If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

Nobody is lecturing you on Jewish law here. Only on how Christians use Jewish law, and it’s you trying to lecture us. Take it down a notch.

So where do you get your deep insights on Jesus’ own thoughts and intentions? Because obviously you know more than Peter, Paul, and 2,000 years of Christian theologians, so it would be great if you could share your font of wisdom. Oh wait, your insights come from your obvious hate and biases (sorry Mom).

Lump this in with your lying about your own posts, and you’re starting to seem like a real charmer.

When have I lied about my own posts?

When did I lie about my own posts. Jesus was talking about the elders criticizing his followers for eating bread with unwashed hands. Bread cannot be un kosher. Jesus never changed the Kosher laws. https://joshuaensley.org/2018/03/19/mark-7-did-jesus-change-the-biblical-dietary-laws/

OK wow, you’re relying on the fringe of the fringe. Joshua Ensley is a pronominian Christian. His Facebook page has 431 likes. A Facebook page for pronomian Christians has 84 members.

As for Ensley’s arguments, they seem tendentious—at best. For example, Ensley claims Mark was only writing for a gentile audience, based on the fact that Mark includes details on Jewish law. But that in no way means Mark is *only* speaking to gentiles. Basic logic says Mark is talking to an audience of both Jews and Gentiles, and Mark provides helpful details on Jewish law for the gentile part of his audience. It’s like either of us posting on DCUM about the beltway, and including details on MD for readers in DC and VA, even though lots of the DCUM audience live in MD and already know these details. Next.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

Matthew 5:17 is hardly fringe. Jesus did not come to abolish the law.

What the what? Ensley doesn’t look at Matthew 5:17 at all. It’s just you misdirecting words like “fringe.” It’s almost like you lost the last 5 pages of arguments so now you’re trying to float square one arguments again with a different scripture passage. Weird, but understandable, that you didn’t go with Matthew 22:37-40 instead, because that would have undermined your argument.

Anyway, in Matthew 5:17 Jesus says he’s come to “fulfill” the law, by which means change it. And that he did. For example, Jesus said and did things that were shocking to Leviticus-followers, like telling his followers to drink his (symbolic) blood, which is totally not kosher. You can’t claim that was consistent with Leviticus. Also, you and Joshua can’t substantiate your claim about the dietary laws being only for gentiles and only about washing your hands, so we’re left with “nothing” being unclean and followers being able to eat “whatever” they put in their mouths. And Jesus abolished eye-for-eye justice; your point about the Pharisees getting there first is irrelevant to the point that Jesus didn’t want people following that part of Leviticus either. He made divorce illegal instead of the Levitical rules around divorce. He said love your enemy, not just the Levitical rule about living your neighbor. And so on and so on.

So, Jesus was definitely not encouraging his followers to adhere to Leviticus letter by letter. There’s no way you can argue the statements above didn’t contradict Leviticus.

Baffled as to why you, as a Jew who’s now an atheist, care so much about whether Christians are bound by Levitical rules on diet and homosexuality.

Wrong. In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus makes it clear he is NOT here to change the law. Whether non Israelite Christians had to obey the kosher laws was the subject of Acts. Jesus did not change the kosher laws. https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/library/article/id/1049/clean-unclean-meats.htm

Do you think you’re funny or something? Another one-church pastor rehashing the arguments about Peter and the animals that were easily debunked a page or two ago.

Wikipedia says membership is 400 people, and that’s worldwide. The way the guy struggles with Peter and Timothy, trying to twist basic logic (as I already went into for the same arguments above and I’m not going to repeat for you) is entertaining, though.

PS. Citing a bible literalists who uses Genesis and Deuteronomy to back up claims about Leviticus is pretty funny.

Is your argument that all Jews and Christians should be bible literalists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

Nobody is lecturing you on Jewish law here. Only on how Christians use Jewish law, and it’s you trying to lecture us. Take it down a notch.

So where do you get your deep insights on Jesus’ own thoughts and intentions? Because obviously you know more than Peter, Paul, and 2,000 years of Christian theologians, so it would be great if you could share your font of wisdom. Oh wait, your insights come from your obvious hate and biases (sorry Mom).

Lump this in with your lying about your own posts, and you’re starting to seem like a real charmer.

When have I lied about my own posts?

