GOD'S SABBATH AND THE REAL TRUTH OF COL 2:14-17 WHO DO WE BELIEVE GOD or MAN?
- Thread starter LoveGodForever
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The word faith used through the scriptures represents Christ in respect to the faith or work of God . Weak in his faith (Christ's) as that which works in us is to have little amount when reasoning .(not using the scriptures) Whenever the disciples did not understand a parable they would resort to a reasoning of men using the philosophies of men as in "who is the greatest" (not walking by faith) therefore making the faith of God without effect.
Unbelievers as a froward nation are considered as those who have "no faith" . Not weak or little... but none
Unbelievers as a froward nation are considered as those who have "no faith" . Not weak or little... but none
-
1
- Show all
Unbelievers as a froward nation are considered as those who have "no faith" . Not weak or little... but none[/QUOTE]
Very good point. Paul is talking about folks who have repented, their repentance was accepted and they were welcomed into God's Fold. Not unlike those in Acts 15.
Paul is teaching them. "Let each man be convinced". Not judging them. A child learns to crawl before he can walk. Would I scold a baby for not walking, for making a mess? Of course not. With the correct teaching this child will learn to walk, then run, pick up his toys and go to the bathroom on his own. We need to let the process work itself out through encouragement and consistency.
Paul treats the "Strong" in Faith differently as his rebuke of Peter shows.
Excellent point.
Very good point. Paul is talking about folks who have repented, their repentance was accepted and they were welcomed into God's Fold. Not unlike those in Acts 15.
Paul is teaching them. "Let each man be convinced". Not judging them. A child learns to crawl before he can walk. Would I scold a baby for not walking, for making a mess? Of course not. With the correct teaching this child will learn to walk, then run, pick up his toys and go to the bathroom on his own. We need to let the process work itself out through encouragement and consistency.
Paul treats the "Strong" in Faith differently as his rebuke of Peter shows.
Excellent point.
If the interpretation is that both the one who only eats vegetables and the one who eats anything is weak, then also both the one esteems every day alike and the one who sets a single day apart are each likewise weak.
But this interpretation contradicts the text, because Paul says he knows that all foods are clean - putting him squarely in the camp of 'eats anything sold in the market'
And then there's also Galatians 4:10-11...
Unless you're calling Paul, who is teaching us the truth of gospel, directly inspired by God, weak in the faith when he says these things?
Do you know the truth better than Paul does? If so I guess you're qualified to rewrite the Bible. But I'm sceptical.
But this interpretation contradicts the text, because Paul says he knows that all foods are clean - putting him squarely in the camp of 'eats anything sold in the market'
And then there's also Galatians 4:10-11...
Unless you're calling Paul, who is teaching us the truth of gospel, directly inspired by God, weak in the faith when he says these things?
Do you know the truth better than Paul does? If so I guess you're qualified to rewrite the Bible. But I'm sceptical.
-
1
- Show all
="posthuman, post: 3610389, member: 170505"]
Absolutely. Man has their religious "High Days" and "Feasts unto the Lord" that they sanctified and made holy, and God created His "Feast's" and Sabbaths that HE Sanctified and CREATED as Holy. If Jesus is the Author of my Faith, then I would follow His Word's, and I would let Him define whether one day is set apart, or if all days are the same.
No he doesn't. You are injecting your religious traditions into his text.
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
A pig didn't make itself unclean. Strangled animals didn't make themselves unclean. Who did? Where does the term "Unclean animals" even come from? The Pope, Jimmy Swaggart? No Post, this whole program was created by the Word which became Flesh, and followed through out the Bibles history by all the Faithful, including Jesus and the head of His Church, Peter, and His Apostles including Paul.
Once again, we are to be convinced in our own mind who to listen to and who not to listen to, God or Man.
8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
Gal. 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
So what are you preaching here Post? That before these people "knew God" they were following God's Commandments? How can that be if before their conversion they did service to them who are "NOT gods".
That doesn't even make any sense.
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
Why do you inject "God's Laws" where Paul didn't?? The Mainstream religion of his time had created their own "images of God in the likeness of man", they have created their own "Feasts unto the Lord", they had corrupted the Sabbath of the Christ. Jesus said they taught the "Commandments of man" and that they;
" For they (Pharisees, Not God) bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."
And yet after all this you are preaching it was God and His instructions, not the religious tradition of man, that is the problem.
Paul is teaching the truth. I listen precisely because Paul knows better than me. But I listen to all his word's, not just those which can be used to promote ancient religious traditions of man.
No he doesn't. You are injecting your religious traditions into his text.
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
A pig didn't make itself unclean. Strangled animals didn't make themselves unclean. Who did? Where does the term "Unclean animals" even come from? The Pope, Jimmy Swaggart? No Post, this whole program was created by the Word which became Flesh, and followed through out the Bibles history by all the Faithful, including Jesus and the head of His Church, Peter, and His Apostles including Paul.
Once again, we are to be convinced in our own mind who to listen to and who not to listen to, God or Man.
8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
Gal. 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
So what are you preaching here Post? That before these people "knew God" they were following God's Commandments? How can that be if before their conversion they did service to them who are "NOT gods".
That doesn't even make any sense.
