I just read this in the ESV a day or two ago noticed for the first time the translation footnote, thought it funny how translators feel the need to clean up the Scriptures. 😂 It’s no wonder people were attracted to Jesus, he spoke to them not down to them!
It is important to realize that the KJV was written at the beginning of the transition between Middle English and Modern English. Therefore we find many Middle English words still used in it. Which leads us to the word "purge". In Middle English it means to (purify by complete removing of the contents, typically of something bad) where as in our Modern English today it means only (to violently remove the filth). Even today with folks who are deep into herbalism the word "purifying" the intestines would be done by using herbs that causes a purging from the system. It is not a mistranslation done in the KJV but rather a shift in the way we use the English word "purge". It's meaning to (purify - by removing the fifth) basically became obsolete and it confuses us as modern English readers unfamiliar with the transition in it's meaning and use. Whenever you use a modern dictionary to look up a word from the KJV and you see a heading "Archaic:", this is probably the definition you would want to use. So Jesus seems to be saying that we are purified by removing the wicked things that come out of our hearts and minds. And that we are not made impure by what we eat or accidentally should swallow.
@@jdwagman I don't think King James' scholars mistranslated it, since that phrase is not part of the original KJV in the first place: Mark 7:19 "Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" As this author points out, "purging all meats" in original King James language is in reference to "Meals" in general, not specific to animal flesh. That is, if you further read a classic KJV, you will find when they sat down for what we commonly call a "meal", the term used then was "meat".
You mean the translation from German, from Martin Luther, originally, don't you? That part where he ripped out seven books because they weren't good enough for him, and he took out the words "and works" so he could create a new religion beying based on just believing as opposed to being a good person in any way? That part? Yeah. The KJV and where it came from is well documented. If it did come from Middle English then why does it rely so heavily on the one from ML when ML used the newly available printing press to translate, demolish, and edit the Vulgate? Oh gosh. How inconvenient it is to remember history.
@@OceanusHelios The KJV was translated to English from the Greek majority Byzantine text and the Greek NT of the Textus Receptus. It didn't have anything to do with Luther or the German language. It was to replace the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible which were originally translated into English by Calvinist.
At the time of the KJV “meat” still meant food (solid as distinct from milk, ale or other liquid food). They still often used “flesh” to specify animal meat. The phrase “meat and drink” meant “food and drink”. Similarly, the way we use “drink” to mean alcohol could possibly become its primary meaning.
Thank you, it always struck me a bit weird in that story, not the sentiment itself but how it just took you right of out of the story in like the middle of a sentence. Breaking the fourth wall a bit or something, in a way you'd expect from Matthew but not from Mark. It now makes sense to me why. Jesus parable reminds me a little of how my parents used to say/joke, when we kids didn't want to taste unappealing looking food: "if only you knew how bad it will look where it's going...".
The parable is not even about foods! It just uses food as an analogy. It is about a person remaining 'good' despite any corrupting influences from his environment.
Nice take. There are many texts and tablets from the ancient world that mull over the morality of influencing others and being influenced. For thousands of years going back to the earliest tablets and the hymns of Inanna, influencing was considered wrong in the influencer's truths may not be truths to the person influenced. For example, fishing with nets may be good in a sea, but it will damage river life and deny fish to those downstream - or having regulations for thick clothes with no gaps of skin exposed works well in Hyperborea but is silly in the southern Mediterranean. As for being influenced, the influenced gives up their morality in hopes that the influencer will use their influence justly. Those who allow themselves to be influenced are amoral tools - like a hammer. They can be used for good (building a house) or evil (murder.) The problem of corrupting influences is something the disciples would have been quite familiar with. This understanding makes the joke both easy to understand and trenchant by the listeners of the time.
That was an excellent talk on a passage I've read and remember thank you. Reading Mark as a young man I distinctly recall the feeling i got reading Jesus mention bodily functions in the context of a bit of a scolding. Jesus lived as a man, among men. It seems to follow that he might have been seen to have wit and more than a little bit of character (which presumptively would be relevant to the journey he wound up living). One wishes and wonders if only Jesus had been educated as a writer of his own ideas.
He is really funny anointed with oil of gladness more than anyone. Jesus showed me over 40 pages of jokes in the bible a lot of two witness jokes. they are outrageous one about fart pharisees, i laughed all night
In not being blameless ,in those thirteen ways described….we only succeed in defiling ourselves because we can only describe what is inside us ,and what we are projecting on the world around ourselves.
It's interesting because I just researched this a week ago. I certainly agree that it's not about what kind of food is kosher, but it certainly makes sense that it would be interpreted this way by gentile Christians as an argument against Judaizers in the first century church! This is an example of how scripture is reinterpreted to address modern concerns, even if the ink is barely dry! This is actually a power play by the Pharisees, which Jesus reverses. The thing to realize is that this is not really a "tradition" going back to, say, the construction of the Temple. It's something that the Pharisees just instituted in the previous decade or two (the earliest possible date is around 30 BC but the Talmud admits that it was probably decades after). And yes, Orthodox Jews still do it. Although it's true that ritual impurity is not quite the same as sinfulness, in this case it's not about entering the temple either - it's a special rule about eating bread, which applies everywhere. They constructed this hierarchy of different levels of cleanliness, and even if you hadn't touched a corpse or anything, your hands were still assumed to have probably touched something dirty and so you had to wash before eating bread. (Not necessarily dirty in the modern sense of being sanitary, but spiritually dirty). When they say tradition, the Greek word παράδοσις, it doesn't necessarily mean "because it's long established" but rather "because it's an instruction with authority." Other examples being 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6. So, putting it all together, what happened was the Pharisees issued what amounted to a religious edict, and Jesus told them that their authority was invalid because they did not understand the scriptures.
I enjoyed reading your comment! Would you be open to sharing any of the sources or scholars you used during your research? I’d love to read up more on that.
When did the gloss, "thus he declared all foods clean." first appear in translations of the Bible into English? William Tyndales 1532 translation of the New Testament, on which the KJV draws for something like 90% of its wording has: "whatsoever thing from without entereth into a man, it cannot defile him, because it entereth not into his heart , but into his belly: and goeth out into the draught that purgeth out all meats." where "draught" meant drain or cesspool . Not a word about declaring all making foods clean there.
I agree. Translation is crucial: whether Jesus said “trust” and it was translated as “faith” referring to the Roman centurion, I think is very important. They are not the same at all.
TY!! Jesus never contradicted the Torah! Translators may have had some other motivations due to culture and political pressures and more likely limitations in scholarship. Glad they tried, regardless!❤
totally agree. Always been my understanding, I do believe there is a health reason for Clean and unclean but also a spiritual application. in the Sanctuary laws only clean animals could be offered as a sacrifice thereby representing Jesus as the sacrifice for sin.
I enjoy your knowledge. I would remind all of your watchers, one gets out of the Scripture what they are going in to look for. Some see hope, love, redemption. This is the art of imagination, and hopefully a higher knowledge than simple Human reason and logic - stoicism.
Interesting except Peter has a vision about food and all of it being clean so twice now. And it appears that since then Christians knew all food clean.
@@JimCvit The vision that was revealed to Peter wasn't actually about food at all. The sheet was lowered 3 times and each time, Peter refused to "...rise, slay and eat." The sheet being lowered 3 times represented the 3 gentile messengers sent to ask for him to come to Cornelius' house to instruct him on what he had to do. Peter even expounds further when he enters the house by saying that he was told not to consider ANY MAN common or unclean. It all had to do with disregarding the tradition of Jews disassociating with gentiles.
That's really interesting. He's saying that the stomach cleanses everything. He didn't declare all foods clean, he somewhat implied it, but Mark didn't emphasize it. So, what is the history of the use of this verse? I know Dr. Tabor focuses on the biblical period, but now I'm curious how long Christians have been citing this verse to justify eating pork-stuffed turducken and other detestable things?
FWIW, David Bentley Hart's translation (Mark 7:19) reads, "Because it enters not into his heart, but into the bowels and is expelled into a latrine, purging away everythingthat has been eaten?" (Yale University Press, 2017)
Sadly, I am aware of people leaving their life-time church affiliations believing the passage in Mark 7:19 suggests you can eat anything you want to. I know of one poor fellow who grew up with a church family where he ate very carefully, and in being "shown" this error in Mark 7:19 by someone, went out and got sick eating all sorts of off the wall wild game, etc. Another friend of mine almost died from trying the jellyfish delicacy served to him in South Korea. It was as bad as having an early case of COVID, and there is no anti-toxin for Jellyfish. So much for "declaring all meats clean".
I get this understanding of the traditions followed by the Pharisees, and Jesus' response, from the KJV because I have found increasingly that, as a translation, it actually conveys the Greek into English very well. However, unless Mr Tabor is referring to the original KJV of 1611, or any early 'revision' of it, the word 'thereby' is not included.
Thanks, an excellent explanation. I'm not Jewish, but I decided a couple years back to go Kosher, for the reasons as explained in this video. I had already got OFF the damaging Standard American Diet (SAD), and was trying to repair all the decades of damage to my organs and bodily systems. God's design of the human body is hugely complex, a miracle in and of itself. After the third heart attack I began to take my health very seriously indeed. I wasn't completely sure that the Biblical food requirements and guide lines still apply to us (as many Christians deny), but even if not, I developed a very strong belief and faith, that if God recommended certain foods to the Jews and denied them others, than those choices WILL be both extremely safe and extremely healthy for the human body. Remember that EVERYTHING that is required of us by him, IS for our own good. Effectively for me, all I had to give up was bacon, pork, prawns and shell fish - a very small inconvenience indeed, and well worth it if only for the mental peace of mind that it provides. There is scientific evidence supporting the idea that some of the "foods" denied the Jews do have potential risks for human health. One example is pork. Pigs don't sweat, which is also used to shed toxins, so instead store all toxins in their fat. So depending on their environment, they could easily pass on dangerous toxins to whoever or whatever might consume them. The western diet is continuing to become more toxic as time goes on, with industry influenced health bodies falsely claiming that many chemical substances are "safe" for human consumption. An example would be glyphosate, which is now contaminating many "food products", which is also an antibiotic, and kills off your microbiome, which is responsible for up to 70% of your nutrient absorption!. The over use of antibiotics by the medical industries does the same thing - also avoid those unless facing a life and death situation. A second example would be ruminant animals, which appear to have been designed by God specifically as food for humanity. With their extra stomachs, they can neutralize and render harmless most if not all toxins and poisons. So they appear to be safe to consume regardless of their environment and no matter how contaminated it might be. :) Remember that God specifically designed us a gallbladder and bile (like a detergent), to break down FAT. Natural animal FATS are GOOD for you, however not so the chemical factory created industrial "vegetable oils". They're made from seeds, there's no vegetable in them (and zero nutrients), and they've highly unstable and inflammatory (100% omega 6 fats). God Bless.
The problem is that they had elevated their traditions to equal with commandments. God said nobody can add or take away from the commandments. That means Christ could not take away from the dietary commandments either.
@@triskaideka13 That Greek word fulfill in Matt 5:17 means to fully preach. Christ fully preached the Law. The new covenant has not begun yet. Jeremiah 31:31 clearly tells us that during the new covenant nobody has to teach others about Yahweh because they all will know Him. The new covenant has not begun yet.
This is most certainly an interpolation that was probably a commentary gloss written in the margin by a scribe that eventually was mistakenly copied into the text. There are, however, several passages in the New Testament that make it clear the Christian is NOT obligated to follow Levitical food laws. Peter’s vision in Acts 10, for example, reveals that Christ has made all foods clean. Yes, the underlying meaning is about Salvation being available to Gentiles, but the IMMEDIATE context is about Peter being hungry but unwilling to defile himself by eating anything forbidden by the Mosaic Law. In Colossians 2:16, Paul admonishes his readers to let no one judge them according to what they choose to eat or drink. Romans 14:1-17 contains similar instructions. The writer to the Hebrews in chapter 9 showed that the Old Testament ordinances were a shadow of what would ultimately be fulfilled in Christ. Such ordinances were “imposed until the time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10 KJV) when Jesus would fulfill the requirement of the Law. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, debating whether or not Gentile converts are obligated to obey Levitical Law (including Kosher food laws), concludes with the leader of the Church, James, saying: “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” Acts 15:19-20 KJV No other burden was given although it is certain that many would have insisted that the specifications of Leviticus 11 MUST be followed by all Christians.
“Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” -Colossians 2:20-23, ESV In Mark 7, Mark uses the word “broma,” which is Greek for food in general, not meat specifically. Please don’t let anyone claim that something God has deemed “clean” as “unclean.” :) Feel free to look into Colossians 2 in its context for a deeper look.
