Do you keep the Sabbath? (poll)

[HIM]

Thanks, I needed a little chuckle this morning.

What do you mean?

Hey there sis! I assume That they are laughing at the Word of God you shared. I guess they don't believe it and think it is appropriate to laugh at it.

 

[HIM]

The true Church is immune from apostas

The issue with this is, not all who think they are, are.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Hey there sis! I assume That they are laughing at the Word of God you shared. I guess they don't believe it and think it is appropriate to laugh at it.

That's what I thought, but praying its not.

 

[Hentenza]

We need to remember, was it not eating something our first parents ate that God told them not to that separated them from God. Placing something above God is breaking the first commandment.

God deemed unclean foods an abomination to Him and relates to what we put in our bodies and being holy or not holy.

Lev11: 44 For I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps on the earth. 45 For I am the Lord who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

In the Bible, unclean foods are called:

abomination Lev 11:10–13
detestable Deut 14:3
unclean” Lev 11:8

When God calls something an abomination, but we say it doesn’t matter- we are exalting our will over God’s will, It is essentially breaking the first comamndments and idolatry.

When we do this, this is what God said it does to Him in His own words

Eze 22:26 Her priests have violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.

God never changed His mind on this according to His own Words again

Isa 66:17 “Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves,
To go to the gardens
After an idol in the midst,
Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse,
Shall be consumed together,” says the Lord.

So, yes our bodies can defile us and anything we place over what God asks is idolatry and breaking the first commandment.

The question remains- if we love Jesus why would we not want to do what He asks. He gives us plenty of clean foods to eat, why would anyone want to eat something God deems an abomination. It’s not something I will ever understand.

So you guys are keeping all of the Mosaic law and you know that if you break one you have broken them all. Are you sinning if you eat pork?

All foods are clean (Rom. 14:20).

 

[SabbathBlessings]

So you guys are keeping all of the Mosaic law and you know that if you break one you have broken them all. Are you sinning if you eat pork?

All foods are clean (Rom. 14:20).

Its a matter of not understanding the role of the law of Moses and the Ten Commandments- God's commandments Deut4:13 Exo20:6. No Scripture says we can eat unclean foods. Isa66:17 is when Jesus/Judgement comes so there can be no other understanding of this in other Scriptures ,especially Paul's, where he is the only one with a warning in Scripture that says people twist from all his epistles to their own destruction. 2Peter3:15-16 I would say Isa66:17 is just that.

Isa66:15 For behold, the Lord will come with fire
And with His chariots, like a whirlwind,
To render His anger with fury,
And His rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For by fire and by His sword
The Lord will judge all flesh;
And the slain of the Lord shall be many.
17 “Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves,
To go to the gardens
[a]After an idol in the midst,
Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse,
Shall [b]be consumed together,” says the Lord.

Why would anyone want to eat something God deemed
abomination Lev 11:10–13
detestable Deut 14:3
unclean” Lev 11:8

He wants us to live holy and sanctified lives which includes our bodies (temple) Lev 11:44 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

 

[Studyman]

1 Cor 7:19 when studied with Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 show us mirror versions.

I agree. There is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. There never was even when HIS Spirit was feeding Israel in the Wilderness. I was replying to the mistaken understanding that every time Paul referenced "circumcision" or "uncircumcision" he was referring to the amount of skin on a man's penis. Rather, in many cases he was talking about the "Jews Religion" AKA, the Pharisees. He called them the Circumcision, "made with hands" while Moses, the Prophets and Jesus promoted a "Circumcision of the heart".

Rom. 15: 8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was "a minister of the circumcision" for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

While those who were not of Jewish descent or not part of the "Jews Religion" Paul called the "uncircumcision".

In 1 Cor. 7:19, Paul is saying it doesn't matter who we are, what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God. He is referencing Ecc. 12, which is part of the Law and Prophets he said he believed all the was written therein.

Ecc. 12: 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

All address circumcision as nothing and contrast it with "what counts" and all written by Paul.

That is simply not true, according to what is actually written. As I have already shown you, Jesus was the "Minister of Circumcision". Paul said:

Phil. 3: 2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. 3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Because this world's religious voices have convinced you and "many" from the very beginning, that God's Laws are a "Yoke of bondage" and were against Eve, Jesus, Paul and the Church of God, and are against us as well, they don't understand.

