Did Jesus (p) abolish Jewish Kosher?

Did Jesus (p) abolish Jewish Kosher?

Question Mark

Introduction

 

It is highly probable that the Christian next-door is into an all-inclusive dietary practice. S/he would not be scrupulous with the foods being consumed as Jew (or a Muslim) would be. It is almost considered lawful to consume food items which are prohibited in the Bible. Sadly enough, many Christians try to prove their position from the Bible itself! In fact some Bible versions have taken it for granted that Jesus (peace be upon him) allowed every food for them rescinding Mosaic Laws! One such incident happened at this very blog when a Christian used biblical passages to support his view.

Therefore, we have decided to take a close look into the matter if it is really permissible that a Christian consume any food that s/he like even those forbidden in the Bible. We would consider one of the most famous of the New Testament passage herein.

 

The Jesus (p) Yardstick

 

The Jews to this date scrupulously observe what is called as the “Kosher”. Kosher is basically the Jewish dietary law. The practice of Kosher does get its support from the Bible. Consider the following passage for instance:

 

Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination. Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.  For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.  (Leviticus 11:42-47, King James Version)

Jesus (peace be upon him) for the known fact that he was a “Jew” must have observed the dietary Law. In fact, not just “dietary” Law, Jesus (peace be upon him) wanted to surpass every Pharisee and Scribe of his time by observing all the Laws of the Old Testament:

 

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20, King James Version)

Did Jesus (p) allow all kinds of food?

 

On the foregoing it is hard to assume that Jesus (peace be upon him) would have allowed dietary practices against God’s Laws! Then what did Jesus (peace be upon him) mean when he said,

 

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. (Mark 7:15, King James Version)

Apparently it seems like Jesus (peace be upon him) allowed consumption of all foods irrespective of the Old Testament rulings on them. In fact the Good News Edition of the Bible has already construed Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement as permission for every kind of food. In between verse 19 and 20, Good News Editions brackets the following declaration:

 

In saying this, Jesus declared that all foods are fit to be eaten

 

Nevertheless, a closer look into the passage reveals that Jesus (peace be upon him) never intended to allow all foods lawful for his disciples. It is vitally important to understand the setup and context which led to Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement:

Chapter 7 begins with Pharisees and doctors of the Law in a dispute with Jesus (peace be upon him). For the Pharisees, Jesus’ (peace be upon him) disciples were not up to the mark as far as observing the rituals were concerned. The Pharisees were particularly upset with the disciples not ritually cleaning their hands before eating food:

 

Some Pharisees and teachers of the Law who had come from Jerusalem gathered round Jesus. They noticed that some of his disciples were eating their food with hands which were ritually unclean – that is, they had not washed them in the way the Pharisees said people should” (Mark 7:1-2)

For the Pharisees it was important to wash hands ritually since they inherited it from their forefathers (c.f. Mark 7:3). However, Jesus (peace be upon him) had other views. For him the act (of cleaning hands) was mere show of hypocrisy devoid of any sincere God-consciousness:

 

Jesus answered them, “How right Isaiah was when he prophesied about you! You are hypocrites, just as he wrote: These people, says God, honor me with their words, but their heart is really far away from me….” (Mark 7:6)

Jesus (peace be upon him) also recognized that the ritual of washing hands before eating was a man-made innovation which was never part of God’s Laws:

 

It is no use for them to worship me, because they teach man-made rules as though they were God’s laws!’ “You put aside God’s command and obey the teachings of men”” (Mark 7:7-8)

It is not difficult to understand the perspectives of Pharisees and Jesus (peace be upon him). While the Pharisees would act as sticklers, ironically, not to God’s Laws but to mere mundane innovations, Jesus (peace be upon him), on the other hand, would not only denounce any innovation in God’s religion but he also would strive for spirituality and God-consciousness even in the rituals. It was under this context that Jesus said,

 

Listen to me, all of you, and understand. There is nothing that goes into a person from the outside which can make him ritually unclean. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that makes him unclean” (Mark 7: 14-15)

Consider the construction of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement in the first place: If Jesus’ (peace be upon him) intent would have been merely to allow all foods permissible for his disciples then he would not probably had started his statement with a strong exhortation to “listen” him carefully and “understand”. Obviously there was much more to be understood than what would apparently appear from his words. Through such a cautious expression, Jesus (peace be upon him) wanted his disciples to be careful to second part of his statement where he alarms his audience from the evils that “comes out of a person that makes him unclean”.

As obvious as it is, Jesus (peace be upon him) definitely shifted the focus from mere man-made formalities to higher acts of spirituality. For him, the need of the hour was not bickering over “rituals” and systems but inner uprightness. In fact, Jesus (peace be upon him) explicitly chided the Pharisees, in the same context, merely a few statements earlier, towards their moral degradation in the name of observing “rituals”:

 

And Jesus continued, “You have a clever way of rejecting God’s law in order to uphold your own teaching. For Moses commanded, ‘Respect your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever curses his father or his mother is to be put to death.’ But you teach that if a person has something he could use to help his father or mother, but says, ‘This is Corban’ (which means, it belongs to God), he is excused from helping his father or mother. In this way the teaching you pass on to others cancels out the word of God. And there are many other things like this that you do”” (Mark 7:9-13)

Understand that for Jesus (peace be upon him) the Pharisees were not qualified to be talking about ritual niceties when they had devised ways how they could be excused from helping their own aging parents! For Jesus (peace be upon him) the demand of ritual cleaning was as folly as the excuse of the “Corban”, let alone the fact that the ritual it was an innovation. In this context, therefore, when Jesus (peace be upon him) stated that nothing that goes in defiles a person, then Jesus (peace be upon him) was not really talking about permissibility of foods as he was concerned about refuting the snares of Pharisees.

