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

[Sparkey]

I'm running a little long here on the writing of my dissertation - lol - gonna have to edit it for length.

In the meantime maybe I can interject something - I'm not under the law but under grace. The full law speaks of not coming into contact with a woman who is on her period. This is illustrated by when Jacob and Rachel fled Laban: "And she said to her father, Let it not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee; for the custom of women is upon me. And he searched, but found not the images.
And Jacob was wroth, and chode with Laban: and Jacob answered and said to Laban, What is my trespass? what is my sin, that thou hast so hotly pursued after me? (Gen 31:35-36)

Laban didn't want to become "unclean" by examining anything she may have come into contact with. Can we actually believe that the full law (and not the law written into our hearts) is in effect today? Only as my sister whirlwind says, these things are to be interpreted by their Spiritual meanings, or as Jesus said when he stated the whole of the law and the sum of the profits (prophets? - sorry sometimes my fingers don't type what my mind has commanded) in the two Great Commandments.

To summarize is not to overturn. Was Jesus a rebel? Or did he fully align himself to the only true authority? Jesus is the only man who fulfilled the entire law - he did not offend in any instance. It is thereby that the efficacy of his sacrifice is established. God so loved the world that He sent his ONLY begotten son, yes? He loved us so much that the Logos of God became sin for us for it is written that any who is hung from a tree is accursed. That is the offense. That is the transgression. The pure one became sin. And no, he didn't cheat by munching on pork rinds while reading the Tanakh when he was a "teenager" either.

• The Essenes forbade marriage and thought they were the "last generation of the last generations".[/*:m:31m9ocut]
• The Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection. They were of the Tribe of Levi and rejected the concept of the "Oral Torah" held by the Pharisees even before it was written.[/*:m:31m9ocut]
• The Pharisees thought their traditional acts and their expanded righteousness would compel the settling presence of the Lord (His Shekhinah Glory) to return to the temple.[/*:m:31m9ocut]
• The Scribes thought their knowledge of Scripture was the key.[/*:m:31m9ocut]
• Gnostics venerated the things of the mind and knowledge in general.[/*:m:31m9ocut]

John the baptist was purged of sin (as he followed the Holy Spirit) and chased after the strictest sense of the Law - having taken the vow of the Nazarite -- he clothed himself in the attire of the Prophets (because he was a prophet, not for deceptive purpose) and conformed himself to law found in Numbers 6:1-27 (and others). Jesus declared him to be the greatest but also in the same breath said that he was the least in the kingdom. We, those covered by the Grace of God and the blood of Christ Jesus are better adorned, better covered and our righteousness (the very righteousness of Christ) is greater too.

Question - was John the Baptist killed for petty reason?

Are we all on the same tree (ahhhh.... the same page) here? After that Thanksgiving dinner that I shared with my sister in the flesh - where I ate Turkey and she ate Ham - I spotted a cheese roll set out on some of her nicest crystal platters - so I cut myself a piece. I love cheese. It wasn't more than a second that it was in my mouth that I was grabbing a napkin and spitting it out. My sis came over (being a good hostess) and checked it out, "Oh! I am soooo sorry, I should have told you," she said, taking the blame onto herself. "That cheese roll has ham in it."

I had no clue why it tasted so funny - my mouth had been set to get some fancy cheese (maybe with wine in it too? -- the fancy kind) - and then my face broadcast my dilemma. I didn't want to spit it out but it had been years and years since I had last tasted any pork. No, I didn't say the word 'swine' to her either. Nor did I run about and caution everybody there, "Obey the Law!" "Spit ye out the cheese!"

If it is not sin for me to be a vegetarian, is it also not sin for John the Baptist to have refrained from eating meats (except 'clean' bugs)? --- I just got a call from one of my sons who will delay his coming over 'till about 4:00 my time. That's okay, I still have to do housework and shopping before he gets here - but I'll also find time to work on my promise to you guys.

~Sparrow

 

[follower of Christ]

It is not an abolition of the food laws. It has nothing to do with food laws.

Good grief.
Its astounding how clear the WHOLE range of relevant data is, yet some seem determined....almost blinded even...to reject that data.

It IS about FOODS.
Tell us, friend...WHAT IS IT that is taken INTO the body that Jesus is speaking about that DOESNT defile the man ?
Youre going to need to come up with something VERY good because FOODs are the only thing WE put into our bodies that Jesus could have been referring to ...