I am not Hebrew, however I will say, it was not until my eyes were open, probably by The Holy Spirit, I started eating as clean food as I can, includeCooking out all blood, It I figure it goes as deep as bottom feeders help keep water clean, also your body, “pork should be out or respect “ !!! As Gods holy temple was defiled with one, Shalom
James, you're incorrect in regards to the requirement of hand washing before a meal. Firstly this is not for all foods but mainly for bread and foods in sauce. The former to ensure Terumah is eaten in ritual cleanness (the Rabbis extended hand washing for everybody on this one not just Kohanim to ensure they do things properly), and the latter, because impurity is transferred through liquids. Both of these are Torah laws Divinely ordained. Also remember that in Temple times people ate directly using hands and not forks, spoons and knives. Nowadays, washing to eat bread remains mandatory because we still eat bread directly by hand.
It depends on how you punctuate the sentence, because it was originally written without any punctuation. It is possible to translate it as "thus he declared all foods clean", but then it goes against the point of the story.
@@DominikKoppensteiner the point of the story is that it is not food that defiles you, it is the things in your heart. That is consistent with "thus he declared all foods clean".
@@ASD128London If he declared all foods clean, then he is doing what he just criticised the pharisees for. Is someone, who doesn't know about the food laws, defiled if he eats pork? No, because the food itself does not defile you. But the food itself is still unclean, and God calls it an abomination. If someone knows about the food laws and still eats pork, then his disobedience defiles him. If all foods are clean, then why would the disciples explicitly forbid blood in Acts 15? There are certain foods, that include blood. Are they now clean or not?
It does make a difference i have 7 differe t translations and im comfotable with what ive learned bu looking at all angles and i use a hebew helper and an old old concordance and a thompsons .😊the bible is a word feast ❤
I noticed, when I was reading the Word, that the continuity of some of the text was broken. Seemed added to make a particular point (usually favoring a certain sect or initiating a behavior that wasn't actually being taught) added for effect. So here's one i noticed quite easily was wrong. Of course I was chastised for voicing such a thing (Lutheran! Lol) so I'm happy that this and other obvious errors in teaching are addressed!
Does Jesus mean we must eat his flesh and drink his blood bc it is transubstantiated as a result of Him saying he is the bread of life in John 6? I have a very Catholic family
My thoughts:The author of John makes it clear in verses 61 through 64 that Jesus was speaking spiritually, not literally. Moreover, it's important to consider this episode, which doesn't mention anything about physical bread and wine as we see in the synoptic gospels and Paul's writings, and then smashing them all together and formulated Doctrine that was never intended nor understood the way the Catholic Church deals with it. Additionally, it's worth noting that much of what Jesus says in John may not actually be his own words but rather John's theology.
Most of the gospels were written as spiritual allegory not to be taken literal. I.e. the virgin daughter of Zion that travails in childbirth with her FIRSTBORN was not a woman named Mary and her firstborn was not a man named Jesus. Its all defined in the old Testament. Unfortunately most Christians don't read nor study the OT. It has led to over 1900 years of deception and apostasy.
@@waynewright1209 I don't believe real life Jesus said any of that, but the intent of the author of John is that he meant it literally, hence how offended certain disciples where who immediately stopped following Jesus as per the story
@@lawyerlib When Yeshua states that his flesh is food and his blood is drink, I believe that he is saying that his entire example of living is to be consumed by us in how we follow that example. It's absolutely metaphoric in the same sense that he states that he is the living water. We consume his words and apply them to our actions. He never contradicted Torah. He was the embodiment of Torah and its core meaning. I don't believe in the transubstantiation theory. It's not scriptural. It's another tradition of men.
Draught is pronounced identically to the word draft, as in "draught/draft beer". The former is just the British spelling. It's definitely not pronounced "drawt". Great video though
I've already heard this explanation, but it keeps me somewhat confused nevertheless: While the text obviously doesn't EXPLICITLY say that all foods are clean, isn't it still IMPLICIT, especially since Jesus says: NOTHING that goes into a man can defile him? Wouldn't that not only apply to eating with unclean hands, but by extension also to whatever you eat, whether it's kosher or not?
Maybe it just means “I want to tell you about a more important kind of defilement that you should be avoiding.” It could have been made clearer, but it seems the author had some cryptic reasons for the ambiguity.
It would have been very clear in a culture that understood some animals to be considered food, and others not. The question of whether certain animals were considered good for food even predates Sinai...all the way back to Noach where God differentiates between clean and unclean animals. Another thing to consider is that even clean animals could be considered defiled if they were not handled according to certain Jewish traditions, such as being handled by gentiles after slaughter. The texts HAVE to be considered in light of the temporal and cultural contexts. The texts also have to be read and understood in the entirety of their context, not just a few lines taken out and expounded upon based on a preconceived agenda.
@@CurtisTower-kv1bf Still, if the reasoning is: "Everything that goes into a person has no influence whatsoever on their morality, because it goes straight through them and into the toilet", the conclusion is clear. Whatever the context and what was considered food or non-food, clean or unclean. The reasoning: "Everything that goes into a person has no influence whatsoever on their morality, because it goes straight through them and into the toilet, except, of course, for unclean foods, which also go straight through them and into the toilet, but still have an influence on their morality", is kinda self-defeating.
@@DoloresLehmann I would most definitely defer to Matthew 5 where Yeshua states the he did NOT come to abolish the law, but to fulfill (...or establish) it. His ministry included correcting the way in which the law was perceived. Over the centuries, the law was subverted by the traditions in order to build a fence around Torah. The Pharisees and priests has essentially made a god of the law and left God out of the law. Yeshua said as much when he claimed that they ignored the weightier matters such as justice.
No, because Jesus had just accused the pharisees of changing God's law. The commandments about unclean food were given by God, so why should Jesus change them, if he had just criticised the pharisees for the same reason? Also, if all food was clean, why would the Holy Spirit explicitly forbid blood in Acts 15? There are some foods, that include blood. Paul said, whatever is not done by faith, is sin. If a person does not know the difference between clean and unclean food, I wouldn't say that they're morally defiled by it. But if we know God's will and know that we shouldn't eat unclean meat, then it is sin to eat it.
Jimmy, the pericope associated with Revelation 10:16 debunks your interpretaion of the abregation of the Moses dietary laws. Jesus throus them out, Mark 7 is the justification for Galatioans, If you disagree, it will put a serious crimp into the validity of the Jesus Seminar's interpetation of Paulie Theology, If you don't count N.T. Wfith's interpeetation of Pauline Theology, Of course, it's perfect for your David Koresh version of the Bible. Everything before the Gospel of Mark is Kabbalah, Jesus is the sumation of all the literature that comes before him, which is the point of John ll:35 in terms of high titerature as opposed to any historic method that cannot rise above the glass ceiling of archelology, In any system based on the premise that harmonization is the eneby of Truth can't get there from here. Jesus ties up all the loose ends of Old Testament prophecy, Taking Christianity out of Revelation leads to the Abyss and apocalypse. Like Waco, I don't know what you think you were doing with Doren, but you basically poured napalm unto a somdering brush firee,
@@ASD128London At the moment, I don't remember, I have to review the video . I have dyslexia and this kind of misprint happens all the time, It was something fresh in my mind at the time, but I've moved on since then, Tabor is constantly making speculatire assertins and then proceeding as if they are dispostive and anchor his argument, when it's his interpetation that he claims reframes the scripture to fit his premises. His axiom that harmonization is the enemy of the Truth precludes most of the synthesis he attepts to dismantle is disregard. It's a characteristic of dialectical Marxism,, which is the prefeered feature of Post Modern Historic Deconstruction, Tabor's argument that Mark 6 doesn't abrogate the ideatary laws is pure sophistry, Jesus doesn't say you don't need to follow them for youer own religous practice, but it is not o fthe essnce of what becmes Pauline Theology, Paul never renounces Judaism:: he remains faithful to his tradtion because he loves it and it dos, in fact, provide the gateway to the mind of Jesus and His ethos, which Pual largely captures in his Epistles as rabbitacl meditations, For the Pagan Christians of the Roman legions, Romans 13:1 - 7 is perfectly congruent with the authority to sheich the centurioan is supmitted in Matthew 8:5 - 13, Romans 10:2 is the basis of Pual's business model, that it isn't enough to have been born agains in the manner of the Talking Cross and the Roman soldier, but that you understand and admire the ethical structures of Elohim the One, From my perspective, Taber is academically dishonest in his methods. As I say, he is teaching the Gospel according to David Koresh, Trying to follow his theology is like tyring to make sense of Ayn Rand's Objectivism: He presents usrful ideas, such as the 10 events in Mark 11 and 12, but, because of the protocols of his Harmonization is the enemey of the Truth, he can nevr arrive at the actual Truth synthesis illuminate. I may get back to the Revelation misquote, but it means listening to the video agains and it is all the same idiom as the anti-war arguments of the 60s and it was weary of it before I graduated. It;s the same shit as the argumens for Project 2025 and Pro-Life solo scriptura, Taber claims to be a gig fan of Pauline Theology, but his interpretation of Mark 7 ingores the fact that it is the basis of Paul's argument in Galatians, The short version is, Jesus is against posting the 10 Commandments as shrines in public palces except synagogues I mean, the cost to Taber's particualr brand of sophistry allows the Likud to run Israel when they shouldn't have any more influence over the Knesset than the Amish have over Congress, but, thanks to the sort of sidtorions Taber's interpretations create, that's what happens.
So basically if I understand correctly, the Kosher laws still apply and we should be abiding by them if possible, maybe from a health perspective, but more importantly is the more spiritual teachings of Jesus. Because on one hand it seems like Jesus never declared all foods clean so we should still be abiding by the Kosher food laws, but on the other hand it seems like he's is saying it doesn't really matter what we eat.
However, look at Acts 15. The only things that James requests that Gentiles observe is abstaining from sexual immorality, from eating foods polluted by idols, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. Nothing is mentioned about observing the Kosher food laws. The whole context of the chapter is whether the Gentiles should observe the Jewish laws or not. Peter says that God accepted the Gentiles as they are without making them observe the ceremonial laws.
@@kmtedford The decision was made to instruct the gentiles of a few major things to put them in the correct path to Torah. The account of their decision further states that Moshe is taught in every synagogue on Shabbat so they can learn more there as they learn how to align themselves in the faith.
@@CurtisTower-kv1bf I feel that is an incorrect understanding of the context of Acts 15. Peter specifically recounts that the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentiles (Cornelius and those gathered-Acts 10) before they knew anything about the Torah. Peter says in verse 10 that "God accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us." It is by the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved (not by observing the Torah). And your phrase that Moshe is taught in every synagogue is not in reference for them to learn more of the Torah, but rather that the Jews not be offended by the actions of the Gentile believers. These new Gentile believers should be considerate of the Jews. James also says in verse 19 that "we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." The only stipulations that he requires of the Gentiles are 4 things. Even Colossians 2:16, 17 Paul speaks about how the Colossian believers should not be concerned about the Jews or any other person demanding that they be concerned about what they eat or drink (the food laws of the Torah), a religious festival, a New Moon celebration, or a Sabbath day (even the Sabbath day is no longer obligatory for Gentile believers). "These are a shadow of the things that were to come, the reality however is found in Christ." Hebrews also makes it clear that we are under a new covenant. The Old Testament is not our book. Yes, it is Scripture and we can learn about who God is from it. Only the laws written in the New Testament are obligatory for us.
@@kmtedford I respect that you may take a different understanding of Acts 15. My question would be why they mentioned Torah being taught in synagogues in the first place if it had no bearing on their message. In reference to Colossians, Shaul is saying to not let others judge the believers for keeping the feasts, etc. After all, he's talking to a group of believers in a gentile environment where others would be questioning why they are observing certain practices foreign to their immediate society. That's what I take from it when I read it in its complete context.
Simple translation: Your Salvation is neither gained nor lost by what you eat, but it IS affected by the health of your Spirit. This sentiment was often expressed by both Jesus and Paul. As an observant Jew, you believe that your Salvation is literally tied to your adherence to the Law. Unfortunately for your belief, your Priests took the ideas of God and turned them in to something He never intended. Your Purity Laws are more Moses' and Aaron's personal preferences, than any command of God. And in both Isaiah and Psalms, it is literally stated that Sacrifice for Atonement was a human idea, started by the Priests, not God. I find it infinitely amusing, that God drove the Priests out of the dedication of Solomon's Temple. Jesus came to reform Judaism, he never intended to start a new religion, and in truth, he did not. As Homo Sapiens existed before "Adam", so too did the knowledge that there was a God. The problem arises when Mankind decides to give God a name, or define what is pleasing or offensive to Him, or even, which style of "Belief" is acceptable or appropriate. When exactly has Man ever been right on that, Adam, Job, Noah, the Pharisees? I will tell you what Jesus tried to teach you... 1) It is not enough to simply do no Evil, it is absolutely our duty to do Good in the world. And the proof that we are a righteous, is in how we treat the most destitute and hard to love, of us. 2) Do not get caught up in the musings of Men, God will tell you what He wants of you. From this day and forever, you are free from the Temple, the Scriptures, the Priests and the Law. Though any or all of them can be beneficial, a personal relationship with our Creator, is what matters - for if I get it directly from God, neither Lucifer nor Man can deceive me. 3) Sin is not about the act that you do, it is about your intention - if you feed the Poor so that you will look good as a TH-cam Influencer and get views & money, you do not get "brownie points" just because ultimately, "good" was served. As conversely, it is not a Sin when unintended harm comes from an intentional act, though it does not absolve you of responsibility for the unintended consequences of your actions. 4) The Golden Rule is the only "Law" you need. 5) And when all else fails, Love, Mercy, Compassion and Forgiveness are always the right choice. Whether you choose to believe Jesus is/was just a story, a Prophet, the Messiah, or The God, the truths of those teachings are irrefutable.
