Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't eat pork or products made from it. I saw a documentary on animals used in medical research, and learned that tissues, blood, and organs from pigs are used a lot due to the similarity to people. Not to mention that cannibals report that human flesh is similar in taste to pork. I just can't eat the stuff.
He had a dream, NOBODY has changed the dietary law, and those disciples DID NOT eat unclean food, it isn't what you put in your mouth, but Jesus did not change the laws of clean amd unclean animals, it was only to teach of what the law really pointed to.
Of course, everyone sees the law as if it is some burdensome thing about what you can do and what you can't do, in truth, in fact, it is a marriage contract and it reveals great secrets to the person who knows it.
Mark 7. 17 After 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 person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Unless you say that this was a later gloss in order to make Jesus reject dietary laws (in which case, can't dismiss anything we don't like as a 'gloss'?) it is unequivocal - Jesus said that no foods are unclean.
That of course raises the question of what is 'food'. It may fall apart under questioning but the purport is clear; Paulinist Christians were having Jesus toss the Jewish ritual Laws out of the window as with the Sabbath and 'many other things'. The miserable apologetic excuses about Jesus was just objecting to ritual washing of hands is lying garbage. This is discarding Jewish rules on Kashrut because the Christians were damned if Jewish teachers of the law were going to put their god off limits to anyone who ate prawn cocktail.
I don't eat pork or products made from it. I saw a documentary on animals used in medical research, and learned that tissues, blood, and organs from pigs are used a lot due to the similarity to people. Not to mention that cannibals report that human flesh is similar in taste to pork. I just can't eat the stuff.
Mark 7. 17 After 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 person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Unless you say that this was a later gloss in order to make Jesus reject dietary laws (in which case, can't dismiss anything we don't like as a 'gloss'?) it is unequivocal - Jesus said that no foods are unclean.
That of course raises the question of what is 'food'. It may fall apart under questioning but the purport is clear; Paulinist Christians were having Jesus toss the Jewish ritual Laws out of the window as with the Sabbath and 'many other things'. The miserable apologetic excuses about Jesus was just objecting to ritual washing of hands is lying garbage. This is discarding Jewish rules on Kashrut because the Christians were damned if Jewish teachers of the law were going to put their god off limits to anyone who ate prawn cocktail.
No Trans, they DID NOT toss the dietary laws, they showed what dietary laws symbolised but NONE of those disciples started eating unclean foods, they were forbidden to eat unclean foods, there was a council formed in Acts just to see if Gentiles should keep all the laws as Jews CONTINUED TO KEEP, not only that, there are thousands of Jewish believers in Christ who came up ALL OF THEM even more zealous to keep the law. What Paul said to Gentile converts had no effect over Jews keeping the laws, and if Jesus of Paul or any of the disciples even insinuated that any Jew should not keep any law, than that person was a traitor to his people, a false prophet deserving death, and we have everything Jesus said of the law and those who disrespected the law, he casts those people into the outer darkness because of their disrespect of the law and tells us plain out that whoever will not keep the laws to then teach others not to keep the laws will be the least in the kingdom of heaven and anyone who keeps the laws and teaches others to keep the laws would be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus didn't ever teach Jews not to keep the laws, and neither did Paul, liars were paid to say Stephen was teavhing Jews not to keep the laws, but they WERE LIARS, and their lie killed Stephen. LIARS and people telling rumors about Paul had Paul proving his innocence of those lies and rumors in Acts 21 where Paul goes WAY OUT OF HIS WAY GO PROVE HE STILL KEPT ALL THE LAWS AND THAT HE NEVER TAUGHT ANY JEWS NOT TO KEEP THE LAWS.
At no time did they ever eat unclean food Trans, and for Jesus or anyone else to show a deeper meaning of any of the laws, does not cancel out any law.
That is your imaginatiin.
Last edited by Hannibal Flavius; 12-17-2019 at 01:20 PM..