When did I lie about my own posts. Jesus was talking about the elders criticizing his followers for eating bread with unwashed hands. Bread cannot be un kosher. Jesus never changed the Kosher laws. https://joshuaensley.org/2018/03/19/mark-7-did-jesus-change-the-biblical-dietary-laws/

OK wow, you’re relying on the fringe of the fringe. Joshua Ensley is a pronominian Christian. His Facebook page has 431 likes. A Facebook page for pronomian Christians has 84 members.

As for Ensley’s arguments, they seem tendentious—at best. For example, Ensley claims Mark was only writing for a gentile audience, based on the fact that Mark includes details on Jewish law. But that in no way means Mark is *only* speaking to gentiles. Basic logic says Mark is talking to an audience of both Jews and Gentiles, and Mark provides helpful details on Jewish law for the gentile part of his audience. It’s like either of us posting on DCUM about the beltway, and including details on MD for readers in DC and VA, even though lots of the DCUM audience live in MD and already know these details. Next.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

Matthew 5:17 is hardly fringe. Jesus did not come to abolish the law.

What the what? Ensley doesn’t look at Matthew 5:17 at all. It’s just you misdirecting words like “fringe.” It’s almost like you lost the last 5 pages of arguments so now you’re trying to float square one arguments again with a different scripture passage. Weird, but understandable, that you didn’t go with Matthew 22:37-40 instead, because that would have undermined your argument.

Anyway, in Matthew 5:17 Jesus says he’s come to “fulfill” the law, by which means change it. And that he did. For example, Jesus said and did things that were shocking to Leviticus-followers, like telling his followers to drink his (symbolic) blood, which is totally not kosher. You can’t claim that was consistent with Leviticus. Also, you and Joshua can’t substantiate your claim about the dietary laws being only for gentiles and only about washing your hands, so we’re left with “nothing” being unclean and followers being able to eat “whatever” they put in their mouths. And Jesus abolished eye-for-eye justice; your point about the Pharisees getting there first is irrelevant to the point that Jesus didn’t want people following that part of Leviticus either. He made divorce illegal instead of the Levitical rules around divorce. He said love your enemy, not just the Levitical rule about living your neighbor. And so on and so on.

So, Jesus was definitely not encouraging his followers to adhere to Leviticus letter by letter. There’s no way you can argue the statements above didn’t contradict Leviticus.

Baffled as to why you, as a Jew who’s now an atheist, care so much about whether Christians are bound by Levitical rules on diet and homosexuality.

Wrong. In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus makes it clear he is NOT here to change the law. Whether non Israelite Christians had to obey the kosher laws was the subject of Acts. Jesus did not change the kosher laws. https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/library/article/id/1049/clean-unclean-meats.htm

Do you think you’re funny or something? Another one-church pastor rehashing the arguments about Peter and the animals that were easily debunked a page or two ago.

Wikipedia says membership is 400 people, and that’s worldwide. The way the guy struggles with Peter and Timothy, trying to twist basic logic (as I already went into for the same arguments above and I’m not going to repeat for you) is entertaining, though.

PS. Citing a bible literalists who uses Genesis and Deuteronomy to back up claims about Leviticus is pretty funny.

Is your argument that all Jews and Christians should be bible literalists?

No, I’m an atheist. My argument is that Jesus never declared un kosher meats proper for Israelites to eat. You can’t seem to grasp that Jesus was saying that bread, which can’t be un kosher, is not defiled and will not defile one who eats it if a Jew handles it before washing his hands. https://www.ucg.org/good-news/the-surprise-sayings-of-jesus-christ-did-jesus-declare-all-meats-clean

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

Nobody is lecturing you on Jewish law here. Only on how Christians use Jewish law, and it’s you trying to lecture us. Take it down a notch.

So where do you get your deep insights on Jesus’ own thoughts and intentions? Because obviously you know more than Peter, Paul, and 2,000 years of Christian theologians, so it would be great if you could share your font of wisdom. Oh wait, your insights come from your obvious hate and biases (sorry Mom).

Lump this in with your lying about your own posts, and you’re starting to seem like a real charmer.

When have I lied about my own posts?

When did I lie about my own posts. Jesus was talking about the elders criticizing his followers for eating bread with unwashed hands. Bread cannot be un kosher. Jesus never changed the Kosher laws. https://joshuaensley.org/2018/03/19/mark-7-did-jesus-change-the-biblical-dietary-laws/

OK wow, you’re relying on the fringe of the fringe. Joshua Ensley is a pronominian Christian. His Facebook page has 431 likes. A Facebook page for pronomian Christians has 84 members.

