Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Food laws

we are not evasive to any question, but we just omitted to answer you about this somehow - honestly it depends on the spiritual viz. what we were commanded on the part of God this we did, but (God forbid) there might be also a certain interference, moreover such a question (i.e. about the version of the Bible and suchlike) is not of most crucial importance, so the version of the Bible which we have (so far) used in this thread is kjv 1900, here's a link: http://biblia.com/books/kjv1900/Ge

and concerning the inserted text, it is an explanation of the respective word(s), verse(s) and context which (explanation) we receive from the true God and Jesus in order to insert it there when we testify Their Word by the Scripture in writing

Blessings

Thank you for the link. Two comments:
1) Clearly that link is NOT the KJV. Look at the title page:

Complete Summary of the New Testament

By KEITH L. BROOKS​

Author of​

“Simple Studies in Bible Marking”​

Published by

Bible Institute of Los Angeles

536–558 South Hope Street

Los Angeles, Cal.

Copyright 1919

keith l. brooks

2) Your insertions are what are problematic because they are your insertions, and NOT based on exegesis. Yes, you bracketed them, which is proper, but not having any explanatory comments of your insertions is what causes confusion.

Now, exactly who is "we"?
 
I'm not aware of any "foisting" or passing off as genuine, valuable, or worthy that which is not genuine, worthy or valuable here. I've just asked if you were certain of what Peter thought and provided scriptural evidence of what he testified about. Your conclusions are yours.

Sparrow,

Perhaps "foisting" was too strong, but I honestly believed that your comment was designed to be antagonistic. That is why I responded that way. I have a rather strong aversion to slavery of any sort, which is the definition of "food laws". I apologize if I was premature, or harsh.

As to 'what Peter thought" since we have his words, as recorded by Dr. Luke we are required to only use what Peter said, and no further. That is because the words in our Bible are sufficient for all godliness, proof etc.

So let's look at Scripture:
Acts 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
17 Now while Peter doubted in himself...
In verse 17 Peter is stunned by the vision. That is because it went against all thet he had been taught. You can almost see him scratching his head and saying to himself, "What just happened?"
In verse 14, we can see peter's strong refusal to do as God commanded; clearly he was fighting God here, which given Peter's personality is a natural reaction for him.
In verse 16 is a summary statement that says the vision was given to Peter three times, so it was very important.
In verse 12 we see the content of the sheet, being all manner of four footed animals, snakes and birds and wild (as opposed to domesticated) animals.

As a result, I believe that my conclusions are indeed in line with Scripture. Also it is my opinion that those who are telling others to follow any sort of dietary laws, other than eating a healthy, well balanced meal, are attempting to have others adhere to a non-scriptural and man made standard, that is in contradiction to the passage that I used above.

Heck, there are those who would impose a ban on coffee, which is a sacrilege in the Pacific North West. :lol Hey, that reminds me to warm up my press pot and to grind some fresh stuff.
 
Thank you for the link. Two comments:
1) Clearly that link is NOT the KJV. Look at the title page:

Complete Summary of the New Testament

By KEITH L. BROOKS​

Author of​

“Simple Studies in Bible Marking”​

Published by

Bible Institute of Los Angeles

536–558 South Hope Street

Los Angeles, Cal.

Copyright 1919

keith l. brooks

2) Your insertions are what are problematic because they are your insertions, and NOT based on exegesis. Yes, you bracketed them, which is proper, but not having any explanatory comments of your insertions is what causes confusion.

Now, exactly who is "we"?


let's do not be(-come) petty, especially when there is a whole internet full of all Bible's versions, but not least because the different versions of the Bible are same excluding some not-so-significant differences, then we do not testify (the) Word of ourselves, but we testify only (the) Word which comes direct(-ly) from the true God Father and the true Lord Jesus Christ, otherwise we should risk too much, because we are Their witnesses

Blessings
 
I was not being antagonistic and I'm glad that you were able to see this. I am a vet around here and have been involved in the "Pork Wars" that broke out on this forum years ago. That time, a young lady said that she didn't eat pork. If we were in a football game (where aggressive violent behavior is called sport) even the referees would have cried "foul" and penalty flags for "piling on" would have been thrown. But we were not in a football game, no. We were here, on a Christian Forum where we are commanded to "BEHOLD how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity (Psalms 133:1,3).