We can further appreciate that (i) Jesus (peace be upon him) did not construct his statement more obviously as “nothing that a person eats”; rather he said “nothing that goes into a person”! This is more than just a hint that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not really concerned about food here. Furthermore, (ii) Jesus (peace be upon him) is comparing food (goes in) and actions (comes out), or at least talking about both of them simultaneously, when both are quite disparate! These should help us interpret Jesus (peace be upon him) correctly that he was not as much concerned and discussing food and its rulings as he was vexed with the inner corruption of the same Pharisees advocating their (man-made) rituals. This understanding is further corroborated by the fact that where Jesus (peace be upon him) devotes only a verse (v.19) for things going into a person, he devotes four verses (vv. 20-23) into explaining about the evils emanating out of men.

 

Being Consistent

 

 

We expect persisting Christians to argue that Jesus (peace be upon him) allowed all foods since it does not enter into the heart – where intentions for actions emanate – rather it goes straight into the stomach where it is digested and is done with:

 

You are no more intelligent than the others,” Jesus said to them. “Don’t you understand? Nothing that goes into a person from outside can really make him unclean, because it does not go into his heart but into his stomach and then goes on out of the body.”(Mark 7: 19)

Obviously the reasoning is very narrow and does not accommodate the context. Furthermore, such an argument is awfully inconsistent with the food offered to idols since, of surety, they also do not enter the heart but go to stomach and yet Christians are forbidden to eat them:

 

It is my opinion,” James went on, “that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write a letter telling them not to eat any food that is ritually unclean because it has been offered to idols;” (Acts 15: 19-20)

Much like the Pharisees, James is also concerned with “ritual uncleanness”. If Jesus (peace be upon him) has declared that “nothing” going in defiles men then James should not be concerned about the food offered at idol altars especially when James and every other Christian believer knows that every eatable is in reality created by the living God and not dead idols. Consequently, Christians should consistently obey Jesus (peace be upon him) and eat the food offered to idols as, “because it does not go into his heart but into his stomach and then goes on out of the body.

 

Paul was also against eating food offered to idols:

 

Consider the people of Israel: those who eat what is offered in sacrifice share in the altar’s service to God. Do I imply, then, that an idol or the food offered to it really amounts to anything? No! What I am saying is that what is sacrificed on pagan altars is offered to demons, not to God. And I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink from the Lord’s cup and also from the cup of demons; you cannot eat at the Lord’s table and also at the table of demons. Or do we want to make the Lord jealous? Do we think that we are stronger than he? (1 Corinthians 10: 18-22)

If food is just-food without any scruples of God-consciousness since they merely have to enter stomach and not heart then why is Paul so concerned about food offered to idols! If, “Nothing that goes into a person from outside can really make him unclean” then why is it an issue whether the food is offered at the altar of God or “demon”? Similarly, how does one become a partner of demon when Jesus (peace be upon him) declared the “outside” food cannot really make him “unclean”?

On the same line of reasoning, if that “what comes out of a person that makes him unclean” (Mark 7:20) and the (Christian) believers have become pure in their association with Christ (peace be upon him) then how come anything constitute “the cup of demons”.

These queries are irreconcilable if we continue to misinterpret Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement merely to satisfy our eating appetites.

 

Conclusion

 

 

Therefore, it seems that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) expression is more about moral sanctity of men than rulings on foods. In fact, we do not find any real reason why Jesus (peace be upon him) need to discuss food-rulings at all since (i) Jews were abreast of Mosaic commandments already and Jesus (peace be upon him) had initially upheld every facet of the Laws. And (ii) there is no hint that Jesus (peace be upon him) ever ate food which was condemned as defiling by the Laws. Add to it that Jesus (peace be upon him) considered the act of ritually washing hands as mere innovation. Consequently, a mere innovation could not possibly decide cleaning/defiling of men and thus Jesus (peace be upon him) could say that nothing going “in” without this man-made ritual cleansing could defile men as an expression to debunk innovations in the religion! Furthermore, if Jesus (peace be upon him) is (mis) understood for permitting “any” food then, consistently, even food offered to idols would become lawful! This obviously is a problem.

On the foregoing, if we are to be careful towards the text and sincere towards the speaker, especially when he himself is not around to explain the imports, then we would have to accept that Jesus (peace be upon him) did not really gave permission to the Christians to choose dietary at their free will.

 

Notes:

 

  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical texts taken from the Good News Edition.
Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • mansubzero  On April 25, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    ““Some Pharisees and teachers of the Law who had come from Jerusalem gathered round Jesus. They noticed that some of his disciples were eating their food with hands which were ritually unclean – that is, they had not washed them in the way the Pharisees said people should” (Mark 7:1-2)”

    HERE IS YOUNGS literal

    1Then come unto Jesus do they from Jerusalem — scribes and Pharisees — saying, 2‘Wherefore do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they do not wash their hands when they may eat bread.’ 3

    And gathered together unto him are the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, having come from Jerusalem, 2and having seen certain of his disciples with defiled hands — that is, unwashed — eating bread, they found fault

    for the Pharisees, and all the Jews, if they do not wash the hands to the wrist, do not eat, holding the tradition of the elders, 4and, [coming] from the market-place, if they do not baptize themselves…

    5Then question him do the Pharisees and the scribes, ‘Wherefore do thy disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but with unwashed hands do eat the bread?’