If you would actually read God's Definition of His Own New Covenant, you would see that God didn't promise to abolish, remove or change anything, but the Priesthood duties. That is, the manner in which Gods Laws are administered, and the manner in which the forgiveness of sins is provided for.

 

[Studyman]

We need to remember, was it not eating something our first parents ate that God told them not to that separated them from God. Placing something above God is breaking the first commandment.

God deemed unclean foods an abomination to Him and relates to what we put in our bodies and being holy or not holy.

Lev11: 44 For I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps on the earth. 45 For I am the Lord who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

In the Bible, unclean foods are called:

abomination Lev 11:10–13
detestable Deut 14:3
unclean” Lev 11:8

When God calls something an abomination, but we say it doesn’t matter- we are exalting our will over God’s will, It is essentially breaking the first comamndments and idolatry.

When we do this, this is what God said it does to Him in His own words

Eze 22:26 Her priests have violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.

God never changed His mind on this according to His own Words again

Isa 66:17 “Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves,
To go to the gardens
After an idol in the midst,
Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse,
Shall be consumed together,” says the Lord.

So, yes our bodies can defile us and anything we place over what God asks is idolatry and breaking the first commandment.

The question remains- if we love Jesus why would we not want to do what He asks. He gives us plenty of clean foods to eat, why would anyone want to eat something God deems an abomination. It’s not something I will ever understand.

What a wonderful representation of Biblical Truth. Thank you for that.

As a father, I had the right, actually demanded the right to instruct my young daughter as to what was food and what was not food. How could she know, unless her father directed her. This is how we are created, isn't it? She would eat anything, a dog turd if I would let her. Not because she was evil, or born wicked. But because in God's creation humans learn obedience by the things they suffer. My daughter would put anything in her mouth, and didn't like it when she was told to abstain from such behavior. But she endured, and because of her love and respect for her father, she obeyed. And when she was grown, she understood the reason why her father instructed her in this matter.

And yet there is a God and Father of ALL, who literally knows everything, unlike me. And has instructed His Children as to what is food and what is not from the very beginning. And the very people who "Demand" the right to direct their own children in the way that they should go, DENY the God and Father of us all, of the same Right, that HE instilled in us in the first place.

I understand why they are this way because Paul told me. It is because they have free will but not the knowledge to wield it, and the ONE power who can teach them, they accuse of placing on them a "Yoke of Bondage" impossible to obey.

Rom. 1: 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,

I was encouraged by your post SB. Thank you for that.

 

[DamianWarS]

The Sabbath and unclean foods is the issue for most in respect to this.

Nowhere is the New Testament does it say they are done away with or that they are fulfilled in Christ. If you think otherwise please post one section at a time and we will address each issue separately.

Is this the condition then? When the NT says it is explicitly done away with or explicitly fulfilled then we are to continue it's practice?

Remove all ceremonial/ritual/sacrafical laws there is going to be more than dietary laws and the 10 commandments. Let's take dietary laws, broadly apart of separation laws such as not mixing different grains or not mixing threads or interbreed animals (like mules). I don't recall the NT explicitly doing away with these. So are we to keep these as well?

If no then your conditions to separate laws this way is flawed.

You keep mentioning the SDA Church. I am of that denomination but I do not teach from it.

It's the basis of the doctrine that your influenced by. You obviously agree with it, somewhere down the line doctrinal positions were developed, such as the continued value of the 10 commandments and dietary laws (are there any more? I really don't know, no one seems to want to tell me). So what are the conditions? And if you're not interested in defending SDA doctrine then defend what it is you believe (that just happens to align with SDA doctrine)

Christ came to fulfill the law and the prophets not abolish. We can all affirm this from Mat 5:17. So what did he fulfill? Because the context seems to be the whole thing (law and the prophet). Christ makes no attempt to segregate law. Usually what is pointed out to me is v19 "anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands..." But again what is the context. It's still as Christ set it in v17 the law and the prophets. So how we continue to teach regarding sacrafice and circumcision applies to v19 as well. We do not appolish or strike out, and we still value these fulfilled by Christ so why does this not extend to the 10 or these mysterious others that no one wants to tell me what they are? Or are you going to tell me there are two types of fulfilled and we need some special hand waving to understand which means what?

The dietary laws is addressed in Peter's dream which I'm sure you have you canned response for why it doesn't. The thing with Peter's dream is it reveals to us the deeper meaning of the dietary laws (that can broadly be applied to separation laws). The meaning of the dietary laws was always the meaning and it shows us it's not actually about food at all, it's about God's outpouring first to the Jews then to all peoples. You can't have it both ways, affirming the universal outpouring of the spirit while maintaining a philosophy that the literal food is still stuck in a pre-Christ era. They mirror each other, if one is released they are both released, if one is restricted they both are restricted.

