Every jot and tittle

[expos4ever]

Care to take another shot at it??

Nope, we are done.

 

[Oldmantook]

Nope, we are done.

3 strikes. (Addendum) That was a snarky comment for which I do apologize. Suffice to say we agree to disagree.

 

[Ken Rank]

For the second time.

Strong's G2537 not G3501

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Greek: kainos

translation: new
a as respects form; recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn
b as respects substance; of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon

If the Koine Greek says kainos (G2537), 'new', then we read it as 'new' in English. We do not interpret that Greek word and turn it into another word 'renew'.

Your applying an interpretation to the scripture and altering the words themselves.

I don't believe you cited G3501.

For the second time? I read it the first time. There are not two words that mean, "new in regards to age or time." That word is specifically nehos (also spelled neos) whereas the new in regards to freshness is kainos. That is further proven, as I already shared, where the "new covenant" in Jeremiah 31 is a verb that means "to renew" being used as an adjective to describe the noun, "covenant."

That aside, your position has an all knowing all powerful God making a EVERLASTING COVENANT (His words) that didn't do what He wanted, didn't make it to "everlasting," and was thrown out for something new. That actually speaks down on God and means He can't keep His promises. Psalm 105:8-10 is clear... it is everlasting or we have problems.

 

[Ken Rank]

I just don't see how can one read this:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him

....and not conclude that Jesus is overturning the kosher purity laws. So what if the Pharisees added things to the law of Moses? Jesus is making a general statement here - whatever goes into the man does not defile him. Is food not a "whatever"?

I will explain my view. I am not looking to argue, if you don't agree, fine. But please, you asked so at least read what I am taking the time to share. I will try to keep it short.

Mar 7:19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" (20) And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. NKJV

The above is a good rendition of what the Greek says. Check Young's Literal, KJV, pretty much most bibles (and the Greek) say this. The newer versions, like the NIV for example, have ADDED something to verse 19 that is not represented in the text.

Mar 7:19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") NIV

What I made bold is NOT represented in the Greek. To drive that home, here is an English rendition of the Aramaic:

Mar 7:19 For it doth not enter into his heart, but into his belly, and is thrown into the digestive process, which carries off all that is eaten. Murdock

Since what is in bold isn't in the oldest NT we have (Aramaic) not in the Received Texts of the Greek, then it isn't there. So what is Yeshua saying? It is simple... if we read the OT at all.

If somebody eats something that is unclean, it gets pooped out. In verse 19 where it says "stomach" the word is aphedrōn (Thayer Definition: 1- a place where the human waste discharges are dumped). And it "goes out." The word for "eliminated" (or purged) means "cleansed" (katharizō G2511). So, if you eat something unclean it won't defile you (make you unclean) because it will go through the process of elimination as I just described.

That doesn't mean a pig is now "food" it just means if it did enter, the body will deal with it. What does make you unclean? That which comes OUT. Like, puss? sperm? Blood?

Lev 15:2 "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean.

That is what makes a man unclean, defiled, profane. That isn't sin... it just means before he presents himself before God he goes through a process to make himself clean again... so one can stand before a HOLY God. And that process was usually just a bath and time.

One last thing... you keep saying, "Law of Moses." That is an idiomatic phrase in the bible for "God's law." He is the author, Moses just wrote down what God told him to write down. God is the author of the law therefore, the law is PERFECT whether your current paradigm allows you to see it or not. The Pharisees did ADD to God's law, and that is often what Yeshua was said you have broken. He did not break God's law, he broke man's additions to God's law. Like, for example, picking and eating on Shabbat. There is >>NO<< commandment that says one can't pick and eat something on the Sabbath. All it says is one can't pick and sell or pick and store to sell later as both would be considered "work" which is prohibited. Yeshua didn't break a commandment of God or else that would be a sin and he disqualifies himself as our messiah. He had to be sinless, and sin is defined in the Law.

 

[Der Alte]

I will explain my view. I am not looking to argue, if you don't agree, fine. But please, you asked so at least read what I am taking the time to share. I will try to keep it short.

Mar 7:19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" (20) And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. NKJV

The above is a good rendition of what the Greek says. Check Young's Literal, KJV, pretty much most bibles (and the Greek) say this. The newer versions, like the NIV for example, have ADDED something to verse 19 that is not represented in the text.

Mar 7:19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") NIV

What I made bold is NOT represented in the Greek. To drive that home, here is an English rendition of the Aramaic:

Mar 7:19 For it doth not enter into his heart, but into his belly, and is thrown into the digestive process, which carries off all that is eaten. Murdock

Since what is in bold isn't in the oldest NT we have (Aramaic) not in the Received Texts of the Greek, then it isn't there. So what is Yeshua saying? It is simple... if we read the OT at all.