As for Ensley’s arguments, they seem tendentious—at best. For example, Ensley claims Mark was only writing for a gentile audience, based on the fact that Mark includes details on Jewish law. But that in no way means Mark is *only* speaking to gentiles. Basic logic says Mark is talking to an audience of both Jews and Gentiles, and Mark provides helpful details on Jewish law for the gentile part of his audience. It’s like either of us posting on DCUM about the beltway, and including details on MD for readers in DC and VA, even though lots of the DCUM audience live in MD and already know these details. Next.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

Matthew 5:17 is hardly fringe. Jesus did not come to abolish the law.

What the what? Ensley doesn’t look at Matthew 5:17 at all. It’s just you misdirecting words like “fringe.” It’s almost like you lost the last 5 pages of arguments so now you’re trying to float square one arguments again with a different scripture passage. Weird, but understandable, that you didn’t go with Matthew 22:37-40 instead, because that would have undermined your argument.

Anyway, in Matthew 5:17 Jesus says he’s come to “fulfill” the law, by which means change it. And that he did. For example, Jesus said and did things that were shocking to Leviticus-followers, like telling his followers to drink his (symbolic) blood, which is totally not kosher. You can’t claim that was consistent with Leviticus. Also, you and Joshua can’t substantiate your claim about the dietary laws being only for gentiles and only about washing your hands, so we’re left with “nothing” being unclean and followers being able to eat “whatever” they put in their mouths. And Jesus abolished eye-for-eye justice; your point about the Pharisees getting there first is irrelevant to the point that Jesus didn’t want people following that part of Leviticus either. He made divorce illegal instead of the Levitical rules around divorce. He said love your enemy, not just the Levitical rule about living your neighbor. And so on and so on.

So, Jesus was definitely not encouraging his followers to adhere to Leviticus letter by letter. There’s no way you can argue the statements above didn’t contradict Leviticus.

Baffled as to why you, as a Jew who’s now an atheist, care so much about whether Christians are bound by Levitical rules on diet and homosexuality.

Wrong. In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus makes it clear he is NOT here to change the law. Whether non Israelite Christians had to obey the kosher laws was the subject of Acts. Jesus did not change the kosher laws. https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/library/article/id/1049/clean-unclean-meats.htm

Do you think you’re funny or something? Another one-church pastor rehashing the arguments about Peter and the animals that were easily debunked a page or two ago.

Wikipedia says membership is 400 people, and that’s worldwide. The way the guy struggles with Peter and Timothy, trying to twist basic logic (as I already went into for the same arguments above and I’m not going to repeat for you) is entertaining, though.

PS. Citing a bible literalists who uses Genesis and Deuteronomy to back up claims about Leviticus is pretty funny.

Is your argument that all Jews and Christians should be bible literalists?

No, I’m an atheist. My argument is that Jesus never declared un kosher meats proper for Israelites to eat. You can’t seem to grasp that Jesus was saying that bread, which can’t be un kosher, is not defiled and will not defile one who eats it if a Jew handles it before washing his hands. https://www.ucg.org/good-news/the-surprise-sayings-of-jesus-christ-did-jesus-declare-all-meats-clean

You can’t seem to grasp that “nothing is unclean” means exactly that, and goes way beyond bread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

Nobody is lecturing you on Jewish law here. Only on how Christians use Jewish law, and it’s you trying to lecture us. Take it down a notch.

So where do you get your deep insights on Jesus’ own thoughts and intentions? Because obviously you know more than Peter, Paul, and 2,000 years of Christian theologians, so it would be great if you could share your font of wisdom. Oh wait, your insights come from your obvious hate and biases (sorry Mom).

Lump this in with your lying about your own posts, and you’re starting to seem like a real charmer.

When have I lied about my own posts?

When did I lie about my own posts. Jesus was talking about the elders criticizing his followers for eating bread with unwashed hands. Bread cannot be un kosher. Jesus never changed the Kosher laws. https://joshuaensley.org/2018/03/19/mark-7-did-jesus-change-the-biblical-dietary-laws/

OK wow, you’re relying on the fringe of the fringe. Joshua Ensley is a pronominian Christian. His Facebook page has 431 likes. A Facebook page for pronomian Christians has 84 members.

