A Blended Gospel

[RichardBurger]

Blended Gospel:

The religious Christian Church is (and has been since the RCC came into existence) teaching a blended, harmonized gospel that takes what Jesus and His Apostles preached to the Jews which included the Law and what Paul preached for the grace Church that excluded the Law and mixes them together. These teachings were never meant to be blended, harmonized together. When you do it you destroy both messages. The scriptures teach we are to “rightly divide the word of truth,†not blend it together.

Let me make it clear that all the scriptures are written FOR US, but not all are written TO US. --- Jesus’ message was to the Jews, not the grace Church. Paul’s message was to the grace Church.

I get depressed when I hear the blended gospel being taught. It is a gospel fostered by the devil. I have opposed it on forums for years and have been asked to leave because of my objections to it. Let me make it clear that Jesus Christ did not come to minister to the Gentiles, nor was His message "the kingdom gospel" sent to the Gentiles. He did not offer the "kingdom of heaven" to the Gentiles because the Gentiles were never promised a kingdom on this earth. The following scriptures support my view.

Matt 10:5-7 (NKJ)
5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
6 "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

Matt 15:23-24 (NKJ)
23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she cries out after us."
24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Rom 15:8 (NKJ)
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:

Note that in Matt 10:5-7 and Matt 15:23-24 Jesus said He did not come EXCEPT to the house of Israel. Jesus came to confirm/fulfill all that was written of Him in the O.T. His mission was to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. This is what Paul meant in Rom 15:8.

HOWEVER; This is not to say that God did not have another purpose for Jesus' death on the cross.

But that purpose was “hidden in God†and not revealed until it was revealed to Paul on the road to Damascus by Jesus. The grace gospel was not in existence until Paul taught it. See Eph. 3:9 and Col. 1:26.

The Parable of the Wedding Feast; (Matt. 22: 1-10)

1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said:
2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son,
3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come.
4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding."'
5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business.
6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them.
7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
8 Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy.
9 Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.'
10 So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.
NKJV

We, today, are only invited because the Jews rejected Jesus as their king. God will not let what His Son did on the cross go without results.

This is what I believe.

 

[Drew]

Blended Gospel:

The religious Christian Church is (and has been since the RCC came into existence) teaching a blended, harmonized gospel that takes what Jesus and His Apostles preached to the Jews which included the Law and what Paul preached for the grace Church that excluded the Law and mixes them together. These teachings were never meant to be blended, harmonized together. When you do it you destroy both messages. The scriptures teach we are to “rightly divide the word of truth,†not blend it together.

Let me make it clear that all the scriptures are written FOR US, but not all are written TO US. --- Jesus’ message was to the Jews, not the grace Church. Paul’s message was to the grace Church.

I get depressed when I hear the blended gospel being taught. It is a gospel fostered by the devil. I have opposed it on forums for years and have been asked to leave because of my objections to it. Let me make it clear that Jesus Christ did not come to minister to the Gentiles, nor was His message "the kingdom gospel" sent to the Gentiles. He did not offer the "kingdom of heaven" to the Gentiles because the Gentiles were never promised a kingdom on this earth. The following scriptures support my view.

I disagree with much of what you say, although I do agree that there is a sense in which you are right about Jesus being "sent to the Jews". But I do not think the sense is what you think it is.

Some initial points:

1. You seem to believe that Jesus supported continued observance of Torah. I suggest that the evidence is clear that He did not.

2. Jesus indeed saw the kingdom He was initiating as being “for the Gentilesâ€Â:
"I say to you that many (J)will come from east and west, and [a]recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; 12but (K)the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into (L)the outer darkness; in that place (M)there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Jesus is referring to the fact that Gentiles are being gathered into Gods’ kingdom. It seems that you think otherwise. However, I have only scanned your post, perhaps I misunderstand you. However, I certainly disagree with your claim that Gentiles were not "promised a kingdom on this earth".

 

[Drew]

Blended Gospel:
Matt 10:5-7 (NKJ)
5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
6 "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

It is true that Jesus preached almost exclusively to Jews and has a very "Jewish-centred" message. But this does not really sustain the conclusion that, or example, the kingdom he was announcing was for Jews only. His particular roles was to challenge the Jews to return to their true covenant calling and announce judgement on them if they did not. But this "Israel" focus does not mean that He preached a kingdom for Jews only. Consider this from Matthew 12:

But Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. Many followed Him, and (N)He healed them all, 16and (O)warned them not to tell who He was. 17This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
18"(P)BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN;
(Q)MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED;
(R)I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM,
(S)AND HE SHALL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES.

The kingdom of God message that Jesus announced was for the Gentiles too.

 

[RichardBurger]

It was said: “1. You seem to believe that Jesus supported continued observance of Torah. I suggest that the evidence is clear that He did not.

