious distinction, a symbol of Israel´s separation from gentiles. And thats why it was cancelled in the same time when gentiles were included into the gospel, like other shadows.

​

And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. ​

And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. ​

(Genesis 1:31) ​

time to rest

 

[justpassinthrough]

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


JPT

 

[Studyman]

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
Acts 10:15

If this is not about Jesus´s words as Mark recorded, what else this can be about? When did God make that animals clean?

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?

My friend, it isn't here, it isn't in Matthew or Mark. There is no warning of the elimination of these commands anywhere in the Law and Prophets. In fact all these chapters teach just the opposite.

Is. 66:16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

Matt. 5:
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.

What if Jesus is right? What if it is rebellion and disobedience from within that defiles us?

 

[Studyman]

first of all, it's a big stretch to go from "you are not under law but grace" to 'you are under law, not grace'

then it's another big stretch to go from "you have died and your life is now hid in Christ" & "the law has no more power over anyone who has died" & "He has made us competent as ministers of the new covenant, not after the letter but the Spirit, for the letter kills but the Spirit gives life" to "God's commandments were altered"

so after you've limbered up from all that stretching, you might want to consider that it was Mark who wrote the gospel of Mark, Paul who wrote Romans and Galatians and Colossians, and Luke who wrote Acts, and God Himself who told Noah all living, moving things were clean to eat and God Himself who gave Peter a vision instructing him to rise and both kill and eat animals that he, in obedience to his prior baptism into Moses, considered unclean.

not Constantine.
no matter how much you hate him.

I don't hate anyone. I just don't believe your preaching regarding the difference between the Holy Word's of the Word which became Flesh and the ancient religious traditions of man. The very reason Peter had the vision about animals was to distinguish the difference between what God made Clean and what He didn't. You ignore what Peter himself said the vision was about, just as you ignore what Jesus said the New Covenant is in Jeremiah and in Hebrews.

I don't think your unbelief or lack of understanding of scriptures makes the entire Bible and the Word's therein Void. I don't think you can take one verse and beat up other verses with it.

And the Biblical fact is Peter never did "rise, kill and eat", why??? Because God had commanded that His people not do such things. But calling a repentant man, who was faithful to God, common or unclean simply because of his DNA, now that is NOT what the Word which became Flesh taught. I don't care what you or the RCC teaches.

 

[trofimus]

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?

My friend, it isn't here, it isn't in Matthew or Mark. There is no warning of the elimination of these commands anywhere in the Law and Prophets. In fact all these chapters teach just the opposite.

Is. 66:16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

Matt. 5:
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.

What if Jesus is right? What if it is rebellion and disobedience from within that defiles us?

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.

 

[trofimus]

Aye.

A person would have a really big problem with God's covenant given to Noah if they thought otherwise.

I have quite a problem with Noah´s story.

He was said to take into the ark 7 pairs of clean animals and 1 pair of unclean animals. Before any dietary laws were given. And after the flood he was (in the opposite) said to eat every animal.

Seems inconsistent to me.

Either the "7 pairs of clean animals" is anachronism and symbol of something (the number 7 was used by Jews frequently) or it was not about dietary laws, but sacrificial? But still, more information is needed.

 

[lightbearer]

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
Acts 10:15

If this is not about Jesus´s words as Mark recorded, what else this can be about? When did God make that animals clean?

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.

 

[lightbearer]

I have quite a problem with Noah´s story.

He was said to take into the ark 7 pairs of clean animals and 1 pair of unclean animals. Before any dietary laws were given. And after the flood he was (in the opposite) said to eat every animal.

Seems inconsistent to me.

Either the "7 pairs of clean animals" is anachronism and symbol of something (the number 7 was used by Jews frequently) or it was not about dietary laws, but sacrificial? But still, more information is needed.

First off man was made in GOD's image and likeness. Noah did not need instuction as to what was clean or how to live HE knew.
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Divineness ; so that they are without excuse:
(Rom 1:19-20)

Why call them unclean if they were fit for food. Besides that If he were to eat of the unclean he would have put the species into extinction.

 

[justpassinthrough]

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.

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




JPT

 

[posthuman]

I have quite a problem with Noah´s story.

He was said to take into the ark 7 pairs of clean animals and 1 pair of unclean animals. Before any dietary laws were given. And after the flood he was (in the opposite) said to eat every animal.

Seems inconsistent to me.

Either the "7 pairs of clean animals" is anachronism and symbol of something (the number 7 was used by Jews frequently) or it was not about dietary laws, but sacrificial? But still, more information is needed.

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

 

[lightbearer]

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.

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?

My friend, it isn't here, it isn't in Matthew or Mark. There is no warning of the elimination of these commands anywhere in the Law and Prophets. In fact all these chapters teach just the opposite.

Is. 66:16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

Matt. 5:
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.

What if Jesus is right? What if it is rebellion and disobedience from within that defiles us?

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".