    15And Peter answering said to him…that all that is going into the mouth doth pass into the belly, and into the drain is cast forth? 18but the things coming forth from the mouth from the heart do come forth, and these defile the man

    And Peter answering said to him, ‘Explain to us this simile.’ 16And Jesus said, ‘Are ye also yet without understanding? 17do ye not understand that all that is going into the mouth doth pass into the belly, and into the drain is cast forth? 18but the things coming forth from the mouth from the heart do come forth, and these defile the man; 19for out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, whoredoms, thefts, false witnessings, evil speakings: 20these are the things defiling the man; but to eat with unwashen hands doth not defile the man.’

    notice that only a religious issue is at stake and jesus SEES NO OTHER REASON for washing hands before meals?

    notice that jesus could only SEE ritual within the practice and nothing else?

    notice that he agrees that it is NOT IMPORTANT to wash ones hands? notice that the deciples with unclean hands would continue to eat with unclean hands because of jesus’ response to the pharisees? jesus gave them an escuse to keep thier hands dirty and continue to eat because according to jesus’ logic it is not IMPORTANT to clean hands before meals.

    “Jesus never gave any good advice reflecting what is known now but was not known then. So Jesus should have been saying that it’s important to have clean hands to avoid contaminated or being contaminated, but not just to follow a ritual mindlessly.”

    now we know the pharisees were no biologists and may have HAD THEIR OWN REASONS for washing thier hands and items which CONTAIN FOOD + water

    but notice something, jesus then is IGNORANT like the pharisees and can ONLY SEE RITUAL.

  • mansubzero  On April 25, 2013 at 5:36 pm

    “or him the act (of cleaning hands) was mere show of hypocrisy devoid of any sincere God-consciousness”

    YES, this not all knowing god could only SEE outward practice with NO BENEFIT to the human and thats why he says

    “20these are the things defiling the man; but to eat with unwashen hands doth not defile the man.’”

    but if there was a GOD REVEALED REVEALATION TO mankind it would be HAND WASHING AND KEEPING cups and bowls CLEAN AND WASHED.

  • mansubzero  On April 25, 2013 at 5:38 pm


    “Jesus answered them, “How right Isaiah was when he prophesied about you! You are hypocrites, just as he wrote: These people, says God, honor me with their words, but their heart is really far away from me….” (Mark 7:6)”

    IT IS just reinforcing the point, if a deciples of jesus had EXCRETION between his nails jesus’ advice would be to CONTINUE TO eat with unwashen hands and WASH an unclean heart INSTEAD!

  • mansubzero  On April 25, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    YOU need to ask yourself this question. after deciple X heard jesus’ response to the pharisees, would he run to the nearest sink and wash his hand? jesus gave them an ESCUSE TO CONTINUE TO EAT with dirty and unclean hands. isn’t it funny that christians are more pharisee like today in thier KITCHENS then christlike?

  • mansubzero  On April 25, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    christians MIX BLOOD WITH BLACK PUDDING . so blood eating christians are also using the escue in mark

  • mansubzero  On April 26, 2013 at 2:11 am

    Notice how the translation quoted by question mark has “not done the cleaning in a particular way, but clean none the less” apologetic to it? Notice otoh youngs literal has the pharisees see the hands and has them say unwashed hands?having seen their hands and then they saw them eat bread.the translation has them in observance of the act, not that they were informed about or saw them wash their HANDS IN A PARTICULAR WAY.

  • mansubzero  On April 26, 2013 at 2:11 am

    Test

  • Oliver Elphick  On April 26, 2013 at 3:27 am

    Your article is faulty in several respects.

    To begin with, I strongly urge you not to use the “Good News” translation , particularly if you are going to attempt exegesis. That is, even more than the NIV, a translation that tries to put the perceived meaning rather than the actual words before the reader. The problem is that the meaning the translator thinks he perceives is all too often not what is found in the text.

    Next, you have overlooked a very important part of the scripture, where Noah is for the first time given authority to eat meat.

    Genesis 9:1 God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.  2 The fear of you and the dread of you will be on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the sky. Everything that the ground teems with, and all the fish of the sea are delivered into your hand.  3 Every moving thing that lives will be food for you. As the green herb, I have given everything to you.  4 But flesh with its life, its blood, you shall not eat.  5 I will surely require your blood of your lives. At the hand of every animal I will require it. At the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, I will require the life of man.  6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in his own image.  7 Be fruitful and multiply. Increase abundantly in the earth, and multiply in it.”

    Noah is given permission to eat anything that moves, which obviously includes animals that are listed as unclean in the law of Moses. And since Noah is the ancestor of all mankind, that permission applies to all mankind in general.

    It is evident that the concept of clean and unclean animals pre-dates even the flood, because Noah was instructed to bring on board the ark 7 pairs of the clean animals, rather than just one. But since at that time men were not permitted to eat animals at all, the clean animals must have been the ones that could be used in sacrifice to the Lord, and for that reason more of them were needed on the ark.

    The law of Moses, given only to Israel, is a restriction on what animals may be eaten and it limits clean animals to those that divide the hoof and chew the cud, fish to those that have scales and fins, and winged animals to a list that excludes bats, birds of prey and carrion birds. Certain insects, especially locusts, might also be eaten. This law set the Israelites apart from the rest of the world, who were still permitted to eat any animal.