If somebody eats something that is unclean, it gets pooped out. In verse 19 where it says "stomach" the word is aphedrōn (Thayer Definition: 1- a place where the human waste discharges are dumped). And it "goes out." The word for "eliminated" (or purged) means "cleansed" (katharizō G2511). So, if you eat something unclean it won't defile you (make you unclean) because it will go through the process of elimination as I just described.

That doesn't mean a pig is now "food" it just means if it did enter, the body will deal with it. What does make you unclean? That which comes OUT. Like, puss? sperm? Blood?

Lev 15:2 "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean.

That is what makes a man unclean, defiled, profane. That isn't sin... it just means before he presents himself before God he goes through a process to make himself clean again... so one can stand before a HOLY God. And that process was usually just a bath and time.

One last thing... you keep saying, "Law of Moses." That is an idiomatic phrase in the bible for "God's law." He is the author, Moses just wrote down what God told him to write down. God is the author of the law therefore, the law is PERFECT whether your current paradigm allows you to see it or not. The Pharisees did ADD to God's law, and that is often what Yeshua was said you have broken. He did not break God's law, he broke man's additions to God's law. Like, for example, picking and eating on Shabbat. There is >>NO<< commandment that says one can't pick and eat something on the Sabbath. All it says is one can't pick and sell or pick and store to sell later as both would be considered "work" which is prohibited. Yeshua didn't break a commandment of God or else that would be a sin and he disqualifies himself as our messiah. He had to be sinless, and sin is defined in the Law.

In case you are interested here is the Eastern Greek Orthodox translation of Mark 7:19

When he had entered into a house away from the crowd, his disciples asked him about the parable. “He said to them, “Are you also without understanding? Do you not perceive that whatever goes into someone from the outside cannot defile that person 19 because it does not go into his heart but into the stomach, and then into the sewer (thus he declared all foods to be clean)k?” 20 He said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles that person.​

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/or...tament-(The-Eastern-Greek-Orthodox-Bible).pdf

 

[expos4ever]

Mar 7:19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") NIV
What I made bold is NOT represented in the Greek.....

I am aware of this, and my argument works just as well if that particular clause is absent.

So what is Yeshua saying? It is simple... if we read the OT at all.

If somebody eats something that is unclean, it gets pooped out. In verse 19 where it says "stomach" the word is aphedrōn (Thayer Definition: 1- a place where the human waste discharges are dumped). And it "goes out." The word for "eliminated" (or purged) means "cleansed" (katharizō G2511). So, if you eat something unclean it won't defile you (make you unclean) because it will go through the process of elimination as I just described.

That doesn't mean a pig is now "food" it just means if it did enter, the body will deal with it. What does make you unclean? That which comes OUT. Like, puss? sperm? Blood?

I think I see what you are saying - please tell me if I am right. You are implicitly agreeing that the Old Testament says that the Jew should not eat certain foods (e.g. pork). And here in Mark 7, you are arguing that Jesus still believes the Law of Moses is in force (i.e. the Jew should continue abstain from pork, etc.). But if the Jew does eat, so your argument says, it will not defile him. In other words, Jesus is saying while you should not eat certain foods, doing so will not defile you.

Is that correct?

If so, I think this is the best counterargument that can be mounted from your "side" of this issue. But, alas, I think it does not work precisely because the food laws in the Law of Moses go beyond saying "do not eat this", these laws add ".....these things are unclean". And I think you would be pushing your luck by drawing a wedge between something that is unclean and something that defiles. In other words, when Jesus denies that what goes into the body "defiles", he is indeed challenging the Law of Moses which does not merely instruct the Jew to not eat, it declares these foods unclean. And I think it would be a real stretch to argue that something that is "unclean" would not "defile".

 

[expos4ever]

One last thing... you keep saying, "Law of Moses." That is an idiomatic phrase in the bible for "God's law." He is the author, Moses just wrote down what God told him to write down. God is the author of the law therefore, the law is PERFECT whether your current paradigm allows you to see it or not.

First, the term "the Law of Moses" is a widely accepted term to refer to the set of 613 ordnances laid out in the Pentateuch. Second, and more importantly, the fact that the Law of Moses is God's law, does not mean it is eternal. God can institute a "perfect" law to serve a particular purpose in an evolving redemption narrative, and then retire it once the mission has been accomplished. And this is exactly what Paul argues in the book of Romans.

Yeshua didn't break a commandment of God or else that would be a sin and he disqualifies himself as our messiah. He had to be sinless, and sin is defined in the Law.