You can show me all the health Science you want and that is fine as a personal choice (I don't eat pork either) but the health aspect is not the revealed meaning of the dietary laws even if it is a benifitional product. The meaning is still revealed to us through the dream that the law is not about food, is not even about health, it's about God's outpouring.

Can you understand my frustration? I'm not interested in some sort of "because-i-said-so" sentiment or "what Christ actually meant to say is..." Where is the biblical basis to tear apart law saying these ones are universal despite their obvious symbolic meaning and these other lot are not.

I get this may be a deep and meaningful practice to you and I don't have a problem with that but it feels more biblically themed then it is a defendable doctrine. As a side note based on the practices I see here (with yourself or other SDA) I also keep Sabbath and dietary laws but I'm motivated for other reason as it directly relates to my missional impact to my community I live in (which is all Muslim). I understand my freedoms in Christ but know that his mission to reach others is more important and I happily lay down my freedoms to serve others as Paul onlines in 1 Cor 9. My motivation is not just a tradition it is biblically grounded and i'm asking the same from you.

 

[Hentenza]

No Scripture says we can eat unclean foods.

Romans14:20, Mark 7:19, Acts 10:15, Acts 11:9, Luke 11:41, and Col 2:16. All foods are clean to eat.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Romans14:20, Mark 7:19, Acts 10:15, Acts 11:9, Luke 11:41, and Col 2:16. All foods are clean to eat.

All mistranslations, for example Acts 10 is speaking of Gentiles what God literally told him the vision was about Col2:16 is referring to sacrifices and offerings Eze45:17 what God said He would put an end to Dan9:27- Heb10:1-10 Heb9:10-15 etc. I would go through each one of these with you, but your mind is made up. God spoke His final authority Isa66:17 guess we can agree to disagree and this will get sorted out soon enough.

 

[Hentenza]

All mistranslations, for example Acts 10 is speaking of Gentiles what God literally told him the vision was about Col2:16 is referring to sacrifices and offerings what God said He would put an end to Dan9:27- Heb10:1-10 Heb9:10-15 etc. I would go through each one of these with you, but your mind is made up. God spoke His final authority Isa66:17 guess we can agree to disagree and this will get sorted out soon enough.

No, they are not mistranslations. They say exactly what the scripture say. All foods are clean. Just these two scriptures proves it.

“because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thereby He declared all foods clean.)”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭7‬:‭19‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Mark 7:19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thereby He declared all foods clean.) | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now

because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thereby He declared all foods clean.)

bible.com

Peter was hungry and saw what used to be unclean animals and crawling creatures and the Lord told him that they had been cleansed and were fine to eat.

“But he became hungry and wanted to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and on it were all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the sky. A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭10‬:‭10‬-‭15‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Acts 10:10-15 But he became hungry and wanted to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four cor | New American Standard Bible - NAS

But he became hungry and wanted to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four cor

bible.com

Your argument is with God.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

No, they are not mistranslations. They say exactly what the scripture say. All foods are clean. Just these two scriptures proves it.

“because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thereby He declared all foods clean.)”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭7‬:‭19‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Mark 7:19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thereby He declared all foods clean.) | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now

because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thereby He declared all foods clean.)

bible.com

That was added to the Text, was not in the original Greek and this was not about food, Jesus told us what He meant using food only as an illustration and explained the parable in the very next verse that was left out for some reason. This passage is about eating with unwashed hands Mark7:2 Mat15:1-2 the Pharisees claimed this is what defiles a man- Jesus corrected them

Mark 7: 20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”

This was a parable - which means not to take literally and Peter asked Jesus what this parable means (obviously wasn't about food otherwise no need to ask) which Jesus explained, never was His answer that He made foods that He deemed an abomination now clean.


Mat 15:15 Then Peter answered and said to Him, “Explain this parable to us.”

16 So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a 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 unwashed hands does not defile a man.”


And the understanding that we can eat foods God deemed an abomination was not Peters understanding either as we see clearly in Acts some 30 years after Jesus said this.

Peter was hungry and saw what used to be unclean animals and crawling creatures and the Lord told him that they had been cleansed and were fine to eat.