    This situation continued until Jesus came to earth. As the Son of God and the prophet like Moses, Jesus has the authority to make new law. He fulfilled the old covenant, the law of Moses, completely, and brought in the new covenant to replace it. As part of his teaching, in the transition between the two, he taught on the subject of what foods were clean. In this context, cleanness is only to do with ritual purity; it is nothing to do with food hygiene, which is a practical, not a spiritual subject, and as such does not come into Jesus’ teaching. The issue arose in relation to hand-washing, which was enjoined only on the priests in the law of Moses, but had been extended by the Pharisees in their additions to the law, so that everyone was supposed to wash their hands before a meal. (Obviously this is good in itself, but they did not enjoin it for hygienic reasons.)

    In response to their hypocrisy, Jesus condemns them for perverting the law, and then he teaches his disciples that outward ritual is not the important thing, but rather what is in a man’s heart:

    Mark 7:14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand:  15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”  17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.  18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,  19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)  20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him.  21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,  22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.  23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

    You say,

    In this context, therefore, when Jesus (peace be upon him) stated that nothing that goes in defiles a person, then Jesus (peace be upon him) was not really talking about permissibility of foods as he was concerned about refuting the snares of Pharisees.

    and

    We can further appreciate that (i) Jesus (peace be upon him) did not construct his statement more obviously as “nothing that a person eats”; rather he said “nothing that goes into a person”! This is more than just a hint that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not really concerned about food here. Furthermore, (ii) Jesus (peace be upon him) is comparing food (goes in) and actions (comes out), or at least talking about both of them simultaneously, when both are quite disparate! These should help us interpret Jesus (peace be upon him) correctly that he was not as much concerned and discussing food and its rulings as he was vexed with the inner corruption of the same Pharisees advocating their (man-made) rituals. This understanding is further corroborated by the fact that where Jesus (peace be upon him) devotes only a verse (v.19) for things going into a person, he devotes four verses (vv. 20-23) into explaining about the evils emanating out of men.

    This is an obvious manoeuvre to escape the plain meaning of the passage.

    Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,  19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 

    This is most certainly about food and drink, since that is the only thing that goes into the stomach through the mouth and then out into the sewer.

    It is true that this takes only three verses (not just one, as you say), but no more is needed. It is almost an aside, since Jesus is mainly concerned with the spiritual teaching about evil thoughts. But nonetheless, the teaching about food is new law that Jesus is giving. The previous food laws are part of the old covenant which was passing away.

    Now you turn your faulty exegesis to the matter of food offered to idols.

    Obviously the reasoning is very narrow and does not accommodate the context. Furthermore, such an argument is awfully inconsistent with the food offered to idols since, of surety, they also do not enter the heart but go to stomach and yet Christians are forbidden to eat them:

    It might be inconsistent if that were a true summary. However, it is not as simple as that.

    You quote James, brother of Jesus, addressing the assembled church about the question of whether the law of Moses should apply to Gentiles:

    “It is my opinion,” James went on, “that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write a letter telling them not to eat any food that is ritually unclean because it has been offered to idols;” (Acts 15: 19-20)

    Much like the Pharisees, James is also concerned with “ritual uncleanness”. If Jesus (peace be upon him) has declared that “nothing” going in defiles men then James should not be concerned about the food offered at idol altars especially when James and every other Christian believer knows that every eatable is in reality created by the living God and not dead idols. Consequently, Christians should consistently obey Jesus (peace be upon him) and eat the food offered to idols as, “because it does not go into his heart but into his stomach and then goes on out of the body.”

    In fact James is not at all concerned with ritual uncleanness, since he ignores almost all of the law relating to ritual purity, considering that is is not required of the Gentile believers. The nature of the four requirements he does make show that he is concerned first about genuine holiness (avoiding idolatry and fornication) and then about relationships between Gentiles and Jews in the church.

    At this point your use of the Good News translation is particularly tendentious. Here is a better translation:

    19 Therefore my judgement is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,  20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.  21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.

    James does not actually mention food at all in relation to idols;’ he says only “things polluted by idols”. This is far more general than just food, and is basically an instruction to avoid all idolatry, a command that is repeated by both John and Paul in their letters.

    Does Paul support the idea of ritual pollution by food offered to idols, as you suggest? (Considering your view of Paul, it is pretty hypocritical of you to rely on him for support!)

    In fact he does not support your view. He is not at all concerned about uncleanness, as a more extensive quote than yours will make clear:

    1 Corinthians 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.  15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.  16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?  17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.  18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?  19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?  20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.  21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.  22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

      23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.  24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbour.  25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.  26 For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.”  27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.  28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience—  29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience?  30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

      31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.  32 Give no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,  33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

    Paul is warning them against idolatry. We cannot worship any other god than the One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore we must not partake in pagan feasts in honour of their idols (the table of demons). This was a problem for believers in pagan cities, because such rituals were a part of the life of such things as trade guilds, and not participating might damage one’s business opportunities.

    But when it comes to the meat itself, we need not be concerned. Much of the meat offered in the marketplace had been offered in an idol’s temple first. But Paul tells believers not to trouble themselves about that, unless someone actually raises it as a problem. In that case they should abstain, not because the meat itself is unclean, but for the sake of the other person’s conscience. The point is not to give offence or to trouble the conscience of a weaker brother.

    Romans 14: 20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.  21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.  22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgement on himself for what he approves.  23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

    The whole point of the new covenant is that it is a matter of a new heart and the things that matter are those that involve the heart. There is no longer any place for rituals; we have direct communion with God and we do not need such childish things any more.