The context in Mark 7 is that the Pharisees were critical of Jesus' disciples because they ate food with unwashed hands. Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy and then explained that eating with unwashed hands (some dirt on the food) is not what defiles a man. This does not mean that all kinds of foods are are edible; some are poisonous. Others, such as pork, are declared to be an abomination to man, not because of any spiritual or symbolic reason but simply because the meat contained harmful ingredients (such as trichinosis spores).

And THAT was THEN.
God said nothing about spores but declared some foods 'unclean'.
It is no longer an issue because those ordinances were nail to His cross....

And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and He has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed principalities and powers, He mocked them in public, triumphing over them in it.
Therefore do not let anyone judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or of a new moon or of sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.
(Colossians 2:13-17 EMTV)

 

[Drew]

It is not an abolition of the food laws. It has nothing to do with food laws. The context in Mark 7 is that the Pharisees were critical of Jesus' disciples because they ate food with unwashed hands. Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy and then explained that eating with unwashed hands (some dirt on the food) is not what defiles a man.

An earlier post of mine directly addressed this. You cannot simply assume, in the presence of overwhelming evidence that Jesus in fact overturned the food laws, that he cannot have done so just because the discussion started with the issue of handwashing.

Let's suppose the issue was something else - such as clothing. Suppose the Torah said you cannot wear blue jeans. And supposes the Pharisees had added their own man-made laws that you cannot wear blue pants of any kind. Fine - Jesus might start out saying "you are adding laws of your own to the Torah".

But, if He then said this:

"Don't you see that nothing a man wears outside can make him 'unclean'"

.....He would be clearly overturning the law about the blue jeans.

You guys seem to think that if the conversation started with a particular issue, it has to stay on that particular issue. That is clearly not the way this conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees evolves.

 

[follower of Christ]

If it is not sin for me to be a vegetarian, is it also not sin for John the Baptist to have refrained from eating meats (except 'clean' bugs)? ---

Johns case is irrelevant.
John was born UNDER LAW, as was Jesus.

 

[follower of Christ]

An earlier post of mine directly addressed this. You cannot simply assume, in the presence of overwhelming evidence that Jesus in fact overturned the food laws, that he cannot have done so just because the discussion started with the issue of handwashing.

its the SAME exact type of nonsense in the 'fornication' debate.
SOME instances of 'fornication' occur where idolatry is being spoken of so apparently to some it seems like the brain shuts down and EVERY mention of abstaining of 'fornication' is ONLY meant as prohibiting sex during idol worship :crazy

Preposterous.
Just because the discussion STARTED wit handwashing, as you say, it doesnt mean that what Jesus SAID is invalid.

 

[follower of Christ]

The food laws were brought up to show a spiritual lesson...which you would appear to be missing here.

I never denied the teaching of a spiritual lesson, but the food laws were clearly abolished.

Precisely my point earlier.
Its like if it says ONE thing then it CANNOT say the other...entirely ridiculous.
Jesus is using the point that FOODS are no longer UNclean to show His point that it is the HEART...things that come from the INSIDE which defile the man.

 

[Drew]

The context in Mark 7 is that the Pharisees were critical of Jesus' disciples because they ate food with unwashed hands.

Imagine that Jane is talking to boyfriend Dick. She says "You know, I really do not like the way you dress". And then she says "In fact, I do not like anything about you - I am breaking up with you.

If we applied this "context" argument of yours, Dick could walk away thinking this: "Well, since the context our initial conversation was only about my clothing, she could not possibly have then broken up with, since that was not the context".

Do you not see the parallel?

 

[follower of Christ]

Was Jesus a rebel? Or did he fully align himself to the only true authority? Jesus is the only man who fulfilled the entire law - he did not offend in any instance.

Jesus was a JEW born UNDER the law.
His 'testament' would not be ratified until His death.

And on account of this He is the Mediator of the new covenant, so that, since a death has occurred for redemption of the transgressions at the time of the first covenant, that those having been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where there is a testament, there is necessity for death to be offered of the one making the testament. For a testament is valid over dead people, since it is never valid when the one making the testament lives. Therefore not even the first covenant has been dedicated without blood.
(Hebrews 9:15-18 EMTV)

John the baptist was purged of sin (as he followed the Holy Spirit) and chased after the strictest sense of the Law - having taken the vow of the Nazarite -- he clothed himself in the attire of the Prophets (because he was a prophet, not for deceptive purpose) and conformed himself to law found in Numbers 6:1-27 (and others). Jesus declared him to be the greatest but also in the same breath said that he was the least in the kingdom. We, those covered by the Grace of God and the blood of Christ Jesus are better adorned, better covered and our righteousness (the very righteousness of Christ) is greater too.

