Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Christ didn't do away with the dietary laws

shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 12:57:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Mt.15:1-20;Mk.7:5-23 Proves we're all defiled, and physical acts don't result in spiritual purification.

It has nothing to do with the dietary laws, nor does it do away with the dietary laws.

This chapter opens with the accusation of the Pharisees that Jesus' disciples are transgressing the tradition of the elders by eating with unwashed hands. Jesus responds that they have transgressed God's commandments by keeping their tradition. He states that they have made God's commandments ineffective by keeping their tradition. (vss. 3, 6)

So what does Jesus say defiles a man? In verse 11 he points out that it is what comes out of a man's mouth. He then elaborates on not only what comes out of a man's mouth, but where these things originate. "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:"

One thing that most people seem to overlook here is that murders, adulteries, fornications are not things that one does with one's mouth. He is speaking of what defiles a man, but not just in regards to words which come out of a man's mouth and defile him. Most commentator's agree that Jesus is pointing out that man is in an ontological state of defilement, and therefore there is effectively nothing one can do to defile themselves. Some them conclude that the commandments are therefore done away with, but this doesn't follow from Jesus' premises. In fact it makes no sense whatsoever to think Jesus would accuse the Pharisees of doing away with the commandments by their traditions to then do the exact same thing himself.

Jesus also points out that the digestive process takes what nourishment it can and discards the rest "into the draught". So we see the juxtaposition of man's fallen state of defilement and the digestive process both of which are essentially unchanged since the fall itself. So we see that washing hands won't remove spiritual defilement.

He then sums up, and concludes that "to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."

The parallel passage in Mark chapter 7 with only a slight difference. The food is shown to go into the belly, and after going into the draught, he says "purging all meats" (Mk.7:19). Some translators use the word "cleansing", or "eliminating" or some such similar word. Again this is simply showing the digestive process at work. The conclusion here is that defilement is from within again reinforcing this ontological state of defilement. Some translations change the text from indicating the digestive process to a pronouncement of cleanliness. Instead of saying "purging all meats", or "cleansing all foods", they say, "Thus he declared all food clean", or "Therefore he declared all foods clean."

The assumption is that those animals that were deemed unclean are now clean with this pronouncement. This statement doesn't follow from the preceding premises though. Christians have some sort of doctrine that they believe negates God's commandments forbidding the consumption of unclean animals, (Heb. "tame" filth, pollution). The big problem is that if that were the case it would be more accurate for the author to say "Thus he made all things food". This is because this idea that all food is clean makes no sense for the only time we see food being pronounced unclean is when it has gone bad or has been improperly slaughtered. Surely the author doesn't believe that it is now acceptable to eat food that has gone bad!

The assumption of whoever inserted these words into the text is that unclean animals, e.g. swine, catfish, shellfish etc. are now clean. That isn't what he says though. He says, "Thus he declared all food clean" as if swine, catfish, shellfish etc were considered food. This is completely foreign to scripture. None of these animals was considered food by God or Israel. The scribe who added this to the text redefined what God considers food simply by the fact that there were people who were eating it. When God sees his people eating garbage he doesn't call it food, he calls it an abomination.

Furthermore, the Greek word "katharizon", or "katharizei" means to purge, purify, cleanse, eliminate. There is nothing in the definition of the word that indicates a declaration, or pronouncement of any kind. The fact is that it isn't in the text to begin with.

There are some who claim that it is in the margins of the codex Bezae from the 4th century, and this may very well be the case, but the pictures which anyone can view online don't show these words in the text itself.

If washing can't remove defilement doing away with the dietary laws won't either.

If Christians think it acceptable to move the boundaries for the biblical definition of food, they should have no problem redefining the biblical boundaries for acceptable sexual activities...unless they're prone to hypocrisy, double standards,bigotry or an inability to think logically or critically.

Only Christ can cleanse anyone, and He doesn't do it by laying aside His own commandments.

If we were to make only a slight change to the text and substitute sex for food, it should become evident that this idea makes no sense.