    Finally, I wonder why you should raise this issue at all. Muslims do not keep the food laws given to Israel. Why do you think that the church should? If you think that Jesus commanded that we should, and you supposedly honour him as a prophet, why do you not keep all of the Old Testament laws? This is just hypocrisy.

    • qmarkmark  On April 27, 2013 at 3:04 pm

      @ bro Oliver,

      After reading my point of view if you still believe that the entire episode of Jesus’ (p) altercation with the Pharisees was to allow all-food for “Christians”, then, we can agree to disagree 🙂

      Since, as you wrote, “This is an obvious manoeuvre to escape the plain meaning of the passage.

      Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

      This is most certainly about food and drink, since that is the only thing that goes into the stomach through the mouth and then out into the sewer.”

      If nothing going-in can defile, then it hardly matters whether one is eating of the food of Idol or God of Israel! After all is not it a matter of “faith”? And so what one eats does not actually matters; Christian believers would always have “faith” that they have “One God and One Lord”.

      As far as translations are concerned, Bible will always remain amidst controversy. You would object me using “Good News Edition”, Jews would criticize Christians for purposely mistranslating the Hebrew Bible (they are seriously opposed to the translation of Isaiah 53, for instance). And amidst all of these, I awe at the Qur’anic assertion that the Jews and Christians, to meet their agenda, cannot help but twist texts.

      Finally, you wrote, “The whole point of the new covenant is that it is a matter of a new heart and the things that matter are those that involve the heart. There is no longer any place for rituals; we have direct communion with God and we do not need such childish things any more.”

      Its sad that you ever bothered for my paper “What was Paul up to in Jerusalem?” and others of the genre.

      In any case, you are always welcome Br.Oliver for your critiques.

      Sincerely,
      Q.M.

  • mansubzero  On April 26, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    ” (Obviously this is good in itself, but they did not enjoin it for hygienic reasons.)!”

    where do you get “hygenic” from jesus’ IGNORANT words in the verses i have quoted above? jesus like the pharisees could see nothing except “but they did not enjoin it for hygenic reasons” because the pharisees like jesus did not see the act the way people see it today. you would expect @ a time where diseases THROUGH hand contamination wood be very HIGH , but you don’t get any good advice from jesus about WASHING hands before meals. even the translations quoted by qmark are so apologetic that they are trying to save an ignorant god in flesh.

  • mansubzero  On April 26, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    “This situation continued until Jesus came to earth. As the Son of God and the prophet like Moses, Jesus has the authority to make new law. He fulfilled the old covenant, the law of Moses, completely, and brought in the new covenant to replace it.”

    UNTIL …. SHOW me one verse in the TORAH where the jews were WAITING for a “until” and then they could enjoy bacon and pork chops like you people? show me one place where the god who told adam NOT to eat APPLE all of a sudden relaxed his pig eating laws till a certain point in time.

    JUST QUOTE THE verse, i would like to see it. we know that a DO NOT command FROM god seem to be IMPORTANT to the jews like the 1st commandments and just because it isn’t important to you doesn’t mean it wasn’t to them.

    why would a diety concerned about what goes in jewish stomach and not concerned about what goes in gentile stomach? did he prevent swine eating as punishment to them? did he prevent swine eatings as a test for them?

  • Oliver Elphick  On April 26, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    The bible’s message is spiritual. The purpose of the washings ordained in the Law of Moses are for ritual purity, and that is what Jesus is talking about too. ritual purity is obsolete compared to the pure heart that comes by repenting, trusting in Jesus and receiving his Holy Spirit.

    • mansubzero  On April 26, 2013 at 5:50 pm

      you tell me why an EXTERNAL action cannot give you a spiritual high? the jews are wishing for a new temple so they can OBSERVE the killing of the animal and then FEEL guilt for seeing an innocent animal life gone in seconds. the jews want to get a spiritual high from these practices. people wear new and clean clothes and feel born again and religious. jesus didn’t crucify his spirit somewhere in hell ,but did an outwardly action and his followers remember his outwardly action by REPEATING rituals using wine and biscuit. some people go to the church because the wine and biscuit taste nice and make the pagan ritual MEANINGLESS.

      And Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat; when they go into the tent of meeting, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to cause an offering made by fire to smoke unto the LORD.

      “And Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet threat; when they went into the tent of the congregation they washed as the Lord commanded Moses.” – (Exodus 40:31-32)

      ALL EXTERNAL /otwardly practices to get a spiritual high

      i’m sure you sin in thought and action but then you try to “purify” yourself through the act of a god who murdered himself

      why can’t a muslim argue that the act of washing the face and washing the mouth is to SYMBOLICALLY remember all the sin that was spoken and all the sin that was observed?

  • mansubzero  On April 26, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    “We cannot worship any other god than the One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore we must not partake in pagan feasts in honour of their idols (the table of demons). ”

    is the holy spirit the TRIUNE god i.e the “i” ” me” “him” ?

    is the father the trinune god i.e the “i” “me” “him” ?

    is the son the triune god i.e the “i” “me” “him” ?

    none ABSOLUTELY NONE of these persons are the ” i ” ” me” “him”

    according to you pagans the triune god is ” i ” “me” “him” who USES SINGULAR pronouns

    jesus is another diety
    father is another diety
    and son is another diety

    u c , in your pagan religion the term GOD has been given DIFFERENT definitions

    god is either a tent and in the tent consists smaller gods which are glued together by the tent/god

    or god is essense/nature with super powers/divine nature

    or god is persons, each who are INDEPENDANT and have thier own will and are not in control by the other

    or god is triune

    this is abrahamic MONETHIESM ? LOL

  • mansubzero  On April 26, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    “The bible’s message is spiritual. The purpose of the washings ordained in the Law of Moses are for ritual purity, and that is what Jesus is talking about too. ritual purity is obsolete compared to the pure heart that comes by repenting, trusting in Jesus and receiving his Holy Spirit.”

