Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 96 (8884 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 01-20-2019 10:58 PM
194 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 193 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 846,042 Year: 1,079/19,786 Month: 1,079/1,731 Week: 59/377 Day: 59/75 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Did Jesus Declare All Food Clean?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 60 (608746)
03-13-2011 6:49 AM


In Jesus: A Profile, Alan Watson argues that, contrary to popular translations, Mark 7:19 does not actually say that Jesus declared all foods clean, and that Jesus most certainly never made such a declaration.

For the technical aspects of the argument, Watson makes mention of a translation difficulty with the text in Mark 7:19 that supposedly states Jesus to have declared all foods clean. The verses in question are these (since translation differences are important, I've included two translations for comparison and italicized the significant parts):

quote:
Mark 7:1819 (NRSV):

He said to them, 'Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?' (Thus he declared all foods clean.)


quote:
Mark 7:1819 (KJV):

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 his belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?


According to Watson, the KJV translation is to be seen as more accurate, as he says:

quote:
Watson in Jesus: A Profile (1998):

Even more to the point, Mark 7:19 does not in fact say, "Thus he declared all foods clean." The Greek καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα contains nothing akin to "he declared." The problem emerges clearly when we look at the discussion by C. S. Mann. He translates, "So (by saying this) he declared all things clean." But he candidly admits to a difficulty: "But the translation we have given depends upon supplying 'by saying this.'" But any such interpretation is impossible in the absence of something like "he declared" or "by saying this"and there is no justification for their addition. The Greek that I have quoted is better translated literally, "purging all meats," as in the King James Version: [quoted above]. The text is dealing with the physical effects: what is eaten is purged by the body. Still, whether one takes as the correct reading καθαρίζον or καθαρίζων "purging," the phrase cannot properly be constructed. (pp. 6465)


Thus, from the text, the part of Mark 7:19 translated in the NRSV as '(Thus he declared all foods clean)' is difficult to reconstruct as an actual declaration of the cleanness of all foods; and even when so translated, the words are far from attributable to Jesus himself.1

For the theological and textual interpretative aspect of the argument, we can look to a few facts brought up by Watson:

  • Jesus never otherwise makes a pronouncement directly against God's law as set out in Scripture.
  • Such a teaching by Jesus would have caused a sensation not mentioned or recorded.
  • Along with the rest of the related passage (i.e, 7:1415) Jesus appears not to be declaring as clean food of a species declared unclean by God, but only declaring that food of a clean species did not become unclean by contamination (the teaching was spurred, after all, by a question on hand washing).
  • Jesus' supposed declaration is never cited or mentioned in the early debates between Jewish and Gentile Christians over food laws.

These points, along with the problematic translations, seem to weaken the position that Jesus did in fact declare all foods clean. All together, it certainly leaves the matter open to ask the question: did Jesus really declare all foods clean?

Jon
__________
1 Regarding the quibble over καθαρίζον or καθαρίζων, I know nothing of Greek; the presence of anyone who could explain that specific would be greatly welcomed in this thread!
__________
Watson, A. (1998) Jesus: A Profile. Georgia: UGP.

Edited by Jon, : Edit to fix signature glitch...

Edited by Jon, : Fixed broken link...


Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by purpledawn, posted 03-14-2011 7:49 AM Jon has responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 60 (608748)
03-13-2011 10:12 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Did Jesus Declare All Food Clean? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1473 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 3 of 60 (608826)
03-14-2011 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
03-13-2011 6:49 AM


Not From Jesus
quote:
These points, along with the problematic translations, seem to weaken the position that Jesus did in fact declare all foods clean. All together, it certainly leaves the matter open to ask the question: did Jesus really declare all foods clean?
No. I agree with Watson, that Jesus was addressing the issue of hand washing before eating.

IMO, that added statement shows that the author of Mark didn't know Jesus or the disciples.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 03-13-2011 6:49 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 03-14-2011 1:56 PM purpledawn has responded
 Message 15 by candle2, posted 01-10-2019 10:42 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 60 (608844)
03-14-2011 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by purpledawn
03-14-2011 7:49 AM


Re: Not From Jesus
IMO, that added statement shows that the author of Mark didn't know Jesus or the disciples.