First, there is no Biblical text that declares that sin can only exist in relation to the Law of Moses. After all, people were sinners before the Law of Moses was given, right? And millions of pagans around the world would not even know that you are not supposed to abstain from eating a rock badger. Were these people not sinners anyway, even without the Law of Moses?

Second, since Jesus is God incarnate, He has the authority to declare the end of the Law of Moses. And an effective way to send that message is to publicly break the Law. Which He did on several occasions. For example, when He forgave the sinner ("your sins are forgiven"), he was breaking the law that forgiveness only came through temple sacrifice. And there are other examples.

 

[Ken Rank]

In case you are interested here is the Eastern Greek Orthodox translation of Mark 7:19

When he had entered into a house away from the crowd, his disciples asked him about the parable. “He said to them, “Are you also without understanding? Do you not perceive that whatever goes into someone from the outside cannot defile that person 19 because it does not go into his heart but into the stomach, and then into the sewer (thus he declared all foods to be clean)k?” 20 He said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles that person.​

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/or...tament-(The-Eastern-Greek-Orthodox-Bible).pdf

Thanks... like I said, "in saying this Jesus declared all foods to be clean" is added. It isn't in the Received or Aramaic or Latin for that matter.

 

[Ken Rank]

I think I see what you are saying - please tell me if I am right. You are implicitly agreeing that the Old Testament says that the Jew should not eat certain foods (e.g. pork).

God created certain animals to be food, and other animals that had a purpose but weren't food. That was decided at Creation, before there were Jews. By the way, not all of Israel is Jewish, but that is another thread. My point is, the pig was never intended to be food and makes no sense for a Messiah who was prophesied to essentially reverse the curse of sin and death incurred by Adam... to also come (without be prophesied to) make non-food into food? Why? What did the reversing of Adam's sin have to do with whether or not bottom dwelling poop eating fish could now become food? He didn't eat catfish, pork, or bats... and he walked according to God's desire AND as the model by which we are to follow. His life had many purposes, and one was to be what we would follow. If he didn't eat these things, why do we?

And here in Mark 7, you are arguing that Jesus still believes the Law of Moses is in force (i.e. the Jew should continue abstain from pork, etc.). But if the Jew does eat, so your argument says, it will not defile him. In other words, Jesus is saying while you should not eat certain foods, doing so will not defile you.

I am saying that pork still isn't food... and that should one ingest it by accident (like eating something thinking it was chicken but was pork) it would simply purge through our system. That didn't make us unclean... but having relations with your wife while it is her time... that would make you unclean. Why? Because it is what came out of her (in this example) that made her unclean.

Being unclean isn't a sin... it just means that when it came to certain ceremonial functions OR when it came to standing before a holy and righteous God, there was a protocol to follow that involved bathing and time.

The covenant at Sinai was called everlasting by God, so it is... everlasting. And what was written on stone is now being written on the heart (Ezk 11:19). Same words, same God doing the writing... but this time because His people couldn't keep His words on their hearts as He asked on their own, He is writing it there as part of the perfecting process. But it is the same words... moved from stone to the heart. That is what it new... but the words (Deut. 4:13) and the covenant (Psalm 105:8-10) are everlasting.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[Ken Rank]

First, the term "the Law of Moses" is a widely accepted term to refer to the set of 613 ordnances laid out in the Pentateuch.

I know... but when one is trying to distance themselves from the Law of God, it is easier to do when it is passed off as "Moses' law" rather than God's law. God is who gave the 613 commandments, thus it is His law.

Second, and more importantly, the fact that the Law of Moses is God's law, does not mean it is eternal. God can institute a "perfect" law to serve a particular purpose in an evolving redemption narrative, and then retire it once the mission has been accomplished.

I actually just quoted the sources to address this in my last post. The 10 Words, 10 commandments, are the covenant (Deuteronomy 4:13). And the covenant is everlasting (Psalms 105:8-10). So, yes... it does mean the Law is eternal. That doesn't mean that it all applies to you today... but we can't even have that discussion because of the stigma you have placed on the Law in your paradigm. Perhaps in the future.

First, there is no Biblical text that declares that sin can only exist in relation to the Law of Moses.

1 John 3:4 (sin is anomia...breaking or outside God's law)
Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

As you can see, the Law defines sin. "So not steal," so if you steal you have sinned. You should do a word study on "righteousness." In 1828 that word was defined as "to follow divine law." That is because that is what the Greek and Hebrew mean. Even today, Webster's defines it as "to conform to divine or social law." So they got politically correct and added "social" but the point remains. Being righteous means following God's will, His law, His instructions. Where were they recorded? In the Law where we learn what He says is OK to be done, or that should be avoided.