    PRAISE ALLMIGHTY GOD FOR atleast giving the pharisees a USE to CLEAN CUPS AND BOWLS AND WASH hands before meals/prayers.

    even if the practice had a “ritual ” meaning THEY SURE DAMN a better than the ignorance of a non all knowing ignorant jew who just gave his deciples BAD REASON to continue eating with dirty hands.

  • mansubzero  On April 26, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    foods can help defile a mans thoughts . they say ,” you are WHAT YOU eat” and there is scientific backing to this CLAIM. but once again jesus is IGNORANT because when he must have seen people go wonky in their brains after consuming alchohol, he must have attributed it to the devil.

    something to think about

  • mansubzero  On April 26, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    ” ritual purity is obsolete compared to the pure heart”

    are you really telling me that RITUAL purity may NOT HAVE SYMBOLIC significance for the believer LIKE you know, eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a dead god? you do the ritual of wine and biscuits and also dunk yourselves in water BECAUSE IT IS ALL ritual. your god himself is DOING A EXTERNAL ritual in the flesh to appease/please himself so then he can cool down and stop himself from leashing out his wrath

    so why the rituals here, mate?

    why the pagan ritual of giving up FLESH to appease the gods?

    why? why not “pure heart” instead? what ever reason u come up with i’m sure the pharisses could have come up with a reason

  • Oliver Elphick  On April 26, 2013 at 8:00 pm

    Why all the ranting? Are you particularly attached to your rituals? A ritual is an external action that has no real effect.

    The Son of God became a man in order to bear our sins. Of course, this is no ritual; it is reality. Without Jesus’ sacrifice, there would be no forgiveness for anyone.

  • mansubzero  On April 27, 2013 at 1:26 am

    You tell mr oliver if the pagans who came before jesus was born were right and had the correct idea when they gave up the INNOCENT FLESH of their children in the ritual act of appeasing /pleasing their gods. Your god did mere repetition of an idea found in both human and animal FLESH sacrificel now tell me mr oliver, how does sending a flesh animal in the desert WITHOUT FOOD+WATER AFFECT THE WORLD OF THE SPIRIT BY WATCHING THE ANIMAL COOK AND STARVE UNDER THE SUN.?

  • Oliver Elphick  On April 27, 2013 at 3:10 am

    Since most of what you (mansubzero) write is ignorant ranting, I shall not bother to reply to it. Matthew 7:6

    God instituted sacrifice of animals in order to point forward to the work that his Son would one day do on the cross.

    • mansubzero  On April 27, 2013 at 5:38 pm

      “Human sacrifice is the act of killing one or more human beings, usually as an offering to a deity, as part of a religious ritual (ritual killing). Its typology closely parallels the various practices of ritual slaughter of animals and of religious sacrifice in general. Human sacrifice has been practiced in various cultures throughout history. Victims were typically ritually killed in a manner that was supposed to please or appease gods, spirits or the deceased, for example as a propitiatory offering, or as a retainer sacrifice when the King’s servants are killed in order for them to continue to serve their master in the next life. Closely related practices found in some tribal societies are cannibalism and headhunting.”

      the god of christianity IS USING the ritual of the past pagans unto his own CREATED flesh. notice the ritual of violence unto the flesh would be MERE repetition of a ritual act already practiced on human and animal flesh before jezooz was born? it is AN OFFERING to a diety to win REWARDS /PLEASURE/ or appeasement of that diety because that diety NEEDS innocent blood to cool down/forgive.

      the pagans used to practice burnt human offerings before moses was born, but i don’t see mr ephrick claiming that the pagan practicies were foreshadowing jesus’ “sacrifice” on the cross

      “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6)

      we never here pagans like epheric claim that mercy was “foreshadowing” jesus’ MURDER on the cross, and never “aknowledgement of god” but mr epheric REQUIRES that his god makes flesh and then gets that flesh VIOLENTLY murdered before any forgiveness can take place

      “To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.” (Proverbs 21:3)

      “righteousness and justice” than the smell of burnt flesh rising up to the lord or the meat of a dead and defeated god iS more acceptable to epherics lord, why would this lord say this if he knew THAT his OWN RITUAL “sacrifice” was a major requirement to please /appease him?

      god of croostianity PRACTICEs A ritual , in the flesh , to appease/please him self .

      and you kristians eat wine and biscuits to remember that self abusing ritual your god did to himself ,so in other words christians do a ritual to REMEMBER A ritual

      eating wine and biscuits does exactly what for you mr epheric? do you urinate your god and excrete him out? because that is exactly what humans do, they eat and the food leaves the body. why do you practice meaningless rituals mr epheric?

      in the ot , jews DESPERATELY seeking forgiveness, so what do they do ?