What was her sin? Was she foisting? She didn't eat pig, that was all. Oh, and she admitted it too. To be fair, she said that she didn't eat lobster either. Well, lines of battle were drawn. Let me ask directly: Is it a sin for me to refrain from eating snakes and camels and other foods? Now give me the benefit of the doubt here and assume that I already know that idols are nothing in and of themselves and that I would refrain from eating food that was offered to idols (if such a thing were still happening) for the sake of the conscience of a weaker brother, that my actions would not be a cause of stumbling. Also know that I freely eat meats, given by God to be received with thanks, but don't judge others who eat vegetables only - knowing that they too are serving the Lord from their good heart. Understand that I am not saying that Southern Baptists or Texans should refrain from barbecues or that Christians in Louisiana should not eat 'gater but if they do, they shouldn't do dat 'gater wrong and should eat the jowls as well as the tail...

Is it a sin for me to refrain from eating snake and camels?

And now the point, was it a sin for Peter (who Satan desired to sift like wheat, after he denied Christ three times) to again deny three times and refuse to eat what was commanded in the vision? Did Peter eat? Or did he, as you have said, begin "doubting in himself"??

The Bible is clear and provides the answer to this question. Again, I'm not telling you that you (as a Gentile) need to get circumcised, nor am I advocating a return to the Laws of Moses as we all know well that such things are bondage, but the question isn't about eating, it's about not eating. Is failure to eat a birthday cake a sin? What about failure to eat a Christmas dinner? Okay, maybe I've gone too far there, but the point is the point. Peter understood that there was a mystery being shown him, he doubted in himself, but it all became clear and he said in Acts 11 that he had learned that even though the Christian Jews were with him and were taken aback because of what they had heard.

“You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”

He was not being accused of eating swine, he was accused of eating WITH THE UNCLEAN. 4 But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying: 5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object descending like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came to me. Peter went on to defend God's Grace as shed upon the Gentiles for he (and others) knew they had been baptized in the Holy Ghost, because he heard them speak in tongues and magnify God.

This is the issue, not about eating camels, not about eating snakes or snails or even puppy dog tails, but rather that the Holy Spirit had been given (Peter said, 'like as we at the beginning') to Gentiles. If Jesus communed with them, if Jesus gave his HOLY Spirit to them, would it be wrong to eat with them? Would there be any distinction between Jew and Gentile? Would it be wrong to continue to deny water baptism to them? Yes, that would be wrong. Paul and Peter later really hashed this out but even at the beginning, from when Peter began to doubt in himself to the time it was revealed it was about people not pork.
 
The Old Testament food laws were probably just laws past to keep people from getting sick. Most of the stuff on the list has to do Shell fish, Pork, living tissue, and how to prepare food. This should tell ya that its was probably through observation that some things cause illness if not cooked right. Especially pork and shellfish.

In this modern age and even in the age of that quote, many different cultures had figured out how to cook these things to avoid illness. So in context it makes sense that the ban wouldn't apply anymore. I think that is how most of the OT laws actually were. Most ad observable reasons for existing, or made sense for the kind of culture that existed at the time. Now with modern understanding, some of the laws don't make sense anymore. I think that was the entire point of Jesus and the pharisees. Don't be blinded by the law, use common sense. There is no reason to bathe so many times, or handle women the same way anymore. Different times, different rules.
 
<snip>"BEHOLD how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity (Psalms 133:1,3).
I see your point, Sparrow, but I do take a different slant on the issue. I ask are those who seek to divide and to impose slavish rules on the elect actually our brothers?
<snip> Peter understood that there was a mystery being shown him, he doubted in himself, but it all became clear and he said in Acts 11 that he had learned that even though the Christian Jews were with him and were taken aback because of what they had heard.
Peter's problem I believe was that of homeostasis. He had the opportunity to change his behavior and eat (unclean) meat among unclean people, or else he could continue to remain in his old, but comfortable byt obsolete and uncomfortable dysfunction.


He was not being accused of eating swine, he was accused of eating WITH THE UNCLEAN. 4 But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying: 5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object descending like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came to me. Peter went on to defend God's Grace as shed upon the Gentiles for he (and others) knew they had been baptized in the Holy Ghost, because he heard them speak in tongues and magnify God.