And I suggest that the scriptures say otherwise.

Matt 23:1-3

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
NKJV

Jesus NEVER rescinded the law until HE gave Paul the gospel of grace which was "hidden in God." but, of course, no one pays much attention to this because it does not support the Blended Gospel.

 

[Drew]

“1. You seem to believe that Jesus supported continued observance of Torah. I suggest that the evidence is clear that He did not.

And I suggest that the scriptures say otherwise.

Matt 23:1-3

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
NKJV

Jesus went around and intentionally challenged the Torah, intentionally breaking it on several occasions, not least the events described in Matthew 12. Part of Jesus' entire programme was to announce that the Torah, while a good thing for its time, was now to be retired. Now I am not exactly sure what you mean by this:

Jesus NEVER rescinded the law until HE gave Paul the gospel of grace which was "hidden in God."

...but I suggest that it is clear that Jesus was involved in a programme of retiring the Torah. The Matthew 23 text can be read as a general instruction to "obey the religious authorities". It cannot have been an endorsement of the continuation of Torah observance - Jesus is so clear that the time of Torah is coming to an end in His very work. I am not sure if we disagree or not, since you seem to affirm that Torah was rescinded "after Jesus".

In any event, here is an argument that, in Mark 7, Jesus "rescinds" the Torah laws about food purity:

In Mark 7, Jesus does indeed repudiate the setting aside of God’s Laws in favour of human ones. But Jesus clearly goes beyond this and overturns some of the Levitical food laws:

15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

Jesus really cannot be misunderstood here - he clearly states that all foods are clean. This cannot be reconciled with the Levitical food laws which clearly state some foods are unclean.

So the fact that Jesus also repudiates abandonment of Torah in favour of man-made laws must not be seen as His only point here. It clearly is not - in addition to repudiating such add-ons, He also declares all foods clean. And that is at variance with Torah itself, not man's distortions of it.

This may seem incoherent – if Jesus criticizes the substitution of man-made laws for Torah, surely he must be affirming Torah, mustn’t He? The answer is no. It is entirely coherent for Jesus to offer an historical critique – telling the Pharisees that they tossed aside God’s laws and replaced them with human ones – and yet go on to declare the abolition of Torah itself, as He so clearly does here. Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees does not endorse the continued applicability of Torah – He is critiquing their attitude to it in the time of its applicability, which, interestingly, comes to an end in His very declaration that all foods are indeed clean – a clear overturning of Levitical food laws themselves.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

“1. You seem to believe that Jesus supported continued observance of Torah. I suggest that the evidence is clear that He did not.

And I suggest that the scriptures say otherwise.

Matt 23:1-3

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
NKJV

Jesus went around and intentionally challenged the Torah, intentionally breaking it on several occasions, not least the events described in Matthew 12. Part of Jesus' entire programme was to announce that the Torah, while a good thing for its time, was now to be retired. Now I am not exactly sure what you mean by this:

Jesus NEVER rescinded the law until HE gave Paul the gospel of grace which was "hidden in God."

...but I suggest that it is clear that Jesus was involved in a programme of retiring the Torah. The Matthew 23 text can be read as a general instruction to "obey the religious authorities". It cannot have been an endorsement of the continuation of Torah observance - Jesus is so clear that the time of Torah is coming to an end in His very work. I am not sure if we disagree or not, since you seem to affirm that Torah was rescinded "after Jesus".

In any event, here is an argument that, in Mark 7, Jesus "rescinds" the Torah laws about food purity:

In Mark 7, Jesus does indeed repudiate the setting aside of God’s Laws in favour of human ones. But Jesus clearly goes beyond this and overturns some of the Levitical food laws:

15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

Jesus really cannot be misunderstood here - he clearly states that all foods are clean. This cannot be reconciled with the Levitical food laws which clearly state some foods are unclean.

So the fact that Jesus also repudiates abandonment of Torah in favour of man-made laws must not be seen as His only point here. It clearly is not - in addition to repudiating such add-ons, He also declares all foods clean. And that is at variance with Torah itself, not man's distortions of it.

This may seem incoherent – if Jesus criticizes the substitution of man-made laws for Torah, surely he must be affirming Torah, mustn’t He? The answer is no. It is entirely coherent for Jesus to offer an historical critique – telling the Pharisees that they tossed aside God’s laws and replaced them with human ones – and yet go on to declare the abolition of Torah itself, as He so clearly does here. Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees does not endorse the continued applicability of Torah – He is critiquing their attitude to it in the time of its applicability, which, interestingly, comes to an end in His very declaration that all foods are indeed clean – a clear overturning of Levitical food laws themselves.

Christ is not saying its ok to eat whatever you want (Christ didnt kill the law) there is a lesson here and I think you might have missed it......