“But he became hungry and wanted to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and on it were all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the sky. A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭10‬:‭10‬-‭15‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Acts 10:10-15 But he became hungry and wanted to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four cor | New American Standard Bible - NAS

But he became hungry and wanted to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four cor

bible.com

Lets look at all of the context...

Acts 10:9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about [e]the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”

Peter initially thought it was about food what did he say:

14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”

Obviously Peter never thought Jesus made everything clean in Mark7 Mat15 because he still never ate unclean foods almost 30 years later


15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.

​

17 Now while Peter [g]wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant,

Obviously Peter didn't think the vision was about food otherwise he would not have continued to wonder what it meant

behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate. 18 And they called and asked whether Simon, whose surname was Peter, was lodging there.

19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are seeking you. 20 Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them.”

21 Then Peter went down to the men [h]who had been sent to him from Cornelius, and said, “Yes, I am he whom you seek. For what reason have you come?”

22 And they said, “Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you.” 23 Then he invited them in and lodged them.

On the next day Peter went away with them, and some brethren from Joppa accompanied him.

​

24 And the following day they entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” 27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together. 28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 29 Therefore I came without objection as soon as I was sent for. I ask, then, for what reason have you sent for me?”

30 So Cornelius said, [i]“Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, 31 and said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your [j]alms are remembered in the sight of God. 32 Send therefore to Joppa and call Simon here, whose surname is Peter. He is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea. [k]When he comes, he will speak to you.’ 33 So I sent to you immediately, and you have done well to come. Now therefore, we are all present before God, to hear all the things commanded you by God.”

34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. 36 The word which God sent to the [l]children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— 37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom [m]they killed by hanging on a tree. 40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission[n] of sins.”

Your argument is with God.

God has the last word and He already spoken and foretold what would happen so hopefully we can make better decisions Isa66:17 all we as Christians, which means followers of Christ, needs to do is believe and believe enough to do what He asks. Not to place our own wishes desires and wants over a thus saith the Lord. But its been the issue from the beginning mans will over God's. God tells us plainly, but sadly many do not like what He has to say, so they try to find out of context Scripture to disagree with His plain teachings. People want His blessings, but they really do not want what God asks of His children, plainly.

I believe the passages speak for themselves but I will leave it as agree to disagree.

Take care.

​

 

[DamianWarS]

That is simply not true, according to what is actually written. As I have already shown you, Jesus was the "Minister of Circumcision". Paul said:

1 Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

Gal 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Gal 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.

These 3 verses are mirror versions of each other. In the 3 verses circumcision is addressed as nothing or without value. I'm not making a statement as to the broader meaning of circumcision just that in these verses they all follow the same format. Circumsion is negated and contrasted with "what counts". A deeper study on circumcision would no doubt show us a lot more than something without any value but as for these verses that's the focus it takes with a goal to highlight the "what counts" part.

 

[DamianWarS]

This is your opinion, I provided Scripture that said otherwise. If you do not believe when we do what we want over what God stated plainly as not breaking the commandments, I guess we will find out soon enough. God told us in His own words- that eating unclean foods and sanctifying ourselves is going after an idol Isa66:17, nor is it the first time He said this in the Bible, when did idols not become part of the Ten Commandments? When we spiritualize everything in the Bible when we don't like what it literally says, especially when God is the one speaking directly, its taking away what God says as inconsequential and elevating our own words over His. I believe this is very much breaking the commandments. I think its a matter of not truly understanding how deep and wide God's commandments are Isa42:21 Psa119:96 Mat5:19-30 or not allowing God to determine what is right and wrong and instead lean on our own understanding.

I will just agree to disagree.

Where is the scripture that says dietary laws should be implicitly included in the 1st commandment? How are we to know that this one law, over all the rest (including the other separations laws) and innately not of moral action is a part of 1st commandment practice? Sure I get it, you can default to "because God says so", but what about everything else? You have not shown me biblical support for this type of cherry picking laws.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Where is the scripture that says dietary laws should be implicitly included in the 1st commandment? How are we to know that this one law, over all the rest (including the other separations laws) and innately not of moral action is a part of 1st commandment practice? Sure I get it, you can default to "because God says so", but what about everything else? You have not shown me biblical support for this type of cherry picking laws.

It was already explained.

