• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Is the Law God gave through Moses still in effect today???

  • Thread starter Thread starter lou11
  • Start date Start date
Sparrowhawke said:
Pardon my correcting you here but the part you bolded -AND- underlined cannot be found in the Greek at all... Also note that Bible translators put things in slightly gray text to indicate that those words are not found in the original.

Uh...since when? Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Please don't say yes.

note that the Lord was talking about the Gentiles (not unclean meats) using an analogy and that Peter understood Him perfectly although he never did eat unclean things.

The message Luke wants to convey nonetheless is that kosher custom is inapplicable.

Thanks,
Eric
 
Jesus spiritualized the law of Moises. Now we are under the ''law of Jesus'' in a way.

This is why the fall feasts could only be fulfilled in the spirit because the carnal part was fulfilled upon the flesh of Jesus (the outside of the scroll). Now it must be fulfilled within, the inside of the scroll.
 
MMarc said:
Jesus spiritualized the law of Moises. Now we are under the ''law of Jesus'' in a way.

This is why the fall feasts could only be fulfilled in the spirit because the carnal part was fulfilled upon the flesh of Jesus (the outside of the scroll). Now it must be fulfilled within, the inside of the scroll.


Hi Marc,

I love this post! Consider it saved for future reference
. :-)
 
whirlwind said:
MMarc said:
Jesus spiritualized the law of Moises. Now we are under the ''law of Jesus'' in a way.

This is why the fall feasts could only be fulfilled in the spirit because the carnal part was fulfilled upon the flesh of Jesus (the outside of the scroll). Now it must be fulfilled within, the inside of the scroll.


Hi Marc,

I love this post! Consider it saved for future reference
. :-)

Hey sis! I've been missing you! Hope you are well, 'cause I know you are beloved... :halo
 
Pardon my correcting you here but the part you bolded -AND- underlined cannot be found in the Greek at all.
Id be interested in seeing the evidence for this statement as MY resources show that that it is in the greek text itself.
Also note that Bible translators put things in slightly gray text to indicate that those words are not found in the original.
Also note that the reason this is done is because in MANY cases ONE greek word has no perfect english counterpart so a combination of english words must be used to express the idea accurately that the greek presents.
It happens in many areas of the NT.
If that's what Jesus meant, he'd have to say it a whole lot clearer for me to believe it. Jesus was talking about something else entirely. I would admonish all to carefully read and prove what they are saying -- not only for their own sake, but also for the sake of those whom they teach for we know that even a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. What about a well with only a little poison? Is it clean to drink? Jas 3:12 "Can the fig tree, my brothers, bear olive berries; or a vine, figs? So no fountain can yield both salt water and fresh."
Clearer ?
How much clearer does it need to be put ?
In relation to foods NOTHING we take into our bodies 'defiles' it.
That part of the law was ceremonial and cleanness issues...that is long past.
No, I'm not trying to put Jewish dietary law onto the Gentiles beyond what was taught by Paul (about things strangled and blood) but I must object when we try to make our doctrine equate to "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" - so I ask you, did Jesus really say that? Is that what he meant? Are you certain that he "clearly overturned Scripture"?
And thats exactly right.
The ONLY restrictions laid out for the gentile nations is that we dont eat blood or things strangled.
So if you are ADDING restriction to that then yes, you are going beyond what is given in scripture.
If we want to eat monkey brains, then we are ALLOWED to eat them now. It may be gross but the material itself no longer is 'unclean' for us to eat.
 
Drew said:
lou11 said:
I must agree with all you say here but would like to point out that the the law written in our hearts is not different from the law given by Moses (other than the removal of the sacrifices and ceremonies). Verse 33 says, "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." It is God's law itself that is placed in our hearts.
I disagree. While it is indeed true that the New Testament teaches that the "law" is written on our hearts, this is not a matter of "transcribing" the "moral" part of the Law of Moses on our hearts while throwing the sacrifice and ceremony stuff out. Paul is quite clear at several places that the Law of Moses in its entirety has been abolished. So whatever this "law" written on the heart turns out to be, it is not simply a "mental copy" of the moral parts of the law of Moses.

