Every jot and tittle

[Der Alte]

....
JESUS is not declaring all unclean foods clean as this was never the topic of conversation or subject matter or scripture or chapter context. The subject matter of context is eating food from pots and cups and unwashed hands does not make a man unclean (defiled).
Are you seriously trying to argue a single Greek word definition (that I agree with) outside of scripture and chapter context supersedes context and subject matter for interpretation of the scriptures?
Goodness dear friend receive God's Word and be blessed. Ignoring it does not make it disappear.

I'm not the one lacking understanding. Do you see the word "foods/βρωματα" in Mk 7:19?
If the context of the entire passage has nothing to do with food, only dirty hands/utensils, why is the word "foods" there? As I said it was not placed there by translators. I know that is what your false teachers have told you. According to the textual apparatus in NA26, the word foods/bromata is in all manuscripts. If Jesus' narrative meant only dirty hands/utensils the word foods would not be in that verse.

Mark 7:19
19 For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods [βρωματα] clean.)​

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I'm not the one lacking understanding. Do you see the word "foods/βρωματα" in Mk 7:19?
If the context of the entire passage has nothing to do with food, only dirty hands/utensils, why is the word "foods" there? As I said it was not placed there by translators. I know that is what your false teachers have told you. According to the textual apparatus in NA26, the word foods/bromata is in all manuscripts. If Jesus' narrative meant only dirty hands/utensils the word foods would not be in that verse.

Mark 7:19
19 For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods [βρωματα] clean.)​

Yet here you are again talking about word definitions I agree with and no one is arguing about making smoke screens and strawman arguments no one is arguing about. Please address all of post # 280 you are part quoting from if you disagree with what I have posted show me why if you cannot why are you talking about word definitions we both agree on outside of scripture and chapter context and the topic of conversation and subject matter the word definitions fit into to determine scripture interpretation?

You know I am talking about context and subject matter which determines interpretation superseding single word definitions right? Why pretend I am talking about something I am not? I believe you know the context and subject matter I have provided to you in the scriptures is correct. That is the reason you will not address it and make strawman arguments about something no one is disagreeing with.
Are you too busy trying to be right dear friend instead of receiveing God's blessing of correction? If that is the case I guess our dicussion is pointless. I will leave it between you and God to work through and we will agree to disagree.

Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Der Alte]

Yet here you are again talking about word definitions I agree with and no one is arguing about making smoke screens and strawman arguments no one is arguing about. Please address all of post # 280 you are part quoting from if you disagree with what I have posted show me why if you cannot why are you talking about word definitions we both agree on outside of scripture and chapter context and the topic of conversation and subject matter the word definitions fit into to determine scripture interpretation?
You know I am talking about context and subject matter which determines interpretation superseding single word definitions right? Why pretend I am talking about something I am not? I believe you know the context and subject matter I have provided to you in the scriptures is correct. That is the reason you will not address it and make strawman arguments about something no one is disagreeing with.
Are you too busy trying to be right dear friend instead of receiveing God's blessing of correction? If that is the case I guess our dicussion is pointless. I will leave it between you and God to work through and we will agree to disagree.
Thank you for the discussion.

There is no reasonable interpretation of "context" which negates the word "bromata/foods" in Mark 7:19. You keep trying to argue that Jesus was speaking only about dirty hands/utensils not making a person unclean and nothing else. You are wrong. Mark who wrote the book of Mark, which is the oldest gospel therefore the most reliable, understood that Jesus' statement also included food. Simple as that.
The discussion may be pointless to you but intended audience is not necessarily you but other people who might be influenced by the false information you post.

 

[sparow]

Hi all. I've had a look at a few threads here which deal with the old law and how it correlates to the new testament. There seems to be a growing number of people today who want to go back to the old law as though the old ways are superior to what Jesus taught. I believe this video does a pretty good job of explaining why we should not keep going back to the law because Jesus is the fulfillment of all the promises to Abraham. I'd like to hear what others think and I look forward to discussing the issues.