"Then came together unto Him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they heard of his disciple whom had not performed the ceremonial cleansing after laying with his wife, they found fault. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why walk not Thy disciple according to the tradition of the elders, but refrain from washing after laying with his wife?". He answered and said to them, "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This People honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Hobeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' For laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men" .... And when He had called all of the people unto him, He said unto them, "Hearken unto Me every one of you and understand; There is nothing from without, that entering into can defile: but the things which come out, those are they that defile. Because it entereth not into one's heart, but is expelled during the time of separation,(Thus he declared all sexual activity clean)
For from within out of the heart 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, but to neglect washing does not defile." Mark chapter 7 NIPV (New Improved Pharisaic Version)

For those not familiar with the term "the time of separation" is referring to menstruation. So the logic is the same. The only difference is that we are substituting one cleanliness law for another one. We are substituting the menstrual process for the digestive process. The only thing that makes no sense in either of these narratives is the parenthetical declaration.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 5:06:09 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 12:57:45 AM, shnarkle wrote:
Mt.15:1-20;Mk.7:5-23 Proves we're all defiled, and physical acts don't result in spiritual purification.

It has nothing to do with the dietary laws, nor does it do away with the dietary laws.

This chapter opens with the accusation of the Pharisees that Jesus' disciples are transgressing the tradition of the elders by eating with unwashed hands. Jesus responds that they have transgressed God's commandments by keeping their tradition. He states that they have made God's commandments ineffective by keeping their tradition. (vss. 3, 6)

So what does Jesus say defiles a man? In verse 11 he points out that it is what comes out of a man's mouth. He then elaborates on not only what comes out of a man's mouth, but where these things originate. "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:"

One thing that most people seem to overlook here is that murders, adulteries, fornications are not things that one does with one's mouth. He is speaking of what defiles a man, but not just in regards to words which come out of a man's mouth and defile him. Most commentator's agree that Jesus is pointing out that man is in an ontological state of defilement, and therefore there is effectively nothing one can do to defile themselves. Some them conclude that the commandments are therefore done away with, but this doesn't follow from Jesus' premises. In fact it makes no sense whatsoever to think Jesus would accuse the Pharisees of doing away with the commandments by their traditions to then do the exact same thing himself.

Jesus also points out that the digestive process takes what nourishment it can and discards the rest "into the draught". So we see the juxtaposition of man's fallen state of defilement and the digestive process both of which are essentially unchanged since the fall itself. So we see that washing hands won't remove spiritual defilement.

He then sums up, and concludes that "to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."

The parallel passage in Mark chapter 7 with only a slight difference. The food is shown to go into the belly, and after going into the draught, he says "purging all meats" (Mk.7:19). Some translators use the word "cleansing", or "eliminating" or some such similar word. Again this is simply showing the digestive process at work. The conclusion here is that defilement is from within again reinforcing this ontological state of defilement. Some translations change the text from indicating the digestive process to a pronouncement of cleanliness. Instead of saying "purging all meats", or "cleansing all foods", they say, "Thus he declared all food clean", or "Therefore he declared all foods clean."

The assumption is that those animals that were deemed unclean are now clean with this pronouncement. This statement doesn't follow from the preceding premises though. Christians have some sort of doctrine that they believe negates God's commandments forbidding the consumption of unclean animals, (Heb. "tame" filth, pollution). The big problem is that if that were the case it would be more accurate for the author to say "Thus he made all things food". This is because this idea that all food is clean makes no sense for the only time we see food being pronounced unclean is when it has gone bad or has been improperly slaughtered. Surely the author doesn't believe that it is now acceptable to eat food that has gone bad!

The assumption of whoever inserted these words into the text is that unclean animals, e.g. swine, catfish, shellfish etc. are now clean. That isn't what he says though. He says, "Thus he declared all food clean" as if swine, catfish, shellfish etc were considered food. This is completely foreign to scripture. None of these animals was considered food by God or Israel. The scribe who added this to the text redefined what God considers food simply by the fact that there were people who were eating it. When God sees his people eating garbage he doesn't call it food, he calls it an abomination.