Like Jesus, John the baptist was a Jew born under law.
WE were not.

If it is not sin for me to be a vegetarian, is it also not sin for John the Baptist to have refrained from eating meats (except 'clean' bugs)? ---

see above.
The rules for John werent the same as for us today under this covenant as John was under law.

 

[Drew]

Only as my sister whirlwind says, these things are to be interpreted by their Spiritual meanings, or as Jesus said when he stated the whole of the law and the sum of the profits (prophets? - sorry sometimes my fingers don't type what my mind has commanded) in the two Great Commandments.

OK. I would not deny that we are still under the "spirit of the law"

To summarize is not to overturn.

This may be true as a general statement - one need not necessarily overturn something through the act of summarizing. But the food laws are clearly overturned in Mark 7. And besides, various translations do not use the word "sum":

NET: All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.â€Â

NASB: On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

NRSV: On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

In any event, even if we use the word "summed", this does not force us to have Jesus (here in Matthew 22) contradicting his clear overturning of the food laws in Mark 7. A sum is not the same thing as "collecting into a single set".

 

[lou11]

It is not an abolition of the food laws. It has nothing to do with food laws. The context in Mark 7 is that the Pharisees were critical of Jesus' disciples because they ate food with unwashed hands. Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy and then explained that eating with unwashed hands (some dirt on the food) is not what defiles a man.

An earlier post of mine directly addressed this. You cannot simply assume, in the presence of overwhelming evidence that Jesus in fact overturned the food laws, that he cannot have done so just because the discussion started with the issue of handwashing.

Let's suppose the issue was something else - such as clothing. Suppose the Torah said you cannot wear blue jeans. And supposes the Pharisees had added their own man-made laws that you cannot wear blue pants of any kind. Fine - Jesus might start out saying "you are adding laws of your own to the Torah".

But, if He then said this:

"Don't you see that nothing a man wears outside can make him 'unclean'"

.....He would be clearly overturning the law about the blue jeans.

You guys seem to think that if the conversation started with a particular issue, it has to stay on that particular issue. That is clearly not the way this conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees evolves.

OK, certainly the subject can change during a discourse but, without some indication or other justification to support the change, good exegesis says we should stick to the subject. Other than a predisposition to find passages that nullify the law, I don't see that you gave any support for such a change in this passage.

In fact, the subject matter flows quite smoothly from the disciples failing to wash their hands to the pharisees greater failure to obey the law to Jesus' telling them that one is defiled by the thoughts and intents of the heart, not by unwashed hands.

 

[Drew]

Was Jesus a rebel? Or did he fully align himself to the only true authority? Jesus is the only man who fulfilled the entire law - he did not offend in any instance.

This is simply not what the Scriptures say. In Matthew 12, Jesus violates the Sabbath (I know you will probably disagree). And in Mark 7 he abolishes the food laws. And he does other things that violate Torah - he has contact with impure people, etc. Jesus is not "sinning" in doing this any more than God sins when when He "steals" the land from the Philistines and gives it to the Jews. The commandment is "thou shalt not steal". Well, the Old Testament is chock full of examples where God orders the Jews to "steal" from the people whose land they invade. Same with "thou shalt not commit murder". The Jews are ordered by God to slaughter entire peoples - men, women, and children. Now there are a lot of things we could talk about in respect to this, but it is clear that God has the "authority" to act outside the dictates of Torah. So, as God in the flesh, Jesus has the right to abolish Torah.

Note how, in claiming to be able to forgive sins, Jesus is effectively breaking the Torah system with its precise and clearly specified prescriptions on how to atone for sin. So there really is no doubt - Jesus does not follow Torah - he violates it all over the place.

The point is that God, as God, and Jesus as God, are not bound to follow Torah. Torah was created by God and God has the authority to abolish it when its job has been done.

 

[follower of Christ]

The context in Mark 7 is that the Pharisees were critical of Jesus' disciples because they ate food with unwashed hands.

Imagine that Jane is talking to boyfriend Dick. She says "You know, I really do not like the way you dress". And then she says "In fact, I do not like anything about you - I am breaking up with you.