Besides, I would challenge anyone to provide a Biblical basis for carving up the Law of Moses into a "moral" part and a ceremonial part. Nowhere in the Scriptures is there anything that endorses the idea that "this part and not that part" of the Law of Moses has been done away with.

What is the "law that is written on our hearts" if not the moral part of the Law of Moses. Paul gives the answer in Romans 10 - it is Christian faith.
It is very clear that we are no longer under law....even tho some seem to be obsessed with repeating the Galatian mistake and willfully returning to the law. For safeties sake or legalism, most likely, being unable to define right and wrong within themselves by the law that OUGHT to be written in their hearts.

As for the query, I do believe that Paul defines 'fornication' in part by the sexual prohibitions in the Mosaic Code.
For instance there is no NT precept about not taking a fathers wife, but there is in the law.
In 1 Cor 5 it is assumed that this man has taken his dead fathers wife as his own (his step mother, obviously). This Corinthian man should have known better than to take his fathers wife as such a thing would be incestuous...ie 'fornication' (sexual immorality).
Paul chastises the 'fornication' (not adultery as it would be *IF* the father still lived) so we can easily make the connection to the precept from the law. If the father were dead, then adultery would not apply as the woman would not be under the 'law' of a husband, thus 'forncation' is the accurate word for Paul to use in this situation.
This doesnt mean we are UNDER law as some wish to believe, it simply confirms to us that the law is good and righteous.
 
follower of Christ said:
It is very clear that we are no longer under law....even tho some seem to be obsessed with repeating the Galatian mistake and willfully returning to the law.
In case it is not clear, I agree with you entirely about this matter.
 
sparrowhawke said:
Before you turn to Peter's vision of unclean meats and God's command "Acts 10:13 And a voice came to him, saying, Rise, Peter! Kill and eat! " - note that the Lord was talking about the Gentiles (not unclean meats) using an analogy and that Peter understood Him perfectly although he never did eat unclean things.
I don' think so -the Acts 10 text indeed shows that the Levitical food laws have been overturned.

Some assert that the following text, despite appearances, does not overturn Levitical food laws, but instead teaches Peter that Gentiles are not unclean. On such a view, some foods remain unclean to eat, at least for the Jew – it is the Gentiles who are being declared clean here, not the animals. Here is the relevant text from Acts 10:

10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." 15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Here is what we have:

1. Peter is presented with food;
2. He is commanded to eat;
3. He clearly sees that some of the food is impure in respect to Torah food laws;
4. The voice tells him that all the foods are clean.

Now, it is indeed true that the primary lesson here for Peter, as we learn later in the chapter, is that Peter abandon his belief that the Gentiles are somehow unclean. But if one actually works the argument through, one is still driven to the conclusion that the food laws are being repealed here, even though the wider lesson may be about Peter's attitude to the Gentiles.

The key here is to understand the basis of Peter's belief that Gentiles are unclean. Clearly, it is a matter of their food habits, or more generally their doing things that Torah says makes one unclean. The Gentiles indeed eat things or otherwise do things that the Torah would describe as making a man, at least a Jewish man, unclean. But what is important is what Peter believes. There is no credible explanation as to why Peter would deem a Gentile to be unclean except that the Gentile did not keep Torah- it is Torah which tells the Jew how one becomes unclean.

Even if it is true that Gentiles are not actually made unclean by violating the provisions of Torah (since it is for Jews only), Peter clearly believes that the Gentile is unclean. So Peter must think they are unclean because they violate Torah.

Let's return to your assertion that Peter is being taught that Gentiles are not unclean. Clearly God is using the sheetful of animals to make this point. Given that we know that Peter believes the Gentiles to be unclean in virtue of their not keeping Torah, the last thing God would want to do is to present Peter with a bunch of animals, some of which are still unclean for Peter (as a Jew) to eat, and expect Peter to get the message that Gentiles, who eat these unclean animals, are clean.