No Trans, they DID NOT toss the dietary laws, they showed what dietary laws symbolised but NONE of those disciples started eating unclean foods, they were forbidden to eat unclean foods, there was a council formed in Acts just to see if Gentiles should keep all the laws as Jews CONTINUED TO KEEP, not only that, there are thousands of Jewish believers in Christ who came up ALL OF THEM even more zealous to keep the law. What Paul said to Gentile converts had no effect over Jews keeping the laws, and if Jesus of Paul or any of the disciples even insinuated that any Jew should not keep any law, than that person was a traitor to his people, a false prophet deserving death, and we have everything Jesus said of the law and those who disrespected the law, he casts those people into the outer darkness because of their disrespect of the law and tells us plain out that whoever will not keep the laws to then teach others not to keep the laws will be the least in the kingdom of heaven and anyone who keeps the laws and teaches others to keep the laws would be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus didn't ever teach Jews not to keep the laws, and neither did Paul, liars were paid to say Stephen was teavhing Jews not to keep the laws, but they WERE LIARS, and their lie killed Stephen. LIARS and people telling rumors about Paul had Paul proving his innocence of those lies and rumors in Acts 21 where Paul goes WAY OUT OF HIS WAY GO PROVE HE STILL KEPT ALL THE LAWS AND THAT HE NEVER TAUGHT ANY JEWS NOT TO KEEP THE LAWS.
At no time did they ever eat unclean food Trans, and for Jesus or anyone else to show a deeper meaning of any of the laws, does not cancel out any law.
That is your imaginatiin.
You are right, but you are wrong. Paul makes it look very much like he is trying to sell his brand of Judaism for Gentiles which does not require kosher food, let alone circumcision. And Acts seems very clearly based on the idea that the disciples were not only sited in Jerusalem (as opposed to Mathew's supposed order to make disciples of all nations), Acts has Paul plead his case, with peter acting as his advocate and James pretty much finding for Paul and telling the 'Jews of the circumcision' to go hang.
Bearing in mind that Acts shows Peter shows clear indication of never having eaten clean foods some time after Jesus had supposedly returned for a 40 day lecture -course, I can understand why you argue that Jesus couldn't have been teaching the disciples to sideline such laws.
It is easy to explain If you suppose that Paulinist Christians wrote the Gospels which would of course put in Jesus' mouth the Paulinist view that all foods were clean (which Mark expressly says was the teaching) and that the sabbath didn't matter.
It wasn't until Luke became aware of Paul's letters that he realised (along with the fact that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem and didn't go to convert other nations) that the disciples were still practising observant Jews.
I know that he tweaked the resurrection so that the disciples could stay in Jerusalem. I would also guess that he tweaked this 'clean foods' teaching to make it as you say, not an order to give up kashrut. I'll have a look.
Mark7. 17 After 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 person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
This is clear, even though the KJV version i looked at omitted the parenthetical explanation. Though the argument of the Pharisees was about ritual cleanliness it is used here to teach that all foods are clean. If they weren't Jesus would not have said that nothing that foes in can defile (which is of course nonsense, but nobody says that Paulinist doctrine had to make sense)
The equivalent in Matthew is somewhat different and in a different place - Mark puts it before the feeding of 5,000 but Matthew put it after the temple cleansing.
Matthew 23 .23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. 24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and [l]self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.
So it falls to Luke to say which is right, and I already said that Luke might be embarrassed by the clean fool rule which was evidently still in place when Jesus had abrogated it.
Luke 11 37 When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. 38 But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.
39 Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.
42 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.
That is very interesting. It is clearly what Matthew transported to the temple as Matthew also has the stuff about tithing, but Luke shifts it from Galilee to be one of the teachings on the way to Peraea as well as putting it in a setting of a dinnertime discussion with a Pharisee. But he endorses Mark - everything is clean for you. Though it is giving money to the church...sorry, 'The poor' that will make everything clean, not good behavior as in Mark.
So Mark's clean food message seems to be the correct one and Matthew is the one who seems to have dropped it and made it an analogy of internal righteousness.
It isn't quite what i expected from Luke, but it means that the 'clean foods' reading is correct and Not my 'imagination'.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-18-2019 at 06:38 AM..
You are right, but you are wrong. Paul makes it look very much like he is trying to sell his brand of Judaism for Gentiles which does not require kosher food, let alone circumcision. And Acts seems very clearly based on the idea that the disciples were not only sited in Jerusalem (as opposed to Mathew's supposed order to make disciples of all nations), Acts has Paul plead his case, with peter acting as his advocate and James pretty much finding for Paul and telling the 'Jews of the circumcision' to go hang.