After all, people were sinners before the Law of Moses was given, right? And millions of pagans around the world would not even know that you are not supposed to abstain from eating a rock badger. Were these people not sinners anyway, even without the Law of Moses?

Actually... what few Christians have come to see (because they have an anomian paradigm they are born into, and because they don't study the OT outside of some prophecy much) is that the law existed BEFORE Mt. Sinai... it was WRITTEN at Mt. Sinai for a reason (I can share another time). But Genesis 26:5 very clearly says Abraham kept God's laws and commandments... and I can list off 15-20 examples of law keeping and awareness before it was written at Sinai.

Second, since Jesus is God incarnate, He has the authority to declare the end of the Law of Moses.

I agree, Yeshua is God. But if He makes the statement, "the covenant is everlasting," then He can't go against His own word or else what? Maybe He changes His mind about how one is saved? That opens a can of worms that messes with the gospel.

Be blessed.
Ken

 

[expos4ever]

My point is, the pig was never intended to be food and makes no sense for a Messiah who was prophesied to essentially reverse the curse of sin and death incurred by Adam... to also come (without be prophesied to) make non-food into food? Why?What did the reversing of Adam's sin have to do with whether or not bottom dwelling poop eating fish could now become food? He didn't eat catfish, pork, or bats... and he walked according to God's desire AND as the model by which we are to follow. His life had many purposes, and one was to be what we would follow. If he didn't eat these things, why do we?

I think you misunderstand that reason for the food laws. This notion that the primary reason is health is a modern idea imposed on the text. As God himself declares, these laws were given to distinguish the Jew from the Gentile:

“‘You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those that I have set apart as unclean for you. 26 You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own

One scholar writes as follows: Scholar Lester L. Grabbe, writing in the Oxford Bible Commentary on Leviticus, says "an explanation now almost universally rejected is that the laws in this section have hygiene as their basis. Although some of the laws of ritual purity roughly correspond to modern ideas of physical cleanliness, many of them have little to do with hygiene. For example, there is no evidence that the 'unclean' animals are intrinsically bad to eat or to be avoided in a Mediterranean climate, as is sometimes asserted."

There is much more that could be said on this matter.

However, even if you are right, my argument is not damaged by this assertion.

 

[Der Alte]

For the second time? I read it the first time. There are not two words that mean, "new in regards to age or time." That word is specifically nehos (also spelled neos) whereas the new in regards to freshness is kainos. That is further proven, as I already shared, where the "new covenant" in Jeremiah 31 is a verb that means "to renew" being used as an adjective to describe the noun, "covenant."
That aside, your position has an all knowing all powerful God making a EVERLASTING COVENANT (His words) that didn't do what He wanted, didn't make it to "everlasting," and was thrown out for something new. That actually speaks down on God and means He can't keep His promises. Psalm 105:8-10 is clear... it is everlasting or we have problems.