This is the issue, not about eating camels, not about eating snakes or snails or even puppy dog tails, but rather that the Holy Spirit had been given (Peter said, 'like as we at the beginning') to Gentiles. If Jesus communed with them, if Jesus gave his HOLY Spirit to them, would it be wrong to eat with them? Would there be any distinction between Jew and Gentile? Would it be wrong to continue to deny water baptism to them? Yes, that would be wrong. Paul and Peter later really hashed this out but even at the beginning, from when Peter began to doubt in himself to the time it was revealed it was about people not pork.
I understand your viewpoint, and I do not believe that is entirely wrong. However I do ask if you are somehow conflating Acts 10 and Acts 11? There are some who will also conflate Acts 16, and state that the vision in Acts 10 has to deal with hospitality, not eating. Absolutely I agree with the position that all this was to demonstrate to Peter that the Gentiles were to become of the Abrahamic Covenant, but not required to be circumcised; thus we have more agreement than disagreement. :)
</snip></snip>
 
First I was "foisting" and now I am "conflating". Regarding the "foisting" charge, it is my hope that you were sincere when you said you may have overstated yourself there. The charge of "conflating" may be more accurate here because it means, "combining two or more texts or ideas etc. into one". But let me ask you then, who is guilty of this first? Was it me, or was it Peter who responded to the accusation of his brothers? I think Peter was as guilty of "conflating" as you seem to think I am.

Take it up with him, or better yet, with the Holy Spirit, the source of the concepts and the combination used to show the truth, yes?

Would you suggest that Peter should have eaten the unclean meats? I do pose that as a question for your opinion and will try to not follow with debate as I don't think it matters. To go further and try to make my point more dramatically, should he seek to have the foreskin reattached? He was a member of the circumcision and we know that that particular law was not required because the Gentiles were not joining into Judaism, but into Christ, who had the whole of the law nailed with him upon the cross establishing the victory.

Another point, who was Peter quoting when he said, "Not so, Lord!" Was it not Ezekiel who had been commanded to do something he considered vile in Ezk 4:11-12;13-14?

I believe it was, but then again, for fear of being too confusing because of possibly "conflating" I shall not insist.
 
The Old Testament food laws were probably just laws past to keep people from getting sick. Most of the stuff on the list has to do Shell fish, Pork, living tissue, and how to prepare food. This should tell ya that its was probably through observation that some things cause illness if not cooked right. Especially pork and shellfish.

In this modern age and even in the age of that quote, many different cultures had figured out how to cook these things to avoid illness. So in context it makes sense that the ban wouldn't apply anymore. I think that is how most of the OT laws actually were. Most ad observable reasons for existing, or made sense for the kind of culture that existed at the time. Now with modern understanding, some of the laws don't make sense anymore. I think that was the entire point of Jesus and the pharisees. Don't be blinded by the law, use common sense. There is no reason to bathe so many times, or handle women the same way anymore. Different times, different rules.
Greetings MBS! You are sharing with me in the same manner my mother used to and I do appreciate her thought as well as yours. After I grew up and challenged the idea she taught with my own understanding of cooking and potential carcinogens from overcooking pork, after I learned about the ascaris worm and its life-cycle, and after I attended a Bible-college, I began to think that the Lord may have given the law to His children for yet another reason. It could be as simple as wanting them to understand that they were a holy people, dedicated to Him, and set aside, known to be different from those whom they left behind.

Deut 10 said:
Some of the pronouncements as the Children were about to cross the Jordan and begin to realize the promise made to their father Abraham: 16Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer. 17For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. 18He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you [Sparrow's comment: "That's you, my friend."], giving them food and clothing. 19And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt. 20Fear the Lord your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name. 21He is the one you praise; he is your God, who performed for you those great and awesome wonders you saw with your own eyes. 22Your ancestors who went down into Egypt were seventy in all, and now the Lord your God has made you as numerous as the stars in the sky.

Later in life I considered the causes of bird and swine flu -- and the utility of the commandment to avoid even the appearance of evil. Would it be possible that the Lord used the wisdom of the ages while instructing His children and that the benefits of the law were more than avoiding mere stomach cramps? To me, this is the case. That is not to say that I would try to "foist" this idea on others, God forbid. Yet it does provide food for thought and this food is clean, is it not?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First I was "foisting" and now I am "conflating". Regarding the "foisting" charge, it is my hope that you were sincere when you said you may have overstated yourself there. The charge of "conflating" may be more accurate here because it means, "combining two or more texts or ideas etc. into one". But let me ask you then, who is guilty of this first? Was it me, or was it Peter who responded to the accusation of his brothers? I think Peter was as guilty of "conflating" as you seem to think I am.

Do you remember this?
Sparrow,

Perhaps "foisting" was too strong, but I honestly believed that your comment was designed to be antagonistic. That is why I responded that way. I have a rather strong aversion to slavery of any sort, which is the definition of "food laws". I apologize if I was premature, or harsh.

So why do you bring it up a second time?