As for Ensley’s arguments, they seem tendentious—at best. For example, Ensley claims Mark was only writing for a gentile audience, based on the fact that Mark includes details on Jewish law. But that in no way means Mark is *only* speaking to gentiles. Basic logic says Mark is talking to an audience of both Jews and Gentiles, and Mark provides helpful details on Jewish law for the gentile part of his audience. It’s like either of us posting on DCUM about the beltway, and including details on MD for readers in DC and VA, even though lots of the DCUM audience live in MD and already know these details. Next.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

Matthew 5:17 is hardly fringe. Jesus did not come to abolish the law.

What the what? Ensley doesn’t look at Matthew 5:17 at all. It’s just you misdirecting words like “fringe.” It’s almost like you lost the last 5 pages of arguments so now you’re trying to float square one arguments again with a different scripture passage. Weird, but understandable, that you didn’t go with Matthew 22:37-40 instead, because that would have undermined your argument.

Anyway, in Matthew 5:17 Jesus says he’s come to “fulfill” the law, by which means change it. And that he did. For example, Jesus said and did things that were shocking to Leviticus-followers, like telling his followers to drink his (symbolic) blood, which is totally not kosher. You can’t claim that was consistent with Leviticus. Also, you and Joshua can’t substantiate your claim about the dietary laws being only for gentiles and only about washing your hands, so we’re left with “nothing” being unclean and followers being able to eat “whatever” they put in their mouths. And Jesus abolished eye-for-eye justice; your point about the Pharisees getting there first is irrelevant to the point that Jesus didn’t want people following that part of Leviticus either. He made divorce illegal instead of the Levitical rules around divorce. He said love your enemy, not just the Levitical rule about living your neighbor. And so on and so on.

So, Jesus was definitely not encouraging his followers to adhere to Leviticus letter by letter. There’s no way you can argue the statements above didn’t contradict Leviticus.

Baffled as to why you, as a Jew who’s now an atheist, care so much about whether Christians are bound by Levitical rules on diet and homosexuality.

Wrong. In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus makes it clear he is NOT here to change the law. Whether non Israelite Christians had to obey the kosher laws was the subject of Acts. Jesus did not change the kosher laws. https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/library/article/id/1049/clean-unclean-meats.htm

Do you think you’re funny or something? Another one-church pastor rehashing the arguments about Peter and the animals that were easily debunked a page or two ago.

Wikipedia says membership is 400 people, and that’s worldwide. The way the guy struggles with Peter and Timothy, trying to twist basic logic (as I already went into for the same arguments above and I’m not going to repeat for you) is entertaining, though.

PS. Citing a bible literalists who uses Genesis and Deuteronomy to back up claims about Leviticus is pretty funny.

Is your argument that all Jews and Christians should be bible literalists?

No, I’m an atheist. My argument is that Jesus never declared un kosher meats proper for Israelites to eat. You can’t seem to grasp that Jesus was saying that bread, which can’t be un kosher, is not defiled and will not defile one who eats it if a Jew handles it before washing his hands. https://www.ucg.org/good-news/the-surprise-sayings-of-jesus-christ-did-jesus-declare-all-meats-clean

You can’t seem to grasp that “nothing is unclean” means exactly that, and goes way beyond bread.

Read the passage. Jesus is only talking about his disciples eating bread with unwashed hands. The Talmud commands that Jews wash their hands before eating anything or the food will defile them. Orthodox Jews still do this. Here, Jesus is siding with the Sadducees, who reject the Oral Law, against the Pharisees, who codified the Oral Law in the Talmud. Had Jesus meant that Jews should go and eat bacon and pork chops that would have been monumental and he would not have just used bread as his example. If he had meant bacon and pork chops, he would have himself eaten bacon and pork chops, which he never did. https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/MARK+7.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can’t seem to grasp that “nothing is unclean” means exactly that, and goes way beyond bread.

Read the passage. Jesus is only talking about his disciples eating bread with unwashed hands. The Talmud commands that Jews wash their hands before eating anything or the food will defile them. Orthodox Jews still do this. Here, Jesus is siding with the Sadducees, who reject the Oral Law, against the Pharisees, who codified the Oral Law in the Talmud. Had Jesus meant that Jews should go and eat bacon and pork chops that would have been monumental and he would not have just used bread as his example. If he had meant bacon and pork chops, he would have himself eaten bacon and pork chops, which he never did. https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/MARK+7.html

To back up your interpretation, you, a former Jew, rely entirely on two southern preachers with a few hundred people in their congregations, and their own websites.