καινός, ή, όν (Aeschyl., Hdt.+; ins, pap, LXX, TestSol; TestAbr A 7 p. 84, 27 [Stone p. 16]; Test12Patr; JosAs 14:13 and 15; Philo, Joseph., Just., Mel.) comp. καινότερος; prim. sense ‘new’.
① pert. to being in existence for a relatively short time, new, unused (X., Hell. 3, 4, 28; PGM 36, 265; Judg 15:13; 2 Km 6:3; 4 Km 2:20) ἀσκοί wineskins (Josh 9:13) Mt 9:17; Mk 2:22; Lk 5:38. ἱμάτιον (Artem. 2, 3 p. 86, 3; 3 Km 11:29f) vs. 36. μνημεῖον Mt 27:60; J 19:41 (w. ἐν ᾧ οὐδέπω οὐδεὶς ἦν τεθειμένος added). τὸ κ. the new piece=πλήρωμα Mk 2:21; Lk 5:36. καινὰ καὶ παλαιά Mt 13:52 (perh. with ref. to coins; cp. PGrenf II, 74, 9; 77, 7f).
② pert. to being not previously present, unknown, strange, remarkable, also w. the connotation of the marvelous or unheard-of (Pla., Apol. 24c; X., Mem. 1, 1, 1 ἕτερα καὶ καινὰ δαιμόνια; Just., A I, 15, 9; Orig., C. Cels. 1, 58, 15) διδαχή Mk 1:27; Ac 17:19. ἐντολή (κ. νόμος: Menand., Fgm. 238, 3 Kö.; Diod S 13, 34, 6) J 13:34; 1J 2:7f (Polyaenus 2, 1, 13 οὐ καινοὺς νόμους … ἀλλὰ τ. παλαιούς); 2J 5. ὄνομα (Is 62:2; 65:15) Rv 2:17 (here w. ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ μὴ ὁ λαμβάνων, perh. as antidote to adversarial magic); 3:12. ᾠδή 5:9 (Ps 143:9; cp. Is 42:10; Ps 32:3; 39:4.—Philo, Vi. Cont. 80 ὕμνος κ. [opp. ἀρχαῖος]); 14:3. γλῶσσαι Mk 16:17. κ. γένος of Christians Dg 1. θεώρημα AcPl Ox 6, 1f (διήγημα Aa I, 241, 11). θέαμα GJs 19:2f (Mel., P. 19, 127). Christ as ὁ κ. ἄνθρωπος the new kind of human being IEph 20:1. ἢ λέγειν τι ἢ ἀκούειν τι καινότερον either to hear or to say someth. quite new (=‘the latest thing’) Ac 17:21 (s. Kühner-G. II 306f; Norden, Agn. Th. 333ff [but s. HAlmqvist, Plutarch u. d. NT ’46, 79f, w. ref. to Plut.]; B-D-F §244, 2; Rdm. 70 and s. Demosth. 4, 10 ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι … λέγεταί τι καινόν; γένοιτʼ ἄν τι καινότερον … ; also Theophr., Char. 8, 2; BGU 821, 6 [II A.D.] ὅταν ᾖ τι καινότερον, εὐθέως σοι δηλώσω; Simplicius, Coroll. De Tempore, in Aristot., Phys. p. 788, 36ff καινοτέραν ἐβάδισεν ὁδόν=he traveled a rather new road [of interpretation]; Jos., Ant. 14, 104; Iren. 1, 18, 1 [Harv. I 169, 3]).
③ pert. to that which is recent in contrast to someth. old, new
ⓐ w. no criticism of the old implied (Herodas 4, 57 καινὴ Ἀθηναίη; Lucian, M. Peregr. 12 κ. Σωκράτης): of the Son of God or Logos, who is old and new at the same time Hs 9, 12, 1ff; Dg 11:4.
ⓑ in the sense that what is old has become obsolete, and should be replaced by what is new. In such a case the new is, as a rule, superior in kind to the old ἡ κ. διαθήκη the new covenant or declaration (Jer 38:31; Just., D. 11, 4 al.; Did., Gen. 46, 4; 156, 5) Mt 26:28 v.l.; Mk 14:24 v.l.; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Hb 8:8 (Jer 38:31), 13; 9:15. κ. νόμος (Timocles Com. [IV B.C.] Fgm. 32, 4 κατὰ τὸν νόμον τ. καινόν; Just., D. 12, 3; Mel., P. 7, 46) B 2:6. λαὸς κ. 5:7; 7:5; cp. 15:7.—Esp. in eschatol. usage κ. οὐρανοί, κ. γῆ (Is 65:17; 66:22) 2 Pt 3:13; Rv 21:1; Ἰερουσαλὴμ καινή vs. 2; 3:12. καινὰ πάντα ποιεῖν 21:5. καινὸν πίνειν τὸ γένημα τῆς ἀμπέλου Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25.—Of the renewing of a pers. who has been converted κ. ἄνθρωπος Eph 4:24; Dg 2:1. κ. κτίσις a new creature 2 Cor 5:17a; cp. 17b (Ps.-Pla., Axioch. 11 p. 370e ἐκ τῆς ἀσθενείας ἐμαυτὸν συνείλεγμαι καὶ γέγονα καινός=out of weakness I have brought myself together and become new; cp. Orig., C. Cels. 6, 67, 33); Gal 6:15; cp. B 16:8. All the Christians together appear as κ. ἄνθρωπος Eph 2:15.—RHarrisville, The Concept of Newness in the NT, ’60; GSchneider, Καινὴ Κτίσις (Paul and background), diss. Trier, ’59, Neuschöpfung oder Wiederkehr? ’61. Qumran: DSwanson, A Covenant Just Like Jacob’s, The Covenant of 11QT 29 and Jeremiah’s New Covenant: New Qumran Texts and Studies, ed. GBrooke/FMartínez ’94, 273–86.—B. 957. Schmidt, Syn. II 94–123. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. S. νεό.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 496–497). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.​

 

[expos4ever]

Thanks... like I said, "in saying this Jesus declared all foods to be clean" is added. It isn't in the Received or Aramaic or Latin for that matter.

True, but this does not matter. It is enough for Jesus to say that nothing that enters a man makes him unclean - this clearly contradicts the law.

 

[Der Alte]

Thanks... like I said, "in saying this Jesus declared all foods to be clean" is added. It isn't in the Received or Aramaic or Latin for that matter.