While it is likely true that the author of Mark did not know Jesus or the disciples, I am not sure that the 'added statement' is the best proof of that. As Watson points out, the instance of the phrase that we have in modern translations such as the NRSV is likely a highly corrupted and interpretative translation of the original Greek. The KJV translation, according to Watson, captures what he believes to be the most likely meaning of the phrase, it being little more than a tag-along statement to Jesus' previous 'empties into the sewer' comment.

Either way, if Jesus never declared all foods clean, is it likely that he would have required observation of the Jewish food laws by his followers?

Jon


Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by purpledawn, posted 03-14-2011 7:49 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by purpledawn, posted 03-15-2011 7:25 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1473 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 5 of 60 (608915)
03-15-2011 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jon
03-14-2011 1:56 PM


Re: Not From Jesus
quote:
While it is likely true that the author of Mark did not know Jesus or the disciples, I am not sure that the 'added statement' is the best proof of that.
Didn't say it was the best proof. It is just one of many.

When we look at the same story in Matthew, we see the author made it clear that the issue of the discussion was hand washing.

Matthew 15:20
"...These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'"

quote:
Either way, if Jesus never declared all foods clean, is it likely that he would have required observation of the Jewish food laws by his followers?
As I understand it, his followers did follow the food laws. From the book "a History of Christianity" by Kenneth Scott Latourette, 1953.

To their neighbors these early followers of Jesus, for they did not yet bear the distinctive designation of Christian, must have appeared another sect of Judaism, predominantly Galilean in membership, distinguished from other Jews by their belief that Jesus was the Messiah and by their expectation of the early return of their Lord. Their leader, James, appears to have been especially conservative in his loyalty to Jewish customs. They continued to use the temple as a place of worship and observed the Jewish law, including its ceremonies, circumcision, and the dietary regulations. Even some of the pharisees joined them. So far as we know, their numbers were recruited entirely from Jews and proselytes to Judaism.

We also see in Acts 15 that the decision was made not to require that Gentiles follow the laws of Moses except for what they listed in verse 29. Even in that debate, no mention of Jesus doing away with the food laws for Jewish followers.

I understand what you saying about the translation issue. The idea of clean and unclean had several levels of meaning. I think the comment purging all meats/foods referred to removing them from the system not declaring the food laws void.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 03-14-2011 1:56 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 6 of 60 (610106)
03-26-2011 11:15 AM


It seems that God told Peter in a symbol of the Gentiles that He had made all foods clean.


"But Peter said, By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common and unclean.

And a voice came to him again a second time: The things that God has cleansed, do not make common.

And this occured three times; and immediatley the vessel was taken up into heaven." (See Acts 10:10-16)

The vessel had been filled with "all the four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and birds of heaven." (v.12)

I have no doubt that the foods, in God's progressive revelation of His salvation, were symbolic of peoples even from Leviticus.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 03-26-2011 2:36 PM jaywill has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 60 (610120)
03-26-2011 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jaywill
03-26-2011 11:15 AM


I have no doubt that the foods, in God's progressive revelation of His salvation, were symbolic of peoples even from Leviticus.

Huh?

It seems that God told Peter in a symbol of the Gentiles that He had made all foods clean.


"But Peter said, By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common and unclean.

And a voice came to him again a second time: The things that God has cleansed, do not make common.

And this occured three times; and immediatley the vessel was taken up into heaven." (See Acts 10:10-16)

The vessel had been filled with "all the four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and birds of heaven." (v.12)

What does this have to do with whether or not Jesus declared all foods clean?

Jon


Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jaywill, posted 03-26-2011 11:15 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jaywill, posted 05-03-2011 12:30 PM Jon has responded

  
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 8 of 60 (614295)
05-03-2011 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jon
03-26-2011 2:36 PM


What does this have to do with whether or not Jesus declared all foods clean?

Jesus is God incarnate. He who has seen Him has seen the Father. He spoke the words of the Father and did the word of the Father and thoroughly expressed the Father.