 

[RichardBurger]

Matt 5:17-18

17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
NKJV

The law is still in effect except for those under the gospel of grace. These are dead to the law and are children of God by God's grace. --- However the law continues to condemn those who reject God’s work on the cross accomplished by Jesus.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Matt 5:17-18

17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
NKJV

The law is still in effect except for those under the gospel of grace. These are dead to the law and are children of God by God's grace. --- However the law continues to condemn those who reject God’s work on the cross accomplished by Jesus.

Even under grace one must obey the laws,,,If you eat any and everything,,,, you will not be healthy,,,,,eating things you were told not to,,, is not a sin againt the soul it is a sin againt the flesh........You wont go to hell for it but when your sick and skin is bad and overweight and tired dont go complining to God.....(speaking in general)

 

[Drew]

Christ is not saying its ok to eat whatever you want (Christ didnt kill the law)

Yes He did "kill the Law", that is precisely what my argument asserts.

there is a lesson here and I think you might have missed it......

Then please do more than than ignore a detailed argument and merely assert that I have overlooked something. Please out the error in my argument. If I am in error, you should be able to point out where.

 

[Drew]

Matt 5:17-18

17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
NKJV

The law is still in effect except for those under the gospel of grace. These are dead to the law and are children of God by God's grace. --- However the law continues to condemn those who reject God’s work on the cross accomplished by Jesus.

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this. On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think that, at least in a certain specific sense, Torah has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which, to me, unambiguously declare the abolition of the Torah, at least in terms of “rules and regulationsâ€Â.

Here is Matthew 5:17-19 in the NASB:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and possibly think that the prescriptions of the Torah do not remain in force, given that heaven and earth are still here?

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Torah was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15). My proposal (building, of course, on the ideas of others – I am no Bible scholar) hinges on the assertion that in Hebrew culture apocalyptic “end of the world†language was commonly used in a specifically metaphorical mode for the specific purposes of investing commonplace events with their theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence that this was so. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of such metaphorical “end of the world†imagery being used to describe much more “mundane†events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away†is an apocalyptic metaphor.

I would appeal to the phrase “until all is accomplished†and point the reader to Jesus’ proclamation that “It is accomplished!†as He breathed His last on the Cross. Perhaps this is what Jesus is referring to. I believe that seeing it that way allows us to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Torah was retired.

Of course, the argument here is only sketch, but I present the above as a plausibility argument that there may be a way to legitimately read Jesus here as not declaring that the Torah will remain in force basically to the end of time.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Christ is not saying its ok to eat whatever you want (Christ didnt kill the law)

Yes He did "kill the Law", that is precisely what my argument asserts.

there is a lesson here and I think you might have missed it......

Then please do more than than ignore a detailed argument and merely assert that I have overlooked something. Please out the error in my argument. If I am in error, you should be able to point out where.

Its such a obvious err,,,,,,,,

You say,,,Christ destroyed the law.....

Christ said: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

You said::Christ destroyed the law.....

Christ said::Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.


what else needs to be said

 

[stovebolts]

Nightmare,

What does it mean to destroy the law (Torah) and how does Jesus fulfil the Law (Torah)?

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Nightmare,

What does it mean to destroy the law (Torah) and how does Jesus fulfil the Law (Torah)?

To destroy the law would be to make it of know effect,,,but I think what most people are getting at is that because of Christ and grace we are not obligated to follow the Law.....

The old test is all about Christ,,,it is looking towards the day that Christ dies on the cross,,,,that has been done,,,,,now we can go into detail about what that accomplished.......

I think Christ said it best when He said::::Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

 

[Drew]

Its such a obvious err,,,,,,,,

You say,,,Christ destroyed the law.....

Actually the expression "kill the law" were your words, not mine. I just used them.

Its Christ said: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

You said::Christ destroyed the law.....

Christ said::Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

what else needs to be said

There is a lot that needs to be said. You are simply not engaging my argument. My argument is that Jesus "retired" the Torah - He symbolically enacted and explicitly declared that its time had come to an end.

Note that "fulfillment" of the law and "retirement" of the law are perfectly compatible concepts. If I fly to Paris, what is my goal? To reach Paris. When I get there, my purpose is fulfilled. Do I stay on the plane? Of course not.

I have made an argument - please engage it.

 

[Adullam]

Where the word blended is used...read balanced.

Imagine a marriage where the bridegroom says.... I do.....and the Bride says........(nothing)

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Its such a obvious err,,,,,,,,

You say,,,Christ destroyed the law.....

Actually the expression "kill the law" were your words, not mine. I just used them.

Its Christ said: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

You said::Christ destroyed the law.....

Christ said::Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

what else needs to be said

There is a lot that needs to be said. You are simply not engaging my argument. My argument is that Jesus "retired" the Torah - He symbolically enacted and explicitly declared that its time had come to an end.