Here is the textual apparatus for Mark 7:19 showing the manuscripts which have "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) And it was quoted by Origen.That is a lot of witnesses. This is good enough for me.

καθαρίζων] ‭א A B E F G H L W X Δ Θ 0274 f1 f13 28 180 205 565 579 892 1006 1009 1071 1216 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1424 1505 1546 1646 2427 Byzpt Lectpt syrp syrh copsa copbo eth slav Origen Gregory-Nyssa Chrysostom WH
καθαρίζον] K Γ Π Σ 33 157 597 700 1010 1079 1195 1230 1344 1365 1582c 2148 2174 2542 Byzpt Byz2005 Lectpt lAD (ita itaur itb itc itd itf itff2 itl itn itq vg καθαρίζων or καθαρίζον) Diatessarona ς
καθαρίζων τε] l70
καθαρίζει] D l185 (iti itr1 arm geo καὶ καθαρίζει) goth
καὶ καθαρίζεται] (1047 omit καὶ) syrs
Origen Commentary on Matthew Book XI
Philip Schaff: ANF10. Bibliographic Synopsis; General Index - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
and especially when, according to Mark, the Saviour said these things "making all meats clean,"[98]


​

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Here is the textual apparatus for Mark 7:19 showing the manuscripts which have "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) And it was quoted by Origen.That is a lot of witnesses. This is good enough for me.

καθαρίζων] ‭א A B E F G H L W X Δ Θ 0274 f1 f13 28 180 205 565 579 892 1006 1009 1071 1216 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1424 1505 1546 1646 2427 Byzpt Lectpt syrp syrh copsa copbo eth slav Origen Gregory-Nyssa Chrysostom WH
καθαρίζον] K Γ Π Σ 33 157 597 700 1010 1079 1195 1230 1344 1365 1582c 2148 2174 2542 Byzpt Byz2005 Lectpt lAD (ita itaur itb itc itd itf itff2 itl itn itq vg καθαρίζων or καθαρίζον) Diatessarona ς
καθαρίζων τε] l70
καθαρίζει] D l185 (iti itr1 arm geo καὶ καθαρίζει) goth
καὶ καθαρίζεται] (1047 omit καὶ) syrs
Origen Commentary on Matthew Book XI
Philip Schaff: ANF10. Bibliographic Synopsis; General Index - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
and especially when, according to Mark, the Saviour said these things "making all meats clean,"[98]​

MARK 7:19 [19] ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλʼ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται;—καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα.

I think what you have not picked up here dear friend and I agree with @Ken Rank is that JESUS is not making a declaration that all foods are now clean. That interpretation would contradict the Levitical laws of God of clean and unclean foods given by God in the old terstament which may or may not be eaten (Leviticus 11). JESUS kept all of God's laws and if JESUS broke these laws he would not be our perfect sinless sacrifice.

For me, I do not have any problem with any definition you or others have supplied here. If "purged all meats" or "making all foods clean" these definitions do not change the meaning or intepretation of the scripture when applied to context and subject matter being discussed in MARK 7:3-23.

For example, let's use your definition. The context to the application of "making all food clean" in Mark 7:19 is that of "purging the food out of the body" this is what is making all food clean to the person eating the food which is "not defiling the man". Another words the nutritious part of the food remains while that which is defiled passes out of the man into the toilet. It is not a declaration that all food is now clean to eat by JESUS as the context and subject matter is to washing of cups and pots and the washing of the hands.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
NT 2511: καθαρίζω
καθαρίζω (Hellenistic for καθαίρω, which classic writings use); Attic future (cf. Buttmann, 37 (32); Winers Grammar, § 13, 1 c.; WH's Appendix, p. 163) καθαριῶ (Hebrews 9:14); 1 aorist ἐκαθάρισα (see below); present passive καθαρίζομαι; 1 aorist passive ἐκαθαρίσθην; perfect passive participle κεκαθαρισμενος (Hebrews 10:2 T Tr WH; on the forms ἐκαθερισθη, T WH in Matthew 8:3; Mark 1:42 (ἐκαθερισεν, Tr in Acts 10:15; Acts 11:9) and κεκαθερισμενος Lachmann in Hebrews 10:2, cf. (Tdf. Proleg., p. 82; WH's Appendix, p. 150); Sturz, De dial. Maced. etc., p. 118; Delitzsch on Hebrews 10:2; Krüger, Part ii. § 2, 2, 6, p. 4; (Buttmann, 29 (25f); Winer's Grammar, 43)); (καθαρός; the Sept. mostly for טִהַר;