Yes, but if you blatantly disobey direct commandments and eat meats God said do not eat, that is a matter of the heart. That’s disobedience. It won’t be the pork or shrimp that defiles you. It’s your disobedience that came out of your heart that defiles you.
@@messiahmatrix Read it again. There were clean and unclean animals in the sheet. Something you need to know in order to understand this chapter. The Jews had a made up law that says if a clean animal touches an unclean animal, the clean animal becomes what they called “common” and they would not eat it. There’s no commandment in the Law of God that says this. It was purely made up and added to the Law of God by man. Peter said “I have never eaten anything common or unclean”. Notice that God said “don’t you call common that which I have made clean”. So it was fine for Peter to call an unclean animal unclean and refuse to eat it as commanded. But it was not ok to call a clean animal common and refuse to eat it. That’s adding to the Law of God and we are forbidden to do that. Later Peter says God gave him a vision and showed him to not call any man common or unclean. So the vision wasn’t even about food. It was about the first gentiles who were about to receive the Holy Spirit.
‘Woe to the Zadukkim, the spawn of Beli’al - for they have converted the glorious Throne & the Footstol of the High Priest of the Most High into a cesspit & a toilet !’ -Babylonian Talmud cf. Avodah Zara 17a
What the video fails to point out is that there are no manuscripts that have this parenthetical remark within the text itself! The only manuscript that contains this remark is the Codex Bezai and it is only found in the margins placed there by a scribe hundreds of years AFTER the fact. The jpeg files online don't even show the marginal notes. It is only after numerous copies had been produced that it migrated into the text. In other words, it only appears in translations. Mark never wrote it and Jesus never spoke it.
dr. ammon says yesus is talking about male ejaculate. the meat is his flesh and his flesh/body is the ejaculate. of course, ammon is reading in ancient greek and you are reading in KJV english. probably some mistranslation somewhere. in addition, you seem to use ancient greek to pronounce the hebrew; to' evah and tame' what if you are just mistranslating the greek? if I could make a lower case Zeta, "kathapiZwv pivta' ta' Bpw'mata". that all seems greek to me. my faux ancient greek "kathapiZwv pivta' ta' Bpw'mata" translates to modern greek as "and drinks the drinks" all interesting. do we really know anything about the year 0ce?
If you are listening to somebody that is teaching you that Jesus was talking about male ejaculation you need to unsubscribe from that person immediately that is the most ridiculous asinine thing that I've ever heard in my life
Dr. Ammon uses ancient (Classical) Greek while for at the very least 1700 years the churches have been using Koine Greek with their own peculiar definitions.
For the Greek NT text, I follow the Majority Text, which has καθαρίζον, modifying the whole process of food going in one end and out the other, rather than καθαρίζων, apparently modifying Jesus, hence the translation "he declared". It can't modify the toilet, because then it would be καθαρίζοντα, in the accusative. This passage was in the latest Sabbath School lesson, and I described the cup with two handles at right angles, labeled על נטילת ידים, with which Jews pour water three times on one hand and then three times on the other hand. The word αφεδρών, found only here, in the parallel passage, and in a fragment of the town laws of Pergamon, was of uncertain meaning until the fragment was found. It's obvious to me that an αφεδρών has a seat and has something to do with away, and the only thing that fits is a toilet. But it wasn't obvious to everyone, hence the diverse translations. There's a book published by FFOZ, which I've misplaced, which explains that excrement is ritually clean even if what was eaten wasn't, and that that's what cleaning the foods means.
To be honest I think saying external things don’t defile you pretty much does mean all foods are clean including pork. If Jesus had more to say about eating too much sugar that might have been helpful.
Because Jesus makes a list of sins or vices that come out of hearts of people ( as bad words or actions), , is it possible that He is suggesting that the thoughts or actions that we see or hear (take in and digest like food) and use or reject ( leave in the toilet) will not defile us?
@@onejohn2.26. Jesus spoke to them in parables and did not say anything that was not in a parable. If He was not concerned about eating or healing on the sabbath, perhaps He wanted His disciples to understand that there are more important things that a washing of hands ceremony. Ironic that He later uses a washing or feet ceremony to make another point.
@@mitchdowning8188 Jesus said many things that were not in Parables take The Sermon on the Mount for instance but Jesus said in Matthew 5:18 that not one of the smallest parts of the law would change as long as there is a heaven and earth and the Sabbath and the dietary laws are part of those laws and they are Paramount in importance
@@onejohn2.26. I was paraphrasing what is said in Mark 4:34 , but even some of the things that He says in private to His disciples are not to be taken literally. Like when He says to Peter "get thee hence. Satan". If the Law was paramount to Jesus, neither the woman caught in adultery, nor the thief being crucified beside Jesus at Calvary ( the one who professed belief in Jesus in his last moments) would have been deemed acceptable citizens in the Kingdom of God.
@@mitchdowning8188 They were forgiven by Christ when she has the authority to do however if you don't keep the laws of God is found in the Torah and keep the Sabbath and don't ever repent and you die in sin you will not be saved
I would like you to look at 2 Thess. 2:4 and then compare it to John 8. And John 8:58. 2 Thess. Was written before the gospel of John so why would Jesus be in the temple claiming to be I AM which would fulfill 2 Thess 2:4 warning. Why would Jesus say something he knew would be condemned later in a warning?
I have a theory, and this doesn't apply to just Abrahamic belief, but any belief. I understand that sin itself is far and wide and that my answer is not a universal answer, as well as it doesn't cover other sins that are outside of it's range. The greatest Sin is to not care for your fellow human beings no matter who they are. You don't need to respect them as the individual, but recognize that they are and were a person. Things like murder, theft, adultery, harming others with your greed, and so on. But in terms of God/god beliefs, not so much. It is similar to Menocchio's view that the only sin was to harm your neighbour.
James: Yahuah and Yahusha Hallelujah … 🙏 These two names hold significant meaning… To all scripture. I’ve become very confused by learning the meaning of these two names, when broken down, do you have any thoughts on this? Or studies
I have read that YHWH were the hebrew letters that represented the secret and unspeakable name of God. In the Old Testament the Jehovah ( Yahua, YHWH) says that "I am who (that) I am" . Yeshua (Joshua ) was a relatively common name for males in Judea in the time of Jesus ( which is a Roman? version) of that hebrew name. This is my understanding of these names, but based on recollection without being able to cite the sources.
@@mitchdowning8188 I reading 📖 the Cepher, with the original Hebrew text and meaning. And the name was given, and the meaning undeniable… quite shocking this book. I’m still trying to decipher if this is a cult or truth. Shalom Mitch, God bless. Have a great day.
@@GodsWorld189 I must admit that it is the parables and sayings of Jesus ( Yahusha) which are more important to me than whatever name that He has been called in the scriptures. Thank you for mentioning the book you have found interesting. It's always nice to learn about something new. May the joy that comes from seeking God be with you.
It’s actually quite clear even in the English translation that the whole point is he’s focusing on the importance of the heart, which makes the attached bit about declaring all foods clean look painfully out of place.
I would guess that Pauline influence would have had something to do with it. Mark was like, "here! Here it seems like Jesus says kosher laws don't matter anymore!" Or it could be a later interpolation for those same reasons.
@@EarnestApostateMark didn't write, that Jesus declared all foods clean. He wrote (I'll shorten it a bit:) Jesus said it goes not into the heart but into the draught purifying all foods (there was no punctuation in the original.) It should be understood like this: Jesus said, "it goes not into the heart, but into the draught, purifying all foods." (That is, that digestion purifies your meal, even if you ate with unwashed hands) But translaters interpret it as: Jesus said, "it goes not into the heart, but into the draught", purifying all foods. (That is, that while speaking, Jesus purifies all foods by declaring them clean.) When Paul speaks of clean and unclean, he isn't talking about pork, but about clean food, that has been sacrificed to idols.
Jesus is absolutely saying you don't have to follow all the Hebrew dietary laws. This is discern not by the knowledge of etymology but just context. He spoke of bodily defilement and spiritual defilement. These are two concepts. Jesus is proving that all foods no make how "clean" or "unclean" no more that go into the stomach, part is digested while the other part is expelled from the body as feces. But the heart is spiritual and not a physical organ. These proves that Jesus was saying that no physical food has any power to makes a person disapproved before God.
I believe this teaching is another method/parable of Yeshua teaching when He expands the true purpose of the Torah such as lust/adultery and murder. I believe this teaching correlates to Deuteronomy 23:12-14.
7But every man hath not knowledge. For some suppose that there is an idol, until this hour, and eat as of a thing offered unto the idol, and so their consciences being yet weak are defiled. 8Meat maketh us not acceptable to god: Neither if we eat are we the better: Neither if we eat not are we the worse. 9But take heed that your liberty cause not the weak to fall. 10For if some man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple shall not the conscience of him which is weak be boldened to eat those things which are offered unto the idol? 11And so thorow thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died. 12When we sin so against the brethren and wound their weak consciences, we sin against Christ. 13Wherefore if meat hurt my brother, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, because I will not hurt my brother
So what is being said is that God's error free bible is today no longer free of errors due to translation into languages that are continually evolving.
It meets few of the criteria. It does interrupt the narrative, slightly. But the meaning is not changed by the interruption. It already said that "governors and kings" will persecute the Apostles, so that already implies gentiles. It's more like an explanation of why the persecution will occur. But (AFAIK) there's no textual variant where it doesn't appear. It doesn't demonstrate knowledge of later ideas or events. Nor does it contradict the author's usual message or writing style. In fact it reinforces it - Mark is already intended for a mixed Christian and Jewish audience, and the passage as a whole talks about persecution by both Jewish and gentile authorities. It's almost impossible to prove that any verse *isn't* a later addition, but this one doesn't really seem to be.
So, I wonder how this connects with Paul, who seemed to think that the Jewish laws no longer applied, and therefore one could eat what gentiles eat. Paul preceded all these gospels, so it appears that Pauline influence inspired these misunderstandings and later mistranslations. It would be nice to know exactly how Paul got his ideas-- his Jesus hallucinations/dreams solely, or could there have been other influences. Paul's ideas seem so radical, in the context of his time. These misunderstandings also seem to indicate that most of the content of the gospel stories were imaginative fiction, but tendentious, in that the fictions were crafted to offer support to Paul's ideas.
Deep down, there’s a few authentic teachings of Jesus found in the gospels. Unfortunately, yes, most of the gospels are influenced by Paul, who wrote before Mark and the others. Originally though, most of the teachings of Jesus had nothing to do with Paul’s ideas of Jesus. So you essentially have a split here between “Jesus of Nazareth” and “Paul’s Christ”. I’m convinced that if Jesus, Paul, and their respective followers were all in the same room, the two sides would be at odds with each other.
@@ChristianCarrizalesahhh so we cannot have any trust in the majority of the new testament and have to pretend we can rend scripture apart in order to sort it into "true scripture" and "false scripture." wondrous faith you have there. great example of not leaning on your own understanding.
Pilate washed his hands of Christ, as the Jews have. Everything that comes from my body is filthy compared to Jesus and his pairables....thank you for your words here....another reminder to be good and love our father first and most.
Is it a beautiful ceremony that you've been to many times etc? What about the repairing of sins by swinging a chicken over the head, another practice by some Orthodox Jews. Have you seen that?
Many modern translations have realllllllllllllllllly messed up Mark 7:19. IF the Messiah made ALL foods/meats CLEAN- He would be a false Messiah!!!!!!!!! ( Matt. 5:17-19) When it comes to Mark 7, I always use the NKJV of the Bible. Pause at 9:38. Sadly, there is a textual variant here.
Oooopppsss, how about Acts 10:9-16 that specifically supported the idea of Mark 7:15, both Acts/Mark are obviously against Deut 14:3-21 about clean/unclean food Dr,......
Acts says what it says, and (nearly) everyone agrees that Luke had read Mark, but Acts contains no explicit reference to Mark. They only seem related if you already assume that they mean the same thing.