Furthermore, the Greek word "katharizon", or "katharizei" means to purge, purify, cleanse, eliminate. There is nothing in the definition of the word that indicates a declaration, or pronouncement of any kind. The fact is that it isn't in the text to begin with.

There are some who claim that it is in the margins of the codex Bezae from the 4th century, and this may very well be the case, but the pictures which anyone can view online don't show these words in the text itself.

If washing can't remove defilement doing away with the dietary laws won't either.

If Christians think it acceptable to move the boundaries for the biblical definition of food, they should have no problem redefining the biblical boundaries for acceptable sexual activities...unless they're prone to hypocrisy, double standards,bigotry or an inability to think logically or critically.

Only Christ can cleanse anyone, and He doesn't do it by laying aside His own commandments.

If we were to make only a slight change to the text and substitute sex for food, it should become evident that this idea makes no sense.


"Then came together unto Him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they heard of his disciple whom had not performed the ceremonial cleansing after laying with his wife, they found fault. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why walk not Thy disciple according to the tradition of the elders, but refrain from washing after laying with his wife?". He answered and said to them, "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This People honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Hobeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' For laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men" .... And when He had called all of the people unto him, He said unto them, "Hearken unto Me every one of you and understand; There is nothing from without, that entering into can defile: but the things which come out, those are they that defile. Because it entereth not into one's heart, but is expelled during the time of separation,(Thus he declared all sexual activity clean)
For from within out of the heart 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, but to neglect washing does not defile." Mark chapter 7 NIPV (New Improved Pharisaic Version)

For those not familiar with the term "the time of separation" is referring to menstruation. So the logic is the same. The only difference is that we are substituting one cleanliness law for another one. We are substituting the menstrual process for the digestive process. The only thing that makes no sense in either of these narratives is the parenthetical declaration.

Did He abolish stoning adulterers, sacrificing animals, and/or eye for an eye tooth for a tooth?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 8:42:48 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 5:06:09 AM, brontoraptor wrote:

Did He abolish stoning adulterers, sacrificing animals, and/or eye for an eye tooth for a tooth?

Did He abolish stoning adulterers? NO
Did He abolish sacrificing animals? YES
Did He abolish eye for an eye tooth for a tooth? NO

Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
this includes the savage and barbaric laws such as how to treat your slaves, as well as forcing rape victims to marry their rapists.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 1:56:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 8:42:48 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 6/24/2016 5:06:09 AM, brontoraptor wrote:

Did He abolish stoning adulterers, sacrificing animals, and/or eye for an eye tooth for a tooth?

Did He abolish stoning adulterers? NO
Did He abolish sacrificing animals? YES
Did He abolish eye for an eye tooth for a tooth? NO

Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
this includes the savage and barbaric laws such as how to treat your slaves, as well as forcing rape victims to marry their rapists.

1)Then why did he nit have the adultering woman stoned.

2)Rapists were not "forced to marry theur rapists. If you actually read the story there were 2 punishments for a rapist.

-Death

-Inability to ever divorce the woman and only her father could decide if you could marry her.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 1:59:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
(Matthew 5:38-39)
38""You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth." 39"But I telyou if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other cheek.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 2:02:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 8:42:48 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 6/24/2016 5:06:09 AM, brontoraptor wrote:

Did He abolish stoning adulterers, sacrificing animals, and/or eye for an eye tooth for a tooth?

Did He abolish stoning adulterers? NO
Did He abolish sacrificing animals? YES
Did He abolish eye for an eye tooth for a tooth? NO

Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
this includes the savage and barbaric laws such as how to treat your slaves, as well as forcing rape victims to marry their rapists.

Everything was "accomplished". As a point if fact, it is accomplished" is one of the last things he said.

Someone's been reading Atheist propoganda sites. Don't drink the kool-aid.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 2:05:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
28"After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!" 29"Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. 30"So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is accomplished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 2:14:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Christ didn't do away with the dietary laws

Who fckin cares?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:30:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 5:06:09 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/24/2016 12:57:45 AM, shnarkle wrote:
Mt.15:1-20;Mk.7:5-23 Proves we're all defiled, and physical acts don't result in spiritual purification.