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
Why do you inject "God's Laws" where Paul didn't?? The Mainstream religion of his time had created their own "images of God in the likeness of man", they have created their own "Feasts unto the Lord", they had corrupted the Sabbath of the Christ. Jesus said they taught the "Commandments of man" and that they;
" For they (Pharisees, Not God) bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."
And yet after all this you are preaching it was God and His instructions, not the religious tradition of man, that is the problem.
Paul is teaching the truth. I listen precisely because Paul knows better than me. But I listen to all his word's, not just those which can be used to promote ancient religious traditions of man.
Rejecting the Word's of the Word which became Flesh doesn't make one have "strong" Faith. Jesus didn't treat all animals the same, He didn't treat all days the same. Either did Peter or Paul. To say that they did is not true. We can discuss why? Post will say it is because of their man made religious traditions, "they were Jews". But I believe it is because God created differences for our admonition, and then this same God as a Man followed these instructions out of Love and Faithfulness to God..
Since I have no ancient religious traditions to defend that doesn't come directly from the mouth of my Savior, I have no problem letting Him be God. He sanctified this day or that, fine with me. He created some things for food, and other things not for food, that is fine with me as well.
Let each of be convinced in our own mind whose Voice to follow.
Remember, it is rebellion, disrespect, disobedience, pride, stubbornness, These all come from inside our mind and defile us. Not the nakedness, or the food, or the day which comes from without.
This is what Studyman thinks.
Since I have no ancient religious traditions to defend that doesn't come directly from the mouth of my Savior, I have no problem letting Him be God. He sanctified this day or that, fine with me. He created some things for food, and other things not for food, that is fine with me as well.
Let each of be convinced in our own mind whose Voice to follow.
Remember, it is rebellion, disrespect, disobedience, pride, stubbornness, These all come from inside our mind and defile us. Not the nakedness, or the food, or the day which comes from without.
This is what Studyman thinks.
1 Timothy 4:4-5
For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
Does everything mean everything and does nothing mean nothing and does consecrated mean consecrated?
Or do we change this to say exactly the opposite of what it actually says, too?
For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
Does everything mean everything and does nothing mean nothing and does consecrated mean consecrated?
Or do we change this to say exactly the opposite of what it actually says, too?
Jesus made all food clean.
Peter had a revelation about it.
Jerusalem synod confirmed that Christians should not been bound anything like this.
It would be strange to me if Paul will be in the opposite camp. So the "traditional view" of his words, that Paul believes that there is no unclean food, makes the only sense to me.
Peter had a revelation about it.
Jerusalem synod confirmed that Christians should not been bound anything like this.
It would be strange to me if Paul will be in the opposite camp. So the "traditional view" of his words, that Paul believes that there is no unclean food, makes the only sense to me.
-
1
- Show all
Yes,
Blood didn't make itself unacceptable to eat. Strangled animals didn't create themselves as unsuitable for the New Converts to eat. Fornication didn't make itself a sin. God's Sabbath didn't sanctify itself. The pigs Jesus gave the evil spirits to did not make themselves unclean.
You believe they did?
Mmhmmm.
Blood didn't make itself unacceptable to eat. Strangled animals didn't create themselves as unsuitable for the New Converts to eat. Fornication didn't make itself a sin. God's Sabbath didn't sanctify itself. The pigs Jesus gave the evil spirits to did not make themselves unclean.
You believe they did?
Mmhmmm.
I think the teaching that Jesus changed the creation of God is not a true teaching, at least given what scripture you are referring to.
Matt. 15:
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.
The preaching that these verses prove that Jesus destroyed all or part of the Law and Prophets is popular in ancient religious traditions, but the scriptures don't say Jesus made all things clean here. He simply says what defiles you is not anything from outside the mind, but rebellions, dishonor, disobedience, disrespect to God, all these come from within.
It isn't the naked woman which defiles you, it's the fleshy desire to look and lust after which comes from within. It's not the unwashed hands, which was not a commandment of God for His people, it's the transgression of God's Commandments by their own religious traditions that defile a man.
Maybe Jesus made all things clean somewhere else, but not here.
Matt. 15:
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.
The preaching that these verses prove that Jesus destroyed all or part of the Law and Prophets is popular in ancient religious traditions, but the scriptures don't say Jesus made all things clean here. He simply says what defiles you is not anything from outside the mind, but rebellions, dishonor, disobedience, disrespect to God, all these come from within.
It isn't the naked woman which defiles you, it's the fleshy desire to look and lust after which comes from within. It's not the unwashed hands, which was not a commandment of God for His people, it's the transgression of God's Commandments by their own religious traditions that defile a man.
Maybe Jesus made all things clean somewhere else, but not here.
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;
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;
The Greek here is quite ambiguous, it depends where we place the question mark etc. It can be translated as:
a) a commentary of the gospel author - "Jesus declared all foods clean"
b) a part of His speech - "goes out into the sewer, thus purifying all foods"
But in every case, there is no basis for saying that some food is unclean.
a) a commentary of the gospel author - "Jesus declared all foods clean"
b) a part of His speech - "goes out into the sewer, thus purifying all foods"
But in every case, there is no basis for saying that some food is unclean.
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?
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?