      THEY do an EXTERNAL ritual by DOING THE RITUAL of making thier bodies suffer, I.E FASTING AND WEARING some odd clothes in white colour.

      the ot god says:
      “if you do not do good, sin crouches at the entrance. Its desire is for you, but you can rule over it.”

      but epherics pathetic god in his mind thought,

      ” i gotta give up my flesh to myself , i need to know how it feels like when i am bullied and beaten up by human beings”

      ” i am the creator of flesh and destroyer of both flesh and soul, but i still gotta know how it feels to know what GIVING up something valuable FEELS like”

      this is the joke u worship epeheirc.

    • mansubzero  On April 27, 2013 at 6:23 pm

      epehric , how did any of the FOLLOWING RITUALS “foreshadow” ur god in flesh?

      “The Torah prescribes that, on Yom Kippur, when we come together as a community to “repent” and seek forgiveness for all the wrongs we have done in the preceding year, we are to “make our bodies suffer” (Vayikra 16:31, 23:27, 23:32; B’midbar 29:7), a term that means fasting (abstaining from both food and drink). Prayer is also implied, because fasting without prayer is both meaningless and pointless. In Biblical times fasting was accompanied by the symbolic act of dressing in sacking, which is coarse and uncomfortable, and also very unattractive. By making these sacrifices (using that word in a very loose and general sense) the penitent demonstrates his remorse in a very practical way, and they are far more meaningful “sacrifices” than slaughtering an ox or a goat that never did anyone any harm. “

    • mansubzero  On April 27, 2013 at 6:51 pm

      the Jew is write oliver , doing “sacrifice” to fight sin by abstaining and trying your best to do right, is a lot better than murder of an “innocent” diety. i do it, you do it and all the world tries to do it and that is LEARN to do right. all this BS about a diety MAKING himself DIE DIE DIE to save PEOPLE FROM his OWN WRATH/PUNISMENT ,and his PUNISHMENT he CREATED, is nothing but ABUSE of the word “sacrifice”
      sacrifice in good and what is right
      people only died by sacrificing thier lives because some unjust bastards made life difficult on planet earth. had people choosen justice and love, the world would have been a better place.

  • mansubzero  On April 27, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    ““Some Pharisees and teachers of the Law who had come from Jerusalem gathered round Jesus. They noticed that some of his disciples were eating their food with hands which were ritually unclean – that is, they had not washed them in the way the Pharisees said people should” (Mark 7:1-2)”

    your translation is ATTEMPTING to save jesus’ IGNORANCE.

    Here is what the greek literally SAYS

    QUOTE:

    he relevant verse is Mark 7:2 which reads in Greek:

    kai idontes tinas tôn mathêtôn autou hoti koinais chersin tout estin aniptois esthiousin tous artous

    Which translate literally as:

    and / they were seeing / some / of his disciples / that / with defiled hands / that is, unwashed [hands] / they ate / their bread.

    The key word “unwashed” is aniptos (likewise again in Mark 7:5). It means what it says: unwashed.

    The phrase “in the way” is nowhere in the text. Even the next verse reads only:

    For / the Pharisees / and / all the Jews / if they do not wash / their hands / by fist / they do not eat / holding fast / the tradition / of the elders / and / when [they come] / from the marketplace / if they do not / cleanse themselves / they do not eat / and / many / other things / there are / which they have received / to hold fast to: / washing / of cups / and / pots / and bronze vessels.

    You will see no reference to the words your translation inserts. Those words simply aren’t there. The phrase “to the wrist” is a modern attempt to interpret “by fist” [dative of pugmê], the more direct meaning of which is that they wash their hands with their fists (i.e. the way we scrub our hands, enclosing one in the fist of the other), meaning they wash well. Note that the disciples are not said to have washed less well, but to not have washed at all.

    Hence what is being described is simply washing their hands, which “some of the disciples” weren’t doing–their hands were “unwashed” (notably, the tradition Jesus goes on to denounce here included washing your cooking and drinking utensils, too, cf. Mark 7:4, another obvious vector for germs that Jesus was evidently unaware of).

    END QUOTE

  • mansubzero  On April 27, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    how can one say that the bible we have today is the one jesus had when in translation they attempt to rape the words of both jesus and the pharisees in order to make jesus look good?

    how can you say the word of god is with us when you are ,even today, making up LIES to make jesus look good?

  • mansubzero  On April 27, 2013 at 6:10 pm

    it is sad that if you don’t know a language how flesh worshippers can play tricks with words all because the one who knows not the language can be played a fool

  • mansubzero  On April 27, 2013 at 8:29 pm

    Mr epheric, lets analyse ur gods “sacrifice” to himself. People die on the battle field because they tried to fight injustice/ oppression. People gave up the lives of the baby daughters/ sons 2 appease their gods so then they can secure salvation fot this life and the hearafter. The ot would say that it could understand dieing on the battle field for a cause, but why kill your own flesh and blood to appease a diety? And if a diety did “innocent” finite deeds can they ever outweigh his infinite deeds in spirit/bodyless form? An all powerful god doesnt neeed to even reward 100 percent innocent person , because anything the innocent person does can not outweigh what god did or does. Why did ur god kill him self? Adam had a peffect nature but NO BABY BORN TODAY ASKS FOR A TAINTed nature that is god giving the baby imperfect/corrupt/tainted nature for what adam did. The tree wasn’t tall and god made sure that satan the tempter tempts his wife. So god died, according to christiant theology, for his own stupid blunder.original sin spread because the 2nd god of kristisnity “original sin” went out of control , after adams 1st sin, and god WAS UNABLE 2 CONTROL it.

  • Oliver Elphick  On April 27, 2013 at 11:58 pm

    This pile of illiterate and ill-expressed objections on a variety of subjects is off topic for this thread.

