penguinfan

In Mark 7:18-19, Jesus said:

Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?

and in Luke 10:8:

Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you.


But, how does one understand these passages in light of Acts 10, where Peter said:

Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.

and of course, Matt. 5:17?

Did Peter not understand what Jesus meant or is there another interpretation for Mark 7? What about Luke 10?

razlyubleno

It's been suggested that "thus purifying all foods" is an interpolation. Perhaps a marginal gloss that got swept into the text.

razly

penguinfan

I've heard that as well, in part because Paul says the same thing in an epistle (why would Paul have to say it if Jesus already did, etc...).

However, I've heard different interpretations of that passage, such as this: http://jesusisajew.org/Short/MK7V19.php

I was surprised when I recently read the other passage and was wondering what anyone thought of it.

Thanks for your reply.

Petergdi

The story that ends "thus cleansing all foods" is about why we don't do the washing that the Pharisees and those other Jews who follow the tradition of the elders, instead of only the scriptural rules, do. It has nothing to do with eating pork, shellfish or meat with blood in it.

If you are going to a Jewish house, the command to eat what is set before you doesn't mean you eat what is forbidden to both you and your host. It means that you accept the hospitality of the house where you are a guest.

Peter.

steve_bnk

I think the intent of Paul was that hungry people should eat what is presented.

The Lord's Prayer was real to them, some bread today ment they may be alive for one more day.

dog-on

This is, to me, a clear example of the very real possibility that the "God" in Mark was not originally meant to be YHWH, as Jesus basically contradicts YHWH's eternal law.

Acts, written later is part of the process to get rid of the strange and most excellent God, of Mark, and replace him with the demiurge.

Crystal clear.

IamJoseph

The notion of ITS NOT WHAT GOES INTO YOU BUT WHAT COMES OUT OF YOU - a means to negate the law - has failed. It is a silly and ignorant manouver, one which assumes the original law was wanting or not able to understand what it was saying! Better, it appears that some were unable to impress the Greeks and Romans - who would never give up their pork and shell fish for anyone with a beard and a stick proclaiming such - nor would they have entertained being circumsized or the forbiddence of image worship and divine humans.


No figure in the NT or Quran can alter what is in the Hebrew bible. In fact, not even God can - based on the premise God = Truth. And nothing whatsoever has been changed, despite many trying to. what the Gospels never understood is, many of the ritual laws were never meant to be followed by the world - they act as a funny looking uniform for one people, and prefixed with 'unto you'. The latter is why those who follow the NT are not sinning if they do not follow those laws.

'HE UNDERSTANDETH THE NATURE OF MAN AND SPEAKS IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLES' - applies.

The factor of 'NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT *ANYTHING* FROM THIS BOOK OF LAWS' - remains vindicated - mysteriously so, considering that its adherants have been quagmired and ridiculed in ghettoes for most of their history. All the 613 laws of the hebrew bible are active today, and the world has not accepted any other laws from any other place. This is not an opinion but a fact.

IamJoseph

I concur. There is already th law to 'HONOR THE LAWS OF THE KINGDOM WHICH HOUSES YOU' - which means not abusing tht country's laws, as opposed negating one's own laws. Here, one must offer his life and enlist in a war if his country calls upon him - but need not eat what is forbidden to him.

Julio

In Mark 7 and Matthew 15 Jesus goes ballistic and gets very offended because he was severely reprimanded about the lack of hygiene he and the “sacred college” followed.
The entire chapter is a coarse misdemeanour of “our Saviour”, for the real problem was them not washing their hands after defecating and next blessing children with dirty hands.
(I’ve said this before, elsewhere)

Julio

The entire theatrics of Jesus in Matthew 15 offers us the clear sense that he was an immature youngster, getting aggravated when somebody would have the courage to tell him to his face how DIRTY he was.
He calls the scribes and Pharisees all sorts of names, including cursing them to hell and all the rest.
All they asked was why he didn’t tell his entourage to be clean folk in the public eye!
Read Matthew 15 with an open mind and you’ll see the true Jesus in action!
It’s an eye-opener for sure for those of us who can see!