There is an obvious break of logic in this. Food or all else going into your mouth and out into the toilet has no connection to what defiles a man. I assume that Jesus was not aware of the fact that the gut is strongly connected to the brain, thus causing or healing mental problems. If he was, I'm amazed, and Mark 7:14 should be rewritten accordingly.
Why even waste your time with any of these translations? Just read it interlinear for the New Testament. As for the old read interlinear as well but only to compare it to the even better more trust worthy and older, Brenton’s Septuagint if you speak English
4To speak of meat dedicat unto idols, we are sure that there is none idol in the world: and that there is none other god but one. 5And though there be that are called goddes, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be goddes many and lords many) 6but unto us is there one god, which is the father, of whom are all things, and we in him: and one Lord Iesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Nice idea, but I don't agree. Two reasons. First: The phrase "And he said" at the beginning of Mk 7,20 indicates the citation of jesus speech starts again. This means the part before doesn't belong to the citation beginning in v18 "He said to them...". In your interpretation the citation of Jesus speech is continuously V18-23 and no meaning to the "And he said" Mk7,20. Second reason: The teaching "all food is clean" or "there is nothing you may eat damaging your life in the holy spirit" is an important and common teaching of the early church as in 1.Cor 8,8, acts 15, gal 2,11-19. There had been some fights about it and a decision of the holy sprit.
He does bathroom humor a lot with me one time He said do you want me to rapture you now? from the toilet? i said No! Lord we will be talking about this forever could i have a minute? that was over a year ago so sorry maybe we could have been out of here already if i said yes rapture me now. He even gave me verses about it. i heard a ridiculous rhyme about private things we do in the bathroom from the cloud of witnesses church. i said you peepers? what are you looking? they do watch us like hawks. that would put you right off sinning knowing all heaven sees it all.
10. AND there came unto him certain of the Scribes and Pharisees who had seen one of his disciples eat with unwashed hands. 11. And they found fault, for the Jews eat not except they have first washen their hands and many other things observe they, in the washing of Cups and of vessels and of tables. 12. And they said, Why, walk not all thy disciples after the tradition of the elders, for we saw one who did eat with unwashed hands? 13. And Iesus said, Well hath Moses commanded you to be clean, and to keep your bodies clean, and your vessels clean, but ye have added things which ofttimes cannot be observed by every one at all times and in all places. 14. Hearken unto me therefore, not only unclean things entering into the body of man defile the man, but much more do evil thoughts and unclean, which pour from the heart of man, defile the inner man and defile others also. Therefore take heed to your thoughts and cleanse your hearts and let your food be pure. 15. These things ought ye to do, and not to leave the others undone. Whoso breaketh the law of purification of necessity, are blameless, for they do it not of their own will, neither despising the law which is just and good. For cleanliness in all things is great gain. 16. Be ye not followers of evil fashions of the world even in appearance; for many are led into evil by the outward seeming, and the likeness of evil.
Even as an atheist (formerly Protestant) this is still one of my favorite quotes! You may have covered this concept before - Yeshua and his followers did not speak Greek. Or Hebrew. So everything reported about what he said in Greek has already been translated into another language by people who did not even hear him speak the original. Then it gets translated into English, strongly influenced by the Latin translations of the second hand Greek! At any rate, I once asked a scholarly friend if there were any good jokes in the Gospels - this didn't come up but he was fond of saying that Yeshua's declaration that Simon was Peter (Rock) was a snide reference to Peter rarely understanding the parables, being a bit thick headed.
Jesus absolutely would have likely spoke Greek in addition to Aramaic. Koine Greek, or “common” Greek, would have been spoken by the people of Galilee, which was along a very major trade route, and it would have been the language the Romans would have been using among the middle and lower class at the time as well. I have not done research on whether Jesus could have spoken Hebrew, but it seems most historians think he might have
It was not a teaching or a commandment. It was a riddle. That is why Peter was perplexed for he knew that believers were not supposed to eat pigs and squid and stuff and even confessed so. You need to keep reading Acts 10 to understand the true context. He was not to call Gentiles "unclean" for YHVH makes them clean when they turn to Him to learn of His Ways and walk in them. Acts 10:26-29 28"He said to them, “You know how UNLAWFUL IT IS FOR A JEW TO ASSOCIATE WITH A FOREIGNER OR VISIT HIM (This is a man-made "law" of man-made rabbinical Judaism. This command is nowhere to be found in Genesis to Revelation). But God has shown me that I SHOULD NOT CALL ANY MAN IMPURE OR UNCLEAN. 29So when I was invited, I came without objection. I ask, then, why have you sent for me?” ... 34"Then Peter began to speak: “I now truly understand that GOD DOES NOT SHOW FAVORITISM, 35BUT WELCOMES THOSE FROM EVERY NATION who FEAR HIM and DO WHAT IS RIGHT." HOW does one "fear God"? HOW does one "do what is right"?
Some things taught are global (applying to everyone everywhere) and other things apply to a certain person and a certain situation. In this case, he was making a point to Peter who may have been a bit of a racist.
The vision to Peter was about the gospel being taken to the gentiles, not food. The sheet was brought down 3 times. Once it was taken up the last time, 3 gentile messengers knocked at the gate where Peter was staying to beckon him to come to Cornelius' house. Upon arriving at Cornelius' house, Peter explained the vision, saying that it was common knowledge that Jews were forbidden, by tradition, from consorting with gentiles, but God has adominished him not to consider any man common or unclean. Yeshua has never advocated deviating from Torah. He only taught it to be observed in the proper spirit in which it was given.
For me it offers just another example of why Matthew and Luke hold no value in terms of being authentic. As forged Gospels intended to grow faith, Matthew/Luke invariably do exactly what you expect them to do when it comes to problematic/misunderstood/confusing texts. Did the author of Matthew misunderstand Mark, or was he just worried the text in its original form wouldn’t be well understood? I like your explanation of the text’s meaning, but I disagree with your assertion that the text does not mean what it states. Declaring all foods clean is exactly what is meant as the text is referring to just the food a Jew would eat, not what a Jew wouldn't eat. Jesus is essentially asking why worry about tradition when you defile your body in sin. I think most can see the misunderstanding you are pointing to, but may not as easily see how to get past it. It is easier to understand from the perspective of the issue being raised by the Pharisees. The issue is not about eating forbidden food. In other words, pork isn’t what’s on the menu here. The Pharisees are accusing Jesus’ followers of not following tradition, and in doing so they believe his followers defile their bodies with unclean food through touch, not by consuming what is forbidden. Jesus declared all foods clean in defense of his Apostles not following the related Jewish tradition. Obviously he is not talking about forbidden food, he is talking about letting go of traditions and refocusing on what actually matters.
@@ASD128London If reading the devotional Gospels inspires your faith, then I certainly wouldn't try stopping you. That is I believe what they were meant to do. And if you prefer to use the word overwritten, then I also wouldn't disagree. I use the word forgery to mean falsified. There is text in Matthew and Luke that pushes the accounts they provide outside the realm of plausibility. Both Matthew and Luke read like commissioned works, and there is just as good a chance they are from the late 2nd century then there is a chance they are from the first century. But regardless of when they were written, I think what we believe to be true is an essential part of our faith. I personally can't put faith in something I know isn't even plausible. That does not mean I don't have faith, or believe in Jesus. I just don't believe Matthew and Luke are an authentic part of the message Jesus brought.
@@nubtube7313 certainly the writers Matthew and Luke had a purpose. That doesn't make them forgeries, nor mean that they do not reflect what Jesus did and taught.
@@ASD128London I agree they served a purpose, but that’s not what makes them forgeries. What makes them forgeries are the falsified accounts. Regarding purpose, it’s important to keep the context in which they were written in mind. It’s easy to understand how Jesus’ missing body would create a serious problem for all concerned. Jesus’ family would have had no way of accessing the body privately under Roman guard and neither the Jewish authorities, or their Roman overloads could benefit from the claimed-to-be Messiah’s missing body, especially not after being crucified for the claim. It appears efforts to address the problem may have started with a demand that James publicly denounce Jesus when it became apparent the movement would not go away on its own, and guilt of the crucifixion continued to haunt the Jewish religious order for centuries to come. Several years after the crucifixion Saul set out to persecute Jesus followers only to later write as Paul about the appearance of false Gospels attempting to sway people away from the movement. Another Sanhedrin plot? Several centuries later the story of a Rabbi and a snake bite attempt to diminish faith in Jesus while claiming he was the son of a Roman soldier. But it’s through Paul that we can be almost certain the Talpiot Tomb Story is likely just another forgery. We know from Paul that church’s had formed throughout the holy land in the decades following the crucifixion. It is simply not believable that Jesus was reburied without his family and thousands of his followers knowing about it. This requires then a secret second burial, but it is simply unreasonable to expect that those capable of carrying out such a secret would create an unsolvable problem for themselves. A problem they would spend centuries trying to fix. And this is the context the devotional Gospels were written in. One side intent on squashing the movement, the other intent on seeing it grow. The purpose of the appended birth story and false post-resurrection sightings was to increase faith in Jesus as Messiah. Dr. Tabor agrees that interpolations are easy to spot because they are so heavy handed, and usually include big neon signs pointing the way. According to Paul Jesus’ power is perfected in weakness, which contradicts the purpose of the devotional Gospels. Dr. Tabor hasn’t taken the time to fully explain the meaning behind Paul’s account, but to the faithful no amount of doubt, or persecution will sway them. Your weakness is not being able to prove the reason behind your blind faith. His power is most visible when his faithful are at their weakest. The reason truth matters now more than ever is because the original purpose of the devotional Gospels has by now eroded. Some 2-thousand years later trained academic minds are uncovering and piecing together what are obvious forgeries, which only casts a shadow of doubt over the true story.
![[TH]FFWS SEA 2024 Fall - Knockout Stage Day 5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N2tl9xkQyyU/mqdefault.jpg)
Fascinating! I have studied the Bible for 40 years, and never heard this before. 65 years old and still learning new truths, it is wonderful. :)
try to learn about the teachings of ethiopian orthodox teachers with the geez translation right from the hebrew
Aw, maaan! You thought of a really cool user name! 🎉Wish I had! Maybe next time!
@@hoperules8874 it is my clown name, has been for 40 years. Thanks
I just read this in the ESV a day or two ago noticed for the first time the translation footnote, thought it funny how translators feel the need to clean up the Scriptures. 😂 It’s no wonder people were attracted to Jesus, he spoke to them not down to them!
You mean “spoke TO them not spoke DOWN on them.
It is important to realize that the KJV was written at the beginning of the transition between Middle English and Modern English. Therefore we find many Middle English words still used in it.
Which leads us to the word "purge". In Middle English it means to (purify by complete removing of the contents, typically of something bad) where as in our Modern English today it means only (to violently remove the filth). Even today with folks who are deep into herbalism the word "purifying" the intestines would be done by using herbs that causes a purging from the system.
It is not a mistranslation done in the KJV but rather a shift in the way we use the English word "purge". It's meaning to (purify - by removing the fifth) basically became obsolete and it confuses us as modern English readers unfamiliar with the transition in it's meaning and use.
Whenever you use a modern dictionary to look up a word from the KJV and you see a heading "Archaic:", this is probably the definition you would want to use.
So Jesus seems to be saying that we are purified by removing the wicked things that come out of our hearts and minds. And that we are not made impure by what we eat or accidentally should swallow.
And He did not actually "declare all foods clean", which is a later added mistranslation.
@@tomt373
Are you implying that the KJV mistranslated it? Did you even read my post?
@@jdwagman
I don't think King James' scholars mistranslated it, since that phrase is not part of the original KJV in the first place: Mark 7:19 "Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?"
As this author points out, "purging all meats" in original King James language is in reference to "Meals" in general, not specific to animal flesh.
That is, if you further read a classic KJV, you will find when they sat down for what we commonly call a "meal", the term used then was "meat".
You mean the translation from German, from Martin Luther, originally, don't you? That part where he ripped out seven books because they weren't good enough for him, and he took out the words "and works" so he could create a new religion beying based on just believing as opposed to being a good person in any way? That part? Yeah. The KJV and where it came from is well documented. If it did come from Middle English then why does it rely so heavily on the one from ML when ML used the newly available printing press to translate, demolish, and edit the Vulgate? Oh gosh. How inconvenient it is to remember history.
@@OceanusHelios
The KJV was translated to English from the Greek majority Byzantine text and the Greek NT of the Textus Receptus. It didn't have anything to do with Luther or the German language. It was to replace the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible which were originally translated into English by Calvinist.
At the time of the KJV “meat” still meant food (solid as distinct from milk, ale or other liquid food). They still often used “flesh” to specify animal meat. The phrase “meat and drink” meant “food and drink”.
Similarly, the way we use “drink” to mean alcohol could possibly become its primary meaning.
