Could they be ONE IN THE SAME?

[Drew]

Obviously Jesus CAN be misunderstood Drew. Because you did a great job at this one.

First of all, The topic was NOT about the dietary laws, it was about the washing of hands.

I am not misunderstanding - the fact that Jesus' statement occurs in the context of a hand-washing discussion does not mean that Jesus is forbidden from making comments that extend beyond the handwashing issue. And this is what Jesus clearly does.

Jesus does indeed make a statement about the handwashing matter (as an example of a man-made addition to Torah):

They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

But the fact remains that later in the passage, Jesus goes beyond this and makes a further statement about purity of foods. The writer of the gospel explicity states that in making the following statement, Jesus declares all foods clean.

Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

I am sorry if it upsets you that this overrules the Levitical food laws which declare some foods unclean but the words of the gospel writer are what they are.

The fact that the chapter indeed starts with an issue of man's traditions being added to the Law, in the handwashing context, does not mean that Jesus is somehow "not permitted" to use this a basis for making a statement about Torah itself. It almosts seems that you are arguing that since the chapter starts with a handwashing focus, Jesus is somehow not allowed to change the subject, or make a further observation that steps outside the context that the conversation began with.

Your argument seems to be "no matter Jesus says in this chapter, it must be some kind of statement about the man-made traditions that have been added to Torah". That is not how things work - there is no "rule" that restricts an evolution in the argument, starting with the point about the man-made laws and then moving on to a larger matter.

Jesus's words are what they are. He declares all foods clean. And that overturns material from the Levitical food laws.

Is there any mention of the Pharisees about WHAT TYPE of food is being eaten? No there is not. The scriptures ONLY say:

[2] And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

If there had been an issue with FOOD, the scriptures would have just as easily said that as well.

But Jesus clearly does turn the conversation into the matter of the food itself. If Jesus were really restricting his observations to the handwashing matter and was not overturning the food laws themselves, he would have said something like this:

"It is not by contact with hands that foods are made unclean - that is your distortion to the Torah. The foods are unclean in and of themselves as Leviticus 11 teaches"

But instead, to repeat, he says this:

Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

Both Jesus' own words, and Marks observation on them, make it clear - Jesus is declaring all foods to be clean. Jesus has moved beyond the handwashing context to make a more broad statement. And this statement clear overturns the Levitical food laws.

Jesus's words are what they are - he is declaring all foods clean.

 

[Eccl12and13]

Obviously Jesus CAN be misunderstood Drew. Because you did a great job at this one.

First of all, The topic was NOT about the dietary laws, it was about the washing of hands.

I am not misunderstanding - the fact that Jesus' statement occurs in the context of a hand-washing discussion does not mean that Jesus is forbidden from making comments that extend beyond the handwashing issue. And this is what Jesus clearly does.

Jesus does indeed make a statement about the handwashing matter (as an example of a man-made addition to Torah):

They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

But the fact remains that later in the passage, Jesus goes beyond this and makes a further statement about purity of foods. The writer of the gospel explicity states that in making the following statement, Jesus declares all foods clean.

Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

I am sorry if it upsets you that this overrules the Levitical food laws which declare some foods unclean but the words of the gospel writer are what they are.

The fact that the chapter indeed starts with an issue of man's traditions being added to the Law, in the handwashing context, does not mean that Jesus is somehow "not permitted" to use this a basis for making a statement about Torah itself. It almosts seems that you are arguing that since the chapter starts with a handwashing focus, Jesus is somehow not allowed to change the subject, or make a further observation that steps outside the context that the conversation began with.

Your argument seems to be "no matter Jesus says in this chapter, it must be some kind of statement about the man-made traditions that have been added to Torah". That is not how things work - there is no "rule" that restricts an evolution in the argument, starting with the point about the man-made laws and then moving on to a larger matter.

Jesus's words are what they are. He declares all foods clean. And that overturns material from the Levitical food laws.

Is there any mention of the Pharisees about WHAT TYPE of food is being eaten? No there is not. The scriptures ONLY say:

[2] And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

If there had been an issue with FOOD, the scriptures would have just as easily said that as well.