In fact, such a strategy would actually re-inforce Peter's idea that the Gentile are unclean. What worse way could there be to convince Peter that the Gentiles are unclean than to offer him the very unclean animals that he (Peter) knows that the Gentiles eat? So, of course, Peter is told - all these animals are clean. It is only by that truth - that all animals are now clean - that Peter will be encouraged to see those "screech-owl eating" Gentiles as clean.
 
Drew said:
Sparrowhawke said:
Pardon my correcting you here but the part you bolded -AND- underlined cannot be found in the Greek at all.
Sparrowhawke said:
Mark 7:19

  • (LITV) This is because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the waste-bowl, purging all the foods.
    [/*:m:15b4rrhv]
  • (MKJV) because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the waste-bowl, purifying all food?[/*:m:15b4rrhv]
I do not see how this argument works. And I do understand that the original Greek has the phrase "purging all foods".
...
Can you please clarify your position on what you think Mark 7:19 is saying.
First, Thanks for taking the time to look at the Greek and confirming that you understand that the original Greek ends with the phrase "purging all foods" [and nothing more] -- if in fact you did so.

You asked if I could clarify "my position". Let us rather strive to clarify the truth, yes? What Jesus said was the things we eat do not go into our heart. The go into "the cavity" and then pass into the sewer. We are commanded to "circumcise our hearts" in the Old Testament.

The things that defile a man are those things in his heart. He was explaining what he had just spoken to the Pharisees in defense of his disciples about their not washing their hands.

~Sparrowhawke
 
Drew said:
sparrowhawke said:
Before you turn to Peter's vision of unclean meats and God's command "Acts 10:13 And a voice came to him, saying, Rise, Peter! Kill and eat! " - note that the Lord was talking about the Gentiles (not unclean meats) using an analogy and that Peter understood Him perfectly although he never did eat unclean things.
I don' think so -the Acts 10 text indeed shows that the Levitical food laws have been overturned.

Some assert that the following text, despite appearances, does not overturn Levitical food laws, but instead teaches Peter that Gentiles are not unclean. On such a view, some foods remain unclean to eat, at least for the Jew – it is the Gentiles who are being declared clean here, not the animals. Here is the relevant text from Acts 10:

10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." 15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Here is what we have:

1. Peter is presented with food;
2. He is commanded to eat;
3. He clearly sees that some of the food is impure in respect to Torah food laws;
4. The voice tells him that all the foods are clean.
It is helpful to actually open the bible and begin to read in Acts 10:1 where we see the subject of what we are being taught:
  1. And a certain man named Cornelius was in Caesarea, a centurion of the Italian cohort, [/*:m:1ud0vx85]
  2. one devout and fearing God, with all his household, both doing many merciful deeds to the people, and praying continually to God. [/*:m:1ud0vx85]
  3. About the ninth hour of the day he saw plainly in a vision an angel of God coming to him and saying to him, Cornelius! [/*:m:1ud0vx85]
  4. And he was gazing at him, and becoming terrified, he said, What is it, lord? And he said to him, Your prayers and your merciful deeds have come up for a memorial before God. [/*:m:1ud0vx85]
  5. And now send men to Joppa and call for Simon, whose last name is Peter. [/*:m:1ud0vx85]
  6. He is staying with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the seaside. He will tell you what you must do. [/*:m:1ud0vx85]
  7. And when the angel who spoke to Cornelius departed, he called two of his servants and a devout soldier from those who waited on him continually. [/*:m:1ud0vx85]
  8. And explaining all things to them, he sent them to Joppa. [/*:m:1ud0vx85]
  9. On the next day, as these went on the road, and drawing near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. [/*:m:1ud0vx85]
_________________________________
The word is directing our attention to the Centurion, Cornelius. He received a Vision.
Peter also received a Vision:
_________________________________
Act 10:9 On the next day, as these went on the road, and drawing near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour.
Act 10:10 And he became very hungry and desired to eat. But while they made ready, an ecstasy fell on him.
Act 10:11 And he saw the heaven opened and a certain vessel like a sheet coming down to him, being bound at the four corners and let down to the earth;
Act 10:12 in which were all the four-footed animals of the earth, and the wild beasts, and the reptiles, and the birds of the heaven.
Act 10:13 And a voice came to him, saying, Rise, Peter! Kill and eat!
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.
Act 10:15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has made clean, you do not call common.
Act 10:16 This happened three times, and the vessel was received up again into the heaven.
Act 10:17 And while Peter doubted within himself what the vision which he had seen might be, even behold, the men who were sent from Cornelius had asked for Simon's house and stood on the porch.
_________________________________
Remember that that Peter was still wondering and doubting within himself what the vision which he had seen might be. He refused a direct order from his Lord saying, "No so, Lord..." Now this was the same Peter who denied Christ three times, so you know it had to be troubling him. But he did have Scriptural precedent. Remember also what Ezekiel said when he was ordered by the Lord to cook his food on human excrement? "No so, Lord...
Eze 4:12-17 said:
And you shall eat it as barley cakes, and you shall bake it with dung of the excrement of man, in their sight.
And Jehovah said, Even so shall the sons of Israel eat their defiled bread among the nations, where I will drive them.
Then I said, Ah Lord Jehovah! Behold, my soul has not been defiled. For from my youth up, even till now, I have not eaten of that which dies of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither did there come any unclean flesh into my mouth.
Then He said to me, Lo, I have given you cow's dung for man's dung, and you shall prepare your bread with it.
And He said to me, Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem. And they shall eat bread by weight, and with care. And they shall drink water by measure, and in silence,
so that they may lack bread and water, and be stricken dumb with one another, and waste away in their iniquity.
Surely Peter knew these Scriptures. "No so, Lord... for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." Per the first part of the chapter Cornelius had seen an Angel. With this in mind we might better understand his following action.
_________________________________
Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped.
Act 10:26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up! I also am a man myself.
Act 10:27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together.
Act 10:28 And he said to them, You know that it is an unlawful thing for a man, a Jew to keep company with or to come near to one of another nation. But God has shown me not to call any man common or unclean.
_________________________________
Later, Peter said:
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said, Truly I see that God is no respecter of persons;
Act 10:35 but in every nation he who fears Him and works righteousness is accepted with Him.
_________________________________
Paul later spoke to the Jewish leaders, saying that very same thing that Jesus tried to tell them, Act 13:46 But speaking boldly, Paul and Barnabas said, "It was necessary for the Word of God to be spoken to you first. But since indeed you put it far from you and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the nations." They ignored the weightier matters of the law and concentrated on the tiny things. Jesus specifically confirmed that not even the tiny things would pass away. They haven't.

:backtotopic
(Deuteronomy 10:16) Therefore, circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stiff-necked.

(Deuteronomy 30:6) And Jehovah your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your seed, to love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

(Jeremiah 4:4) Circumcise yourselves to Jehovah, and take away the foreskins of your heart, men of Judah and people of Jerusalem; lest My fury come forth like fire, and burn so that none can put it out; because of the evil of your doings.
 
follower of Christ said:
Pardon my correcting you here but the part you bolded -AND- underlined cannot be found in the Greek at all.
Id be interested in seeing the evidence for this statement as MY resources show that that it is in the greek text itself.
No problem. Would the GNT suffice? BTW, what "sources" are you referring to exactly? I'd like the opportunity to prove myself wrong, if possible.

First the KJV (for reference):
Mar 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;
Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Mar 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