Did He abolish stoning adulterers, sacrificing animals, and/or eye for an eye tooth for a tooth?

shnarkle: Technically, all three of your examples are irrelevant for the salient reason that they are all penalties for transgression of the law. I'm not referring to the penalty phase of the law, but the law itself, i.e. the commandments. In the passages cited specifically in relation to the commandments verses the traditions. If the Pharisees or Jesus had suggested that the disciples be fined, taxed, ostracized, or stoned, then you would have an argument. That isn't the discussion that Jesus had with the Pharisees though. So your questions is entirely the topic of a different thread which, should you desire; I would be glad to debate. Post it and send me a challenge
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 4:32:05 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 1:56:53 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/24/2016 8:42:48 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 6/24/2016 5:06:09 AM, brontoraptor wrote:

Did He abolish stoning adulterers, sacrificing animals, and/or eye for an eye tooth for a tooth?

Did He abolish stoning adulterers? NO
Did He abolish sacrificing animals? YES
Did He abolish eye for an eye tooth for a tooth? NO

Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
this includes the savage and barbaric laws such as how to treat your slaves, as well as forcing rape victims to marry their rapists.

1)Then why did he nit have the adultering woman stoned.

2)Rapists were not "forced to marry theur rapists. If you actually read the story there were 2 punishments for a rapist.

-Death

-Inability to ever divorce the woman and only her father could decide if you could marry her.

i don't know, if Jesus was still alive, then you could ask him
deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and RAPES her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must MARRY the (RAPE VICTIM) young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 4:58:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 1:56:53 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/24/2016 8:42:48 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 6/24/2016 5:06:09 AM, brontoraptor wrote:


1)Then why did he nit have the adultering woman stoned.

shnarkle: Why don't you refute my position? Actually how about addressing it first instead of hijacking the topic of this thread and asking irrelevant questions? I suspect it is because you have nothing to refute it.

Look, let me show you how easy it is to not just address a question, but refute it as well. The woman caught in adultery wasn't subjected to the death penalty for a number of salient reasons. First off Jesus is being presented with a "test"(think of a lawyer taking the bar exam) This is what these guys were doing all the time in the temple. They bring him a woman, but where's the man??? If this was an actual case they would have had no problem bringing the other defendant; it would have been a "Two-fer". It isn't because it was a patriarchal society, or hated women, or didn't believe in equal rights. Were this the case they wouldn't have been grilling Jesus in the first place. They were testing Jesus on his knowledge of the law, and he passed with flying colors!!! Read it for yourself sometime(the law).

Jesus knows that they are trying to trick him because they state, "in such a case as this". What is this "such" case? Then they lead Jesus on by providing him with one (the incorrect one) of the penalties for adultery; ie. stoning. But Jesus sees through the charade. He knows that this is a married woman because of the conspicuous absence of the man.

This is referring to the "law of jealousies" where only the married woman is brought into the temple and questioned by the high priest. Do you see the irony here yet? Jesus is the high priest. This sham is all the more profound because this particular law was no longer in effect for the salient reason that it was God Himself who was to judge this woman. Do you see what's going on here??? Do you see that God has returned to the Temple???

The high priest then wrote out curses which both parties would experience if they were lying about their adulterous affair. Ever wonder what Jesus was actually writing in the dirt? Now you know, at least this is the biblical explanation as it's the only reference in the bible that matches perfectly.

The second reason is that only Rome had the authority to carry out capital punishment;; it's all just theater, for effect.

Jesus won that one in more ways than one.
-------------------------------------------------------------

2)Rapists were not "forced to marry theur rapists. If you actually read the story there were 2 punishments for a rapist.

-Death

-Inability to ever divorce the woman

shnarkle: The possibility of divorce doesn't exist without the a priori marriage which they were compelled to if they were caught..
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 6:18:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 4:58:23 PM, shnarkle wrote:
At 6/24/2016 1:56:53 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/24/2016 8:42:48 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 6/24/2016 5:06:09 AM, brontoraptor wrote:


1)Then why did he nit have the adultering woman stoned.

shnarkle: Why don't you refute my position? Actually how about addressing it first instead of hijacking the topic of this thread and asking irrelevant questions? I suspect it is because you have nothing to refute it.