But Jesus clearly does turn the conversation into the matter of the food itself. If Jesus were really restricting his observations to the handwashing matter and was not overturning the food laws themselves, he would have said something like this:

"It is not by contact with hands that foods are made unclean - that is your distortion to the Torah. The foods are unclean in and of themselves as Leviticus 11 teaches"

But instead, to repeat, he says this:

Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

Both Jesus' own words, and Marks observation on them, make it clear - Jesus is declaring all foods to be clean. Jesus has moved beyond the handwashing context to make a more broad statement. And this statement clear overturns the Levitical food laws.

Jesus's words are what they are - he is declaring all foods clean.

Drew, I know this next statement goes beyond your knowledge of the scriptures, but I'll ask it anyway, seeing that there are others that are reading this post:

Why would the one that gave us the dietary laws, now turn around and do away with them?

 

[Drew]

[You also appear to be having a little problem with Paul's writtings also:

Again, look at the topic being spoken about. Look at what Paul said they WERE in bondage to:

Gal.4
[1] Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
[2] But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
[3] Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

We as heirs was no different than a servant, and though we were children, were IN BONDAGE UNDER THE ELEMENTS OF THE WORLD. So Paul is saying that we knew not the Lord but did those things that the world did.

[4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
[5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
[6] And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
[7] Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

But when Christ came, to save them that were under the curse of the law, that curse being death because of sin, we became sons through adoption. So now we are no longer a servant, but a son, an heir through Christ.

You are mistaken - the Law here is clearly the Torah, not the law of sin and death. Let's go back to the end of Galatians 3:

24Therefore the Law has become our (AO)tutor to lead us to Christ, so that (AP)we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a (AQ)tutor.

Clearly a reference to Torah, not a law of "sin and death".

Now we have this at the beginning of Galatians 3:

1Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, 2but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father

This is clearly a continuation of the point from Galatians 3 - the "tutor" from chapter 3 comes from the Greek word "paidagogos" - which denote a person who had guardianship of a child until the child come of age. So, Paul is still talking about the Torah here at the beginning of chapter 4.

Now let's look at vers 3:

So also we, while we were children, were held (A)in bondage under the (B)elemental things of the world.

What are the "elemental things" of the world? One of the possible meanings of the greek word that has been translated as "elemental things" is this:

1d) the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles
of any art, science, or discipline

This could be taken as an allusion to Torah. You simply assume that Paul is referring to the "things the world did". But the whole discussion is about Torah. And Paul has referred to the Torah as a "paidagogos", the very meaning of which is about guardianship of a child. Since verse 3 refers to a status of a child, and since he has been talking about Torah as a "paidagogos" - a guardian for a child, he would literally be out of his mind to expect the reader to not see verse 3 as about Torah.

So it is clear that this Romans 4 text is about the Jew under the Torah and how the guardianship of the Torah has come to an end. So when Paul later criticizes the obsrevation of "months and days and years", he is criticizing the Jew for returning to Torah. And so we properly understand Paul as saying that this part of Torah - the observation of days, months, and years, has been retired as well.

 

[Drew]

Drew, I know this next statement goes beyond your knowledge of the scriptures, but I'll ask it anyway, seeing that there are others that are reading this post:

Why would the one that gave us the dietary laws, now turn around and do away with them?

Why is that when the argument is going against someone, they invariably turn to the dismissive remarks:

I know this next statement goes beyond your knowledge of the scriptures

In any event, I believe that Torah - all of it's "rules and regulations" - have been done away with because Torah's role in the redemptive purposes of God has come to an end:

1. God's covenant with Abraham promised that Israel would be "blessing for the nations";

2. In Romans, Paul is deeply concerned with arguing that God has indeed been faithful to this promise - that God has indeed used Israel to bless the nations;

3. However, as per Romans 3, Paul recognizes that the way Israel will bless the nations cannot be through "showing them how wonderful Torah is". In Romans 3, he is pretty clear - Torah cannot be a blessing to the world in this way.

4. To put a finer point on this, Paul sees that the Jew, like the Gentile, is in Adam. So while the Torah is good, it is operating on a Jew who is as fallen as the Gentile.