Thank you, it always struck me a bit weird in that story, not the sentiment itself but how it just took you right of out of the story in like the middle of a sentence. Breaking the fourth wall a bit or something, in a way you'd expect from Matthew but not from Mark. It now makes sense to me why. Jesus parable reminds me a little of how my parents used to say/joke, when we kids didn't want to taste unappealing looking food: "if only you knew how bad it will look where it's going...".
This was very good, James! Thank you again!
The parable is not even about foods! It just uses food as an analogy. It is about a person remaining 'good' despite any corrupting influences from his environment.
Nice take. There are many texts and tablets from the ancient world that mull over the morality of influencing others and being influenced. For thousands of years going back to the earliest tablets and the hymns of Inanna, influencing was considered wrong in the influencer's truths may not be truths to the person influenced. For example, fishing with nets may be good in a sea, but it will damage river life and deny fish to those downstream - or having regulations for thick clothes with no gaps of skin exposed works well in Hyperborea but is silly in the southern Mediterranean. As for being influenced, the influenced gives up their morality in hopes that the influencer will use their influence justly. Those who allow themselves to be influenced are amoral tools - like a hammer. They can be used for good (building a house) or evil (murder.) The problem of corrupting influences is something the disciples would have been quite familiar with. This understanding makes the joke both easy to understand and trenchant by the listeners of the time.
That was an excellent talk on a passage I've read and remember thank you.
Reading Mark as a young man I distinctly recall the feeling i got reading Jesus mention bodily functions in the context of a bit of a scolding.
Jesus lived as a man, among men. It seems to follow that he might have been seen to have wit and more than a little bit of character (which presumptively would be relevant to the journey he wound up living).
One wishes and wonders if only Jesus had been educated as a writer of his own ideas.
He is really funny anointed with oil of gladness more than anyone. Jesus showed me over 40 pages of jokes in the bible a lot of two witness jokes. they are outrageous one about fart pharisees, i laughed all night
In not being blameless ,in those thirteen ways described….we only succeed in defiling ourselves because we can only describe what is inside us ,and what we are projecting on the world around ourselves.
It's interesting because I just researched this a week ago. I certainly agree that it's not about what kind of food is kosher, but it certainly makes sense that it would be interpreted this way by gentile Christians as an argument against Judaizers in the first century church! This is an example of how scripture is reinterpreted to address modern concerns, even if the ink is barely dry!
This is actually a power play by the Pharisees, which Jesus reverses.
The thing to realize is that this is not really a "tradition" going back to, say, the construction of the Temple. It's something that the Pharisees just instituted in the previous decade or two (the earliest possible date is around 30 BC but the Talmud admits that it was probably decades after). And yes, Orthodox Jews still do it.
Although it's true that ritual impurity is not quite the same as sinfulness, in this case it's not about entering the temple either - it's a special rule about eating bread, which applies everywhere. They constructed this hierarchy of different levels of cleanliness, and even if you hadn't touched a corpse or anything, your hands were still assumed to have probably touched something dirty and so you had to wash before eating bread. (Not necessarily dirty in the modern sense of being sanitary, but spiritually dirty).
When they say tradition, the Greek word παράδοσις, it doesn't necessarily mean "because it's long established" but rather "because it's an instruction with authority." Other examples being 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6.
So, putting it all together, what happened was the Pharisees issued what amounted to a religious edict, and Jesus told them that their authority was invalid because they did not understand the scriptures.
I enjoyed reading your comment! Would you be open to sharing any of the sources or scholars you used during your research? I’d love to read up more on that.
Great, ty Dr. Tabor👍
When did the gloss, "thus he declared all foods clean." first appear in translations of the Bible into English? William Tyndales 1532 translation of the New Testament, on which the KJV draws for something like 90% of its wording has: "whatsoever thing from without entereth into a man, it cannot defile him, because it entereth not into his heart , but into his belly: and goeth out into the draught that purgeth out all meats." where "draught" meant drain or cesspool . Not a word about declaring all making foods clean there.
I agree. Translation is crucial: whether Jesus said “trust” and it was translated as “faith” referring to the Roman centurion, I think is very important. They are not the same at all.
TY!! Jesus never contradicted the Torah! Translators may have had some other motivations due to culture and political pressures and more likely limitations in scholarship. Glad they tried, regardless!❤
totally agree. Always been my understanding, I do believe there is a health reason for Clean and unclean but also a spiritual application. in the Sanctuary laws only clean animals could be offered as a sacrifice thereby representing Jesus as the sacrifice for sin.
I enjoy your knowledge. I would remind all of your watchers, one gets out of the Scripture what they are going in to look for. Some see hope, love, redemption. This is the art of imagination, and hopefully a higher knowledge than simple Human reason and logic - stoicism.
Some parables are difficult. This one is not. This is very clear, Jesus is saying exactly what he is saying.
Interesting except Peter has a vision about food and all of it being clean so twice now. And it appears that since then Christians knew all food clean.
@@JimCvit The vision that was revealed to Peter wasn't actually about food at all. The sheet was lowered 3 times and each time, Peter refused to "...rise, slay and eat." The sheet being lowered 3 times represented the 3 gentile messengers sent to ask for him to come to Cornelius' house to instruct him on what he had to do. Peter even expounds further when he enters the house by saying that he was told not to consider ANY MAN common or unclean. It all had to do with disregarding the tradition of Jews disassociating with gentiles.
That's really interesting. He's saying that the stomach cleanses everything. He didn't declare all foods clean, he somewhat implied it, but Mark didn't emphasize it. So, what is the history of the use of this verse? I know Dr. Tabor focuses on the biblical period, but now I'm curious how long Christians have been citing this verse to justify eating pork-stuffed turducken and other detestable things?
The Syriac Testament will often add a Semitic interpretation according to some scholars. This was a terrific university lecture. I enjoyed it.
In Mark 7 the story is about a person or people cleansing not food cleansing, period.
FWIW, David Bentley Hart's translation (Mark 7:19) reads, "Because it enters not into his heart, but into the bowels and is expelled into a latrine, purging away everythingthat has been eaten?" (Yale University Press, 2017)
thank you so much!
Sadly, I am aware of people leaving their life-time church affiliations believing the passage in Mark 7:19 suggests you can eat anything you want to.
I know of one poor fellow who grew up with a church family where he ate very carefully, and in being "shown" this error in Mark 7:19 by someone, went out and got sick eating all sorts of off the wall wild game, etc.
Another friend of mine almost died from trying the jellyfish delicacy served to him in South Korea.
It was as bad as having an early case of COVID, and there is no anti-toxin for Jellyfish.
So much for "declaring all meats clean".
I get this understanding of the traditions followed by the Pharisees, and Jesus' response, from the KJV because I have found increasingly that, as a translation, it actually conveys the Greek into English very well. However, unless Mr Tabor is referring to the original KJV of 1611, or any early 'revision' of it, the word 'thereby' is not included.
Thanks, an excellent explanation. I'm not Jewish, but I decided a couple years back to go Kosher, for the reasons as explained in this video. I had already got OFF the damaging Standard American Diet (SAD), and was trying to repair all the decades of damage to my organs and bodily systems. God's design of the human body is hugely complex, a miracle in and of itself. After the third heart attack I began to take my health very seriously indeed.
I wasn't completely sure that the Biblical food requirements and guide lines still apply to us (as many Christians deny), but even if not, I developed a very strong belief and faith, that if God recommended certain foods to the Jews and denied them others, than those choices WILL be both extremely safe and extremely healthy for the human body. Remember that EVERYTHING that is required of us by him, IS for our own good. Effectively for me, all I had to give up was bacon, pork, prawns and shell fish - a very small inconvenience indeed, and well worth it if only for the mental peace of mind that it provides.
There is scientific evidence supporting the idea that some of the "foods" denied the Jews do have potential risks for human health. One example is pork. Pigs don't sweat, which is also used to shed toxins, so instead store all toxins in their fat. So depending on their environment, they could easily pass on dangerous toxins to whoever or whatever might consume them. The western diet is continuing to become more toxic as time goes on, with industry influenced health bodies falsely claiming that many chemical substances are "safe" for human consumption. An example would be glyphosate, which is now contaminating many "food products", which is also an antibiotic, and kills off your microbiome, which is responsible for up to 70% of your nutrient absorption!. The over use of antibiotics by the medical industries does the same thing - also avoid those unless facing a life and death situation.
A second example would be ruminant animals, which appear to have been designed by God specifically as food for humanity. With their extra stomachs, they can neutralize and render harmless most if not all toxins and poisons. So they appear to be safe to consume regardless of their environment and no matter how contaminated it might be.
:) Remember that God specifically designed us a gallbladder and bile (like a detergent), to break down FAT. Natural animal FATS are GOOD for you, however not so the chemical factory created industrial "vegetable oils". They're made from seeds, there's no vegetable in them (and zero nutrients), and they've highly unstable and inflammatory (100% omega 6 fats).
God Bless.
Right, private teaching, that we're going to include in our scroll for everyone to read so that you feel like an insider with secret knowledge.
Meeting minutes
The problem is that they had elevated their traditions to equal with commandments. God said nobody can add or take away from the commandments. That means Christ could not take away from the dietary commandments either.
Especially after criticising the Pharisees for it a few verses earlier.
Well said.
From the old covenant that's right and Christ fulfills the old covenant and gives us the new covenant...
@@triskaideka13
That Greek word fulfill in Matt 5:17 means to fully preach. Christ fully preached the Law. The new covenant has not begun yet. Jeremiah 31:31 clearly tells us that during the new covenant nobody has to teach others about Yahweh because they all will know Him. The new covenant has not begun yet.
Interpolations. Let’s do this. 👍🏽👍🏽
What did Abraham do that God punished all his descendants by denying them BACON? 😊
My copy of the Douay Rheims doesn't have the stuff in parentheses.
This is most certainly an interpolation that was probably a commentary gloss written in the margin by a scribe that eventually was mistakenly copied into the text.
There are, however, several passages in the New Testament that make it clear the Christian is NOT obligated to follow Levitical food laws. Peter’s vision in Acts 10, for example, reveals that Christ has made all foods clean. Yes, the underlying meaning is about Salvation being available to Gentiles, but the IMMEDIATE context is about Peter being hungry but unwilling to defile himself by eating anything forbidden by the Mosaic Law.
In Colossians 2:16, Paul admonishes his readers to let no one judge them according to what they choose to eat or drink. Romans 14:1-17 contains similar instructions.
The writer to the Hebrews in chapter 9 showed that the Old Testament ordinances were a shadow of what would ultimately be fulfilled in Christ. Such ordinances were “imposed until the time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10 KJV) when Jesus would fulfill the requirement of the Law. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, debating whether or not Gentile converts are obligated to obey Levitical Law (including Kosher food laws), concludes with the leader of the Church, James, saying:
“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”
Acts 15:19-20 KJV
No other burden was given although it is certain that many would have insisted that the specifications of Leviticus 11 MUST be followed by all Christians.
“Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” -Colossians 2:20-23, ESV
In Mark 7, Mark uses the word “broma,” which is Greek for food in general, not meat specifically. Please don’t let anyone claim that something God has deemed “clean” as “unclean.” :) Feel free to look into Colossians 2 in its context for a deeper look.
"A gross example"! I saw what you did there!
My KJV doesn't even have a "thereby". Perhaps I'm reading the 1711 re-translation, not the original 1611.
No "thereby" in the 1611 translation either.
Acts 10:9 ??
Yeah, when I was young 3-4? My mother came into the bathroom, there I was feet in the toilet and sleeping:) shalom
I have a bible I put my hand on every day to pray, so I wash my hands before , respect I suppose , shalom
I am not Hebrew, however I will say, it was not until my eyes were open, probably by The Holy Spirit, I started eating as clean food as I can, includeCooking out all blood,
It I figure it goes as deep as bottom feeders help keep water clean, also your body, “pork should be out or respect “ !!! As Gods holy temple was defiled with one,
Shalom
The KJV does not contain "thus he declared all foods clean" or any equivalent wording, at least in the Oxford University Press edition I have.
The new KJV and other more recent transl ations do have it
James, you're incorrect in regards to the requirement of hand washing before a meal. Firstly this is not for all foods but mainly for bread and foods in sauce. The former to ensure Terumah is eaten in ritual cleanness (the Rabbis extended hand washing for everybody on this one not just Kohanim to ensure they do things properly), and the latter, because impurity is transferred through liquids. Both of these are Torah laws Divinely ordained. Also remember that in Temple times people ate directly using hands and not forks, spoons and knives. Nowadays, washing to eat bread remains mandatory because we still eat bread directly by hand.
KJV doesn’t have the parenthetical comment. It never occurred to me this was the passage used to justify consumption of food condemned in Leviticus.
It's in the New KJV
@@ASD128London The New King James also has it correctly, at least the online version.
It depends on how you punctuate the sentence, because it was originally written without any punctuation. It is possible to translate it as "thus he declared all foods clean", but then it goes against the point of the story.