And in this passage God told Peter to get over his past reluctance to eat "unclean" foods. (Acts 10:10-16)

Three times He (the Lord) told Peter.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 03-26-2011 2:36 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 05-03-2011 2:37 PM jaywill has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 60 (614328)
05-03-2011 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jaywill
05-03-2011 12:30 PM


Peter, Jesus, and God
And in this passage God told Peter to get over his past reluctance to eat "unclean" foods. (Acts 10:10-16)

It requires an extreme amount of interpretive liberty to conclude that this 'vision' records an act of God declaring all creatures clean to eat. It could certainly be interpreted in the same way that Jesus' words are interpreted, when he tells the crowd not to treat human traditions like commandments from God:

quote:
Mark 7:613 (NRSV):

He said to them, 'Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,
"This people honours me with their lips,
  but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
  teaching human precepts as doctrines."
You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.'

Then he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, "Honour your father and your mother"; and, "Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die." But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, "Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban" (that is, an offering to God) then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.'


And even more to the point, there is good reason to read this vision as having little to do with food and as supporting the notion that Jesus never declared all foods clean:

  • Peter's statement indicates that he likely never heard any declaration of unclean foods now being clean, making it unlikely that Jesus actually made such a declaration in Peter's presence.
  • Peter's own interpretation of the vision has nothing to do with foods, and he instead interprets it to mean that Jew and Gentile are equally open to receive 'repentance unto life' (Acts 11:18). He does not go out and eat a pig, and there is no indication that such behavior has been approved by God (certainly not Jesus) in this vision.

So there isn't a whole lot in this vision to grasp at as God (actually just a voice that Peter calls 'Lord', and refers to later as 'God') definitively declaring any and all creatures clean to eat. Peter seems to have no desire to eat unclean animals; he shows no indication of hearing something like this from Jesus; God doesn't seem to be telling Peter that all unclean things are clean (indeed, there are two Greek words here used to reference non-clean foods: one that references uncleanness and another that references commonnessa sort of 'cross contamination'and God only approves of eating things of the latter type, not of the former); and Peter does not interpret the vision as having much of anything to do with food, which is clear upon reading the passages that follow.

But, though I see little here for concluding that God, in this vision, declared unclean foods clean, even if God had declared all foods clean, what would that have to do with Jesus? (A question I asked already, to which you replied only with some apologetic nonsense.)

Jon

Edited by Jon, : clarity


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jaywill, posted 05-03-2011 12:30 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jaywill, posted 05-03-2011 5:28 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 10 of 60 (614345)
05-03-2011 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jon
05-03-2011 2:37 PM


Re: Peter, Jesus, and God
It requires an extreme amount of interpretive liberty to conclude that this 'vision' records an act of God declaring all creatures clean to eat. It could certainly be interpreted in the same way that Jesus' words are interpreted, when he tells the crowd not to treat human traditions like commandments from God:

I will have to read the response latter in detail.

But sure, if someone is trying to deduce from this that the Lord was wanting Peter to eat Cocaine or guzzle down whiskey from sun up to sun down, sure, that might be a stretch.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 05-03-2011 2:37 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
zhenghan1019 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 2519 days)
Posts: 5
From: , й
Joined: 11-25-2011


Message 11 of 60 (642125)
11-25-2011 9:11 PM


I really like that. You touched my heart!

---------------------------------
Green Bay Packers jersey

Edited by AdminModulous, : spam


    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1473 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 12 of 60 (656869)
03-22-2012 6:24 PM


Jesus Didn't Declare All Foods Clean
This is a more appropriate thread for this since you brought it up again.

Please show me clearly the Greek that supports this quote that in saying this Jesus declared all foods clean.

I've shown you that it isn't in the Greek. Mark 7:19 Greek

Jesus was Jewish. He didn't undo the food laws. Biblical Dietary Laws

Below you will find our argument at your fingertips.

GDR writes:

The Jews at the time of Christ had numerous food laws, primarily as detailed in Leviticus 11. Both Jesus and Paul rejected them which of course put them on the wrong side of Jewish leadership at the time. Jesus says this in Matthew 15.

quote:
8 " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'" 10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11 What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

Jesus isnt just saying that the rules are changing; He is saying that the original food laws from the OT were rules taught by men and that they were wrong.