Note that "fulfillment" of the law and "retirement" of the law are perfectly compatible concepts. If I fly to Paris, what is my goal? To reach Paris. When I get there, my purpose is fulfilled. Do I stay on the plane? Of course not.

I have made an argument - please engage it.

SO are you saying that Christ explicitly declared that law had come to and end based on this scripture?????

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

The word is so clear on this,,,that it mind blowing how you dont understand....

How do you destroy a prophet????? By destroying what he has taught by destroying what he has spoken,,,,Moses spoke the law,,,,,,Christ is telling you he didnt destroy the Moses the law/prophets....

Also the train analogy is just silly,,,,,,to blend it with the truth of God you would have to say that Christ job is finished,,,just like when you get to paris your trip is over,,,,,the problem is Christ is going to return because there some business left to take care of,,,,,,looks like Christ has another plane to catch...or should i say cloud ;)

 

[Drew]

SO are you saying that Christ explicitly declared that law had come to and end based on this scripture?????

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

The word is so clear on this,,,that it mind blowing how you dont understand....

Two points:

1. I have already provided a detailed argument about how this very text may not mean what you think it means - please do not imply that there is something wrong with my mental comprehension when you simply have not engaged a detailed and clear argument that speaks to your interpretation of this text.

2. I have provided, in another post, a detailed argument as to why we should see Jesus as declaring the end of the Levitical food laws. It is that post that I challenged you to respond to.

There are two arguments on the table that you have not engaged.

How do you destroy a prophet????? By destroying what he has taught by destroying what he has spoken,,,,Moses spoke the law,,,,,,Christ is telling you he didnt destroy the Moses the law/prophets....

First, we know from Mark 7 that Jesus did overturn the Levitical food law - this is the argument to which I refer in my point number 2. Second, nothing I have posted is inconsistent with the assertion that Jesus fulfills the law. One can bring something to an end in act of fulfillment. You do not like my analogy? Well try these:

- Graduation day from University was the fulfillment of my studies. Do I show up at university the following September? No. I have fulfilled my studies and by so doing, my studies come to an end.

- On the day I got married, the goal of my courtship of my then girlfriend was fulfilled. Do I retain my status as a single person? No I do not, it has come to an end.

In the same way, Jesus fulfills the Law and Prophets, and in so doing, brings their time to an end.

 

[mutzrein]

Matt 5:17-18

17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
NKJV

The law is still in effect except for those under the gospel of grace. These are dead to the law and are children of God by God's grace. --- However the law continues to condemn those who reject God’s work on the cross accomplished by Jesus.

Does the law condemn all . . . or just those to whom the law was given?

 

[NIGHTMARE]

SO are you saying that Christ explicitly declared that law had come to and end based on this scripture?????

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

The word is so clear on this,,,that it mind blowing how you dont understand....

Two points:

1. I have already provided a detailed argument about how this very text may not mean what you think it means - please do not imply that there is something wrong with my mental comprehension when you simply have not engaged a detailed and clear argument that speaks to your interpretation of this text.

2. I have provided, in another post, a detailed argument as to why we should see Jesus as declaring the end of the Levitical food laws. It is that post that I challenged you to respond to.

There are two arguments on the table that you have not engaged.

How do you destroy a prophet????? By destroying what he has taught by destroying what he has spoken,,,,Moses spoke the law,,,,,,Christ is telling you he didnt destroy the Moses the law/prophets....

First, we know from Mark 7 that Jesus did overturn the Levitical food law - this is the argument to which I refer in my point number 2. Second, nothing I have posted is inconsistent with the assertion that Jesus fulfills the law. One can bring something to an end in act of fulfillment. You do not like my analogy? Well try these:

- Graduation day from University was the fulfillment of my studies. Do I show up at university the following September? No. I have fulfilled my studies and by so doing, my studies come to an end.

- On the day I got married, the goal of my courtship of my then girlfriend was fulfilled. Do I retain my status as a single person? No I do not, it has come to an end.

In the same way, Jesus fulfills the Law and Prophets, and in so doing, brings their time to an end.

please do not imply that there is something wrong with my mental comprehension when you simply have not engaged a detailed and clear argument that speaks to your interpretation of this text.

I dont think anythings wrong with your mental......I do believe that you seem to miss o of the deeper lessons that are brought forth from the word......I dont understand your rendering of scriptures in many places,,,but then again I dont what you believe concerning the matter of why we are here in the first place.....

Ok I believe your saying that its ok to eat any kind of food,,,is this correct??????????

 

[Drew]

Ok I believe your saying that its ok to eat any kind of food,,,is this correct??????????

Yes. I am saying that Jesus is telling us that no food defiles you. Obviously, I am not saying that Jesus thinks its ok for a diabetic to eat a gallon of jelly beans. I am talking about the Torah prescriptions against eating certain foods. These prescriptions are ended by Jesus.