@@DominikKoppensteiner the point of the story is that it is not food that defiles you, it is the things in your heart. That is consistent with "thus he declared all foods clean".
@@ASD128London If he declared all foods clean, then he is doing what he just criticised the pharisees for. Is someone, who doesn't know about the food laws, defiled if he eats pork? No, because the food itself does not defile you. But the food itself is still unclean, and God calls it an abomination. If someone knows about the food laws and still eats pork, then his disobedience defiles him.
If all foods are clean, then why would the disciples explicitly forbid blood in Acts 15? There are certain foods, that include blood. Are they now clean or not?
It does make a difference i have 7 differe t translations and im comfotable with what ive learned bu looking at all angles and i use a hebew helper and an old old concordance and a thompsons .😊the bible is a word feast ❤
Thank you. I appreciate your comments. Solved a little confusion I had in this passage. Thanks again , from Argentina...
I noticed, when I was reading the Word, that the continuity of some of the text was broken. Seemed added to make a particular point (usually favoring a certain sect or initiating a behavior that wasn't actually being taught) added for effect. So here's one i noticed quite easily was wrong. Of course I was chastised for voicing such a thing (Lutheran! Lol) so I'm happy that this and other obvious errors in teaching are addressed!
The Hebrew Bible and NT can be potty mouths at times. It's hilarious. Like Jezzabel being as SHIT on the ground as a prophecy and in actuality.
Does Jesus mean we must eat his flesh and drink his blood bc it is transubstantiated as a result of Him saying he is the bread of life in John 6? I have a very Catholic family
My thoughts:The author of John makes it clear in verses 61 through 64 that Jesus was speaking spiritually, not literally. Moreover, it's important to consider this episode, which doesn't mention anything about physical bread and wine as we see in the synoptic gospels and Paul's writings, and then smashing them all together and formulated Doctrine that was never intended nor understood the way the Catholic Church deals with it. Additionally, it's worth noting that much of what Jesus says in John may not actually be his own words but rather John's theology.
Most of the gospels were written as spiritual allegory not to be taken literal. I.e. the virgin daughter of Zion that travails in childbirth with her FIRSTBORN was not a woman named Mary and her firstborn was not a man named Jesus. Its all defined in the old Testament. Unfortunately most Christians don't read nor study the OT. It has led to over 1900 years of deception and apostasy.
@@waynewright1209 the apostles who were present who left Jesus clearly knew that it wasnt spiritual meant
@@waynewright1209 I don't believe real life Jesus said any of that, but the intent of the author of John is that he meant it literally, hence how offended certain disciples where who immediately stopped following Jesus as per the story
@@lawyerlib When Yeshua states that his flesh is food and his blood is drink, I believe that he is saying that his entire example of living is to be consumed by us in how we follow that example. It's absolutely metaphoric in the same sense that he states that he is the living water. We consume his words and apply them to our actions. He never contradicted Torah. He was the embodiment of Torah and its core meaning. I don't believe in the transubstantiation theory. It's not scriptural. It's another tradition of men.
Some good philological sleuthing going on here. Many thanks Sir.
But then we have to change καθαρίζων into καθαρίζον, if it really goes with πᾶν τό κτλ., which is neuter.
Draught is pronounced identically to the word draft, as in "draught/draft beer". The former is just the British spelling. It's definitely not pronounced "drawt". Great video though
Reminds me of when there is a word I know how to pronounce in three ancient languages, but don’t know to say it in English.
@@steve-4045 Ha, nice.
Pretty surprised my pretty dull comment is the most upvoted one here - this sort of comment of mine is perennially ignored
Don't you think that would disqualify a philologist?
Draft aft, draught aught. The Brady Bunch.
@@johnnyxmusicaught is pronounced ort. Not aft as in draught.
I've already heard this explanation, but it keeps me somewhat confused nevertheless: While the text obviously doesn't EXPLICITLY say that all foods are clean, isn't it still IMPLICIT, especially since Jesus says: NOTHING that goes into a man can defile him? Wouldn't that not only apply to eating with unclean hands, but by extension also to whatever you eat, whether it's kosher or not?
Maybe it just means “I want to tell you about a more important kind of defilement that you should be avoiding.”
It could have been made clearer, but it seems the author had some cryptic reasons for the ambiguity.
It would have been very clear in a culture that understood some animals to be considered food, and others not. The question of whether certain animals were considered good for food even predates Sinai...all the way back to Noach where God differentiates between clean and unclean animals. Another thing to consider is that even clean animals could be considered defiled if they were not handled according to certain Jewish traditions, such as being handled by gentiles after slaughter. The texts HAVE to be considered in light of the temporal and cultural contexts. The texts also have to be read and understood in the entirety of their context, not just a few lines taken out and expounded upon based on a preconceived agenda.
@@CurtisTower-kv1bf Still, if the reasoning is: "Everything that goes into a person has no influence whatsoever on their morality, because it goes straight through them and into the toilet", the conclusion is clear. Whatever the context and what was considered food or non-food, clean or unclean. The reasoning: "Everything that goes into a person has no influence whatsoever on their morality, because it goes straight through them and into the toilet, except, of course, for unclean foods, which also go straight through them and into the toilet, but still have an influence on their morality", is kinda self-defeating.
@@DoloresLehmann I would most definitely defer to Matthew 5 where Yeshua states the he did NOT come to abolish the law, but to fulfill (...or establish) it. His ministry included correcting the way in which the law was perceived. Over the centuries, the law was subverted by the traditions in order to build a fence around Torah. The Pharisees and priests has essentially made a god of the law and left God out of the law. Yeshua said as much when he claimed that they ignored the weightier matters such as justice.
No, because Jesus had just accused the pharisees of changing God's law. The commandments about unclean food were given by God, so why should Jesus change them, if he had just criticised the pharisees for the same reason?
Also, if all food was clean, why would the Holy Spirit explicitly forbid blood in Acts 15? There are some foods, that include blood.
Paul said, whatever is not done by faith, is sin. If a person does not know the difference between clean and unclean food, I wouldn't say that they're morally defiled by it. But if we know God's will and know that we shouldn't eat unclean meat, then it is sin to eat it.
any mention of the vision of peter?
Jimmy, the pericope associated with Revelation 10:16 debunks your interpretaion of the abregation of the Moses dietary laws. Jesus throus them out, Mark 7 is the justification for Galatioans, If you disagree, it will put a serious crimp into the validity of the Jesus Seminar's interpetation of Paulie Theology, If you don't count N.T. Wfith's interpeetation of Pauline Theology,
Of course, it's perfect for your David Koresh version of the Bible. Everything before the Gospel of Mark is Kabbalah, Jesus is the sumation of all the literature that comes before him, which is the point of John ll:35 in terms of high titerature as opposed to any historic method that cannot rise above the glass ceiling of archelology, In any system based on the premise that harmonization is the eneby of Truth can't get there from here. Jesus ties up all the loose ends of Old Testament prophecy, Taking Christianity out of Revelation leads to the Abyss and apocalypse.
Like Waco, I don't know what you think you were doing with Doren, but you basically poured napalm unto a somdering brush firee,
Revelation 10v16??
@@ASD128London At the moment, I don't remember, I have to review the video .
I have dyslexia and this kind of misprint happens all the time, It was something fresh in my mind at the time, but I've moved on since then,
Tabor is constantly making speculatire assertins and then proceeding as if they are dispostive and anchor his argument, when it's his interpetation that he claims reframes the scripture to fit his premises. His axiom that harmonization is the enemy of the Truth precludes most of the synthesis he attepts to dismantle is disregard. It's a characteristic of dialectical Marxism,, which is the prefeered feature of Post Modern Historic Deconstruction,
Tabor's argument that Mark 6 doesn't abrogate the ideatary laws is pure sophistry, Jesus doesn't say you don't need to follow them for youer own religous practice, but it is not o fthe essnce of what becmes Pauline Theology, Paul never renounces Judaism:: he remains faithful to his tradtion because he loves it and it dos, in fact, provide the gateway to the mind of Jesus and His ethos, which Pual largely captures in his Epistles as rabbitacl meditations,
For the Pagan Christians of the Roman legions, Romans 13:1 - 7 is perfectly congruent with the authority to sheich the centurioan is supmitted in Matthew 8:5 - 13, Romans 10:2 is the basis of Pual's business model, that it isn't enough to have been born agains in the manner of the Talking Cross and the Roman soldier, but that you understand and admire the ethical structures of Elohim the One,
From my perspective, Taber is academically dishonest in his methods. As I say, he is teaching the Gospel according to David Koresh, Trying to follow his theology is like tyring to make sense of Ayn Rand's Objectivism: He presents usrful ideas, such as the 10 events in Mark 11 and 12, but, because of the protocols of his Harmonization is the enemey of the Truth, he can nevr arrive at the actual Truth synthesis illuminate.
I may get back to the Revelation misquote, but it means listening to the video agains and it is all the same idiom as the anti-war arguments of the 60s and it was weary of it before I graduated. It;s the same shit as the argumens for Project 2025 and Pro-Life solo scriptura,
Taber claims to be a gig fan of Pauline Theology, but his interpretation of Mark 7 ingores the fact that it is the basis of Paul's argument in Galatians, The short version is, Jesus is against posting the 10 Commandments as shrines in public palces except synagogues I mean, the cost to Taber's particualr brand of sophistry allows the Likud to run Israel when they shouldn't have any more influence over the Knesset than the Amish have over Congress, but, thanks to the sort of sidtorions Taber's interpretations create, that's what happens.
I believe this man thinks the father of Jesus was a Roman Centurion…!
So basically if I understand correctly, the Kosher laws still apply and we should be abiding by them if possible, maybe from a health perspective, but more importantly is the more spiritual teachings of Jesus.
Because on one hand it seems like Jesus never declared all foods clean so we should still be abiding by the Kosher food laws, but on the other hand it seems like he's is saying it doesn't really matter what we eat.
However, look at Acts 15. The only things that James requests that Gentiles observe is abstaining from sexual immorality, from eating foods polluted by idols, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. Nothing is mentioned about observing the Kosher food laws. The whole context of the chapter is whether the Gentiles should observe the Jewish laws or not. Peter says that God accepted the Gentiles as they are without making them observe the ceremonial laws.
@@kmtedford The decision was made to instruct the gentiles of a few major things to put them in the correct path to Torah. The account of their decision further states that Moshe is taught in every synagogue on Shabbat so they can learn more there as they learn how to align themselves in the faith.
@@CurtisTower-kv1bf I feel that is an incorrect understanding of the context of Acts 15. Peter specifically recounts that the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentiles (Cornelius and those gathered-Acts 10) before they knew anything about the Torah. Peter says in verse 10 that "God accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us." It is by the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved (not by observing the Torah).
And your phrase that Moshe is taught in every synagogue is not in reference for them to learn more of the Torah, but rather that the Jews not be offended by the actions of the Gentile believers. These new Gentile believers should be considerate of the Jews.
James also says in verse 19 that "we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." The only stipulations that he requires of the Gentiles are 4 things.
Even Colossians 2:16, 17 Paul speaks about how the Colossian believers should not be concerned about the Jews or any other person demanding that they be concerned about what they eat or drink (the food laws of the Torah), a religious festival, a New Moon celebration, or a Sabbath day (even the Sabbath day is no longer obligatory for Gentile believers). "These are a shadow of the things that were to come, the reality however is found in Christ."
Hebrews also makes it clear that we are under a new covenant. The Old Testament is not our book. Yes, it is Scripture and we can learn about who God is from it. Only the laws written in the New Testament are obligatory for us.
@@kmtedford I respect that you may take a different understanding of Acts 15. My question would be why they mentioned Torah being taught in synagogues in the first place if it had no bearing on their message. In reference to Colossians, Shaul is saying to not let others judge the believers for keeping the feasts, etc. After all, he's talking to a group of believers in a gentile environment where others would be questioning why they are observing certain practices foreign to their immediate society. That's what I take from it when I read it in its complete context.
Simple translation: Your Salvation is neither gained nor lost by what you eat, but it IS affected by the health of your Spirit. This sentiment was often expressed by both Jesus and Paul.
As an observant Jew, you believe that your Salvation is literally tied to your adherence to the Law. Unfortunately for your belief, your Priests took the ideas of God and turned them in to something He never intended. Your Purity Laws are more Moses' and Aaron's personal preferences, than any command of God. And in both Isaiah and Psalms, it is literally stated that Sacrifice for Atonement was a human idea, started by the Priests, not God. I find it infinitely amusing, that God drove the Priests out of the dedication of Solomon's Temple.
Jesus came to reform Judaism, he never intended to start a new religion, and in truth, he did not. As Homo Sapiens existed before "Adam", so too did the knowledge that there was a God. The problem arises when Mankind decides to give God a name, or define what is pleasing or offensive to Him, or even, which style of "Belief" is acceptable or appropriate. When exactly has Man ever been right on that, Adam, Job, Noah, the Pharisees?