Using MIT to quote Mark is another interesting choice. You probably think an MIT link helps your argument. But of course MIT doesn’t actually gloss Mark, they just reproduce the passage.

You still have the same fundamental problem: “Nothing” still means “nothing” and “whatever” still means “whatever.” If Jesus cared about dietary laws, he wouldn’t have told his followers to drink his metaphorical blood, which is about the most unkosher thing you can think of.

You’re going in circles. I’m not going to retype it all again for you. Instead I’ll just cut and paste the obvious response.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

[Anonymous]

^^^ Also, if you keep parroting the same illogical arguments, whether from a third southern Baptist preacher with a congregation of 200, or by linking to to the same scriptural passages but maybe this time from Yale’s website but with no Yale interpretation, I’m just going to cut and paste what’s above.

[Anonymous]

I love it when non-Christians tell Christians how to interpret their scripture. Especially when this former Jew is insisting that all Christians should follow Leviticus literally, including dietary and anti-homosexuality laws. I mean, WTF?

Should Christians tell Jews and Muslims how to interpret their scripture? No? Why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love it when non-Christians tell Christians how to interpret their scripture. Especially when this former Jew is insisting that all Christians should follow Leviticus literally, including dietary and anti-homosexuality laws. I mean, WTF?

Should Christians tell Jews and Muslims how to interpret their scripture? No? Why not?

I have NEVER told Christians to follow Leviticus literally. I have never defended Leviticus 18:12. I believe in homosexual rights. I am saying that Leviticus should be relegated to the atrashbin of history. I condemn Christians for cherry picking Leviticus. They don’t cleanse themselves after nocturnal emissions, which is fine by me, but they use Leviticus to justify hatred of homosexuals, which is terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can’t seem to grasp that “nothing is unclean” means exactly that, and goes way beyond bread.

Read the passage. Jesus is only talking about his disciples eating bread with unwashed hands. The Talmud commands that Jews wash their hands before eating anything or the food will defile them. Orthodox Jews still do this. Here, Jesus is siding with the Sadducees, who reject the Oral Law, against the Pharisees, who codified the Oral Law in the Talmud. Had Jesus meant that Jews should go and eat bacon and pork chops that would have been monumental and he would not have just used bread as his example. If he had meant bacon and pork chops, he would have himself eaten bacon and pork chops, which he never did. https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/MARK+7.html

To back up your interpretation, you, a former Jew, rely entirely on two southern preachers with a few hundred people in their congregations, and their own websites.

Using MIT to quote Mark is another interesting choice. You probably think an MIT link helps your argument. But of course MIT doesn’t actually gloss Mark, they just reproduce the passage.

You still have the same fundamental problem: “Nothing” still means “nothing” and “whatever” still means “whatever.” If Jesus cared about dietary laws, he wouldn’t have told his followers to drink his metaphorical blood, which is about the most unkosher thing you can think of.

You’re going in circles. I’m not going to retype it all again for you. Instead I’ll just cut and paste the obvious response.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

Nothing you are saying applies to non kosher foods. It had to do with washing hands before eating bread. Jesus kept kosher. https://aleteia.org/2021/07/09/did-jesus-keep-kosher/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can’t seem to grasp that “nothing is unclean” means exactly that, and goes way beyond bread.

Read the passage. Jesus is only talking about his disciples eating bread with unwashed hands. The Talmud commands that Jews wash their hands before eating anything or the food will defile them. Orthodox Jews still do this. Here, Jesus is siding with the Sadducees, who reject the Oral Law, against the Pharisees, who codified the Oral Law in the Talmud. Had Jesus meant that Jews should go and eat bacon and pork chops that would have been monumental and he would not have just used bread as his example. If he had meant bacon and pork chops, he would have himself eaten bacon and pork chops, which he never did. https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/MARK+7.html

To back up your interpretation, you, a former Jew, rely entirely on two southern preachers with a few hundred people in their congregations, and their own websites.

Using MIT to quote Mark is another interesting choice. You probably think an MIT link helps your argument. But of course MIT doesn’t actually gloss Mark, they just reproduce the passage.

You still have the same fundamental problem: “Nothing” still means “nothing” and “whatever” still means “whatever.” If Jesus cared about dietary laws, he wouldn’t have told his followers to drink his metaphorical blood, which is about the most unkosher thing you can think of.