1. to make clean, to cleanse;
a. from physical stains and dirt: e. g. utensils, Matthew 23:25 (figuratively, Matthew 23:26); Luke 11:39; food, Mark 7:19; τινα, a leper, to cleanse by curing, Matthew 8:2; Matthew 10:8; Matthew 11:5; Mark 1:40-42; Luke 4:27; Luke 5:12; Luke 7:22; Luke 17:14, 17 (Leviticus 14:8); to remove by cleansing: ἡ λέπρα ἐκαθαρίσθη, Matthew 8:3 (καθαριεῖς τό αἷμα τό ἀναίτιον ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, Deuteronomy 19:13; ἐκαθαριζε τήν περί ταῦτα συνήθειαν, the custom of marrying heathen women, Josephus, Antiquities 11, 5, 4; καθαιρεῖν αἷμα, Homer, Iliad 16, 667; cf. ἐκκαθαίρω).

You can see that the application here is to the context of "purging out or cleaning all food from the system by passing out that which is impure or unclean". That is, the nutritious part of the food remains while that which is defiled passes out of the man.

It is not a declaration that all unclean food is now clean by JESUS.

The point of the scripture being it is not the "washing of pots that defile a man" (Mark 7:8) but breaking God's commandments and what comes out of the heart and mouth of the man that defiles him. The context of making all meats clean is to the "purging out of the body". It is following man made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God over the Word of God that defile the man not what one eats which passes out of the man *Mark 7:6-23.

...............

The English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament King James Version

Mark 7:19 ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, ἀλλʼ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν· καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζον πάντα τὰ βρώματα. | KJV NT RI

Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? | KJV 1900

οὐκ ouk Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
οὐ ou not
negative, adverb, particle
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

εἰσπορεύεται eisporeuetai Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
εἰσπορεύομαι eisporeuomai enter; go into
verb, present, either middle or passive, indicative, third person, singular
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

καρδίαν kardian Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
καρδία kardia heart
noun, accusative, singular, feminine
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

κοιλίαν koilian Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
κοιλία koilia womb; belly; stomach
noun, accusative, singular, feminine
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

ἀφεδρῶνα aphedrōna Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
ἀφεδρών aphedrōn toilet; latrine
noun, accusative, singular, masculine
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

ἐκπορεύεται ekporeuetai Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

ἐκπορεύομαι ekporeuomai go out; come or go out
verb, present, either middle or passive, indicative, third person, singular
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

καθαρίζον katharizon Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
καθαρίζω katharizō purify; cleanse; make clean
verb, present, active, participle, singular, nominative, neuter
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

πάντα panta Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
πᾶς pas every; all
adjective, accusative, plural, neuter
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

βρώματα brōmata Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
βρῶμα brōma food
noun, accusative, plural, neuter
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

.................

A great example of what happens when people ignore God's food laws is what we have today with people eating bats which are forbidden in LEVITICUS 11:13-19 resulting in COVID-19 and global disease pandemics.

Context matters.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[Der Alte]

...

MARK 7:19 [19] ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλʼ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται;—καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα.
I think what you have not picked up here dear friend and I agree with @Ken Rank is that JESUS is not making a declaration that all foods are now clean. That interpretation would contradict the Levitical laws of God of clean and unclean foods given by God in the old terstament which may or may not be eaten (Leviticus 11).

The context to the application of "making all food clean" in Mark 7:19 is that of "purging the food out of the body" this is what is making all food clean to the person eating the food which is "not defiling the man". The point of the scripture being it is not the "washing of pots that defile a man" (Mark 7:8) but breaking God's commandments and what comes out of the heart and mouth of the man that defiles him. The context of making all meats clean is to the "purging out of the body". It is following man made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God over the Word of God that defile the man not what one eats which passes out of the man *Mark 7:6-23.

The English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament King James Version
Mark 7:19 ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, ἀλλʼ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν· καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζον πάντα τὰ βρώματα. | KJV NT RI

Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? | KJV 1900

οὐκ ouk Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
οὐ ou not
negative, adverb, particle
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

εἰσπορεύεται eisporeuetai Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
εἰσπορεύομαι eisporeuomai enter; go into
verb, present, either middle or passive, indicative, third person, singular
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

καρδίαν kardian Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
καρδία kardia heart
noun, accusative, singular, feminine
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

κοιλίαν koilian Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
κοιλία koilia womb; belly; stomach
noun, accusative, singular, feminine
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

ἀφεδρῶνα aphedrōna Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
ἀφεδρών aphedrōn toilet; latrine
noun, accusative, singular, masculine
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

ἐκπορεύεται ekporeuetai Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

ἐκπορεύομαι ekporeuomai go out; come or go out
verb, present, either middle or passive, indicative, third person, singular
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

καθαρίζον katharizon Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
καθαρίζω katharizō purify; cleanse; make clean
verb, present, active, participle, singular, nominative, neuter
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

πάντα panta Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
πᾶς pas every; all
adjective, accusative, plural, neuter
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

βρώματα brōmata Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
βρῶμα brōma food
noun, accusative, plural, neuter
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

A great example of what happens when people ignore God's food laws is what we have today with people eating bats which are forbidden in LEVITICUS 11:13-19 resulting in COVID-19.