I will tell you what Jesus tried to teach you...
1) It is not enough to simply do no Evil, it is absolutely our duty to do Good in the world. And the proof that we are a righteous, is in how we treat the most destitute and hard to love, of us.
2) Do not get caught up in the musings of Men, God will tell you what He wants of you. From this day and forever, you are free from the Temple, the Scriptures, the Priests and the Law. Though any or all of them can be beneficial, a personal relationship with our Creator, is what matters - for if I get it directly from God, neither Lucifer nor Man can deceive me.
3) Sin is not about the act that you do, it is about your intention - if you feed the Poor so that you will look good as a TH-cam Influencer and get views & money, you do not get "brownie points" just because ultimately, "good" was served. As conversely, it is not a Sin when unintended harm comes from an intentional act, though it does not absolve you of responsibility for the unintended consequences of your actions.
4) The Golden Rule is the only "Law" you need.
5) And when all else fails, Love, Mercy, Compassion and Forgiveness are always the right choice.
Whether you choose to believe Jesus is/was just a story, a Prophet, the Messiah, or The God, the truths of those teachings are irrefutable.
Verse 15 still stands: "...there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him..." even if you argue away verse 19.
Yes, but if you blatantly disobey direct commandments and eat meats God said do not eat, that is a matter of the heart. That’s disobedience. It won’t be the pork or shrimp that defiles you. It’s your disobedience that came out of your heart that defiles you.
@@fivebooks8498 😂😂😂
Peter said “kill and eat”
@@messiahmatrix
Read it again. There were clean and unclean animals in the sheet. Something you need to know in order to understand this chapter. The Jews had a made up law that says if a clean animal touches an unclean animal, the clean animal becomes what they called “common” and they would not eat it. There’s no commandment in the Law of God that says this. It was purely made up and added to the Law of God by man. Peter said “I have never eaten anything common or unclean”. Notice that God said “don’t you call common that which I have made clean”.
So it was fine for Peter to call an unclean animal unclean and refuse to eat it as commanded. But it was not ok to call a clean animal common and refuse to eat it. That’s adding to the Law of God and we are forbidden to do that.
Later Peter says God gave him a vision and showed him to not call any man common or unclean. So the vision wasn’t even about food. It was about the first gentiles who were about to receive the Holy Spirit.
Probably one of the favorite verses quoted by drug addicts and homosexuals which spotlights how truly incoherent the logic really is.
‘Woe to the Zadukkim, the spawn of Beli’al - for they have converted the glorious Throne & the Footstol of the High Priest of the Most High into a cesspit & a toilet !’ -Babylonian Talmud cf. Avodah Zara 17a
This is almost like click bait. This is not a particularly badly translated verse the point is made in all translations that I have read
What the video fails to point out is that there are no manuscripts that have this parenthetical remark within the text itself! The only manuscript that contains this remark is the Codex Bezai and it is only found in the margins placed there by a scribe hundreds of years AFTER the fact. The jpeg files online don't even show the marginal notes. It is only after numerous copies had been produced that it migrated into the text. In other words, it only appears in translations. Mark never wrote it and Jesus never spoke it.
dr. ammon says yesus is talking about male ejaculate. the meat is his flesh and his flesh/body is the ejaculate. of course, ammon is reading in ancient greek and you are reading in KJV english. probably some mistranslation somewhere. in addition, you seem to use ancient greek to pronounce the hebrew; to' evah and tame' what if you are just mistranslating the greek? if I could make a lower case Zeta, "kathapiZwv pivta' ta' Bpw'mata". that all seems greek to me. my faux ancient greek "kathapiZwv pivta' ta' Bpw'mata" translates to modern greek as "and drinks the drinks" all interesting. do we really know anything about the year 0ce?
If you are listening to somebody that is teaching you that Jesus was talking about male ejaculation you need to unsubscribe from that person immediately that is the most ridiculous asinine thing that I've ever heard in my life
Huh. That makes no sense.
Dr. Ammon uses ancient (Classical) Greek while for at the very least 1700 years the churches have been using Koine Greek with their own peculiar definitions.
For the Greek NT text, I follow the Majority Text, which has καθαρίζον, modifying the whole process of food going in one end and out the other, rather than καθαρίζων, apparently modifying Jesus, hence the translation "he declared". It can't modify the toilet, because then it would be καθαρίζοντα, in the accusative.
This passage was in the latest Sabbath School lesson, and I described the cup with two handles at right angles, labeled על נטילת ידים, with which Jews pour water three times on one hand and then three times on the other hand.
The word αφεδρών, found only here, in the parallel passage, and in a fragment of the town laws of Pergamon, was of uncertain meaning until the fragment was found. It's obvious to me that an αφεδρών has a seat and has something to do with away, and the only thing that fits is a toilet. But it wasn't obvious to everyone, hence the diverse translations.
There's a book published by FFOZ, which I've misplaced, which explains that excrement is ritually clean even if what was eaten wasn't, and that that's what cleaning the foods means.
Tradition? I see the food "laws" in the Torah as a command....not tradition.
To be honest I think saying external things don’t defile you pretty much does mean all foods are clean including pork. If Jesus had more to say about eating too much sugar that might have been helpful.
Because Jesus makes a list of sins or vices that come out of hearts of people ( as bad words or actions), , is it possible that He is suggesting that the
thoughts or actions that we see or hear (take in and digest like food) and use or reject ( leave in the toilet) will not defile us?
These verses are talking about eating with dirty hands and nothing else and that is explained in the following verses of that chapter
@@onejohn2.26. Jesus spoke to them in parables and did not say anything that was not in a parable. If He was not concerned about eating or healing
on the sabbath, perhaps He wanted His disciples to understand that there are more important things that a washing of hands ceremony. Ironic that He
later uses a washing or feet ceremony to make another point.
@@mitchdowning8188
Jesus said many things that were not in Parables take The Sermon on the Mount for instance but Jesus said in Matthew 5:18 that not one of the smallest parts of the law would change as long as there is a heaven and earth and the Sabbath and the dietary laws are part of those laws and they are Paramount in importance
@@onejohn2.26. I was paraphrasing what is said in Mark 4:34 , but even some of the things that He says in private to His disciples are not to be taken literally. Like when He
says to Peter "get thee hence. Satan". If the Law was paramount to Jesus, neither the woman caught in adultery, nor the thief being crucified beside Jesus at Calvary ( the one who professed belief in Jesus in his last moments) would have been deemed acceptable citizens in the Kingdom of God.
@@mitchdowning8188
They were forgiven by Christ when she has the authority to do however if you don't keep the laws of God is found in the Torah and keep the Sabbath and don't ever repent and you die in sin you will not be saved
Wow if they can't translate something as important as the GOSPEL who can you trust??? You of course ty Dr Tabor
Steve Mason agrees
I would like you to look at 2 Thess. 2:4 and then compare it to John 8. And John 8:58. 2 Thess. Was written before the gospel of John so why would Jesus be in the temple claiming to be I AM which would fulfill 2 Thess 2:4 warning. Why would Jesus say something he knew would be condemned later in a warning?
I have a theory, and this doesn't apply to just Abrahamic belief, but any belief. I understand that sin itself is far and wide and that my answer is not a universal answer, as well as it doesn't cover other sins that are outside of it's range. The greatest Sin is to not care for your fellow human beings no matter who they are. You don't need to respect them as the individual, but recognize that they are and were a person. Things like murder, theft, adultery, harming others with your greed, and so on. But in terms of God/god beliefs, not so much. It is similar to Menocchio's view that the only sin was to harm your neighbour.
What is this extra-Jewish tradition of washing hands before a meal outside of ritual?
That seems an entirely modern perspective.
James: Yahuah and Yahusha
Hallelujah … 🙏
These two names hold significant meaning…
To all scripture.
I’ve become very confused by learning the meaning of these two names, when broken down, do you have any thoughts on this?
Or studies
There is no Yahuah
or Yahusha in the Nt or Ot😂😂😂
@@JopJio Thank you for your feedback, regarding the matter.
I have read that YHWH were the hebrew letters that represented the secret and unspeakable name of God. In the Old Testament the Jehovah ( Yahua, YHWH) says that "I am who (that) I am" . Yeshua (Joshua ) was a relatively common name for males in Judea in the time of Jesus ( which is a Roman? version) of that hebrew name. This is my understanding of these names, but based on recollection without being able to cite the sources.
@@mitchdowning8188 I reading 📖 the Cepher, with the original Hebrew text and meaning.
And the name was given, and the meaning undeniable… quite shocking this book.
I’m still trying to decipher if this is a cult or truth. Shalom Mitch, God bless. Have a great day.
@@GodsWorld189 I must admit that it is the parables and sayings of Jesus ( Yahusha) which are more important to me than whatever name that He has been called in the scriptures. Thank you for mentioning the book you have found interesting. It's always nice to learn about something new. May the joy that comes from seeking God be with you.
Interesting video.
I don't really believe Jesus was trying to make a joke through.
It’s actually quite clear even in the English translation that the whole point is he’s focusing on the importance of the heart, which makes the attached bit about declaring all foods clean look painfully out of place.
I would guess that Pauline influence would have had something to do with it.
Mark was like, "here! Here it seems like Jesus says kosher laws don't matter anymore!"
Or it could be a later interpolation for those same reasons.
@EarnestApostate and then there's the parallel passage in Matthew 15.
@@EarnestApostateMark didn't write, that Jesus declared all foods clean. He wrote (I'll shorten it a bit:)
Jesus said it goes not into the heart but into the draught purifying all foods (there was no punctuation in the original.)
It should be understood like this:
Jesus said, "it goes not into the heart, but into the draught, purifying all foods." (That is, that digestion purifies your meal, even if you ate with unwashed hands)
But translaters interpret it as:
Jesus said, "it goes not into the heart, but into the draught", purifying all foods. (That is, that while speaking, Jesus purifies all foods by declaring them clean.)
When Paul speaks of clean and unclean, he isn't talking about pork, but about clean food, that has been sacrificed to idols.
It's a mistranslation. The phrase "purifying all foods" refers to digestion, not to Jesus. (See the KJV/NKJV for the proper translation.)
I agree about meat sacrifices to idols. The only thing that makes me wonder is the gospel of Thomas says other wise.
🌹🌹🌹
✝️🌹🕊
Jesus is absolutely saying you don't have to follow all the Hebrew dietary laws. This is discern not by the knowledge of etymology but just context. He spoke of bodily defilement and spiritual defilement. These are two concepts. Jesus is proving that all foods no make how "clean" or "unclean" no more that go into the stomach, part is digested while the other part is expelled from the body as feces.
But the heart is spiritual and not a physical organ. These proves that Jesus was saying that no physical food has any power to makes a person disapproved before God.
Draught is pronounced “draft” not drought.
I believe this teaching is another method/parable of Yeshua teaching when He expands the true purpose of the Torah such as lust/adultery and murder. I believe this teaching correlates to Deuteronomy 23:12-14.
7But every man hath not knowledge. For some suppose that there is an idol, until this hour, and eat as of a thing offered unto the idol, and so their consciences being yet weak are defiled. 8Meat maketh us not acceptable to god: Neither if we eat are we the better: Neither if we eat not are we the worse. 9But take heed that your liberty cause not the weak to fall. 10For if some man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple shall not the conscience of him which is weak be boldened to eat those things which are offered unto the idol? 11And so thorow thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died. 12When we sin so against the brethren and wound their weak consciences, we sin against Christ. 13Wherefore if meat hurt my brother, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, because I will not hurt my brother
So what is being said is that God's error free bible is today no longer free of errors due to translation into languages that are continually evolving.
Is Mark 13: 10 an interpolation?
It meets few of the criteria. It does interrupt the narrative, slightly. But the meaning is not changed by the interruption. It already said that "governors and kings" will persecute the Apostles, so that already implies gentiles. It's more like an explanation of why the persecution will occur.
But (AFAIK) there's no textual variant where it doesn't appear. It doesn't demonstrate knowledge of later ideas or events. Nor does it contradict the author's usual message or writing style. In fact it reinforces it - Mark is already intended for a mixed Christian and Jewish audience, and the passage as a whole talks about persecution by both Jewish and gentile authorities.
It's almost impossible to prove that any verse *isn't* a later addition, but this one doesn't really seem to be.
So, I wonder how this connects with Paul, who seemed to think that the Jewish laws no longer applied, and therefore one could eat what gentiles eat. Paul preceded all these gospels, so it appears that Pauline influence inspired these misunderstandings and later mistranslations. It would be nice to know exactly how Paul got his ideas-- his Jesus hallucinations/dreams solely, or could there have been other influences. Paul's ideas seem so radical, in the context of his time. These misunderstandings also seem to indicate that most of the content of the gospel stories were imaginative fiction, but tendentious, in that the fictions were crafted to offer support to Paul's ideas.