You’re going in circles. I’m not going to retype it all again for you. Instead I’ll just cut and paste the obvious response.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

Nothing you are saying applies to non kosher foods. It had to do with washing hands before eating bread. Jesus kept kosher. https://aleteia.org/2021/07/09/did-jesus-keep-kosher/

Jesus’ own words say otherwise. Read them again. Anyway, Jesus told his followers to drink his metaphorical blood, communion wine—about the least kosher thing you can think of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can’t seem to grasp that “nothing is unclean” means exactly that, and goes way beyond bread.

Read the passage. Jesus is only talking about his disciples eating bread with unwashed hands. The Talmud commands that Jews wash their hands before eating anything or the food will defile them. Orthodox Jews still do this. Here, Jesus is siding with the Sadducees, who reject the Oral Law, against the Pharisees, who codified the Oral Law in the Talmud. Had Jesus meant that Jews should go and eat bacon and pork chops that would have been monumental and he would not have just used bread as his example. If he had meant bacon and pork chops, he would have himself eaten bacon and pork chops, which he never did. https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/MARK+7.html

To back up your interpretation, you, a former Jew, rely entirely on two southern preachers with a few hundred people in their congregations, and their own websites.

Using MIT to quote Mark is another interesting choice. You probably think an MIT link helps your argument. But of course MIT doesn’t actually gloss Mark, they just reproduce the passage.

You still have the same fundamental problem: “Nothing” still means “nothing” and “whatever” still means “whatever.” If Jesus cared about dietary laws, he wouldn’t have told his followers to drink his metaphorical blood, which is about the most unkosher thing you can think of.

You’re going in circles. I’m not going to retype it all again for you. Instead I’ll just cut and paste the obvious response.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

Nothing you are saying applies to non kosher foods. It had to do with washing hands before eating bread. Jesus kept kosher. https://aleteia.org/2021/07/09/did-jesus-keep-kosher/

Jesus’ own words say otherwise. Read them again. Anyway, Jesus told his followers to drink his metaphorical blood, communion wine—about the least kosher thing you can think of.

The remembering Jesus when one eats and drinks is metaphorical and has nothing to do with the kosher laws, which Jesus kept. https://aleteia.org/2021/07/09/did-jesus-keep-kosher/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can’t seem to grasp that “nothing is unclean” means exactly that, and goes way beyond bread.

Read the passage. Jesus is only talking about his disciples eating bread with unwashed hands. The Talmud commands that Jews wash their hands before eating anything or the food will defile them. Orthodox Jews still do this. Here, Jesus is siding with the Sadducees, who reject the Oral Law, against the Pharisees, who codified the Oral Law in the Talmud. Had Jesus meant that Jews should go and eat bacon and pork chops that would have been monumental and he would not have just used bread as his example. If he had meant bacon and pork chops, he would have himself eaten bacon and pork chops, which he never did. https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/MARK+7.html

To back up your interpretation, you, a former Jew, rely entirely on two southern preachers with a few hundred people in their congregations, and their own websites.

Using MIT to quote Mark is another interesting choice. You probably think an MIT link helps your argument. But of course MIT doesn’t actually gloss Mark, they just reproduce the passage.

You still have the same fundamental problem: “Nothing” still means “nothing” and “whatever” still means “whatever.” If Jesus cared about dietary laws, he wouldn’t have told his followers to drink his metaphorical blood, which is about the most unkosher thing you can think of.

You’re going in circles. I’m not going to retype it all again for you. Instead I’ll just cut and paste the obvious response.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

Nothing you are saying applies to non kosher foods. It had to do with washing hands before eating bread. Jesus kept kosher. https://aleteia.org/2021/07/09/did-jesus-keep-kosher/

Jesus’ own words say otherwise. Read them again. Anyway, Jesus told his followers to drink his metaphorical blood, communion wine—about the least kosher thing you can think of.

The remembering Jesus when one eats and drinks is metaphorical and has nothing to do with the kosher laws, which Jesus kept. https://aleteia.org/2021/07/09/did-jesus-keep-kosher/

“Nothing” means “nothing” and “whatever” means “whatever. And while “whatever” would include bodily impurities and bread, insisting on such a narrow definition of obvious words is actually stupid.

But keep posting links that talk about excrement and washing your hands as long as you want—besides being a former Jew, you’re also clearly Atheist Don Quixote who never, ever, ever concedes you’ve utterly lost an argument. It’s almost like you have nothing else in your life so you keep posting the same ridiculous arguments.