Take it up with him, or better yet, with the Holy Spirit, the source of the concepts and the combination used to show the truth, yes?
Would you suggest that Peter should have eaten the unclean meats? I do pose that as a question for your opinion and will try to not follow with debate as I don't think it matters. To go further and try to make my point more dramatically, should he seek to have the foreskin reattached? He was a member of the circumcision and we know that that particular law was not required because the Gentiles were not joining into Judaism, but into Christ, who had the whole of the law nailed with him upon the cross establishing the victory.
Please look at the texts, then decide what the case is, OK?
Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judæa, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; ...

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
There the gentiles at the house of Cornelius were saved. In Acts 11, it picks up the next day, or several days later. Remember that the journey from Joppa to Jerusalem took three days one way, and no one had an iPhone with texting capabilities:
Acts 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judæa heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying...
Another point, who was Peter quoting when he said, "Not so, Lord!" Was it not Ezekiel who had been commanded to do something he considered vile in Ezk 4:11-12;13-14?
How do you come to the conclusion that Peter was quoting Isaiah when he was revolted at eating unclean beasts? That is the simplest explanation for his outburst.

I believe it was, but then again, for fear of being too confusing because of possibly "conflating" I shall not insist.
If I can reserve the right to be wrong, so can you.

Would you be so kind as to more fully explain your position? On one hand we seen to agree about the imposition of food laws is an anathema, but I am unsure as to how Acts 10 and 11 enter into your position.
 
Is there a link to where I can read of this pork war? Interested to read the varying arguments.
 
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=49272


http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=26384

Here are 2 threads that dealt with this same topic not to long ago. I've already been there done that with this topic, so unless there isn't anything new to address, i'll just leave these links for ones own reading pleasure.

Although I've been through several pages.... Its too much to read all of it, for it is thickly mixed with derailing posts at places; much like the present thread is rapidly heading for. If you could sub-select groups of pertinent posts and link them when I miss comments buried in those threads, it would be helpful; for I don't think this thread and those have covered all the same information, although there is a substantial amount of overlap.

From the other thread:
Here is a cut and paste from the other thread if you hadn't seen it. Pretty much an Interlinear Bible and concordance and 20 minutes of time will clearly show the parentheses insertion is an interpretation, not a translation. And a wrong interpretation of that:

I can set the parenthesis aside as a possible insertion; although there is no guarantee that it is uninspired. We have neither the original Greek texts, nor does anyone really have a proof of whether or not edits (insertions but not changes of doctrine) are inspired or not; The bible does not tell us when God stopped writing the text; so long as the edits don't *contradict* what was said, earlier -- there is no absolute reason to believe they must be uninspired.
All such notions are just theories....

"the entire verse does not even speak to kosher foods as we know they were living in a world where "food" was only biblical, dietary fair. The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus, throughout his ministry, of anything. They were trying to trap him with the tradition of washing their hands which was not biblical. If Jesus declared swine or any other unclean animals now clean, aye carumba, everything after Mark 7:19 would look completely different as Jesus would be changing the Law that he spoke to Moses which would have been heretical.
What you are saying is undoubtedly true in principle; but I think you have overlooked something important in the Christian worldview and it's consequences:

Jesus *is* accused of trying to change the Law of Moses, during his trial ; and a man who came to die, isn't going to avoid every accusation or care to.

At the mount of transfiguration, Moses and Elijah look up to Jesus -- and they ask him questions; for he is greater than both; that's what the Christian sees as central -- the peripheral argument you are making is a good one, but it's inherent weakness is that it presupposes the law is properly interpreted by the authorities to begin with; or that the law has no loopholes purposely placed in it by God for a divine purpose.
(eg: That the wicked will fall into their own traps.)

Matth 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Matth 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do ; ...

Which, by it's generic meaning -- would also include the "traditional" hand-washing laws.

This is one of the points I was making earlier in the thread concerning Jesus quoting the law of Genesis and marriage to show that the Law of Moses was itself a secondary law brought in because of *sin*s of the people.
Law is Heirarchical; Some law is of higher priority -- and some law only applies in restricted circumstances. The law of Moses is a restricted Law much of which is a concession to Moses who acted as an arbiter/mediator with a people fully deserving *DEATH*, Therefore and Moses' law need not (itself) be the divine Law of God.

I have no problem with your wanting to eat kosher -- although, there is a difference between a scruple which becomes emotionally controlling of a person (revulsion can be learned/conditioned and extremetized), and the act of giving up good food as a gift itself to God.
The later is by virtue of decision and love, the former is merely strong habit which can become a thoughtless platform by which to defy God as well.
(no judgement intended.)