Now the GNT:
Mar 7:18 καὶ λέγει αá½ÂÄοῖ· οὕÄÉ καὶ ὑμεῖ ἀÃÆ’ÃÂνεÄοί á¼ÂÃĀε; οὠνοεῖÄε ὅÄι Àᾶν Äὸ á¼â€ÃŽÂ¾Ã‰Î¸ÎµÎ½ εἰÃÀοÃÂεÅÌμενον εἰ Äὸν ἄνθÃÂÉÀον οὠδÃÂναÄαι αá½ÂÄὸν κοινῶÃαι;
Mar 7:19 ὅÄι οá½Âκ εἰÃÀοÃÂεÃÂεÄαι αá½ÂÄοῦ εἰ Äὴν καÃÂδίαν, ἀλλ᾿ εἰ Äὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰ Äὸν ἀÆεδÃÂῶνα á¼ÂκÀοÃÂεÃÂεÄαι, καθαÃÂίζÉν ÀάνÄα Äὰ βÃÂÎμαÄα.
Mar 7:20 á¼â€ÃŽÂ»ÃŽÂµÃŽÂ³ÃŽÂµ δὲ ὅÄι Äὸ á¼Âκ Äοῦ ἀνθÃÂÎÀοÅ á¼ÂκÀοÃÂεÅÌμενον, á¼Âκεῖνο κοινοῖ Äὸν ἄνθÃÂÉÀον.
Mar 7:21 á¼â€ÃƒÉθεν γὰàá¼Âκ Äῆ καÃÂδία Äῶν ἀνθÃÂÎÀÉν οἱ διαλογιÃμοὶ οἱ κακοὶ á¼ÂκÀοÃÂεÃÂονÄαι, μοιÇεῖαι, ÀοÃÂνεῖαι, ÆÌνοι, κλοÀαί,

Now a transliteration of the Greek by Westcott and Hort: (word by word literal)
Mar 7:18 And he-is-saying to-them Thus also you '(ones)-without-comprehension are?' 'Not-are-YOU-aware' that everything the 'from-outside' 'going-inside' into the man not 'is-able' him 'to-make-common',

Mar 7:19 Because not 'is-able' him 'to-make-common', because not 'it-is-going-its-way-in' 'of-him' into the heart but into the cavity, and into the sewer is 'going-its-way-out?' ---cleansing all the eatables.

Mar 7:20 'He-was-saying' but that 'The(thing)' 'out-of the man' 'going-out that-(thing)' 'makes-common' the man.

Mar 7:21 'from-inside' for 'out-of' the heart 'of-the' men the reasonings the bad 'are-going-out', fornications, thieveries, murderers...

Surely the doctrine in dispute can not be said to mean that foods become clean in the purging (when we are going to the toilet). He is specifically saying that it is not what enters a man (in contrast to what the nit-picking Pharisees thought and confronted him about - not our eating without first washing our hands) because those things go in through the mouth - they pass through the "cavity" (which is an excellent description of the Alimentary Canal - ["Imagine that you put one end of a hose in your mouth and kept threading it through until it came out of your butt. That's more or less what the alimentary canal is." <--- quote from http://coloncancer.about.com/od/glossaries/g/AlimentaryCanal.htm] and into the sewer.

Now, having said that, this post is not to be taken to mean that I disagree with Paul who has clearly stated that Grace surpasses the Law. Please consider that "the Law" we are speaking about isn't similar to the "law" found in the USA or in man's governmental authorities. The "law" that we speak of is every covenant and/or agreement between God and man. God has always kept his part (every single part) and man has never failed to break his part of the agreements. Even though God has every right to say, you have breached our covenant, it is no longer binding on me - he doesn't. At each step of the way our Lord has shown His mercy and His grace, His longsuffering and His very Love. God alone is Good. He has declared that the Law is written into the very heavens themselves. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words (the Entire Torah as amended and abridged in legal-speak) shall never pass away. Man lives not by bread alone but by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God. We are not saved by our own righteousness (by our observance of the law) but by Faith through grace, that none shall brag. Through the law we are able to exchange our shame for the righteousness of Christ. This is entirely through Grace. We are to become the Righteousness of God. Can the ordinance do this for us? It can only convict us of sin. It is the appeal of our hearts and not the water of the baptism that cleanses us. This then becomes the "Law" of Christ. Did I say something that isn't perfect here? Forgive me this (if in truth I did) -- but read again, do we not agree in spirit? I hope so.