If we applied this "context" argument of yours, Dick could walk away thinking this: "Well, since the context our initial conversation was only about my clothing, she could not possibly have then broken up with, since that was not the context".

Do you not see the parallel?

Or like saying that because Romans 7 uses marriage in the first few verses that the CONTEXT itself is ABOUT marriage there in chapter 7.
It clearly is not.

 

[follower of Christ]

OK, certainly the subject can change during a discourse but, without some indication or other justification to support the change, good exegesis says we should stick to the subject. Other than a predisposition to find passages that nullify the law, I don't see that you gave any support for such a change in this passage.

do you mean unless the TEXT indicates or YOU indicate ....because the TEXT itself is VERY clearly speaking about things we take INTO our bodies....ie FOOD and DRINK

In fact, the subject matter flows quite smoothly from the disciples failing to wash their hands to the pharisees greater failure to obey the law to Jesus' telling them that one is defiled by the thoughts and intents of the heart, not by unwashed hands.

Why is it that you continue to use the unwashed hands thing when that ISNT ALL that is said there in those two parallel passages in Matthew and Mark ?

Unwashed hands do not defile AND anything (foods) we take into our bodies does not defile or Christ is a liar.


.

 

[Drew]

OK, certainly the subject can change during a discourse but, without some indication or other justification to support the change, good exegesis says we should stick to the subject.

But there is clear indication. What could be more clear than this:

After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man

I had not thought of this before, but note the pause - he calls the crowd to him again. And even if there were no pause, Jesus has clearly stated - twice in a row - that nothing you eat defiles you. And that is a direct challenge to the Levitical food laws.

In fact, the subject matter flows quite smoothly from the disciples failing to wash their hands to the pharisees greater failure to obey the law to Jesus' telling them that one is defiled by the thoughts and intents of the heart, not by unwashed hands.

The problem is that you have failed to account for this:

And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared (R)all foods (S)clean.)

What goes into the stomach and then down the drain? Food. How can there be any doubt about Jesus' intent - he says nothing - repeat nothing - that goes into the body defiles a man.

Does Jesus that only "things eaten with unwashed hands" do not defile?

No - He says nothing defiles.

 

[follower of Christ]

But there is clear indication. What could be more clear than this:

After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man

I had not thought of this before, but note the pause - he calls the crowd to him again. And even if there were no pause, Jesus has clearly stated - twice in a row - that nothing you eat defiles you. And that is a direct challenge to the Levitical food laws.

Excellent catch, Drew.
Im so busy today that I didnt even notice that part of the verse.
Fantastic point and that pretty much settles any argument about previous passage ruling over Christs words.

Then he called to the crowd again and said to them, "Listen to me, all of you, and understand! Nothing that goes into a person from the outside can make him unclean. It is what comes out of a person that makes a person unclean.
(Mark 7:14-15 ISV)


And calling near all the crowd, He said to them, Listen to Me, every one of you, and understand. There is nothing from outside a man which entering into him can defile him. But the things which come out of him, those are the ones that defile the man.
(Mark 7:14-15 MKJV)

VERY clearly the BEGINNING of a new passage rather than a continuation of the previous one...



.

 

[Drew]

Why is it that you continue to use the unwashed hands thing when that ISNT ALL that is said there in those two parallel passages in Matthew and Mark ?

I share your mystification at this. Imagine that I was talking with my doctor about the fact that my dog kisses me on the lips (even though I try to stop her). My doctor reassures me - there is no danger from this, dog saliva cannot make you sick.

And then, wait for it, he adds "In fact the saliva from no animal can make you sick" (assume this is true for the sake of the argument).

Imagine how absurd it would be for me to walk out of the office thinking "Well, since our conversation began on the subject of dog kisses, everyhing else in the conversation must have been about dog kisses".

If I were to think like that, I would have missed the obvious statement by my doctor that it is safe if any animal kisses me - orangutan, giraffe, goat, leapord, duck, whatever.

 

[follower of Christ]

This one is really becoming astounding.
Here is the passage and its VERY clear where this passage BEGINS and the NEXT begins...

And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: 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. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 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; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.
(Mark 7:14-24 KJV)

Heres Matthews account...

And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
(Matthew 15:10-21 KJV)

 

[Sparkey]

Was Jesus a rebel? Or did he fully align himself to the only true authority? Jesus is the only man who fulfilled the entire law - he did not offend in any instance.