The incident with Peter in Acts 10, where Peter had to walk away from scruples is an excellent example of "putting spirits to the test"; and principle that two witnesses ( or three if two witnesses contradict ) are needed to establish the truth of any testimony.
(Ergo: Peter James and John were all three taken up to witness the vision on the mount of transfiguration where Jesus was greater than Elijah and Moses, etc.)

The number three showing up everywhere is a constant reminder of the judgmental nature of the legal decision.
Peter had a job to do -- and refusing to eat animals he detested was going to interfere with God's plan for him.
Again, I don't apply this to you in judgment...

But, it's not going to be hard to explain -- why Peter, who lived in an Israeli city-state with Roman government factions dividing into circumcised laws and uncircumcised laws; why Peter would be *afraid* of the Jews *WHO WERE STILL IN POWER* 10 years after Jesus died.
There are a set of legal (both secular and religious) questions and relationships which Peter had to work out (and so did Paul) for they were Both circumcised under the old law, and that law had a Government ( Acts 23:5 and Exodus 22:28 ) which imposed rules on people who were circumcised over and above those who were not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
let's do not be(-come) petty, especially when there is a whole internet full of all Bible's versions, but not least because the different versions of the Bible are same excluding some not-so-significant differences, then we do not testify (the) Word of ourselves, but we testify only (the) Word which comes direct(-ly) from the true God Father and the true Lord Jesus Christ, otherwise we should risk too much, because we are Their witnesses

Blessings

It is not as you say, being petty. Instead it is a matter of accuracy and reliability.
I asked you nicely to provide some data, and you gave inaccurate information. When I posted the title page from your source, demonstrating your error, you insult, and call me "petty". That is EXACTLY the sorts of things that identify people in cults. That is why I remain highly suspicious of your postings.

You can change, and do better.
 
I'm going to make one comment here, and then it can be discussed further in PM's if need be, but this matter between By Grace and JCitoL shouldn't continue. The link JCitoL has supplied shows two panels. On the right seems to be the summary By Grace is referring to. On the left seems to be the KJV 1900 as he has indicated. http://biblia.com/books/kjv1900/Ge1.24

Here is something relevant. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/King-James-Bible-English/

This is not to defend a particular doctrine as it applies to the OP. It is to settle and set aside this side-bar disagreement.

Back to topic, please.
 
It is not as you say, being petty. Instead it is a matter of accuracy and reliability.
I asked you nicely to provide some data, and you gave inaccurate information. When I posted the title page from your source, demonstrating your error, you insult, and call me "petty". That is EXACTLY the sorts of things that identify people in cults. That is why I remain highly suspicious of your postings.

You can change, and do better.


excuse us, we did not intend to insult you, but if the believer doesn't believe right in the true God and Jesus then it will not be able to understand the Bible solely by reading regardless of what version it is, and if there is some more accurate version as opposed to all other versions then it hardly is much more accurate excluding the cases when the comparison is made with some modern versions which are quite new translations - exactly this we meant before, and we did not aim to insult you, but we meant that if there are some differences between the different editions of kjv then they are very petty with certainty, and if you can find and show (here) some really great difference between any two editions of kjv, then we are ready to take a look at your statement, we say this because all biblical quotes which we till now published in this thread are exactly from the king james version even if we do not know what is the exact edition of kjv which we use(d) - many people of this forum can acknowledge that the editions of the king james version are alike, and if in a kjv there are the old english language forms such as: "ye", "thy", "thee", "thou", "shalt", "maketh", etc., then it can be sure that as a rule there are no (major) differences between such editions of kjv

Blessings
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can set the parenthesis aside as a possible insertion; although there is no guarantee that it is uninspired. We have neither the original Greek texts, nor does anyone really have a proof of whether or not edits (insertions but not changes of doctrine) are inspired or not; The bible does not tell us when God stopped writing the text; so long as the edits don't *contradict* what was said, earlier -- there is no absolute reason to believe they must be uninspired.
All such notions are just theories....
I am firm in my position, as others are as well.

What you are saying is undoubtedly true in principle; but I think you have overlooked something important in the Christian worldview and it's consequences:

Jesus *is* accused of trying to change the Law of Moses, during his trial ; and a man who came to die, isn't going to avoid every accusation or care to.
And I firmly believe God's Word is firmly established in Heaven (Psalm 119:89), and the jots and tittles cannot be changed.

As for the rest of your post, there is to much to address and some of this was already spoken to in the links provided. I was having a hard time following your thoughts, so I could not respond. Sorry, I don't really wanna get into this again, that's why I posted the links that I did. Too soon, I guess, too soon....
 