This is very likely to be an authentic story about Jesus, see my top level post about the Jewish context of handwashing.
Deep down, there’s a few authentic teachings of Jesus found in the gospels. Unfortunately, yes, most of the gospels are influenced by Paul, who wrote before Mark and the others. Originally though, most of the teachings of Jesus had nothing to do with Paul’s ideas of Jesus. So you essentially have a split here between “Jesus of Nazareth” and “Paul’s Christ”. I’m convinced that if Jesus, Paul, and their respective followers were all in the same room, the two sides would be at odds with each other.
@@ChristianCarrizalesahhh so we cannot have any trust in the majority of the new testament and have to pretend we can rend scripture apart in order to sort it into "true scripture" and "false scripture." wondrous faith you have there. great example of not leaning on your own understanding.
Pilate washed his hands of Christ, as the Jews have. Everything that comes from my body is filthy compared to Jesus and his pairables....thank you for your words here....another reminder to be good and love our father first and most.
✌
Is it a beautiful ceremony that you've been to many times etc? What about the repairing of sins by swinging a chicken over the head, another practice by some Orthodox Jews. Have you seen that?
Many modern translations have realllllllllllllllllly messed up Mark 7:19.
IF the Messiah made ALL foods/meats CLEAN- He would be a false Messiah!!!!!!!!! ( Matt. 5:17-19)
When it comes to Mark 7, I always use the NKJV of the Bible.
Pause at 9:38. Sadly, there is a textual variant here.
Oooopppsss, how about Acts 10:9-16 that specifically supported the idea of Mark 7:15, both Acts/Mark are obviously against Deut 14:3-21 about clean/unclean food Dr,......
Acts 11 provides the interpretation of the vision in Acts 10
Acts says what it says, and (nearly) everyone agrees that Luke had read Mark, but Acts contains no explicit reference to Mark. They only seem related if you already assume that they mean the same thing.
Acts 10 is not about eating commandments too. Its about Gentiles being chosen now too. Acts 11 explains that vision
Different authors with different agendas.
There is an obvious break of logic in this. Food or all else going into your mouth and out into the toilet has no connection to what defiles a man. I assume that Jesus was not aware of the fact that the gut is strongly connected to the brain, thus causing or healing mental problems. If he was, I'm amazed, and Mark 7:14 should be rewritten accordingly.
you should really go back to the original greek.... because the kjv isnt a great translation.
Jesus leaves the city and makes folded clay and with this clay heals a blind man. When are you going to dig into that toilet humor?
Why even waste your time with any of these translations? Just read it interlinear for the New Testament. As for the old read interlinear as well but only to compare it to the even better more trust worthy and older, Brenton’s Septuagint if you speak English
4To speak of meat dedicat unto idols, we are sure that there is none idol in the world: and that there is none other god but one. 5And though there be that are called goddes, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be goddes many and lords many) 6but unto us is there one god, which is the father, of whom are all things, and we in him: and one Lord Iesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Nice idea, but I don't agree. Two reasons. First: The phrase "And he said" at the beginning of Mk 7,20 indicates the citation of jesus speech starts again. This means the part before doesn't belong to the citation beginning in v18 "He said to them...". In your interpretation the citation of Jesus speech is continuously V18-23 and no meaning to the "And he said" Mk7,20.
Second reason: The teaching "all food is clean" or "there is nothing you may eat damaging your life in the holy spirit" is an important and common teaching of the early church as in 1.Cor 8,8, acts 15, gal 2,11-19. There had been some fights about it and a decision of the holy sprit.
Of course this is lost in translation: it's inconvceivable to so many that Jesus could possibly even BE funny.
Interestingly the Latin Vulgate and the Douay Rheims translations do include the latrine point.
This video takes way too long to make a point.
And the point it makes is invalid.
So hes basically saying, you have no idea what the scripture teaches; your talking out of your.... 😊
He does bathroom humor a lot with me
one time He said do you want me to rapture you now? from the toilet? i said No! Lord we will be talking about this forever could i have a minute?
that was over a year ago so sorry maybe we could have been out of here already if i said yes rapture me now. He even gave me verses about it.
i heard a ridiculous rhyme about private things we do in the bathroom from the cloud of witnesses church. i said you peepers? what are you looking? they do watch us like hawks. that would put you right off sinning knowing all heaven sees it all.
10. AND there came unto him certain of the Scribes and Pharisees who had seen one of his disciples eat with unwashed hands.
11. And they found fault, for the Jews eat not except they have first washen their hands and many other things observe they, in the washing of Cups and of vessels and of tables.
12. And they said, Why, walk not all thy disciples after the tradition of the elders, for we saw one who did eat with unwashed hands?
13. And Iesus said, Well hath Moses commanded you to be clean, and to keep your bodies clean, and your vessels clean, but ye have added things which ofttimes cannot be observed by every one at all times and in all places.
14. Hearken unto me therefore, not only unclean things entering into the body of man defile the man, but much more do evil thoughts and unclean, which pour from the heart of man, defile the inner man and defile others also. Therefore take heed to your thoughts and cleanse your hearts and let your food be pure.
15. These things ought ye to do, and not to leave the others undone. Whoso breaketh the law of purification of necessity, are blameless, for they do it not of their own will, neither despising the law which is just and good. For cleanliness in all things is great gain.
16. Be ye not followers of evil fashions of the world even in appearance; for many are led into evil by the outward seeming, and the likeness of evil.
Holy shit…
literally
Even as an atheist (formerly Protestant) this is still one of my favorite quotes! You may have covered this concept before - Yeshua and his followers did not speak Greek. Or Hebrew. So everything reported about what he said in Greek has already been translated into another language by people who did not even hear him speak the original. Then it gets translated into English, strongly influenced by the Latin translations of the second hand Greek! At any rate, I once asked a scholarly friend if there were any good jokes in the Gospels - this didn't come up but he was fond of saying that Yeshua's declaration that Simon was Peter (Rock) was a snide reference to Peter rarely understanding the parables, being a bit thick headed.
Jesus absolutely would have likely spoke Greek in addition to Aramaic. Koine Greek, or “common” Greek, would have been spoken by the people of Galilee, which was along a very major trade route, and it would have been the language the Romans would have been using among the middle and lower class at the time as well. I have not done research on whether Jesus could have spoken Hebrew, but it seems most historians think he might have
@sslaytor on what basis do you conclude Jesus didn't understand Greek?
Peter's vision of the sheet full of animals coming down taught that all meat is clean.
It was not a teaching or a commandment. It was a riddle. That is why Peter was perplexed for he knew that believers were not supposed to eat pigs and squid and stuff and even confessed so. You need to keep reading Acts 10 to understand the true context. He was not to call Gentiles "unclean" for YHVH makes them clean when they turn to Him to learn of His Ways and walk in them.
Acts 10:26-29
28"He said to them, “You know how UNLAWFUL IT IS FOR A JEW TO ASSOCIATE WITH A FOREIGNER OR VISIT HIM (This is a man-made "law" of man-made rabbinical Judaism. This command is nowhere to be found in Genesis to Revelation). But God has shown me that I SHOULD NOT CALL ANY MAN IMPURE OR UNCLEAN. 29So when I was invited, I came without objection. I ask, then, why have you sent for me?”
...
34"Then Peter began to speak: “I now truly understand that GOD DOES NOT SHOW FAVORITISM, 35BUT WELCOMES THOSE FROM EVERY NATION who FEAR HIM and DO WHAT IS RIGHT."
HOW does one "fear God"?
HOW does one "do what is right"?
Some things taught are global (applying to everyone everywhere) and other things apply to a certain person and a certain situation. In this case, he was making a point to Peter who may have been a bit of a racist.
@@more444store6 I don't have to keep kosher to be a Christian.
The vision to Peter was about the gospel being taken to the gentiles, not food. The sheet was brought down 3 times. Once it was taken up the last time, 3 gentile messengers knocked at the gate where Peter was staying to beckon him to come to Cornelius' house. Upon arriving at Cornelius' house, Peter explained the vision, saying that it was common knowledge that Jews were forbidden, by tradition, from consorting with gentiles, but God has adominished him not to consider any man common or unclean. Yeshua has never advocated deviating from Torah. He only taught it to be observed in the proper spirit in which it was given.
@@CurtisTower-kv1bf nevertheless, I don't have to keep kosher to be a Christian. I'm still saved even if I eat BACON
For me it offers just another example of why Matthew and Luke hold no value in terms of being authentic. As forged Gospels intended to grow faith, Matthew/Luke invariably do exactly what you expect them to do when it comes to problematic/misunderstood/confusing texts. Did the author of Matthew misunderstand Mark, or was he just worried the text in its original form wouldn’t be well understood?
I like your explanation of the text’s meaning, but I disagree with your assertion that the text does not mean what it states. Declaring all foods clean is exactly what is meant as the text is referring to just the food a Jew would eat, not what a Jew wouldn't eat. Jesus is essentially asking why worry about tradition when you defile your body in sin. I think most can see the misunderstanding you are pointing to, but may not as easily see how to get past it.
It is easier to understand from the perspective of the issue being raised by the Pharisees. The issue is not about eating forbidden food. In other words, pork isn’t what’s on the menu here. The Pharisees are accusing Jesus’ followers of not following tradition, and in doing so they believe his followers defile their bodies with unclean food through touch, not by consuming what is forbidden. Jesus declared all foods clean in defense of his Apostles not following the related Jewish tradition. Obviously he is not talking about forbidden food, he is talking about letting go of traditions and refocusing on what actually matters.
Matthew and Luke are not forgeries, even if they had Mark and referred to it.
@@ASD128London If reading the devotional Gospels inspires your faith, then I certainly wouldn't try stopping you. That is I believe what they were meant to do. And if you prefer to use the word overwritten, then I also wouldn't disagree. I use the word forgery to mean falsified. There is text in Matthew and Luke that pushes the accounts they provide outside the realm of plausibility. Both Matthew and Luke read like commissioned works, and there is just as good a chance they are from the late 2nd century then there is a chance they are from the first century. But regardless of when they were written, I think what we believe to be true is an essential part of our faith. I personally can't put faith in something I know isn't even plausible. That does not mean I don't have faith, or believe in Jesus. I just don't believe Matthew and Luke are an authentic part of the message Jesus brought.
@@nubtube7313 certainly the writers Matthew and Luke had a purpose. That doesn't make them forgeries, nor mean that they do not reflect what Jesus did and taught.
@@ASD128London I agree they served a purpose, but that’s not what makes them forgeries. What makes them forgeries are the falsified accounts. Regarding purpose, it’s important to keep the context in which they were written in mind.
It’s easy to understand how Jesus’ missing body would create a serious problem for all concerned. Jesus’ family would have had no way of accessing the body privately under Roman guard and neither the Jewish authorities, or their Roman overloads could benefit from the claimed-to-be Messiah’s missing body, especially not after being crucified for the claim.
It appears efforts to address the problem may have started with a demand that James publicly denounce Jesus when it became apparent the movement would not go away on its own, and guilt of the crucifixion continued to haunt the Jewish religious order for centuries to come.
Several years after the crucifixion Saul set out to persecute Jesus followers only to later write as Paul about the appearance of false Gospels attempting to sway people away from the movement. Another Sanhedrin plot?
Several centuries later the story of a Rabbi and a snake bite attempt to diminish faith in Jesus while claiming he was the son of a Roman soldier. But it’s through Paul that we can be almost certain the Talpiot Tomb Story is likely just another forgery. We know from Paul that church’s had formed throughout the holy land in the decades following the crucifixion. It is simply not believable that Jesus was reburied without his family and thousands of his followers knowing about it. This requires then a secret second burial, but it is simply unreasonable to expect that those capable of carrying out such a secret would create an unsolvable problem for themselves. A problem they would spend centuries trying to fix. And this is the context the devotional Gospels were written in. One side intent on squashing the movement, the other intent on seeing it grow.
The purpose of the appended birth story and false post-resurrection sightings was to increase faith in Jesus as Messiah. Dr. Tabor agrees that interpolations are easy to spot because they are so heavy handed, and usually include big neon signs pointing the way. According to Paul Jesus’ power is perfected in weakness, which contradicts the purpose of the devotional Gospels. Dr. Tabor hasn’t taken the time to fully explain the meaning behind Paul’s account, but to the faithful no amount of doubt, or persecution will sway them. Your weakness is not being able to prove the reason behind your blind faith. His power is most visible when his faithful are at their weakest. The reason truth matters now more than ever is because the original purpose of the devotional Gospels has by now eroded. Some 2-thousand years later trained academic minds are uncovering and piecing together what are obvious forgeries, which only casts a shadow of doubt over the true story.
@@nubtube7313 Luke is not a "falsified account".
I guess you think the writer didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus, but the early church did.