Paul in Romans 14 writes:

quote:
14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

Message 251

PurpleDawn writes:

Jesus did not reject the food laws. In Matthew 15:1-20 as in Mark 7:1-23 Jesus was talking about hand washing before eating. It wasn't about what was being eaten. I don't think handing washing was in the laws given by God in the OT. Besides, the Book of Matthew may have been written as a satire. Message 1

Paul did not reject the food laws. Romans 14 is more than likely dealing with meat offered to idols. Some Jews stayed away from all meats for fear that it might have been offered to an idol. The Fence around the Torah was a better safe than sorry approach. So they wouldn't accidentally break any of the laws. I haven't found a law from God in the OT that says his people couldn't eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols. He just didn't want them worshiping idols.

Romans 14:1
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. NIV

Basically, eat and don't worry about everyone elses rituals/beliefs or lack thereof. He isn't doing away with the food laws.

Message 253


GDR writes:

purple dawn writes:

Jesus did not reject the food laws. In Matthew 15:1-20 as in Mark 7:1-23 Jesus was talking about hand washing before eating. It wasn't about what was being eaten. I don't think handing washing was in the laws given by God in the OT. Besides, the Book of Matthew may have been written as a satire. Message 1

Mark 7:

quote:
18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body."(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
(Emphasis mine)
Mark even clarifies it for us that Jesus is saying that all foods are clean.

purpledawn writes:

Paul did not reject the food laws. Romans 14 is more than likely dealing with meat offered to idols. Some Jews stayed away from all meats for fear that it might have been offered to an idol. The Fence around the Torah was a better safe than sorry approach. So they wouldn't accidentally break any of the laws. I haven't found a law from God in the OT that says his people couldn't eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols. He just didn't want them worshiping idols.

Here is more of Romans 14:

quote:
17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. 19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. 22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

The question of food that has been offered to idols is dealt with separately in Pauls letter to the Corinthians to deal with a specific question in that church. In his letter to the Romans it is clear that he is dealing with all food.

Message 254


PurpleDawn writes:

quote:
Mark even clarifies it for us that Jesus is saying that all foods are clean.
Unfortunately, since we are working with translations, it is difficult to read the stories as we do any other book. The translations aren't all the same. That's why when there seems to be a difference of opinion concerning the understanding, I like to dig a bit deeper into the translation and see if I'm missing something. Interlinear and Parallel Bibles are handy. I use Biblos.com.

Mark 7:19 Interlinear
The interlinear doesn't copy well, so you have to go to the link. Notice the words "purifying all the foods". The verse doesn't say that Jesus declared all foods clean.

Mark 7:19 Parallel
You can read the rest at the link.

Young's Literal Translation
because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.'

Young's Literal Translation goes along with the point of what Jesus is saying concerning hand washing. The body is going to get rid of anything it can't use for nutrition. IOW, dirt from your hands is not going to survive digestion.

In 1 Corinthians

The hand washing rituals were commanded by tradition, not the God of Abraham. What we see in the OT are more common sense cleanliness rules. (Leviticus 15)

Washing the Hands - Judaism
The rabbis of the Talmud derived the requirement of washing the hands as a consequence of the statement in Leviticus 15:11. The Talmud inferred the specific requirements of hand-washing from these passages.

The Jews seemed to have made excess rules out of fear as I mentioned in Message 253 concerning the "fence" around the Torah.

quote:
The question of food that has been offered to idols is dealt with separately in Pauls letter to the Corinthians to deal with a specific question in that church. In his letter to the Romans it is clear that he is dealing with all food.
But he isn't negating the food laws. Romans 14: Who Is The Weak Brother?

You're not showing me that my interpretation of passages is wrong. You're just repeating yourself. I'm not going to keep jumping through hoops as you add verses. You should have an understanding of how I read the Bible.

Message 255


PurpleDawn writes:

So we have to understand what they are telling their audience, not what we want to hear. Just like the food issue in Message 253 and Message 255. Neither Jesus nor Paul did away with the food laws. Jesus addressed a traditional ritual and Paul basically was trying to make it easier for Jews and Gentiles to eat together.

The early followers of Jesus still kept Jewish law.