~Sparrow

In the spirit of going the extra mile, two more "literal" translations: The first is copypasta from LITV, the second from Concordant Literal New Testament. I will preserve the "gray" text in the latter.
Mark 7:18-21 said:
Mar 7:18 And He said to them, Are you also so undiscerning? Do you not perceive that all that enters from the outside into the man is not able to defile him?
Mar 7:19 This is because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the waste-bowl, purging all the foods.
Mar 7:20 And He said, That passing out of the man, it is the thing that defiles the man.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, pass out the evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Concordant Literal said:
And He is saying to them, "Are you, also, thus unintelligent? Not yet are you apprehending that everything from the outside, that is going into a man can not contaminate him, for it is not going into his heart, but into the bowels, and is going out into the latrine---cleansing all foods?"
Yet He said that, "That which is going out of a man, that is contaminating the man. For from inside, out of the heart of men are going out evil reasonings, prostitutions, thefts, murders, adulteries, greed, wickedness, guile, wantonness, a wicked eye, calumny, pride imprudence. All these wicked inside things are going out; and those are contaminating the man."
 
Sparrowhawke said:
What Jesus said was the things we eat do not go into our heart. The go into "the cavity" and then pass into the sewer. We are commanded to "circumcise our hearts" in the Old Testament.

The things that defile a man are those things in his heart. He was explaining what he had just spoken to the Pharisees in defense of his disciples about their not washing their hands.
Are you putting this forward as a defence of the position that Jesus is not overturning the Levitical food laws? If so, I do not see how your argument achieves its purposes. If, as you say, Jesus is saying that the things which go into the heart are the things that defile, then, in the context of the Jewish worldview, this involves a strongly implied, and I mean strongly implied, assertion that foods that go into the mouth do not make a man unclean.

And that is a clear overturning of the Levitical food laws.

And his point is not even implicit - note what Jesus explicitly says in verses 15 and then 18:

Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "[f]
17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?


These are unambiguous overturnings of the Levitcal food laws which state that some foods - things that go "into the mouth" - are unclean.

We appear to agree on what Jesus is saying. But you do not seem to understand how this constitutes an overturning of laws which indeed claimed that what goes into the mouth indeed defiles. Are you claiming that the Levitical food laws do not entail the assertion that eating certain foods defiles the Jew?
 
Sparrowhawke said:
The things that defile a man are those things in his heart. He was explaining what he had just spoken to the Pharisees in defense of his disciples about their not washing their hands.
I am still unclear as to what you think your argument is. We agree that the Pharisees and Jesus are in a dispute about matters of purity, right? And we seem to agree that Jesus is saying that the things that defile a man are things in his heart, right? Well, I am arguing that any Jewish observer would conclude that Jesus is overturning the Levitical food laws. This is because, for the Jew, eating certain foods would indeed defile him - make him unclean. That is what the Levitical food laws assert - you eat a pig, you become unclean.

I take it that you do not understand Jesus to be overturning the food laws. I do not see how such a position can fly in the fact of clear statements by Jesus that what goes into the mouth does not make a man unclean - the Levitical food laws state otherwise.
 
Sparrowhawke said:
Remember also what Ezekiel said when he was ordered by the Lord to cook his food on human excrement? "No so, Lord...
I do not see the relevance of the Ezekiel material. Perhaps you can more clearly explain specifically how this material bears on the interpretation of what is happening in Acts 10.
Sparrowhawke said:
Later, Peter said:
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said, Truly I see that God is no respecter of persons;
Act 10:35 but in every nation he who fears Him and works righteousness is accepted with Him.
I am having difficulty following the flow of your argument. If your overall point is that the ultimate point is that God is telling Peter that the Gentile are not “uncleanâ€Â, then I would heartily concur. But, and this what my last was all about (and whose content you really did not engage), this does not mean that, God is not also declaring the end of the kosher food laws. And what’s more – it is very declaration of the end of these laws that makes the point the Gentile should be considered “clean†by Peter.

You have not engaged the heart of my argument. To put it in a different form:

1. Background: The Jew would consider the Gentile unclean precisely because, among other things, the Gentile ate foods that the Jew considered to be unclean. Note how clearly the Levitical law endorses this idea:

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26'Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I (Z)have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.

The Jew would see the Gentile as unclean because, for example, he ate the “unclean†animals.

2. In Acts 10, Peter is told this in his vision: “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.â€Â

3. If, as I am claiming, Peter is being told that the food laws are being overturned, the very grounds on which he would have thought the Gentile to be unclean are being taken way – overturning the food laws is the perfect argument for the broader point that Gentiles are to be seen as unclean.