Look, let me show you how easy it is to not just address a question, but refute it as well. The woman caught in adultery wasn't subjected to the death penalty for a number of salient reasons. First off Jesus is being presented with a "test"(think of a lawyer taking the bar exam) This is what these guys were doing all the time in the temple. They bring him a woman, but where's the man??? If this was an actual case they would have had no problem bringing the other defendant; it would have been a "Two-fer". It isn't because it was a patriarchal society, or hated women, or didn't believe in equal rights. Were this the case they wouldn't have been grilling Jesus in the first place. They were testing Jesus on his knowledge of the law, and he passed with flying colors!!! Read it for yourself sometime(the law).

Jesus knows that they are trying to trick him because they state, "in such a case as this". What is this "such" case? Then they lead Jesus on by providing him with one (the incorrect one) of the penalties for adultery; ie. stoning. But Jesus sees through the charade. He knows that this is a married woman because of the conspicuous absence of the man.

This is referring to the "law of jealousies" where only the married woman is brought into the temple and questioned by the high priest. Do you see the irony here yet? Jesus is the high priest. This sham is all the more profound because this particular law was no longer in effect for the salient reason that it was God Himself who was to judge this woman. Do you see what's going on here??? Do you see that God has returned to the Temple???

The high priest then wrote out curses which both parties would experience if they were lying about their adulterous affair. Ever wonder what Jesus was actually writing in the dirt? Now you know, at least this is the biblical explanation as it's the only reference in the bible that matches perfectly.

The second reason is that only Rome had the authority to carry out capital punishment;; it's all just theater, for effect.

Jesus won that one in more ways than one.
-------------------------------------------------------------

2)Rapists were not "forced to marry theur rapists. If you actually read the story there were 2 punishments for a rapist.

-Death

-Inability to ever divorce the woman

shnarkle: The possibility of divorce doesn't exist without the a priori marriage which they were compelled to if they were caught..

There was no "they". Women had no say in any such matters. Their father did.

Women could not divorce their husbands per Jewish law. When Jesus said,"You can't divorce your wife other than adultery", this was directed at Jewish men, and was to protect women in a world where they could not survive without a man.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 6:23:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 12:57:45 AM, shnarkle wrote:
Mt.15:1-20;Mk.7:5-23 Proves we're all defiled, and physical acts don't result in spiritual purification.

It has nothing to do with the dietary laws, nor does it do away with the dietary laws.

This chapter opens with the accusation of the Pharisees that Jesus' disciples are transgressing the tradition of the elders by eating with unwashed hands. Jesus responds that they have transgressed God's commandments by keeping their tradition. He states that they have made God's commandments ineffective by keeping their tradition. (vss. 3, 6)

So what does Jesus say defiles a man? In verse 11 he points out that it is what comes out of a man's mouth. He then elaborates on not only what comes out of a man's mouth, but where these things originate. "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:"

One thing that most people seem to overlook here is that murders, adulteries, fornications are not things that one does with one's mouth. He is speaking of what defiles a man, but not just in regards to words which come out of a man's mouth and defile him. Most commentator's agree that Jesus is pointing out that man is in an ontological state of defilement, and therefore there is effectively nothing one can do to defile themselves. Some them conclude that the commandments are therefore done away with, but this doesn't follow from Jesus' premises. In fact it makes no sense whatsoever to think Jesus would accuse the Pharisees of doing away with the commandments by their traditions to then do the exact same thing himself.

Jesus also points out that the digestive process takes what nourishment it can and discards the rest "into the draught". So we see the juxtaposition of man's fallen state of defilement and the digestive process both of which are essentially unchanged since the fall itself. So we see that washing hands won't remove spiritual defilement.

He then sums up, and concludes that "to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."