Bearing in mind that Acts shows Peter shows clear indication of never having eaten clean foods some time after Jesus had supposedly returned for a 40 day lecture -course, I can understand why you argue that Jesus couldn't have been teaching the disciples to sideline such laws.
It is easy to explain If you suppose that Paulinist Christians wrote the Gospels which would of course put in Jesus' mouth the Paulinist view that all foods were clean (which Mark expressly says was the teaching) and that the sabbath didn't matter.
It wasn't until Luke became aware of Paul's letters that he realised (along with the fact that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem and didn't go to convert other nations) that the disciples were still practising observant Jews.
I know that he tweaked the resurrection so that the disciples could stay in Jerusalem. I would also guess that he tweaked this 'clean foods' teaching to make it as you say, not an order to give up kashrut. I'll have a look.
Mark7. 17 After 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 person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
This is clear, even though the KJV version i looked at omitted the parenthetical explanation. Though the argument of the Pharisees was about ritual cleanliness it is used here to teach that all foods are clean. If they weren't Jesus would not have said that nothing that foes in can defile (which is of course nonsense, but nobody says that Paulinist doctrine had to make sense)
The equivalent in Matthew is somewhat different and in a different place - Mark puts it before the feeding of 5,000 but Matthew put it after the temple cleansing.
Matthew 23 .23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. 24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and [l]self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.
So it falls to Luke to say which is right, and I already said that Luke might be embarrassed by the clean fool rule which was evidently still in place when Jesus had abrogated it.
Luke 11 37 When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. 38 But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.
39 Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.
42 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.
That is very interesting. It is clearly what Matthew transported to the temple as Matthew also has the stuff about tithing, but Luke shifts it from Galilee to be one of the teachings on the way to Peraea as well as putting it in a setting of a dinnertime discussion with a Pharisee. But he endorses Mark - everything is clean for you. Though it is giving money to the church...sorry, 'The poor' that will make everything clean, not good behavior as in Mark.
So Mark's clean food message seems to be the correct one and Matthew is the one who seems to have dropped it and made it an analogy of internal righteousness.
It isn't quite what i expected from Luke, but it means that the 'clean foods' reading is correct and Not my 'imagination'.
If one begins with the facts, the facts is that Gentiles converted to Judaism, and to begin reading the New Testament in any other foundation will never work. You can't fit modern Christianity within the first Christians converting to Judaism, you can onlt begin reading thd New Testament in the fact that it was a sect of Judaism. You can't place 'awlessness and paganism into the first Christian church. It WaS A GIVEN that Gentiles converted to Judaism.
A person needs to ask himsel in what year Christianity left Judaism and became pagan, the first Christianity accepted the Passover lamb, the Sukkot bull, and then trying to pervert Pagan ho,y days in to Judaism cannot work. It was a GIVEN that Gentiles converted to Judaism, and years and years later, Christianity went back to lawless and paganism, and they try and fit this into the sect of Judaism.
Christians have a need to invalidate Judaism, the religion Jesus practiced.
If one begins with the facts, the facts is that Gentiles converted to Judaism, and to begin reading the New Testament in any other foundation will never work. You can't fit modern Christianity within the first Christians converting to Judaism, you can onlt begin reading thd New Testament in the fact that it was a sect of Judaism. You can't place lawlessness and paganism into the first Christian church. It WaS A GIVEN that Gentiles converted to Judaism.
A person needs to ask himsel in what year Christianity left Judaism and became pagan, the first Christianity accepted the Passover lamb, the Sukkot bull, and then trying to pervert Pagan ho,y days in to Judaism cannot work. It was a GIVEN that Gentiles converted to Judaism, and years and years later, Christianity went back to lawless and paganism, and they try and fit this into the sect of Judaism.
Christians have a need to invalidate Judaism, the religion Jesus practiced.
Gentiles who converted to Judaism were a different kettle of fish from Pauline Christians. Paul rather more converted Judaism to the Gentiles and Gentiles is what they were and remain. They were not Jews any more than they are now. 'Lawlessness' in both the sense of the Jewish law (and, it seems, any others) is what Paul taught them and this is what caused his dispute (as i understand it) with the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem.
I agree that some Jewish idea were borrowed and (later) applied to Jesus, like the sacrificial lamb idea. That still does not make it a 'given' that Pauline Christians were anything but Gentiles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