This is simply not what the Scriptures say. In Matthew 12, Jesus violates the Sabbath (I know you will probably disagree). And in Mark 7 he abolishes the food laws. And he does other things that violate Torah - he has contact with impure people, etc. Jesus is not "sinning" in doing this any more than God sins when when He "steals" the land from the Philistines and gives it to the Jews. The commandment is "thou shalt not steal". Well, the Old Testament is chock full of examples where God orders the Jews to "steal" from the people whose land they invade. Same with "thou shalt not commit murder". The Jews are ordered by God to slaughter entire peoples - men, women, and children. Now there are a lot of things we could talk about in respect to this, but it is clear that God has the "authority" to act outside the dictates of Torah. So, as God in the flesh, Jesus has the right to abolish Torah.

Note how, in claiming to be able to forgive sins, Jesus is effectively breaking the Torah system with its precise and clearly specified prescriptions on how to atone for sin. So there really is no doubt - Jesus does not follow Torah - he violates it all over the place.

The point is that God, as God, and Jesus as God, are not bound to follow Torah. Torah was created by God and God has the authority to abolish it when its job has been done.

I will need to put on my hard hat (my hard-headedness) if you don't wish to understand me. Are you trying to say that Jesus was a sinner?

Don't answer - but consider. Did he actually "VIOLATE" the law? Did he "abolish" (substantially misinterpret) it?

Did Jesus speak to the Pharisees about the 5th commandment in Matthew 15? If he summarily abolished or dismissed or overturned the law - why did he mention honoring their father and mother - why did he cite the law when he said the word "death"? He skipped over the "promise" that honoring their father and mother would prolong their life - why?

Please take pains when you explain in length why our Lord abolished the 5th commandment and denied the Promise. Use the word "clearly" as often as you wish.

I do appreciate that some have said that he did not overturn the Spirit of the Law but I must insist that he did not overturn or attempt to overturn the law itself. He accused the Pharisees of doing this because they placed too much concern on the traditions of men - and not enough concern on the weightier matters of the law.

Consider that just as Jesus said that he was the True Mana that was given from heaven so are we eating sitting at his table and breaking bread with him even now. As we discuss the Logos of Adonai, we are sharing our meats together. This must needs be done in peace. --- Okay enough from me, I'll take off my hard-hat when you do.

~Sparrow

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

 

[lou11]

lou11 wrote:OK, certainly the subject can change during a discourse but, without some indication or other justification to support the change, good exegesis says we should stick to the subject.


But there is clear indication. What could be more clear than this:

After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man

I had not thought of this before, but note the pause - he calls the crowd to him again. And even if there were no pause, Jesus has clearly stated - twice in a row - that nothing you eat defiles you. And that is a direct challenge to the Levitical food laws.

Where is the clear indication of a transition? A pause?? Verse 15 is a reference to the disciples' eating with unwashed hands. One is not defiled by eating without washing or even by eating prohibited foods. Eating such foods unintentionally may damage him physically but it doesn't defile him. If intentional, he is defiled by the wickedness of disobedience that proceeds out of his heart. This is intended as a criticism of the pharisees. It is a continuation of what he said earlier about their hypocrisy. The defiling is not in the eating. It springs from the heart. The dietary law is not rescinded here.

 

[lou11]

But there is clear indication. What could be more clear than this:

After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man

I had not thought of this before, but note the pause - he calls the crowd to him again. And even if there were no pause, Jesus has clearly stated - twice in a row - that nothing you eat defiles you. And that is a direct challenge to the Levitical food laws.

Excellent catch, Drew.
Im so busy today that I didnt even notice that part of the verse.
Fantastic point and that pretty much settles any argument about previous passage ruling over Christs words.

[quote:15ydxr4r]Then he called to the crowd again and said to them, "Listen to me, all of you, and understand! Nothing that goes into a person from the outside can make him unclean. It is what comes out of a person that makes a person unclean.
(Mark 7:14-15 ISV)


And calling near all the crowd, He said to them, Listen to Me, every one of you, and understand. There is nothing from outside a man which entering into him can defile him. But the things which come out of him, those are the ones that defile the man.
(Mark 7:14-15 MKJV)

VERY clearly the BEGINNING of a new passage rather than a continuation of the previous one...

No, the Matthew account clearly shows that Mark 14, 15 refers back to verse 5: "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."

.[/quote:15ydxr4r]