The dietary laws were only given because of sin. Before the fall, there was no eating of animals. God is going to restore back how God intended before the fall of man and back to His perfect plan before man listened to the other spirit over obeying God. Animals will not be predators or food in the New Heaven and New Earth, that was a result of sin. God outlined plainly foods we should not eat. Lev11 Eze22:26 Isa66:17 We can listen to God or someone else, just like our first parents. Its always been the battle, our will over God's.

 

[DamianWarS]

This is your opinion, but not what Jesus said using the same terminology quoting from the Ten Commandments Mat15:3-14 Mark7:7-13. When God defined the Ten Commandments as My commandments Deut4:13 Exo20:6 who are we to say they don't mean just that. Paul didn't either because that would be changing what God said and Paul was a servant of God, and the the servant is not greater than their master John13:16

Paul said breaking the commandments of God is sin Rom:7:7, dishonoring God Rom2:21-23 and one becomes an enmity to God Rom8:7-8 so when he said keeping the commandments of God is what matters, I believe he means just that letting God be God to define what these things mean that they are still God's commandments Eph6:2

It's not unsubstantiated, it's supported for a comparison of Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 which reveals these verses share the same subtext.

I can say it's your opinion too... But this is meaningless unless it can be back up. In your case it seems your conflating an ambiguous term with the 10 commandments without support. The fact that Christ quotes the 5th commandment and calls it a commandment of God to another Jew doesn't demand Paul intends the same meaning years after. Christ also adds "anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death" that part isn't found in the 10 commandments. So Christ is referencing both inside the 10 commandments and outside and he calls this the commandment(s) of God. This doesn't translate well to a 10 commandments only sentiment.

To establish an unknown meaning of a term there are degrees of closeness to the context that will be more responsible than distant ones. Same immediate context is best, but failing the same author and genre and subject is a degree closer than that of the gospels, which is a different genre (not an epistle) and a different author, and in your quoted references a different subject.

With 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, and Gal 6:15 the similarities are so striking that they can be used together to understand the over all focus with greater clarity, in this case "what counts" and should be regarded as the same subtext. Further more Galatians is the same immediate context (for Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15) establishing that 1. Paul wants ro stress the point by saying it twice and 2. Although it is the same point he phrases the "what counts" part differently "faith expressed through love" and the "new creation". These show us Paul's affinity for repeating this point as well as changing the wording of what counts all consistent with 1 Cor 7:19.

We would expect Paul to be consistent with his own teaching but he has a freedom to use his own words to establish his points even if others use the same words for different point. Mat 15 and Mark 7 are good to compare for study but are not great for clarifying what Paul is speaking of in 1 Cor 7:19 with regards to "what counts". Since Paul himself tells us what counts 3 different ways we don't need weaker sources to help us, because we have direct clarification from Paul himself.

 

[Hentenza]

That was added to the Text, was not in the original Greek

It was part of the original text and it appears in the oldest NT manuscripts including the codex Sinaiticus. There are folks that believe that it was a scribal addition but that is a theory that can not be proven.

and this was not about food, Jesus told us what He meant using food only as an illustration and explained the parable in the very next verse that was left out for some reason.

The words are clear.

This passage is about eating with unwashed hands Mark7:2 Mat15:1-2 the Pharisees claimed this is what defiles a man- Jesus corrected them

Mark 7: 20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”

This was a parable - which means not to take literally and Peter asked Jesus what this parable means (obviously wasn't about food otherwise no need to ask) which Jesus explained, never was His answer that He made foods that He deemed an abomination now clean.

All parables have a straight teaching. Jesus is explaining that what defiles is NOT was goes into the body but what comes out of the heart which is where sin dwells. So whatever goes into the body INCLUDES food and drink. The understanding remains the same. All foods are clean. Second, the whole law has been fulfilled and the law, including the dietary laws, were never given to the gentiles. We are under no obligation to keep what was never given to us.

Lets look at all of the context...

I did. Peter was hungry, saw what he thought was still unclean food, and God told him that it was ok to eat it because it was His creation. No other interpretation works here unless you are trying to prove an unbiblical pet doctrine.

 

[DamianWarS]

It was already explained.

The dietary laws were only given because of sin. Before the fall, there was no eating of animals. God is going to restore back how God intended before the fall of man and back to His perfect plan before man listened to the other spirit over obeying God. Animals will not be predators or food in the New Heaven and New Earth, that was a result of sin. God outlined plainly foods we should not eat. Lev11 Eze22:26 Isa66:17 We can listen to God or someone else, just like our first parents. Its always been the battle, our will over God's.