4. By contrast, the last thing God would want to do to make Peter see the Gentile as clean is to implicitly endorse the food laws – these laws are the very basis for seeing the Gentile as an unclean outsider. So to keep those laws intact would send the opposite message from the one that the Gentile is to be seen as clean.
 
Sparrowhawke said:
follower of Christ said:
Pardon my correcting you here but the part you bolded -AND- underlined cannot be found in the Greek at all.
Id be interested in seeing the evidence for this statement as MY resources show that that it is in the greek text itself.
No problem. Would the GNT suffice? BTW, what "sources" are you referring to exactly? I'd like the opportunity to prove myself wrong, if possible.
Hi again :)
Firstly the English Majority Text version that is based on the GMTs instead of the TR shows that the passage contains the text in question.
The EMT society did their best to stay true to the GMTs so if its there I personally believe they had a good reason to include it.
because it does not enter into his heart but into the stomach, and passes into the latrine, thus purifying all foods?"
(Mark 7:19 EMTV)
The TR (Textus Receptus) includes the Johannine Comma which the GMT's do not support, so that the EMTV does not contain the Comma shows evidence that this particular version is more true to the ACTUAL GMT's than even the KJV is.

Secondly my Interlinear also contains the text, I'll have to see what manuscripts are being used for those.

Thirdly, the comment by Jesus isnt just in Mark. A similar statement is also in Matthew
Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach, and is cast out into a latrine? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man.
(Matthew 15:17-18 EMTV)
There was a preoccupation with 'cleanness' with the Jews because of the cleanness and ritual laws, for certain...its VERY peculiar that Jesus would make such a statement about nothing we take into our bodies defiles it (makes it 'unclean') if He were not talking about foods.
The 'thus purifying all foods' is simply a conclusion of common sense given what Jesus said.

:)
 
Drew said:
Sparrowhawke said:
Remember also what Ezekiel said when he was ordered by the Lord to cook his food on human excrement? "No so, Lord...
I do not see the relevance of the Ezekiel material. Perhaps you can more clearly explain specifically how this material bears on the interpretation of what is happening in Acts 10.
Sparrowhawke said:
Later, Peter said:
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said, Truly I see that God is no respecter of persons;
Act 10:35 but in every nation he who fears Him and works righteousness is accepted with Him.
I am having difficulty following the flow of your argument. If your overall point is that the ultimate point is that God is telling Peter that the Gentile are not “uncleanâ€Â, then I would heartily concur. But, and this what my last was all about (and whose content you really did not engage), this does not mean that, God is not also declaring the end of the kosher food laws. And what’s more – it is very declaration of the end of these laws that makes the point the Gentile should be considered “clean†by Peter.

You have not engaged the heart of my argument. To put it in a different form:

1. Background: The Jew would consider the Gentile unclean precisely because, among other things, the Gentile ate foods that the Jew considered to be unclean. Note how clearly the Levitical law endorses this idea:

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26'Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I (Z)have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.

The Jew would see the Gentile as unclean because, for example, he ate the “unclean†animals.

2. In Acts 10, Peter is told this in his vision: “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.â€Â

3. If, as I am claiming, Peter is being told that the food laws are being overturned, the very grounds on which he would have thought the Gentile to be unclean are being taken way – overturning the food laws is the perfect argument for the broader point that Gentiles are to be seen as unclean.

4. By contrast, the last thing God would want to do to make Peter see the Gentile as clean is to implicitly endorse the food laws – these laws are the very basis for seeing the Gentile as an unclean outsider. So to keep those laws intact would send the opposite message from the one that the Gentile is to be seen as clean.


1 Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

God didn't create all meats to be received. Peter didn't eat the unclean things on the sheet for they were not cleansed by God...Gentiles that love Him are cleansed and are to be received.
 
whirlwind said:
God didn't create all meats to be received. Peter didn't eat the unclean things on the sheet for they were not cleansed by God...Gentiles that love Him are cleansed and are to be received.
You, likewise are not engaging the argument. You are simply stating a position. As I believe I have argued in detail, the very argument that God is using to convince Peter that the Gentiles are to be received is that their food-eating behaviours no longer make them unclean because the food laws have been overturned. The voice tells him this directly:

What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.