I am firm in my position, as others are as well.

Fine. I'll take that as your wanting me to set it aside, as I already said I could; although it's a courtesy and not a necessity on my part.

And I firmly believe God's Word is firmly established in Heaven (Psalm 119:89), and the jots and tittles cannot be changed.

As for the rest of your post, there is to much to address and some of this was already spoken to in the links provided. I was having a hard time following your thoughts, so I could not respond. Sorry, I don't really wanna get into this again, that's why I posted the links that I did. Too soon, I guess, too soon....
I asked if you would link to particular posts (eg: not entire threads of several hours reading time) which addressed any issues I missed. It's hardly surprising, that after reading a thread -- and responding to it as a whole; that you might have difficulty tracing my thoughts; but do take responsibility for thread dumping... please.... (You could delete all posts referencing the other thread, if you are really in over your head....)

I'll try to focus on a single scripture event, here, and I'll ask a single question of you at the end of the post to satisfy my curiosity about your line of thinking.

In Mark 7, Jesus' initial comments were on account of (triggered by) the pharisees tradition about washing hands; *BUT* his teaching went beyond the tradition itself; and even insinuating a condemnation....

Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

The tradition of hand washing is compared to another tradition which breaks the commandment to honor (eg: Thank or monetarily care for someone, AKA:an honorarium for) their father and mother; and I don't think the particular comparison is entirely a coincidence for Paul says all meats are clean when received with thanksgiving (eg: honoring God our Father.)

When I try to interpret the statements you made in the other thread concerning Mark 7 and Matthew 15 being merely about "hand washing" tradition; I am immediately expecting Jesus' saying to be logically separable from any incidental reference to food at all (but they aren't).

Also, if Jesus' saying were merely about the authority and traditions of the Pharisees (which the Sadducees regularly ignored). The Phaisees would have merely considered Jesus an enemy but they would hardly have been "scandalized" by his words about hand washing -- especially; when they were merely irritated by the disciple's unwashed eating habits in the first place.

But -- this is what I find:

Matth 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended (lit: scandalized = ε-σκανδαλισ-θησαν), after they heard this saying?

and again:

Mark 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats ( παντα τα βρωματα ) ?

Clearly: Jesus has gone beyond just dirt on hands -- and includes "WHATEVER" thing (even food!) entering a man.

At which point we have two conclusions possible, Jesus said the cathartic of going to the bathroom, ejects all uncleanliness ( but notice ... that means, it "comes out" of a man ) -- or else, the stomach renders the food clean in whatever sense Torah means "clean".

What exactly do you think Jesus meant? ( a link to a post is fine.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fine. I'll take that as your wanting me to set it aside, as I already said I could; although it's a courtesy and not a necessity on my part.

I asked if you would link to particular posts (eg: not entire threads of several hours reading time) which addressed any issues I missed. It's hardly surprising, that after reading a thread -- and responding to it as a whole; that you might have difficulty tracing my thoughts; but do take responsibility for thread dumping... please.... (You could delete all posts referencing the other thread, if you are really in over your head....)

I'll try to focus on a single scripture event, here, and I'll ask a single question of you at the end of the post to satisfy my curiosity about your line of thinking.

In Mark 7, Jesus' initial comments were on account of (triggered by) the pharisees tradition about washing hands; *BUT* his teaching went beyond the tradition itself; and even insinuating a condemnation....

Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

The tradition of hand washing is compared to another tradition which breaks the commandment to honor (eg: Thank or monetarily care for someone, AKA:an honorarium for) their father and mother; and I don't think the particular comparison is entirely a coincidence for Paul says all meats are clean when received with thanksgiving (eg: honoring God our Father.)

When I try to interpret the statements you made in the other thread concerning Mark 7 and Matthew 15 being merely about "hand washing" tradition; I am immediately expecting Jesus' saying to be logically separable from any incidental reference to food at all (but they aren't).

Also, if Jesus' saying were merely about the authority and traditions of the Pharisees (which the Sadducees regularly ignored). The Phaisees would have merely considered Jesus an enemy but they would hardly have been "scandalized" by his words about hand washing -- especially; when they were merely irritated by the disciple's unwashed eating habits in the first place.

But -- this is what I find:

Matth 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended (lit: scandalized = ε-σκανδαλισ-θησαν), after they heard this saying?

and again:

Mark 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats ( παντα τα βρωματα ) ?

Clearly: Jesus has gone beyond just dirt on hands -- and includes "WHATEVER" thing (even food!) entering a man.