The dietary laws linked to Eden has no biblical support, not to mention doesn't fit your own analogy. "No eating of animals" doesn't translated to a select few animals. Also conditions of Eden/pre-fall should extend to all law as all is there because of sin. Dietary laws have no special exception here.

There is however scripture that does tell us the purpose of the dietary laws and it doesn't follow your logic. This is of course Peter's dream that shows us the meaning of the dietary laws wasn't about food at all (or a pre-fall diet) it tells us the meaning is about God's outpouring first to the Jews then released to all (this better accounts for why dietary laws were selective unlike your pre-fall diet theory). I know you reject the dream means the dietary laws are released but putting that aside, the dream still tells us what the meaning of the dietary laws are. This is a biblical grounded meaning, your theory is not found in the Bible.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

It's not unsubstantiated, it's supported for a comparison of Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 which reveals these verses share the same subtext.

I can say it's your opinion too... But this is meaningless unless it can be back up. In your case it seems your conflating an ambiguous term with the 10 commandments without support. The fact that Christ quotes the 5th commandment and calls it a commandment of God to another Jew doesn't demand Paul intends the same meaning years after. Christ also adds "anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death" that part isn't found in the 10 commandments. So Christ is referencing both inside the 10 commandments and outside and he calls this the commandment(s) of God. This doesn't translate well to a 10 commandments only sentiment.

To establish an unknown meaning of a term there are degrees of closeness to the context that will be more responsible than distant ones. Same immediate context is best, but failing the same author and genre and subject is a degree closer than that of the gospels, which is a different genre (not an epistle) and a different author, and in your quoted references a different subject.

With 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, and Gal 6:15 the similarities are so striking that they can be used together to understand the over all focus with greater clarity, in this case "what counts" and should be regarded as the same subtext. Further more Galatians is the same immediate context (for Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15) establishing that 1. Paul wants ro stress the point by saying it twice and 2. Although it is the same point he phrases the "what counts" part differently "faith expressed through love" and the "new creation". These show us Paul's affinity for repeating this point as well as changing the wording of what counts all consistent with 1 Cor 7:19.

We would expect Paul to be consistent with his own teaching but he has a freedom to use his own words to establish his points even if others use the same words for different point. Mat 15 and Mark 7 are good to compare for study but are not great for clarifying what Paul is speaking of in 1 Cor 7:19 with regards to "what counts". Since Paul himself tells us what counts 3 different ways we don't need weaker sources to help us, because we have direct clarification from Paul himself.

Paul did not redefine what God stated and wrote clearly and Jesus repeated Mat15:3-14 Mark 7:7-13. The Ten Commandments are not ambiguous they were literally written out by God Deut4:13 Exo34:28 Exo20:1-17 Exo20:6 sadly this is not an attack on me Exo31:18. The issue is elevating man over God. We do not reconcile God to Paul, we reconcile Paul to God. Paul has a warning people misunderstand with serious consequences Paul doesn't teach what you are indicating, he said faith does not void the law but establishes it Rom 3:31 and becoming a new creature means not sinning or breaking the law of God Rom 6:1-4 1John3:4 Rom7:7. So these things do harmonize, when something is interchangeable it means it works forwards and backwards, not just one way and does not delete established meanings as sadly you are essentially teaching., something Jesus told us not to Mat5:19-30 But believe as you wish, it all will get sorted out soon enough

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Regarding Mark7:19 this is what was in the original transcripts

καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα
Katharizōn panta ta brōmata
Literally: "cleansing all foods"

The phrase modifies the digestion process, not food laws.

goeth out into the draught, purging all meats.

This means the stomach eliminates impurities — it’s not about abolishing the food laws.

Nothing Jesus said touches eliminating Lev11


This was added and those who did so to the translations, will have to answer to God Pro30:6
NOT IN SCRIPTURE- added in (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

The entire chapter is about eating with unclean hands and what defiles a man, not what foods are clean or unclean .

Jesus was very clear at His Second Coming and that is the very last word Isa66:17 if someone wishes to risk the consequences that can be their free will. Peter never did, thats why he never interpreted what Jesus said as eating unclean foods decades later Acts 10:14 and he was with Jesus when He gave the parable that Jesus literally explained and nothing to do with food. Mark7:20

Not allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture is really only hurting oneself and those who follow their teachings. Mat15:14 Mat5:19 There are no consequences of eating only the foods God deemed cleaned instead of the ones He called clearly an abomination. Lev11 Isa66:17