The parallel passage in Mark chapter 7 with only a slight difference. The food is shown to go into the belly, and after going into the draught, he says "purging all meats" (Mk.7:19). Some translators use the word "cleansing", or "eliminating" or some such similar word. Again this is simply showing the digestive process at work. The conclusion here is that defilement is from within again reinforcing this ontological state of defilement. Some translations change the text from indicating the digestive process to a pronouncement of cleanliness. Instead of saying "purging all meats", or "cleansing all foods", they say, "Thus he declared all food clean", or "Therefore he declared all foods clean."

The assumption is that those animals that were deemed unclean are now clean with this pronouncement. This statement doesn't follow from the preceding premises though. Christians have some sort of doctrine that they believe negates God's commandments forbidding the consumption of unclean animals, (Heb. "tame" filth, pollution). The big problem is that if that were the case it would be more accurate for the author to say "Thus he made all things food". This is because this idea that all food is clean makes no sense for the only time we see food being pronounced unclean is when it has gone bad or has been improperly slaughtered. Surely the author doesn't believe that it is now acceptable to eat food that has gone bad!

The assumption of whoever inserted these words into the text is that unclean animals, e.g. swine, catfish, shellfish etc. are now clean. That isn't what he says though. He says, "Thus he declared all food clean" as if swine, catfish, shellfish etc were considered food. This is completely foreign to scripture. None of these animals was considered food by God or Israel. The scribe who added this to the text redefined what God considers food simply by the fact that there were people who were eating it. When God sees his people eating garbage he doesn't call it food, he calls it an abomination.

Furthermore, the Greek word "katharizon", or "katharizei" means to purge, purify, cleanse, eliminate. There is nothing in the definition of the word that indicates a declaration, or pronouncement of any kind. The fact is that it isn't in the text to begin with.

There are some who claim that it is in the margins of the codex Bezae from the 4th century, and this may very well be the case, but the pictures which anyone can view online don't show these words in the text itself.

If washing can't remove defilement doing away with the dietary laws won't either.

If Christians think it acceptable to move the boundaries for the biblical definition of food, they should have no problem redefining the biblical boundaries for acceptable sexual activities...unless they're prone to hypocrisy, double standards,bigotry or an inability to think logically or critically.

Only Christ can cleanse anyone, and He doesn't do it by laying aside His own commandments.

If we were to make only a slight change to the text and substitute sex for food, it should become evident that this idea makes no sense.


"Then came together unto Him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they heard of his disciple whom had not performed the ceremonial cleansing after laying with his wife, they found fault. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why walk not Thy disciple according to the tradition of the elders, but refrain from washing after laying with his wife?". He answered and said to them, "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This People honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Hobeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' For laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men" .... And when He had called all of the people unto him, He said unto them, "Hearken unto Me every one of you and understand; There is nothing from without, that entering into can defile: but the things which come out, those are they that defile. Because it entereth not into one's heart, but is expelled during the time of separation,(Thus he declared all sexual activity clean)
For from within out of the heart 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, but to neglect washing does not defile." Mark chapter 7 NIPV (New Improved Pharisaic Version)

For those not familiar with the term "the time of separation" is referring to menstruation. So the logic is the same. The only difference is that we are substituting one cleanliness law for another one. We are substituting the menstrual process for the digestive process. The only thing that makes no sense in either of these narratives is the parenthetical declaration.

Besides, you are ignoring 1 Timothy 4:4
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 6:25:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
1 Timothy 4:4

4"For every creature of Gof is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 6:26:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 4:58:23 PM, shnarkle wrote:
At 6/24/2016 1:56:53 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/24/2016 8:42:48 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 6/24/2016 5:06:09 AM, brontoraptor wrote:


1)Then why did he nit have the adultering woman stoned.

shnarkle: Why don't you refute my position? Actually how about addressing it first instead of hijacking the topic of this thread and asking irrelevant questions? I suspect it is because you have nothing to refute it.