At which point we have two conclusions possible, Jesus said the cathartic of going to the bathroom, ejects all uncleanliness ( but notice ... that means, it "comes out" of a man ) -- or else, the stomach renders the food clean in whatever sense Torah means "clean".

What exactly do you think Jesus meant? ( a link to a post is fine.)

Here is from the other thread.

Yes you are correct, "catharsis" or "katharizon" from Strongs does mean to make clean or cleanse, but the entire verse does not even speak to kosher foods as we know they were living in a world where "food" was only biblical, dietary fair. The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus throughout his ministry of anything. They were trying to trap him with the tradition of washing their hands which was not biblical. If Jesus declared swine or any other unclean animals now clean, aye carumba, everything after Mark 7:19 would look completely different as Jesus would be changing the Law that he spoke to Moses which would have been heretical.

Mark 7:19 "because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats." - Taken from the Youngs Literal Translation

Mark 7:19 "19 G3754 Because G1531 it entereth [G5736] G3756 not G1519 into G846 his G2588 heart G235 , but G1519 into G2836 the belly G2532 , and G1607 goeth out [G5736] G1519 into G856 the draught G2511 , purging [G5723] G3956 all G1033 meats?" - KJV with the concordance value attached for referencing.

If you follow along with the concordance, this passage is talking about waste management so to speak as the draught is the bowels. This ties into the earlier passage that the Pharisees were giving them a hard time about washing their hands and making themselves impure. But Jesus was talking if there was any impurities on their hands, the human body will take and flush those impurities out.
 
Here is from the other thread.

Am I to understand this is the most precise statement of what you though Jesus meant?
I saw it myself, before, but you don't seem to explain it and it raises more questions than it answered.

In mark 7:2, the context is "bread"; not general food. Jesus later expands the statement to "anything that enters a man" -- which includes unclean meat, if he eats it... for that's something that can enter a man. But let's set that aside, and assume it was referring to anything found on one's hands...

Now; since the Pharisees were only talking about washing one's hands; I'll note a parallel in our country -- there is state/federal law that demands the same of anyone working in a food preparation place. So, it would seem our laws are identical to the tradition of the pharisees.... if you are right, about hands only....

But Jesus says:
Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

So that it's clear the command to wash "hands" negates God's command, not merely neglects it; and to reinforces the accusation's negating aspect Jesus gives a seemingly out of context condemnation on korban practice: Both traditions are purported to negate a commandment of God.

When I look ate earlier verses, ( Mark 7:4 abouts ) it shows the earmarks of Kosher preparation laws; not just washing of hands.

And there are no laws which I can find that are broken by merely washing one's hands.

If Jesus' remarks that the law is broken by the washings -- and it's NOT about Kosher preparation, then what law is broken? ( You say you believe in observing even the tittles in the law.)


In Romans 14:17, Paul begins his discussion by referencing Jesus and even uses the exact same words "anything" and "meat" of Mark 7: rather than synonyms, ( but the *particular* word meat is inclusive of all foods, as you yourself already noted; I see that Paul doesn't get technical about "meat" until a few verses later. )

Paul notes elsewhere that he being from Tarsus -- was not a disciple of Jesus, nor a witness; until the events on the road where he goes from Saul to Paul; after that he went to see Peter, (as the scriptures say), to be taught about Jesus; and since Mark is the scribe who recorded Peter's Gospel (Peter couldn't write) I think the identity of word phrasing is not likely a coincidence. Paul is commenting on Mark 7; but isn't very helpful in expounding the basis of his lawyerly opinion.

Do you think Paul was talking about something other than Mark 7? and if so, what?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here you demonstrate that you are ignoring the context because you limit the section to he about ONLY ceremonial washings. Food laws is a part of the ceremonial laws. Therefore, you skewer your position with the answers that you post.

Please tell us exactly why the food laws are significant. Is that there will be a greater reward for those who eat kosher, or do you not follow kosher, in favor of something else?

Did you read the context?

Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Didn't bother going to the parallel account did you?

Mar 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
Mar 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

Nothing to do with the food laws. Show me ceremonial washings up to the elbows in Lev 11 and Deut 14.

Mar 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

We are not dealing with food laws here, we are dealing with the Pharisees traditions of washing in a certain way.

Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Christ goes on here to show how they violated the Commandment to honor their parents by declaring help for their parents Corban. What this means is they denied whatever they might help their parents with by saying it was dedicated to God. This way they could make a show of religiosity and actually violate a Commandment for their own ego.

Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mar 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
Mar 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
Mar 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Mar 7:14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
Mar 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

Now, what Christ is talking about here is the dirt that may get into the food you eta will not cause spiritual harm, but the actions you take toward others can. This passage is not about meat...