Context matters.

Hope this is helpful.

What you may or may not agree with is really not relevant. About eating bats, there are many abjectly poor people in China and other countries, that might have been the only thing that person had to eat. I served in Viet Nam and often saw the Vietnamese catching rats for food because that was all they had.
I appreciate this probably sincere but misguided attempt to correct me. I think you are quoting from Strong's which has about 15,000 errors or omissions. I studied Greek at the graduate level more than 3 decades ago and I have the most recent BDAG Greek lexicon in hard back and digital. I don't think you are knowledgeable enough to correct me.
Also I quoted from the Eastern Orthodox Greek NT. Their language has always been Greek the EOGNT is correctly translated.
I have been reading English since FDR was POTUS and don't require anyone to translate something written in English to me. If it meant something else Jesus would have said something else and that it what they would have written. If all a person eats is kosher, clean food why would it need to be cleansed passing through and being discharged from the body? So Jesus evidently did not mean that.
If you want to try to prove that NT Christians are still under the OT dietary laws, this verse does not help you.

 

[Der Alte]

True, but this does not matter. It is enough for Jesus to say that nothing that enters a man makes him unclean - this clearly contradicts the law.

Unless Jesus was abrogating the dietary laws. And please don't give me any nonsense about eating bats, rats etc. I can still decide that something is not sanitary or unhealthful.

Origen Commentary on Matthew Book XI
"and especially when, according to Mark, the Saviour said these things "making all meats clean," Origen.
EOG NT 9 because it does not go into his heart but into the stomach, and then into the sewer (thus he declared all foods to be clean)k?”​

 

[LoveGodsWord]

What you may or may not agree with is really not relevant. About eating bats, there are many abjectly poor people in China and other countries, that might have been the only thing that person had to eat. I served in Viet Nam and often saw the Vietnamese catching rats for food because that was all they had.
I appreciate this probably sincere but misguided attempt to correct me. I think you are quoting from Strong's which has about 15,000 errors or omissions. I studied Greek at the graduate level more than 3 decades ago and I have the most recent BDAG Greek lexicon in hard back and digital. I don't think you are knowledgeable enough to correct me.
Also I quoted from the Eastern Orthodox Greek NT. Their language has always been Greek the EOGNT is correctly translated.
I have been reading English since FDR was POTUS and don't require anyone to translate something written in English to me. If it meant something else Jesus would have said something else and that it what they would have written. If all a person eats is kosher, clean food why would it need to be cleansed passing through and being discharged from the body? So Jesus evidently did not mean that.
If you want to try to prove that NT Christians are still under the OT dietary laws, this verse does not help you.

Thanks dear friend but I was never contending difinition of word meanings. If you re-read my post to you I was contending word definitions applied to context is the final say on scriptural interpretation for both Hebrew and Greek application of word meanings as these words contain many definitions. It was here I was referring to that I believe shows your interpretation of the scriptures to be in error and the context to the rest of the bible, not the word definition used. For me I believe your focusing on a leaf of a tree and not seeing the tree or the forest the leaf is attached to.

You are free to believe as you wish but what I posted earlier dear friend is true. When people ignore God's food laws like we see today with people eating bats which are forbidden in LEVITICUS 11:13-19, COVID-19 is a great example of the truth of God's Word showing the result of disobedience or ignornace which is now demonstrated in a global disease pandemic.

Context matters. The bible is true. Your interpretation of MARK 7:19 devoid of context which does not lead to a correct interpretation of the scriptures. JESUS is not making an announcement that all unclean foods are now clean but showing not washing cups and pots and hands do not defile a man and that breaking God's law from the heart does. The context is to MARK 7:3-23 and that which is passed out of the body and what really makes a man defiled.

Blessings.

 

[HARK!]

Origen Commentary on Matthew Book XI
"and especially when, according to Mark, the Saviour said these things "making all meats clean," Origen.
EOG NT 9 because it does not go into his heart but into the stomach, and then into the sewer (thus he declared all foods to be clean)k?”

Ergo...'ere ya go!

 

[Der Alte]

Ergo...'ere ya go!

Do you have a point or just spamming the thread?