Look, let me show you how easy it is to not just address a question, but refute it as well. The woman caught in adultery wasn't subjected to the death penalty for a number of salient reasons. First off Jesus is being presented with a "test"(think of a lawyer taking the bar exam) This is what these guys were doing all the time in the temple. They bring him a woman, but where's the man??? If this was an actual case they would have had no problem bringing the other defendant; it would have been a "Two-fer". It isn't because it was a patriarchal society, or hated women, or didn't believe in equal rights. Were this the case they wouldn't have been grilling Jesus in the first place. They were testing Jesus on his knowledge of the law, and he passed with flying colors!!! Read it for yourself sometime(the law).

Jesus knows that they are trying to trick him because they state, "in such a case as this". What is this "such" case? Then they lead Jesus on by providing him with one (the incorrect one) of the penalties for adultery; ie. stoning. But Jesus sees through the charade. He knows that this is a married woman because of the conspicuous absence of the man.

This is referring to the "law of jealousies" where only the married woman is brought into the temple and questioned by the high priest. Do you see the irony here yet? Jesus is the high priest. This sham is all the more profound because this particular law was no longer in effect for the salient reason that it was God Himself who was to judge this woman. Do you see what's going on here??? Do you see that God has returned to the Temple???

The high priest then wrote out curses which both parties would experience if they were lying about their adulterous affair. Ever wonder what Jesus was actually writing in the dirt? Now you know, at least this is the biblical explanation as it's the only reference in the bible that matches perfectly.

The second reason is that only Rome had the authority to carry out capital punishment;; it's all just theater, for effect.

Jesus won that one in more ways than one.
-------------------------------------------------------------

2)Rapists were not "forced to marry theur rapists. If you actually read the story there were 2 punishments for a rapist.

-Death

-Inability to ever divorce the woman

shnarkle: The possibility of divorce doesn't exist without the a priori marriage which they were compelled to if they were caught..

Ut oh shnarkle. I've got you by your tail.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 8:32:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 6:18:44 PM, brontoraptor wrote:


-Inability to ever divorce the woman

shnarkle: The possibility of divorce doesn't exist without the a priori marriage which they were compelled to if they were caught..

There was no "they".

shnarkle: The "they" refers to the rapist which is what you were referring to, and I was responding to. In that particular case it is specifically stated that they couldn't not divorce the woman. I merely pointed out that your assertion was false since obviously they would have to be married to them before they could even entertain the idea of divorce.
--------------------------------
Women had no say in any such matters. Their father did.

Shnarkle: Again, you're not paying attention to what I posted, nor what I posted in response to what you actually posted.
----------------------------------

Women could not divorce their husbands per Jewish law.

shnarkel: So what??? You'r the one who brought up or was commenting on rapists, not women's ability to divorce.
------------------------------
When Jesus said,"You can't divorce your wife other than adultery", this was directed at Jewish men, and was to protect women in a world where they could not survive without a man.

shnarkle: So what??? Are you making some distinction here between the fact that the man is a rapist and therefore his inability to divorce is abrogated if his wife commits adultery??? IF not, then what are you trying to prove, if anything???

Better yet, how about addressing the topic of this thread instead??? e.g. Christ didn't do away with the dietary laws. That's my position. You responded with nothing but questions which didn't address, or even refute it.
shnarkle
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 8:43:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 6:23:46 PM, brontoraptor wrote:


Besides, you are ignoring 1 Timothy 4:4

shnarkle: At this point, since you have no apparent desire or ability to respond to what I actually posted, then why should I extend a courtesy which you haven't extended to me? Correct me if I'm wrong, but am I under the false impression that you believe you should treat others as you'd like to be treated? If you believe that, then I will ignore your posts until you address what I posted. I have no problem going to ! timothy as soon as you show me that what I Posted is right in line with Christ abrogating the dietary laws.

Otherwise the only thing that you've suggested, is that ! Timothy is a contradiction of everything I posted. This would be to conclude that the bible has a blatant contradiction, which would then be pointless to even debate because who wants to debate from a book that is so pointless to begin with, or you may be suggesting that Jesus is contradicting Paul, in which case I'll stick with what Jesus said, and you can go along with whatever it is that you think Paul is saying that contradicts Jesus; not to mention that it isn't the subject of this thread either.