From Barclay...

There were definite and rigid rules for the washing of hands. Note that this hand-washing was not in the interests of hygienic purity; it was ceremonial cleanness which was at stake. Before every meal, and between each of the courses, the hands had to be washed, and they had to be washed in a certain way. The hands, to begin with, had to be free of any coating of sand or mortar or gravel or any such substance. The water for washing had to be kept in special large stone jars, so that it itself was clean in the ceremonial sense and so that it might be certain that it had been used for no other purpose, and that nothing had fallen into it or had been mixed with it. First, the hands were held with finger tips pointing upwards; water was poured over them and had to run at least down to the wrist; the minimum amount of water was one quarter of a log, which is equal to one and a half egg-shells full of water. While the hands were still wet each hand had to be cleansed with the fist of the other. That is what the phrase about using the fist means; the fist of one hand was rubbed into the palm and against the surface of the other. This meant that at this stage the hands were wet with water; but that water was now unclean because it had touched unclean hands. So, next, the hands had to be held with finger tips pointing downwards and water had to be poured over them in such a way that it began at the wrists and ran off at the finger tips. After all that had been done the hands were clean.

To fail to do this was in Jewish eyes, not to be guilty of bad manners, not to be dirty in the health sense, but to be unclean in the sight of God. The man who ate with unclean hands was subject to the attacks of a demon called Shibta. To omit so to wash the hands was to become liable to poverty and destruction. Bread eaten with unclean hands was not better than excrement. A Rabbi who once omitted the ceremony was buried in excommunication. Another Rabbi, imprisoned by the Romans, used the water given to him for handwashing rather than for drinking and in the end nearly perished of thirst, because he was determined to observe the rules of cleanliness rather than satisfy his thirst.


Read the scriptures, get the context, read the parallel accounts and hit your knees.

I quoted Barclay here because I feel he did a good job getting to the crux of the matter. I do not recommend or trust commentaries, they are written by men. Sure they are experts, but if they are correct, why do the disagree on many points? If they were the last word, they would all be in agreement but they are not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And there are no laws which I can find that are broken by merely washing one's hands.?
Back in the day, it was common to put fences around commandments from God. So there is commandment A. But to ensure that commandment is followed, let's make sure they do B, C and D to protect that commandment so it's being adhered to. The first example we find of this happening, is Adam in Genesis 2:16-17 then what Eve told the serpent in Genesis 3:3. She added the not being able to touch it to ensure the first commandment wasn't broken.

As John 8:32 explained above, hand washing was a rabbinic addition based on an earlier commandment. However, the Pharisees placed more emphasis on B, C, and D and negated the original commandment being A. And the yoke of bondage that was being placed on the people were that if you didn't follow B, C and D, you have sinned against God which is not the case. He was admonishing the Pharisees for contravening this commandment.

Leviticus 10:10-11 <SUP class=versenum> </SUP>and <SUP class=crossreference value='(B)'></SUP>so as to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean, <SUP class=versenum> </SUP>and <SUP class=crossreference value='(C)'></SUP>so as to teach the sons of Israel all the statutes which the Lord has spoken to them through Moses.â€

They placed their B, C and D's aboce and beyond God's commandments. That was the whole argument back in the day. Hope that was clearer?

If Jesus' remarks that the law is broken by the washings -- and it's NOT about Kosher preparation, then what law is broken? ( You say you believe in observing even the tittles in the law.)?
As explained above.


In Romans 14:17, Paul begins his discussion by referencing Jesus and even uses the exact same words "anything" and "meat" of Mark 7: rather than synonyms, ( but the *particular* word meat is inclusive of all foods, as you yourself already noted; I see that Paul doesn't get technical about "meat" until a few verses later. )

Paul notes elsewhere that he being from Tarsus -- was not a disciple of Jesus, nor a witness; until the events on the road where he goes from Saul to Paul; after that he went to see Peter, (as the scriptures say), to be taught about Jesus; and since Mark is the scribe who recorded Peter's Gospel (Peter couldn't write) I think the identity of word phrasing is not likely a coincidence. Paul is commenting on Mark 7; but isn't very helpful in expounding the basis of his lawyerly opinion.

Do you think Paul was talking about something other than Mark 7? and if so, what?
I believe his Word if firmly planted in Heaven in the Ark of the Covenant and it cannot be changed. All "meats" would have only been biblical, dietary fair. But as I've said, these arguments have been made before. I believe God said it once, he meant it for all eternity.
 
Back
Top