I’m out of here, because I do have other things to do. Please don’t do your usual dishonest spin, and post later on that because people stopped responding to your nonsense, this means you’ve “won” the argument. Your argument is stupid and your links to groups of a few hundred people proves nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can’t seem to grasp that “nothing is unclean” means exactly that, and goes way beyond bread.

Read the passage. Jesus is only talking about his disciples eating bread with unwashed hands. The Talmud commands that Jews wash their hands before eating anything or the food will defile them. Orthodox Jews still do this. Here, Jesus is siding with the Sadducees, who reject the Oral Law, against the Pharisees, who codified the Oral Law in the Talmud. Had Jesus meant that Jews should go and eat bacon and pork chops that would have been monumental and he would not have just used bread as his example. If he had meant bacon and pork chops, he would have himself eaten bacon and pork chops, which he never did. https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/MARK+7.html

To back up your interpretation, you, a former Jew, rely entirely on two southern preachers with a few hundred people in their congregations, and their own websites.

Using MIT to quote Mark is another interesting choice. You probably think an MIT link helps your argument. But of course MIT doesn’t actually gloss Mark, they just reproduce the passage.

You still have the same fundamental problem: “Nothing” still means “nothing” and “whatever” still means “whatever.” If Jesus cared about dietary laws, he wouldn’t have told his followers to drink his metaphorical blood, which is about the most unkosher thing you can think of.

You’re going in circles. I’m not going to retype it all again for you. Instead I’ll just cut and paste the obvious response.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

Nothing you are saying applies to non kosher foods. It had to do with washing hands before eating bread. Jesus kept kosher. https://aleteia.org/2021/07/09/did-jesus-keep-kosher/

Jesus’ own words say otherwise. Read them again. Anyway, Jesus told his followers to drink his metaphorical blood, communion wine—about the least kosher thing you can think of.

The remembering Jesus when one eats and drinks is metaphorical and has nothing to do with the kosher laws, which Jesus kept. https://aleteia.org/2021/07/09/did-jesus-keep-kosher/

“Nothing” means “nothing” and “whatever” means “whatever. And while “whatever” would include bodily impurities and bread, insisting on such a narrow definition of obvious words is actually stupid.

But keep posting links that talk about excrement and washing your hands as long as you want—besides being a former Jew, you’re also clearly Atheist Don Quixote who never, ever, ever concedes you’ve utterly lost an argument. It’s almost like you have nothing else in your life so you keep posting the same ridiculous arguments.

I’m out of here, because I do have other things to do. Please don’t do your usual dishonest spin, and post later on that because people stopped responding to your nonsense, this means you’ve “won” the argument. Your argument is stupid and your links to groups of a few hundred people proves nothing.

Why do you keep calling me “a former Jew”? To be a Jew one must be born of a Jewish mother. I’ve already told you my mother is Christian. I’ve studied Judaism but I’ve never been a Jew.

Jesus was talking about a particular problem with the Pharisees about hand washing which is still practiced today in Orthodox Jewish households. He wasn’t saying anything about kashrut. https://davidbcapes.com/2016/03/09/did-jesus-keep-kosher/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can’t seem to grasp that “nothing is unclean” means exactly that, and goes way beyond bread.

Read the passage. Jesus is only talking about his disciples eating bread with unwashed hands. The Talmud commands that Jews wash their hands before eating anything or the food will defile them. Orthodox Jews still do this. Here, Jesus is siding with the Sadducees, who reject the Oral Law, against the Pharisees, who codified the Oral Law in the Talmud. Had Jesus meant that Jews should go and eat bacon and pork chops that would have been monumental and he would not have just used bread as his example. If he had meant bacon and pork chops, he would have himself eaten bacon and pork chops, which he never did. https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/MARK+7.html

To back up your interpretation, you, a former Jew, rely entirely on two southern preachers with a few hundred people in their congregations, and their own websites.

Using MIT to quote Mark is another interesting choice. You probably think an MIT link helps your argument. But of course MIT doesn’t actually gloss Mark, they just reproduce the passage.

You still have the same fundamental problem: “Nothing” still means “nothing” and “whatever” still means “whatever.” If Jesus cared about dietary laws, he wouldn’t have told his followers to drink his metaphorical blood, which is about the most unkosher thing you can think of.

You’re going in circles. I’m not going to retype it all again for you. Instead I’ll just cut and paste the obvious response.