I am a supporter of the Law, so you might say that I am biased. My view is that the Law is so perfect that only an insane person would discard it. My advice is do not follow teachings of men, in particular that media.

In Jesus's sermon where He mentions the dot and tittle, the main point is the Law may not change until the heavens and the earth have passed away. There may be dispute regarding when that is; it could be the second coming, it could be after the second resurrection and the second death, both require the Law, it could be eternity.

The abrogation of the Law is a Satanic lie. The abrogation of the Law of God is a Roman Catholic doctrine. At the Council of Trent the Papists said to the Protestants, if you want to go by the Bible, and the Bible alone, you will have to keep the seventh day Sabbath, because there is no authority for changing the day other than the Papacy. Thre is no authority or need for changing of God's Laws other than men and their needs, sometimes the man is the apostle Paul.

 

[John Helpher]

In Jesus's sermon where He mentions the dot and tittle, the main point is the Law may not change until the heavens and the earth have passed away.

Did you watch the video? The explanation is pretty clear.

 

[sparow]

Did you watch the video? The explanation is pretty clear.

Not in its entirety, but enough to realise I was already familiar with its teachings. The debate has been around for a long time. It is amazing how far people will go to avoid covenant the commandments of God; this establishes the binary nature of salvation.

 

[John Helpher]

It is amazing how far people will go to avoid covenant the commandments of God; this establishes the binary nature of salvation.

But, you yourself do not keep every jot and tittle of the law. You don't tear down houses when you find mould, or stone adulterers, or kill disobedient children. What's the point of bragging about how you follow the law when you only follow it selectively?

That was Jesus' point. If you're gonna claim to be a follower of the law, you must follow ALL of the law; every jot and tittle.

 

[sparow]

But, you yourself do not keep every jot and tittle of the law. You don't tear down houses when you find mould, or stone adulterers, or kill disobedient children. What's the point of bragging about how you follow the law when you only follow it selectively?

That was Jesus' point. If you're gonna claim to be a follower of the law, you must follow ALL of the law; every jot and tittle.

Jesus was stating that the Law may not be changed, not even by way of nuance. The Law is not as rigid as you assume, you seem to have the same mindset as a pharisee. When one has the Law written on the heart and mind the Law becomes infinitely variable. one is required to make momentary choices between right and wrong being able to discern between them. For God to write the Law on our hearts is the fruition of the new covenant which happens at the resurrection. In the meantime, we are required to write the Law on our own minds and hearts as it was in the OT, and we are required to repent when we stumble, as it was in the OT.

Not having the Law written on the heart and mind will man one cannot discern between good and evil, and a prophesy for today from Isaiah is, they will call evil good and call good evil. This prophesy is being fulfilled now, time is running out, beware.

 

[John Helpher]

When we follow Jesus, we are not following the Torah, but as Jesus keeps and honors Torah

How do you know when there is a difference?

 

[Der Alte]

I am a supporter of the Law, so you might say that I am biased. My view is that the Law is so perfect that only an insane person would discard it. My advice is do not follow teachings of men, in particular that media.
In Jesus's sermon where He mentions the dot and tittle, the main point is the Law may not change until the heavens and the earth have passed away. There may be dispute regarding when that is; it could be the second coming, it could be after the second resurrection and the second death, both require the Law, it could be eternity.
The abrogation of the Law is a Satanic lie. The abrogation of the Law of God is a Roman Catholic doctrine. At the Council of Trent the Papists said to the Protestants, if you want to go by the Bible, and the Bible alone, you will have to keep the seventh day Sabbath, because there is no authority for changing the day other than the Papacy. Thre is no authority or need for changing of God's Laws other than men and their needs, sometimes the man is the apostle Paul.

Do you still offer burnt offerings on the altar?

Hebrews 8:9
(9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Hebrews 8:13
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 8:7
(7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Hebrews 10:1
(1) For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Hebrews 10:4
(4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Hebrews 10:5
(5) Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Hebrews 10:8-9
(8) Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
(9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Hebrews 10:10
(10) By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Hebrews 10:14
(14) For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.​

 

[sparow]

Do you still offer burnt offerings on the altar?