To their neighbors these early followers of Jesus, for they did not yet bear the distinctive designation of Christian, must have appeared another sect of Judaism, predominantly Galilean in membership, distinguished from other Jews by their belief that Jesus was the Messiah and by their expectation of the early return of their Lord. Their leader, James, appears to have been especially conservative in his loyalty to Jewish customs. They continued to use the temple as a place of worship and observed the Jewish law, including its ceremonies, circumcision, and the dietary regulations. Even some of the pharisees joined them. So far as we know, their numbers were recruited entirely from Jews and proselytes to Judaism. --From the book "a History of Christianity" by Kenneth Scott Latourette, 1953.

Message 259


GDR writes:

OK so we dont agree about how that scripture is to be understood. I still maintain that both Paul and Jesus were very clear that the food laws were not in effect.

Message 260


PurpleDawn writes:

Since the Jewish followers still followed the Jewish laws it is clear that neither Jesus nor Paul did away with the Jewish food laws.

GDR writes:

But your arguments dont fit the text. Mark even goes so far as to make it crystal clear when he says, (as I quoted earlier), that in saying this Jesus declared all foods clean.

Message 269


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2012 7:07 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14634
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 13 of 60 (656879)
03-22-2012 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by purpledawn
03-22-2012 6:24 PM


Re: Jesus Didn't Declare All Foods Clean
quote:

Please show me clearly the Greek that supports this quote that in saying this Jesus declared all foods clean.

I've shown you that it isn't in the Greek. Mark 7:19 Greek


But that isn't entirely true, is it ? It isn't a word for word translation of the Greek, but we can see the words that it is translated from, which, word for word, say "purifying all the food", according to the page you cite.

Now, it certainly seems to me that this translation is possible, even plausible, and presumably it does to the people who actually carried out the translation.

So, it is disingenuous to claim that it isn't there. The issue is one of interpretation and correct translation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by purpledawn, posted 03-22-2012 6:24 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

    
rstrats
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 14 of 60 (775186)
12-29-2015 2:20 PM


Even if the parenthetical entry is authentic, I am not aware of any scripture that ever refers to unclean animals as food. Thus He could only be saying that clean animals would not be made unclean by eating with unwashed hands. However, as has been stated, the context of verses 1-20, has to do with the Pharisees practice of always washing their hands before eating. The subject is not clean and unclean animals, but unclean hands. The Messiah showed that unclean thoughts are the things that most defile a man, not just unwashed hands. After explaining that inner defilement of the mind is far worse than defilement of the body, the Messiah concluded: 19"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness blasphemies. 20"These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."

The Pharisees watched every word and movement that the Messiah made. They falsely accused Him of breaking the Sabbath, and claimed that He blasphemed when He said God was His Father John 5:18. But never did any Jew accuse the Messiah of eating, or advocating the eating of unclean animals.


  
candle2
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 15 of 60 (846689)
01-10-2019 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by purpledawn
03-14-2011 7:49 AM


Re: Not From Jesus
Unclean meat in the OT is from "tame." Tame refers to
meat that is continated or polluted, meat that was not designed by the Creator (Jesus) for human consumption

The majority of unclean meat is from scavengers; carnovores; birds of prey; and, bottom dwellers.

Shrimp, lobster, crab, catfish when placed in continated water can purify that
water, but the contaminates remain in them.

Hogs have up to 19 parasites. Hogs will eat anything and the poisons remain in
their bodies.

Noah was aware of the difference between animals designed to be consumed.
and animals that we're not. This was centuries before the first Jew (Judah).

The death of Jesus (the Creator) did not change the physiology of unclean
animals, nor did it alter their design purposes

Jesus and His followers never ate meat that was never designed to be eaten.

In the NT two words are used for unclean meat. Akathartos refers to meat that was never ddesigned to be eaten. Koinos refers to meat that is ceremonially
unclean. For example, meat that was used in idol worship, as was almost all
meat sold in the market place

Paul had no problem eating koinos meat because he knew that all meat belonged to God. However, he would not eat this meat if it offended someone
who was weak in the faith

In Col 2:16 the word meat is from "brosis.'' It means eating, not meat.

Also, hand washing for the Pharisees was ceremonially in nature. Hands had to be washed in a prescribed manner. The water had to run down the forearm and off the elbows in a specific manner. It had nothing to do with removing dirt


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by purpledawn, posted 03-14-2011 7:49 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

    
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019