Notice the "no longer" phrasing - what was indeed once unholy is now no longer unholy. How can this be?" Only by overturning the food laws.

I trust that no one is thinking like this:

1. God's main point is that the Gentiles are to be considered clean;
2. Therefore God cannot be saying that all foods are considered clean.

The error in this kind of thinking is clear.

I will get to your Timothy passage shortly.
 
I am not entirely sure what whirlwind's point is in respect to the 1 Timothy passage. Here it is in context:

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;

Paul is clearly criticizing those who advocate for restrictions on what can be eaten. Paul would only say such a thing if he believed the kosher food laws have been overturned.

You seem to be reading the qualifier "which God has created to be gratefully shared" as if it implies that the family of all foods is comprised by a subset which are clean and a subset which are not. That is a possible reading if the the sentence is taken in isolation. But this is not what Paul means and the sentence need not be taken as implying such a distinction - it can be read as saying that all foods are "created to be gratefully shared". We know that Paul thinks all foods were created as acceptable to eat - "For everything created by God is good".
 
Drew said:
whirlwind said:
God didn't create all meats to be received. Peter didn't eat the unclean things on the sheet for they were not cleansed by God...Gentiles that love Him are cleansed and are to be received.
You, likewise are not engaging the argument. You are simply stating a position. As I believe I have argued in detail, the very argument that God is using to convince Peter that the Gentiles are to be received is that their food-eating behaviours no longer make them unclean because the food laws have been overturned. The voice tells him this directly:

What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.

Notice the "no longer" phrasing - what was indeed once unholy is now no longer unholy. How can this be?" Only by overturning the food laws.

I trust that no one is thinking like this:

1. God's main point is that the Gentiles are to be considered clean;
2. Therefore God cannot be saying that all foods are considered clean.

The error in this kind of thinking is clear.

I will get to your Timothy passage shortly.

There is no need to engage in your argument. The verse I quoted deals with the food laws. Some foods He created to be consumed and others...not to be. The lesson with Peter had nothing to do with cleaning those unclean foods. And, all the arguments in the world won't change that for the food laws have not been overturned.
 
whirlwind said:
There is no need to engage in your argument. The verse I quoted deals with the food laws. Some foods He created to be consumed and others...not to be. The lesson with Peter had nothing to do with cleaning those unclean foods. And, all the arguments in the world won't change that for the food laws have not been overturned.
I amended my previous post - the 1 Timothy passage is not drawing any kind of distinction between foods as if there is a "clean" set of foods and an "unclean" set of foods. Paul is quite clear - all foods were created clean and are acceptable:

For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected

You have not demonstrated that the 1 Timothy passage suggests that some foods are not to be consumed. I think I know what you are thinking - you are thinking that if there are foods that are to be gratefully received, then there must be other foods which are not.

That is not correct and here is why: The context is one where the reader is aware of the kosher laws. So when Paul says criticizes those who advocate "abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared", the reader would understand this as a specific reference to the foods prohibited by the kosher laws. Paul would not need to comment on the foods already considered to be clean. So Paul is saying that is these hitherto forbidden foods that are clean. And the cleanness of the other foods was never in question in the first place. So Paul clearly considers all foods to be clean.

Think of it this way. Suppose I believed that it was wrong to marry a Latino woman but that it was ok to marry a woman of any other race. Someone who wanted to challenge my view might write this:

"do not reject from consideration women who are acceptable for you to marry"

Does this mean that there are women who are not acceptable for me to marry. Not necessarily. That is a possible reading. but if the writer went on to say “all women created by God are acceptable to marry†(analogous to what Paul says in verse 4 about all foods
), then it would become clear that the intent was to challenge my belief about marrying Latinos.

And if you want your position to be sustained, you simply cannot abstain from engaging competing arguments. You have not engaged my Acts 10 argument and you need to if your position is to be upheld.
 
Back
Top