5. How then can God use the Jew to bless the world and be faithful to his promise?

6. Answer: God uses Torah to make Israel draw the sin of the world onto itself. As per a line of reasoning you get in Romans 5, 7, ,9, and 11, Paul argues, cryptically perhaps, that God is using the Torah as a kind of "sponge" to soak of the sins of the world into the nation of Israel.

7. Why would God do this? Answer: to collect sin together into "one place" (national Israel) so that this sin can then be focussed down into one person - Jesus. And then, sin is condemned on the cross (Romans 8:3)

8. By using Israel as this "sponge for sin", God has indeed been faithful to the Abrahamic promise. Torah has, strangely, been used in this "dark" manner - making Israel more full sin, not less - for the ultimate benefit of us all.

9. Since the purpose of Torah was to "lure sin into Israel" and then into Jesus, the condemnation of sin on the cross brings the task of Torah to a close.

10. Since its task has been completed, the Torah is then retired with honour.

 

[Drew]

[And what about this endorsement?

1 Cor.5
[7] Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
[8] Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

LET US KEEP THE FEAST? I thought you said, that Paul said they were done away with?

Which one is it Drew? Have they been overturned? Or is Paul telling the Corinthians to keep them?

Clearly Paul is speaking metaphorically and is in no way suggesting the feast actually be held. Note that he tells us to keep the feast "with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth"

If there is indeed "bread of sincerity and truth" that can literally be eaten at a feast, then perhaps you have a point.

Peter warned us about Paul! One day someone will heed that warning!!!

Interesting statement. Are you questioning the inspiration of Paul's writings?

 

[Eccl12and13]

[And what about this endorsement?

1 Cor.5
[7] Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
[8] Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

LET US KEEP THE FEAST? I thought you said, that Paul said they were done away with?

Which one is it Drew? Have they been overturned? Or is Paul telling the Corinthians to keep them?

Clearly Paul is speaking metaphorically and is in no way suggesting the feast actually be held. Note that he tells us to keep the feast "with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth"

If there is indeed "bread of sincerity and truth" that can literally be eaten at a feast, then perhaps you have a point.

Peter warned us about Paul! One day someone will heed that warning!!!

Interesting statement. Are you questioning the inspiration of Paul's writings?

I noticed you did not comment on the other verse I included:

Acts 18
[21] But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.

Was Paul speaking 'metaphorically' here also?

And as far as Peter's warning about Paul. I made that statement do to the fack that so many get Paul's writtings wrong, Yep, you too drew, that it could lead to there own downfalll, or as Peter says it, their own destruction!

 

[Drew]

And as far as Peter's warning about Paul. I made that statement do to the fack that so many get Paul's writtings wrong, Yep, you too drew, that it could lead to there own downfalll, or as Peter says it, their own destruction!

I am the one who is wrong about Paul?

It is you who made the error about Galatians 4, as has been clearly shown.

It is you who made the error about 1 Corinthians 5, as has also been clearly shown.

But, in any event, when you write:

Peter warned us about Paul! One day someone will heed that warning!!!

You are clearly telling us that you think that Paul does not teach truth. You are, of course, free to believe this, but I suggest that few on this board will be sympathetic to such a view.

 

[Drew]

Acts 18
[21] But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.

Was Paul speaking 'metaphorically' here also?

As the reader will see, only one translation makes any reference to the conduct of any feast:

but said farewell to 1 them and added, 2 “I will come back 3 to you again if God wills.†4 Then 5 he set sail from Ephesus,

But as he left, he promised, "I will come back if it is God’s will." Then he set sail from Ephesus.

but taking leave of them and saying, "I will return to you again if God wills," he set sail from Ephesus.

So he left, saying, "I will come back later, God willing." Then he set sail from Ephesus.

But after saying good-bye, he promised, "I'll be back, God willing." From Ephesus

And went from them, saying, I will come back to you if God lets me; and he took ship from Ephesus.

but on taking leave of them, he said, "I will return to you, if God wills." Then he set sail from Ephesus.

but took leave of them, saying, "I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem; but I will return again to you, God willing." And he sailed from Ephesus.

The weight of evidence seems to suggest that Paul is not promising (here, anyway) to keep any feast of Torah.