Ensley’s translation of Mark 7 completely misses the point, buries the lede, and ignores the elephant in the room. Ensley spills a lot of digital ink arguing that recent bible translations fail to append the end of a clause referring to going to the bathroom, therefore whatever impurifications go into the body will also go out. I mean, maybe, but so what? While the initial incident started with bread, Jesus broadens this twice, with the words “whatever” and “nothing.” Don’t you think that if Jesus meant something narrow like nocturnal emissions (thanks for your interest in all these bodily functions) or contact in the marketplace or unclean hands or ritual impurities he would have said that? Even if you follow Ensley’s argument about how “whatever” gets purified in the (rear) end, dont you think Jesus, a great debater, would have clarified the very broad “nothing is impure” and “whatever you eat” with something like “except lobster and milk with meat” if that’s what he, a skilled rhetorician, actually meant?

14) And he called the people to him again and said to them, ‘Hear me, all of you, and understand. (15) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.’ (17) And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. (18) And he said to them, ‘Are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? (19) Because it enters not into his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus, he declares all foods clean.) (20) And he said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. (21) For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, (22) coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. (23) All of these evil things come from within a person, and they defile a person.’”
(Mark 7:1-23)

Nothing you are saying applies to non kosher foods. It had to do with washing hands before eating bread. Jesus kept kosher. https://aleteia.org/2021/07/09/did-jesus-keep-kosher/

Jesus’ own words say otherwise. Read them again. Anyway, Jesus told his followers to drink his metaphorical blood, communion wine—about the least kosher thing you can think of.

The remembering Jesus when one eats and drinks is metaphorical and has nothing to do with the kosher laws, which Jesus kept. https://aleteia.org/2021/07/09/did-jesus-keep-kosher/

“Nothing” means “nothing” and “whatever” means “whatever. And while “whatever” would include bodily impurities and bread, insisting on such a narrow definition of obvious words is actually stupid.

But keep posting links that talk about excrement and washing your hands as long as you want—besides being a former Jew, you’re also clearly Atheist Don Quixote who never, ever, ever concedes you’ve utterly lost an argument. It’s almost like you have nothing else in your life so you keep posting the same ridiculous arguments.

I’m out of here, because I do have other things to do. Please don’t do your usual dishonest spin, and post later on that because people stopped responding to your nonsense, this means you’ve “won” the argument. Your argument is stupid and your links to groups of a few hundred people proves nothing.

Why do you keep calling me “a former Jew”? To be a Jew one must be born of a Jewish mother. I’ve already told you my mother is Christian. I’ve studied Judaism but I’ve never been a Jew.

Jesus was talking about a particular problem with the Pharisees about hand washing which is still practiced today in Orthodox Jewish households. He wasn’t saying anything about kashrut. https://davidbcapes.com/2016/03/09/did-jesus-keep-kosher/

Yes he was talking about a particular problem. And the answer he gave expanded way beyond that particular problem to a really broad “whatever.” Jesus’ word: whatever.

Do you struggle with words?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[

“Nothing” means “nothing” and “whatever” means “whatever. And while “whatever” would include bodily impurities and bread, insisting on such a narrow definition of obvious words is actually stupid.

But keep posting links that talk about excrement and washing your hands as long as you want—besides being a former Jew, you’re also clearly Atheist Don Quixote who never, ever, ever concedes you’ve utterly lost an argument. It’s almost like you have nothing else in your life so you keep posting the same ridiculous arguments.

I’m out of here, because I do have other things to do. Please don’t do your usual dishonest spin, and post later on that because people stopped responding to your nonsense, this means you’ve “won” the argument. Your argument is stupid and your links to groups of a few hundred people proves nothing.

Why do you keep calling me “a former Jew”? To be a Jew one must be born of a Jewish mother. I’ve already told you my mother is Christian. I’ve studied Judaism but I’ve never been a Jew.

Jesus was talking about a particular problem with the Pharisees about hand washing which is still practiced today in Orthodox Jewish households. He wasn’t saying anything about kashrut. https://davidbcapes.com/2016/03/09/did-jesus-keep-kosher/

So you’re an atheist with a Protestant (you said earlier) mom and a Jewish, or something else, dad? And you’re not walking away from being French “I’m a research scientist.”

And you’re here 24/7. And, like a dog with a bone, you won’t give up on even the dumbest, most illogical arguments.

I’ve learned nothing else from this thread (apart from becoming acquainted with some really tiny churches who think Mark was talking to Jews but not Gentiles, and lots about excrement). But identifying Atheist Don Quixote is interesting!