Hebrews 8:9​

(9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.​

Hebrews 8:13​

(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.​

Hebrews 8:7​

(7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.​

Hebrews 10:1​

(1) For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.​

Hebrews 10:4​

(4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.​

Hebrews 10:5​

(5) Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:​

Hebrews 10:8-9​

(8) Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;​

(9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.​

Hebrews 10:10​

(10) By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.​

Hebrews 10:14​

(14) For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.​

I pray that one day soon you will understand.

 

[Der Alte]

I pray that one day soon you will understand.

You didn't answer my question. I suggest you spend less time judging people, get down off that high horse and pray that you understand. Not bragging but, to some degree, I can read the Bible in 5 languages.

 

[sparow]

You didn't answer my question. I suggest you spend less time judging people, get down off that high horse and pray that you understand. Not bragging but, to some degree, I can read the Bible in 5 languages.

I do not make burnt offerings at the alter. Unlike you and Paul, I do not see the Law as having ended or as having been changed, I see the Law as having evolved to a Higher level.

Should I offer something to God, yes. I believe burning the offering allows the offering to ascend to heaven by way of convection, this I do not do.

God provided old Israel with training aids, in themselves are not covenantal conditions for salvation:

Every morning and evening (Exodus 29:38-42; Numbers 28:2)
Each Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10)
The beginning of each month (Numbers 28:11)
At Passover (Numbers 28:19)
With the new grain/firstfruits offering at the Feast of Weeks (Numbers 28:27)
At the Feast of Trumpets/Rosh Hashanah (Numbers 29:1)
At the new moon (Numbers 29:6)

I can see my faith needs a reboot, with the end approaching fast.

To sacrifice sheep would be blaspheme or at least the rejection of Christ. Still the remembering of Christ at these times could be useful.

I can read my perceptions into Paul's words, as you can read your opposing views into Paul's words, hence I do not use Paul.

 

[Der Alte]

I do not make burnt offerings at the alter. Unlike you and Paul, I do not see the Law as having ended or as having been changed, I see the Law as having evolved to a Higher level.
Should I offer something to God, yes. I believe burning the offering allows the offering to ascend to heaven by way of convection, this I do not do.
God provided old Israel with training aids, in themselves are not covenantal conditions for salvation:
Every morning and evening (Exodus 29:38-42; Numbers 28:2)
Each Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10)
The beginning of each month (Numbers 28:11)
At Passover (Numbers 28:19)
With the new grain/firstfruits offering at the Feast of Weeks (Numbers 28:27)
At the Feast of Trumpets/Rosh Hashanah (Numbers 29:1)
At the new moon (Numbers 29:6)
I can see my faith needs a reboot, with the end approaching fast.
To sacrifice sheep would be blaspheme or at least the rejection of Christ. Still the remembering of Christ at these times could be useful.
I can read my perceptions into Paul's words, as you can read your opposing views into Paul's words, hence I do not use Paul.

So you think using the training aids is still required? Where did I quote Paul? You need help getting down off that horse?

 

[Der Alte]

The title of this thread is "Every jot and tittle." What exactly is a jot and a tittle?
At the end of this sentence there is a jot in the shorter word and an example of a tittle in the longer word המדבר ויבא

 

[sparow]

The title of this thread is "Every jot and tittle." What exactly is a jot and a tittle?
At the end of this sentence there is a jot in the shorter word and an example of a tittle in the longer word המדבר ויבא

I have always understood the equivalent metaphor in English would be every full stop and comer.

What is a jot? What is a tittle? | GotQuestions.org

What is a jot? What is a tittle? What does it mean that neither a jot nor a tittle will disappear from God’s Law?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Der Alte]

I have always understood the equivalent metaphor in English would be every full stop and comer.

What is a jot? What is a tittle? | GotQuestions.org

What is a jot? What is a tittle? What does it mean that neither a jot nor a tittle will disappear from God’s Law?

www.gotquestions.org

Not quite. The quote was an excellent summary.