    • mansubzero  On April 28, 2013 at 6:09 pm

      you are bloody illiterate who depends on the bloody ” sacrifice” of a illiterate god who required violent appeasement or cosmic child abuse before he could “save” you from his own punishment. look at your societies. you have lesbian priests. you have priests who prey on children. you have satanic churches. you have porn industries. this is what a christian country is and the “blood sacrifice” of your god has LOST affect because it died when from the get-go. who needs a gods “sacrifice” to himself when THE TRUE God did not disable the feeling of guilt and compasion within the human? we don’t go around boasting that “we are saved” because we don’t have heaven in front of us and it is only a HOPE. WE don’t have your arrogance. living between FEAR AND HOPE is much better than self delusion. ” i am guaranteed heaven” or any delusion bs claim like this. who said that muslim needs murder of a god before he gets the “holy spirit” of tazkiyaah/self purification or tawfeeq? WHO SAID you need the murder of a diety when you are alone and the DIETY IS THE ONLY BEING WATCHING YOU? you have no shame, you have no respect, you have no guilt for the blasphemous sh it you say about GOD ALMIGHTY. u GIVE him male parts, you say he suckled on breasts for nurishment… then it is no suprise that your societies are full of cra p.

    • mansubzero  On April 28, 2013 at 6:25 pm

      quote:

      When Aaron enters [this inner] sanctuary, it must be with a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. (16:3)

      The bull is to cleanse the inner part of the Temple from ritual impurities that priests may have made during the year. Remember that chatat (sin offers) are for mistakes, a “missing of the mark” — accidental sins. The bull in question is for Aaron (the high priest himself). So ask yourself: if two goats (one killed and one not) atoned for the sins of all Israel why the bull? Why the ram? Why the other requirements?

      What other requirements? READ the chapter!

      He must put on a sanctified white linen tunic, and have linen pants on his body. He must [also] gird himself with a linen sash, and bind his [head] with a linen turban. These are sacred vestments, and [therefore], before putting them on, he must immerse in a mikvah.

      The high priest must have on very specific clothes. Without these vestments the sacrifice is not acceptable. Get that? The blood sacrifice is UNACCEPTABLE if the priest does not wear the right clothes!

      end quote

      MORE RITUALS LOL

      SO tell me epheric, WHICH PART OF THE ritual “foreshadowed” the BLOODY MURDER of your god LOL? the sacrifice was DEPENDANT UPON THE CLOTHES the priest wore, jesus was STRIPPED naked .

  • mansubzero  On April 28, 2013 at 6:30 pm

    FOR A god who “FORSHADOWED” his own “sacrifice” he SURE was stickler and NIT PICKER about how to go about making sacrifice to him? the “nit picking” bit is something the christians always IGNORE .lol

    i quote

    So the other goat was slaughtered for the people’s sin’s, correct? Verse 16 says the offering was for rebellious and unintentional sins.

    The bull for Aaron and the priests and the goat sacrificed for the people were for mistakes (accidental sins, aka a “missing of the mark”) and for potentially defiling the Temple grounds (e.g., not being ritually pure by having bathed in a mikvah prior to entering the Temple). Neither the bull or the goat atoned for “big” sins. It begins with
    When Aaron enters [this inner] sanctuary, it must be with a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. (16:3)

    The bull is to cleanse the inner part of the Temple from ritual impurities that priests may have made during the year. Remember that chatat (sin offers) are for mistakes, a “missing of the mark” — accidental sins. The bull in question is for Aaron (the high priest himself). So ask yourself: if two goats (one killed and one not) atoned for the sins of all Israel why the bull? Why the ram? Why the other requirements?

    What other requirements? READ the chapter!

    He must put on a sanctified white linen tunic, and have linen pants on his body. He must [also] gird himself with a linen sash, and bind his [head] with a linen turban. These are sacred vestments, and [therefore], before putting them on, he must immerse in a mikvah.

    The high priest must have on very specific clothes. Without these vestments the sacrifice is not acceptable. Get that? The blood sacrifice is UNACCEPTABLE if the priest does not wear the right clothes!

    Now lest you think this is exaggerating — go back and read the first line of chapter 16. It speaks of the death of Aaron’s sons. They died because they brought an unauthorized fire (sacrifice) to G-d.

    He shall [begin by] presenting his own sin offering bull and atoning for himself and his family (16:6)

    The high priest (in this case Aaron, Moses’ brother) atones for his sins and for his family — again accidental sins.

    Now read lines 15 and 16 which are about the bull Aaron sacrifices for himself and the goat which he sacrifices for the Israelites — it is not that this goat atones for the sins of the Israelites in general (lumped with the goat for Azazel) — but it has to do with ritual purity and accidental defilement of the Temple, as the bull did for Aaron himself.

    READ the text!

    He shall then slaughter the people’s sin offering goat, and bring its blood into [the inner sanctuary] beyond the cloth partition. He shall do the same with this blood as he did with the bull’s blood, sprinkling it both above the ark cover and directly toward the ark cover. 16 Thus shall he provide atonement upon the Sanctuary for the contaminations of the Children of Israel. . .

    Defilement refers to Israelites entering the sanctuary or eating sacrifice while unclean (Rashi; see Leviticus 15:31)

    You [Moses and Aaron] must warn the Israelites about their impurity, so that their impurity not cause them to die if they defile the tabernacle that I have placed among them. (Leviticus 15:31)

    The second goat (the scapegoat) is sent to Azazel in the wilderness (alive)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: