Тёмный

Mark  

Defending the Biblical Roots of Christianity
Подписаться 23 тыс.
Просмотров 8 тыс.
50% 1

Опубликовано:

 

6 окт 2024

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 618   
@madchap1584
@madchap1584 Год назад
You teach so well! Gotta admit I was caught in Monte Judah's web for a while, sensing I should free myself, but unsure because his conviction was convincing. I searched for direct guidance on this matter & found you. Being of Jewish origin with Hassidic relatives in Jerusalem, the path to truth hasn't been a smooth one. Yet, I've managed to coax my ninety-year-old mother along with me from the shadows to the Light. Thank you!
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
Thank you, Mad Chap. God is good! I'm so glad you found us. Shalom! Rob
@BiblersWayCottage
@BiblersWayCottage 8 месяцев назад
Mat 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Torah or the Prophets! I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. Mat 5:18 Amen, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or serif shall ever pass away from the Torah until all things come to pass. Mat 5:19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever keeps and teaches them, this one shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Mat 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and Torah scholars, you shall never enter the kingdom of heaven! Love in Yeshua to all
@ThinkingNat2
@ThinkingNat2 3 месяца назад
@@BiblersWayCottagewhen you fulfill a requirement, do you need to continue to fulfill it?
@BiblersWayCottage
@BiblersWayCottage 3 месяца назад
Yes you do by walking in Your Kings footsteps by His Spirit abiding in you HalleluYah
@digitalpastorjim
@digitalpastorjim Месяц назад
Monte Judah comments are badly thought through, the content of Mark 7 is about food eaten with hands Not Ritually clean hands, in context, No Torah Observant jew would eat Anything unclean, ie Pork, but the Disciples didn't follow the tradition of ritually washing of the hands according to the traditions of the Elders.😮 ,
@JosephO-x7z
@JosephO-x7z Год назад
The issue presented in Mark Chapter 7 that offended the Pharisees was that of the ceremonial tradition of hand washing before eating. Not doing so would make what they were eating, as well as themselves, unclean. So the matter was not related to those of foods that are deemed unclean, but that of food that was naturally considered clean being made unclean by a tradition. Jesus rebuked this tradition, which didnt really make him a popular guy with the Pharisees.
@billyhw5492
@billyhw5492 Год назад
That's not what it means at all.
@billyhw5492
@billyhw5492 Год назад
And there is no such thing as "naturally clean" and "naturally unclean" food.
@JosephO-x7z
@JosephO-x7z Год назад
​@billyhw5492 The whole reason Jesus said these words was because of the accusations from the Pharisees regarding tradition. Mark 7:1-3 "The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2 saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed.3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders". Jesus kept the law, so we know that the food he and the disciples were eating was clean. The Pharisees saw it as them defiling there bodies due to them not washing there hands. If you could elaborate on your response and provide an explanation, it would be much appreciated. I am willing to understand and be corrected if that is the case. That is how we learn.
@VikTorahYAH
@VikTorahYAH Год назад
​@@billyhw5492Respectfully sir, Messiah rebuked the Pharisees for their equalizing man made traditions with The Word. They were looking for anything to discredit Messiah and being nit picky. For hundreds of years Believers did not view pork or shellfish as even being edible because Scripture said eating them and touching them were an abomination in the eyes of The Almighty Father. That is why Peter had been so horrified at the mere thought of eating unclean foods, he actually felt guilty though it was only a dream. Truly, if any Disciples and Pharisees had interpreted Messiah"s meaning it was okay for all to consume pork/shellfish, it would have all been over. The Messiah saying go ahead and eat what my Father deemed an abomination? HIS Beloved Disciples would have gotten up and left Him there. They would have called HIM a fraud. The Pharisees wouldn't have had to do anything else because that alone would have discredited our Saviour as The Holy Lamb of The LORD. You must realize how vile pork is according to Scripture, The Word of The Living Creator of All.
@VikTorahYAH
@VikTorahYAH Год назад
​@@billyhw5492In Genesis, Noah is told to collect seven pairs of every clean animals and two pairs of ever unclean ones.
@nicholasthroop5394
@nicholasthroop5394 Год назад
The best case one can make is this; neither Jesus nor the Pharisees would have considered pigs, vultures, or crabs as food being that they were all subject to Mosaic law, and since Jesus came to accomplish the law as a native Jew, that is to say He came to live it out without fault, He wouldn’t have eaten such a thing or encouraged others to do so. That said, He lived the Law of Moses perfectly, from birth to death, breaking the curse that all who were under Mosaic Law were recipients of. At His death, the old covenant was laid to rest. Upon His resurrection, the New Covenant went into effect. This covenant only requires that one trust that Jesus is who he said he is, and that he did what he said he did and that He will grant eternal life to all who confess with their mouth and believe in their heart that He is the son of YHVH and that YHVH raised Him from the dead. The food law only applied to those under the Mosaic Covenant, not gentiles, or even those of us under the New Covenant and since the Law of Moses was completed and put to rest, their remains no other means of restoration apart from what Jesus has done. All this being said, I still have my doubts about whether I should eat garbage disposals, water filters and anything else that Noah and his family may have eaten but the Lord has cleansed me and made me acceptable in His sight regardless of my menu choices. No food offered to lesser or false deities. Nothing strangled. No blood. That’s what we have to work with. Nothing wrong with eating like an ancient Israelite but it won’t save you. Only Jesus can do that.
@VikTorahYAH
@VikTorahYAH Год назад
You can lose your Salvation and erased from The Book of Life. YHWH does not change nor waver. YESHUA fulfilled The Law by being The Word come to life. The Torah became Flesh in YESHUA. He did not exemplify a walk on The Narrow Path to then nullify it shortly thereafter. We are exempt from ceremonial laws. Nada mas
@joshuamelton9148
@joshuamelton9148 Год назад
​@@VikTorahYAHYou are very incorrect. When it comes to the dietary laws. Losing your salvation due to eating a crabcake. You make a mockery of what Jesus did on the cross
@kimartist
@kimartist Год назад
​@@VikTorahYAH If the Torah lived in Christ then it also died in Christ: "Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law is binding on a person only so long as he lives?.... So then, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ that you might belong to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, so that we might bear fruit for God." ~ Romans 7 : 1, 4 "Or do you not know that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death, so that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so also we might walk in newness of life." ~ Romans 6 : 3, 4 "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance-now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living." ~ Hebrews 9 : 15ff "For whenever the priesthood is altered there is necessarily an alteration in the law as well." ~ Hebrews 7 : 12 "But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.... By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." ~ Hebrews 8 : 6, 7, 13
@KyleKlink
@KyleKlink Год назад
⁠@@VikTorahYAHYHWH does not change, and therefore the food laws still apply. But the ceremonial laws don’t apply anymore, despite YHWH not changing. Do I have that right?
@nicholasthroop5394
@nicholasthroop5394 Год назад
@@VikTorahYAH if you fail in one point, you fail in them all. That is why our covenant in Christ is better. If you are a descendant of anyone who was party to the events at Mt. Sinai when Moses received the Law, then you are under its curses until you accept Christ as the final sacrifice for all sin. If you have done this, there’s certainly nothing wrong with eating like they did. If you’re not a descendant of those who entered into that covenant, and you never converted to Judaism, that makes you a gentile, who was never bound by that law to begin with, and yet still the only means of salvation granted to you is in and through and by Christ Jesus. Since the Crucifixion, there hasn’t been one single person who falls under mosaic law that has been able to keep it. It was brought to an end. It will do nothing for you. From that moment forward, anyone in Christ is a NEW creation. The Lord did not “renew” the mosaic covenant, he “renewed” His covenant with MANKIND…….WHOSOEVER WILL.
@mikechristopher7967
@mikechristopher7967 Год назад
You are so gracious, thorough and understandable in all of your videos - even whilst explaining theological and scholarly concepts, it’s great! Keep up the good work!
@theopneustos3712
@theopneustos3712 Год назад
The humility and humbleness with which you present your ministry is just as important as the depth of the arguments. Praying for you and your ministry. I wish I could give more likes.
@achristianconvertedtochris5862
There are so many people who would respond with a I told you so attitude. So it is nice when you see somebody who is humble. But this is where we have the opportunity to rightly divide the word of truth. It is important to love, but it also is important to be honest.
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
Thank you so much for sharing that. It means a lot to me. Blessings, Rob
@bo1jon227
@bo1jon227 Год назад
​​@@TheBiblicalRootswhen God had Noah place seven of every clean animal on the ark He told him as though Noah already understood what a clean animal was. How would Noah know which animals were clean and what would the significance of clean animals be, stretching way back from before the time of Noah? Possibly back to the time of Adam? Cain & Abel?
@theopneustos3712
@theopneustos3712 Год назад
@@bo1jon227 Keep in mind Genesis 9:3. Every moving, living thing was clean for eating. Also, Moses wrote the Pentateuch, so he would have referred to those animals as "clean;" whereas, Noah may not have.
@joshuachurch4380
@joshuachurch4380 Год назад
If it is not clean, it is not food Biblical evidence read Vayikra (Leviticus) ch 11 and Dvarim ch 14 Isaiah ch 66 and many many others .... by your traditional interpretation, you make void The Word of Elohim and make Yahshua more of a hypocrite than the Pharisees He was speaking to Yahshua has no claim to rebuke them for lawlessness and then be even more lawless than they are throwing out entire chapters of scripture, including the first time we are ever told to be Holy as YAHUAH is Holy
@aliasreco
@aliasreco Год назад
Thanks for not judging me. I stopped eating unclean animals when I saw the same setup in the end of Isaiah as in Matthew 24 and Revelations. And unclean animals are simply not food. Shalom!
@93556108
@93556108 Год назад
I must commend you for your excellent exposition of Mark7 and alluding it to Lev11. Thank you.
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
Thank you very much! Blessings, Rob
@Hebrews12_2
@Hebrews12_2 Год назад
Thank you, brother and praise God our Father, our Lord Jesus and our Helper His Spirit
@ChildofGod98765
@ChildofGod98765 Год назад
Father God as a single mother things are hard on me. Jesus, lift me out of my debts and provide me financial stability. My husband passed years ago. I miss him dearly. Both of my sons are autistic. I’m constantly struggling to provide for them. I suffered an heart attack and I’m battling lupus. Father God hear my prayers. I constantly struggle to pay my bills. BUT I KEEP FAITH. Even though I want to give up. FAITH over fear is the only point of my message. Love and compassion is the christian way. I receive so much hate from others because of my situation. But “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” God your words give me encouragement. I praise you Father even as I fear homelessness please continue to give me strength. You have provided this far Heavenly Father and for that I’m so grateful. MY FAITH IS MY SHEILD!
@kimartist
@kimartist Год назад
SCAMMER. REPORTED.
@elijahirvin5911
@elijahirvin5911 Год назад
This guy and other false prophets and false ministries make God schizophrenic. Malachi 3. 6 I change not. Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever. Ecclesiastes 3 14 what God has done man should fear it stands forever and ever
@thechannelwhere1027
@thechannelwhere1027 3 дня назад
@@elijahirvin5911 I know Jesus doesn’t change but why can’t the law change? If you said that the law can’t change because Jesus doesn’t change a decision or plan for a certain thing to change eventually, that doesn’t make sense to me. what about Simons name being changed to Peter (Cephas)? So does his name being changed mean Jesus or that any part of God changed? I don’t think that makes sense.
@eliasvalle8241
@eliasvalle8241 Год назад
The Jewish man starts off by saying that the passage is speaking about how you defile yourself. Doesn’t eating unclean animals defile someone? Jesus was clearly teaching that what ever goes into the body doesn’t defile you but what comes out of the body (hate) which Jesus told us comes from the heart is what defiles you. If you hate a brother you are guilty of murder. If you lust you are guilty of adultery. It’s a heart issue not a stomach issue
@flyguymt
@flyguymt 11 месяцев назад
Shabbat shalom my Christian friends, can someone, even the Professor, explain to me why John in the Spirit records that there are still unclean animals in the end days? Revelation 18:2 2 With a mighty voice he shouted: “‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!’ She has become a dwelling for demons and a haunt for every impure spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable animal.” 🤔
@kiruiandrew1
@kiruiandrew1 Год назад
In the closing remarks,Professor kind of fear to Say Peter instructed Mark to write that Yeshua declared all unclean animals clean. The problem with this line of reasoning is, Later as in Act 10, 15, the same Peter still considered unclean animals as unclean. How could that be if Peter had already learned that Pigs and Shellfish had been cleaned in Mark 7 :19
@brianguglielmin2873
@brianguglielmin2873 Год назад
Peter realized all foods declared clean but like all of us we get thick headed and fall backwards a bit but Christ brings us to Victory in Him. Amen!
@rinamattushek3378
@rinamattushek3378 Год назад
Peter wasn't shown that unclean animals became clean. It was not about animals but people!!! Peter considered the people unclean, please read it in context with what they were talking about to get the full story!!@
@rinamattushek3378
@rinamattushek3378 Год назад
Pig wasn't considered as clean!!
@rinamattushek3378
@rinamattushek3378 Год назад
Nor as food!!
@kiruiandrew1
@kiruiandrew1 Год назад
scriptures not only talk of Unclean and clean but also food and non food. Does Jews really consider a pig as Food? Leviticus 11:47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.
@lisayun8995
@lisayun8995 2 месяца назад
Thank you so,much I've been binge watching your videos. We left HR 7 months ago after 7 years and you are helping us a lot, again, thank,you! God bless you!
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots 2 месяца назад
Thank you for sharing that. God is so good!! RLS
@Lee-Darin
@Lee-Darin Год назад
In the New King James Version, in Mark 7:19, it says, "thus purifying all foods?" And in the King James it says "purging all meats?" Maybe I'm ignorant in some things But wouldn't this verse be speaking about simple digestion? And purging means to eliminate. Because the whole issue was about washing your hands cerimonially. That's why Jesus taught His disciples (in Matthew 15) that eating with unwashed hands, doesn't make a man unclean. And if Jesus "declared all foods clean", why then, when Peter was given the vision of the large sheet lowered from Heaven with all the "unclean" animals and told to eat them, if Peter knew that Jesus declared all foods clean, why would Peter object? "Not so Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean?" Of course we realize the lesson That the Holy Spirit was trying to get through to Peter was "God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Acts 10:28 (B) If you can answer this question for me, I would greatly appreciate it.
@casparjw
@casparjw Год назад
Rob will not answer this question honestly because it would expose his false teaching for what it is.
@kimartist
@kimartist Год назад
"Katharizo" (Greek for "cleanse") is used in the following senses: • to cleanse, render pure, purify • to cleanse from leprosy • met. to cleanse from sin, purify by an expiatory offering, make expiation for • to cleanse from sin, free from the influence of error and sin • to pronounce ceremonially clean The actual Greek phrase in Mark 7 : 19 is: "Katharizo pas ho broma." Literally word-for-word: "Cleansed all food."
@kimartist
@kimartist Год назад
"Katharizo" (Greek for "cleanse") is used in the following senses: • to cleanse, render pure, purify • to cleanse from leprosy • met. to cleanse from sin, purify by an expiatory offering, make expiation for • to cleanse from sin, free from the influence of error and sin • to pronounce ceremonially clean The actual Greek phrase in Mark 7 : 19 is: "Katharizo pas ho broma." Literally word-for-word: "Cleansed all the food."
@CollinBoSmith
@CollinBoSmith 11 месяцев назад
Awesome video! I have a coworker who was asking me about this exact question.
@faithfullydreamingmysterio2522
Awesome breakdown on this verse. Another thing I thought about was when he sent the disciples out in Luke 10:8 and told them not to reject the food placed in front of them. Christ knew they would be eating gentile foods as the gospel spread throughout the land, why would Christ want their missions hindered by focusing on Kosher foods? Just a thought. I don't see anything wrong with being mindful of what we put in our Temples and even asking God to help us navigate that with wisdom but we can't loose sight of the freedoms we have in Christ. Scripture is clear not to judge others by what they choose to eat or drink etc Romans 14:2 if peeps want to keep it Kosher, awesome if not it's still awesome we just wouldn't want to create a stumbling block in the process, that seems to correlate with the heart posture Jesus want us to operate in: Love. God bless yall in Jesus name. Amen
@faithfullydreamingmysterio2522
@faithfullydreamingmysterio2522 10 месяцев назад
@scented-leafpelargonium3366 lol Shalom it's not too Hebaric! Thank you always for your feedback. I appreciate how thorough you are when you reply. There's a lot of layers to look at there. Some of what you mentioned are things I have recently reflected on. I am learning to pay to the context of what I reading like using a who, what,when where approach etc.
@faithfullydreamingmysterio2522
@faithfullydreamingmysterio2522 10 месяцев назад
@scented-leafpelargonium3366 absolutely iron sharpens iron 🙂 this is so true. It's no contest. God bless you as well.
@oilofgladness3474
@oilofgladness3474 Год назад
I just found this channel and have learned a lot. Thank you for your work. I am researching different cults within Christianity. I have never been in HR movement myself, but have encountered people involved in it. It has not been anything but weird! As far as food itself, everything is made spiritually clean to eat for us, but that doesn’t mean it’s clean in the natural. Pork is still one of the filthiest meats anyone can eat and numerous studies have linked it to many diseases and parasites. 🐷 That’s why we don’t eat it, however we could spiritually. We are not condemned for eating a honey baked ham. So many Christians get so angry about their food. Strangest thing I notice, especially with pork, is that I can abstain for any other food (soy, wheat, milk, black jelly beans), but if I say I don’t eat pork…oh here come the claws out. People have a weird obsession and emotional attachment to pork. It’s not like any other food. There was even a whole show dedicated to bacon alone where a guy did nothing but travel and eat basin at different restaurants. He got heart disease. Still believe “all foods are clean” in the natural? Eat McDonalds 3X a day for six months. Take vitals before and after. God didn’t restrict the people from eating bad foods because it was only about the law. It was also a HEALTH issue. To abstain from these things based solely upon health reasons is a good thing. To abstain from them based on self sanctification is a BAD thing. We can’t eat our way to heaven, but we can send ourselves there sooner if we are not wise.
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
I'm glad you found us, OOG! Yes, the "clean/unclean" categories that Lev. 11 assigned to food were entirely a matter of _ritual_ cleanliness, not health or nutrition. But, of course, in the natural world, there are nutritional differences between different foods and we are free in Christ to choose to eat (or not eat) whatever we choose. Blessings, Rob
@Joe-pc3hs
@Joe-pc3hs Год назад
@@TheBiblicalRoots Dont you find it ironic, quoting Augustine about scriptual neglect, when your doctrine relies on neglect of the Law and its applicability until Heaven and Earth pass away? Or the neglect of scriptual homogeny in favor of a "well meaning" individual. King Saul was well meaning in his attempt to keep plunder, but condemned there after. Moreover, you validated the argument that the selection was not a part of the earliest manuscripts, while spending more time attacking the argument than showing the manuscripts in question.
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
@@Joe-pc3hs Hello, Joe! I teach and believe that obedience is God’s “love language.” Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). And I'm sure you would agree that not every command that God has given applies to every person at all times. Some of His commands only apply to certain people (i.e., men, women, parents, Levitical priests) or for certain times (i.e., building an ark, gathering manna, while in exile). And I'm sure you would also agree that we are each only expected to keep the commands of God that apply to us. The NT teaches that the ceremonial Mosaic commands do not apply to Christians today. (ex. Repeated blood sacrifices for sin are no longer required (Heb 10:18).) We still serve God and obey His commands, “But now we are released from the law, having died with Christ to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code” (Rom 7:6). Shalom, RLS
@Joe-pc3hs
@Joe-pc3hs Год назад
@@TheBiblicalRoots Whats applicable within the context of the Miqdash and the peripheral observances goes without saying. But your neglecting the irony of negating whats applicable within Torah thats within every beleivers ability to observe. To say we obey they law yet arent bound to it should have been obvious to the conflict. The statement "the NT teaches" was a bit of a stretch as the "Testator" was clear about Law, while a claimed 2nd hand witness proclaimed otherwise. Which is exactly why we have contradictive doctrine in view of Acts 15 and Rom14:14 and 1 Cor8, then ultimately condemned in Rev2.
@kiruiandrew1
@kiruiandrew1 Год назад
These are the words of Yeshua, there was no discussion of Unclean animals as Professor claim. Parallel to Mark 7:18-19 is Matthew 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
@boltingpuppies
@boltingpuppies Год назад
God's word is excellent!
@gregmahler9506
@gregmahler9506 6 месяцев назад
Amazing, thorough, and unquestionable video. Thank you!
@elijahirvin5911
@elijahirvin5911 Год назад
Psalms 19:7 the law is perfect. If you add to it take away from it it's no longer perfect
@billyhw5492
@billyhw5492 Год назад
Matthew 19.8. Please pray that the Holy Spirit will open your heart to the Gospel.
@mikemcgraw3806
@mikemcgraw3806 Год назад
Respectfully, the law of the Lord IS indeed perfect, but it was unable to make worshippers perfect. Hebrews 7:11 “…if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek..”
@elijahirvin5911
@elijahirvin5911 Год назад
@@mikemcgraw3806 the law was .never intended to save anyone. The law points out your sin and your need for a savior. You keep the law because you love god
@kimartist
@kimartist Год назад
“Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?” ~ John 7 : 19
@kimartist
@kimartist Год назад
"You, who received the law by decrees given by angels and did not keep it." ~ Acts 7 : 53
@TamSak-il8yu
@TamSak-il8yu 11 месяцев назад
Pharisees be like; how dare you to renew the things that the God of our ancestors has been stablished.! Jesus be like; im literally him
@ProselyteofYah
@ProselyteofYah 3 месяца назад
I don't believe gentile Christians are bound to the OT laws myself, but as for Mark 7, it should be pointed out that the more accurate translation from the Greek is "purging all food", and there is no "thus he declared". It seems it was more that he was saying "food passes through the gut and is excreted, purging all the food". And I personally think this phrase isn't in context of saying all food is clean, since "food" arguably was a term that only applied to kosher items. But the context we see was the Pharisees complaining that the disciples didn't ceremonially wash their hands, and without doing that they believed their bodies were spiritually defiled and cursed when they ate the food, even if kosher food. And so it might be understood that Jesus was saying that one didn't need to wash their hands to be spiritually clean when eating, and that the food they ate is all purged anyway when passed through the body. So, he may have just been mocking the notion of being spiritually corrupted by the lack of the ceremonial washing of hands contaminating their kosher food. Whether that as a 'result' then implies he was saying all things you can eat are therefore kosher, is another matter.
@Oversite869
@Oversite869 6 месяцев назад
The flesh is collateral to sin. Nothing can break the Spirit. I love y’all.
@musicinspire1745
@musicinspire1745 Год назад
It's so amazing how false teachers will talk as f they are experts and know what they're talking about. This guy knows nothing about textual criticism, he doesn't know anything about the Textus Receptus, and the sheer number of copies that were out there that have been collected and collated. I'm seeing more and more these self-proclaimed "authorities" who are making such fundamental blunders, and not even taking notice of their error, and certainly not admitting to them, even when confronted by someone who is better qualified than they in textual criticism and apologetics! The extent of false teaching on the basis of blindness and downright intellectual dishonesty is quite astounding!
@joshuamelton9148
@joshuamelton9148 Год назад
I agree 100 percent
@elijahirvin5911
@elijahirvin5911 Год назад
Deuteronomy 4.2. Ecc 3 14. Deuteronomy 12.32. You shall not add or take away
@wakeywakey8603
@wakeywakey8603 Год назад
Jesus Christ changed Times & Laws. That's why the A/C also will try to change Times & Laws. As an imitation of Christ. B.C. (Before Christ) changed to A.D. (Anno Domini = in the year of THE LORD). A new priesthood also brings in new laws. No longer the order of Levi but of Malchezedek (Judah). Jesus FULFULLED all prophecies. We're in a NEW AGE, of the NEW TESTAMENT, under a NEW COVENANT.
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
*_Who_* shall not add or take away? RLS
@elijahirvin5911
@elijahirvin5911 Год назад
@ anybody including Christ too.
@boltingpuppies
@boltingpuppies Год назад
@@elijahirvin5911 Amen. Christ was God but he was also a man who was tempted in all things and yet without sin. He was tested and proven true
@VikTorahYAH
@VikTorahYAH Год назад
​@@wakeywakey8603Why would YESHUA HaMaschiac come here and follow The Laws perfectly, reiterate them while teaching, honour The Sabbath on Saturday, follow the dietary laws, AND direct His Disciples to do so as well? Why were they still practicing the same principles half a century later? Why would The Messiah choose to die for our sins, which the NT defines as breaking a law, so we could continue to commit the same sins that got The Messiah YESHUA to die a torturous death? Remember what happened to those that were denied entry into The Kingdom?. "Depart from me, you workers of LAWLESSNESS! I never knew you!" (What Laws?) What name did they use during their prophesy? ❤
@elijahirvin5911
@elijahirvin5911 Год назад
Deuteronomy 18.18 where does it say Jesus will change something. Isaiah 42.21 Christ will magnify the law
@boltingpuppies
@boltingpuppies Год назад
Amen. Isaiah 42:21-24 "The LORD was pleased for His righteousness' sake to make the law great and glorious....Who gave Jacob up for spoil, and Israel to plunderers? Was it not the LORD, against whom we have sinned, *and in whose ways they were not willing to walk, and whose law they did not obey?"*
@PazPinhasRahamim9220
@PazPinhasRahamim9220 Год назад
Your whole problem starts with the declaration that JC fulfilled the law, as the prophets tell us that *God's law and sacrefices including those for sin, will be observed after God will gather His people to their land (!) in a time of peace.* *God's law is eternal.*
@SolaDeoGloria713
@SolaDeoGloria713 Год назад
I mean, Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law. (Matthew 5:17). Did He fail to do this?
@PazPinhasRahamim9220
@PazPinhasRahamim9220 Год назад
@@SolaDeoGloria713 How can a person fulfill the law when God told us the law is eternal, for all times (!) ?? Even if you believe that JC is God, would God go out on His word ????? Due diligence I'm Jewish, I'm not a 'Hebrew Roots'.
@PazPinhasRahamim9220
@PazPinhasRahamim9220 Год назад
@@SolaDeoGloria713 Here are the prophecies in the OT that speak of the reinstatement of sacrefices when the Messiah will come including those for sins: *Jeremiah 17:* 26 And they shall come from the cities of Judah, and from the places about Jerusalem, and from the land of Benjamin, and from the plain, and from the mountains, and from the south, *bringing burnt offerings, and sacrifices, and meat offerings, and incense, and bringing sacrifices of praise, unto the house of the Lord.* *Isiah 56:* 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: *their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.* *Isiah 60:* 7 All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: *they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar,* and I will glorify the house of my glory. *How can JC be the 'last sacrefice' when God tells us that those will be practiced at the end of days ???*
@SolaDeoGloria713
@SolaDeoGloria713 Год назад
@@PazPinhasRahamim9220 It makes more sense where you are coming from now. Do you believe that laws can be put in place to show a greater spiritual truth? It seems to me that part of the law is there not to be inherently moral in and of itself. For example, the command to observe Passover was established in Exodus 12 to remember the flight from Egypt. Wouldn't this mean that this part of the law came into existence at the time of the Exodus since there would have been nothing to remember prior? I believe in the same way there are laws that point to something coming. Psalm 40 starting in verse 6 says that God does not desire sacrifice at all times. If a law is eternal and unchanging it must be good and acceptable at all times. But Psalm 40 goes on to contrast the unacceptable sacrifices with a person coming to do what was written about them in the law. Isaiah 53:10 says the coming Messiah will be made an offering for our sins. Verse 11 says He will justify many by bearing their iniquities. This man came because that is what those sacrifices and offerings pointed to.
@mstru79
@mstru79 Год назад
😇genesis 5:3-4 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it
@momfaustel1292
@momfaustel1292 5 месяцев назад
You know, Adventists teach that too. I learned that this phrase was added later. The fact that you found it in the earliest manuscripts is new to me and I love it!
@KeepingWatch95
@KeepingWatch95 10 месяцев назад
It's pretty clear the Messiah taught: _"...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."_ Matthew 15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? Matthew 15:18 *But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.* Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
@AndreColon
@AndreColon 10 месяцев назад
Agreed. HYPER CLEAR - Theology is what is being "taught" here, not truth.
@anthonycarbonaro7890
@anthonycarbonaro7890 Год назад
Excellent Rob.. Thank you 🙏
@bobivie
@bobivie Год назад
An excerpt of my unpublished document regarding eating biblically clean: Dirty Animals or Dirty Bread? Mark 7:1-23 KJV Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands often, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they do not eat. And many other things there are, which they have received to hold, such as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands? 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of Elohim, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of Elohim, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of Elohim of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye. 14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. 16 If any man has ears to hear, let him hear. 17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. In the full context, the Pharisees were getting onto Yahshua because the disciples were eating food with hands that had not been cleaned as can be read four times in verses 2 through 5. Nowhere in scripture is there a mandate to wash your hands before the general eating of food. Any washing that has been prescribed in the Torah has been for washing after being found ritually unclean and for the priests to be ritually clean before attending the temple service. Yahshua then said that the Pharisees would rather hold to the tradition of men over the word of Elohim. What is the tradition of men in this example? Washing hands before eating. The premise was that the Pharisees would rather keep a tradition of removing even the smallest amount of dirt to keep to their predecessors’ traditions. A little dirt on a person’s hands does not make what the Bible considers to be food as unclean. The mentality that pressing a burden for others to have to wash their hands to be able to even eat bread properly was simply adding to the word of Elohim, which is warned against throughout all of scripture. “Has Elohim not said?” as asked by Satan in the garden of Eden. Do not add to or take away from the words of this book, Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32 and Revelation 22:18-19. So many past and present teachers and preachers will be found with portions of their heavenly rewards taken from them according to scripture. This passage in Mark 7 is not about permission granting the eating of any kind of animal flesh, let alone an unclean animal. To put this passage in the context of clean or unclean animals is to put a slant to scripture, twisting the scriptures to say something it isn't clearly and definitively saying. The primary rules of hermeneutics define context and similar, especially parallel, passages to be honored when dissecting a certain topic or verse. To quote Mark 7 in the manner that most Christian teachers or pastors will, that this passage declares all animals as food, takes it far removed from its result in the parallel passage found in Matthew 15:20 "These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashed hands defileth not a man." Yahshua, keeping it in context, puts the final meaning of the whole parable he spoke to His disciples. The matter of what food was according to our Savior and every other Jewish person harkens back to Leviticus 11 and 20 and Deuteronomy 14, nothing that was unclean was to be eaten. This was not a suggestion but a direct command in all places. Just like the poisonous green plants that bear seeds and can be eaten, we must, with wisdom, be careful in what we choose to eat. Like metal and rocks and various other materials, if it wasn't considered fit to eat, it wasn’t considered to be food. Let's look again at Mark 7:18-19. And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him. 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? The idea is that a hand that is not washed has impurities attached to the meats or food in general. When the food passes through the body, the physical impurities are then removed or purged or purified. There is a Greek word for the above translated words, "purging" and "meat". They are the words katharizō and bromah: G2511 kath-ar-id-zo to make clean, cleanse from physical stains and dirt utensils, to cleanse by curing, to remove by cleansing, in a moral sense: to free from defilement of sin and from faults, to free from guilt of sin, to purify, to consecrate by cleansing or purifying, to pronounce clean in a Levitical sense G1033 bro'-mah that which is eaten, food The word katharidzo is defined as cleaning, purifying, and freeing from the guilt of sin, etc. The word bromah is defined as that which is eaten or simply, food. To a Jewish person in that time period, approved animals prescribed in Leviticus 11, 20:25 and Deuteronomy 14 are what was considered “food” and what they would have put in front of themselves for consumption. Again, you can find the parallel verses in Matthew 15 regarding the instance in Mark 7 that is stating the same fact that the whole interaction Yahshua had with the Pharisees and later the disciples was about eating from unwashed hands. Matthew 15:17-20 “Do ye not yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashed hands defileth not a man.” A major issue in stating Yahshua declared all animals clean for eating is the fact that Yahshua was sinless and the religious Jews had to find false accusations against Him for His crucifixion. Had He declared all animals okay to eat, Yahshua would be breaking Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 and I believe would have drawn the close of Matthew and Mark several chapters sooner and withdrawn himself from being without sin. The Pharisees sought ways to trap Him several times and desired to kill Yahshua for their perception of a sin worthy of death. Please see in context the following verses: Matthew 13:2,10; Matthew 16:1; Matthew 19:3; Matthew 22:18; Matthew 22:35; Mark 2:24; Mark 3:4; Mark 8:11; Mark 10:2; Mark 12:15; Luke 6:2,7; Luke 10:25; Luke 11:16; John 8:6,59. In each of these passages, Yahshua did not sin or break one commandment of the Father, Yahweh. Had Yahshua failed once in any of these instances, the Pharisees would have had plenty of reason to have Yahshua stoned. For Yahshua to be sinless, either He was not guilty of breaking any commands or the sins the Pharisees accused Him of were not scriptural.
@achristianconvertedtochris5862
Nobody was offended because the food was clean or the food was unclean. These are a group of Jews who are in a discussion. It is obvious that all the food is clean. Because this is the only kind of food that they would eat. I think that this is pretty obvious. But what offended the pharisees was the idea that you did not have to do what the pharisees told you you had to do. That just because they made a rule doesn't mean you have to follow that rule. This is what was offensive because it dealt with their control. We do the same thing in America, we say. Well, we've passed a law, therefore you have to follow it because we passed it. This is why Hanukkah becomes so important. Because it makes the point just because you pass a law doesn't mean I have to follow it. Because the first individual that I need to follow is God. As long as it is okay with God for me to follow that law. Then I will follow that law. But if it goes against God, then you need to go somewhere else. Because it is not happening here.
@daviddevine6737
@daviddevine6737 7 месяцев назад
Jesus says in Mark 7: 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
@dispensationofgod
@dispensationofgod Год назад
Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
@jordanmontay9877
@jordanmontay9877 11 месяцев назад
You do know genesis was before Leviticus right?
@dispensationofgod
@dispensationofgod 11 месяцев назад
@@jordanmontay9877 And Acts 15 is after Leviticus. What's your point?
@thecure728
@thecure728 9 месяцев назад
It would be a little different maybe if Yeshua said therefore i declare all foods clean. No, Yeshua stops talking and the author then tells us what Yeshua did by the statements he had made. But it still makes no sense because the two have nothing to do with eachother. Clean vs unclean food have nothing to do with dirt. Unclean foods was not considered food. What upset them was challenging their hand washing customs and their power.
@Lotterywinnerify
@Lotterywinnerify 8 месяцев назад
If the author is wrong in his interpretation then the scripture is broken and I cannot trust anything it says
@soybeanfarmer4576
@soybeanfarmer4576 2 месяца назад
@Animalsandwildlife.7527 Because of the avoidance of eating meat sacrificed to idols is why the weak only eat vegetables. Once context is added it all makes sense.
@georgenassif5777
@georgenassif5777 Месяц назад
I'm confused. My question is that I understand that Jesus was primarily referring to eating food with unwashed hands in Mark 7 but why wouldn't he have said directly that stuff eaten with unclean hands does not defile you (which I understand is part of the lesson) rather than saying "Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated" thus implying that whatever would enter someone's stomach cannot defile them? Also, in Acts 10 Peter is rebuked by God for not eating the animals on the sheet because they were unclean and God said they were now clean. In Acts 10 Peter's understanding of it led him to accept gentiles which is one clear interpretation but why would God tell him to "kill and eat" the animals in the first place instead of just using people in the vision if it was only about gentiles. My understanding is that Peter was stubborn and that's why he came out of the vision with only one interpretation or moral (which was vastly more important than the food moral I understand). Peter denied Christ three times after Christ's crucifixion just like Jesus predicted even though Jesus taught people to never deny him. The exchange between God and him happened three more times until the sheet was taken into heaven. Also what about 1 timothy 4:4-5 or Romans 14:14?
@thecure728
@thecure728 9 месяцев назад
I thought it wasn't done away with until after he died? Would he not be breaking the law thus making him imperfect thus making him ineligible to be messiah. This is why your side is hard pressed to use teachings of Yeshua for supporting their views of the law being done away with. He contradicts that in so many ways like i did not come to abolish the law, and when the rich man said he's keeping all the commandments did Jesus say, go home and keep the law no more? No, he said keep doing that, sell your stuff, give the money away and follow me is the only thing you are missing. That's why you must turn to Paul and his confusing wording on matters of the law. I hope you can see how Yeshua declaring foods clean at this point, before all things had been finished according to your viewpoint, would nullify his standing as a spotless lamb. Lastly, why doesn't Jesus give Peter the memo that he can now eat whatever he wants? It was well after the ascension of Jesus that Peter had that dream about the gentiles. Remember he was flabbergasted, why in the world would you have me eating all of these things you call an abomination to you? I have never in my life eaten that which was not clean. To his relief, as we find out the dream was not about food at all but about gentiles being ready to also receive the gospel. Why was he so surprised?
@makenoimage
@makenoimage 6 месяцев назад
Paul wrote "these ARE a shadow of good things to come". Present tense thus still binding. And what is "still to come" is the day of atONEment. Let no one judge you...but the body of Christ.
@ChrisMusante
@ChrisMusante Год назад
I find the arguing over this funny. Ever seen a pig? What they eat? The sewer line that runs down the best part - the loin - and out the bottom of the 'hoof' because they do not sweat. They really are disgusting animals... eat garbage, (they used to collect the food wastes from a chow hall I ran in Japan, garbage cans full of 'I ain't gonna eat this ship' - so we could eat it on the fried rice in town). And now I want a BLT. This verse is NOT about 'food' - it's about PROCESSED FOOD. So as to say... after you are done being healed by the stripes of a 'friend' - and fairhful are those wounds, you will find a broken vessel, shattered into pieces by an IRON ROD which is the (Word) or LAW of GOD. And ya know?? It's truly a miracle as to how much water that STONE JAR will hold, once you soften it up a bit. I think the jars are plenty soft these days, soft as 'sponges'... and they do nothing but suck up all the water for themselves and refuse to share blessings, effectively claiming and hogging it all for themselves, instead of being vessels from which unlimited living water flows. Maybe that is why things are the way they are. Any thoughts on that? Have left my number several times - and it still can't be herd. ~ prophet
@billyhw5492
@billyhw5492 Год назад
Cows sh1t where they eat.
@elpopman2055
@elpopman2055 9 месяцев назад
God does Not Change. Again Jesus was talked about the tradition of hand washing Food being ritualy prepared. He Stated that unclean animals is food...
@becamecca
@becamecca 11 месяцев назад
Hello! John 14:15 Yeshua says “if you love me, keep my commandments” what commandments do you follow?
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots 11 месяцев назад
Jesus' commandments! RLS
@becamecca
@becamecca 11 месяцев назад
@@TheBiblicalRoots thanks for replying :) would you mind going into detail as to what those commandments are? Like how many commandments did he command and what are they?
@KeepingWatch95
@KeepingWatch95 10 месяцев назад
@@becamecca John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, *My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.* John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. _In John 7:16 Jesus testified that his doctrine was not his own, but [God's doctrine]._ _When Jesus gave us the doctrine of the "great commandment" he indeed gives us God's doctrine._ _Notice the wording within the [first] great commandment; (... _*_love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,_*_ …) and notice that this exact phrase has already been recorded and established as a doctrine within the old testament._ Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt *love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,* and with all thy mind. Matthew 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. _Example of what it means to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul._ Deuteronomy 13:3 [...] for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye *love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.* Deuteronomy 13:4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, *and keep his commandments,* and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. _Example of what it means to love God._ Deuteronomy 30:16 In that I command thee this day *to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments,* that thou mayest live [...]. _Deu 13:3-4 & Deu __30:16__ coveys the message that to "love the LORD your God {EVEN} with all your heart and with all your soul" means to "keep his commandments, and obey his voice" & "to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments."_
@KeepingWatch95
@KeepingWatch95 10 месяцев назад
@@becamecca Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, *Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?* Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, *keep the commandments.* Matthew 19:18 He saith unto him, *Which?* Jesus said, *Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,* Matthew 19:19 *Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.* _In Matthew 19:16 a man asks, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?”_ _Matthew 19:17 Jesus replies, “... keep the commandments.”_ _Matthew 19:18 the man then asks, “Which?” meaning “which commandments?” Matthew 19:18-19 Jesus' replies by reciting from the words of the covenant, the ten commandments._ _NOTICE: According to Exodus and Deuteronomy the words of the covenant are the ten commandments._ Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables *the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.* Deuteronomy 4:13 *And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.*
@kiruiandrew1
@kiruiandrew1 Год назад
Mark 7:15 where Professor build his Pork and Shellfish argument say this , Mark 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. (AKJ) This sounds present continuous tense. YESHUA is not claiming to start cleansing food from that day of argument in Mark 7 as Professor claims. It is known from Leviticus 11 that eating flesh of Unclean animals defiles, but Yeshua here is pointing at food which does not defile anyone, ie Clean meat eaten with unwashed hand. Vs 2-3 Look at vs 14-15 with an open mind There is no discussion of Unclean animals in Mark 7.
@sundownsam3369
@sundownsam3369 Год назад
I am noticing that on Shabbat you are posting videos deliberately, with full consciousness, trashing God's law. What you are doing is mocking God. By the way, satan is the one who is using you as a tool to trash God's law on Shabbat. Even though you will not respond to my posts, I will still respond to your videos.
@coryharasha
@coryharasha Год назад
I don't believe authentically expressing one's thoughts with the intention of seeking the truth is equivalent to "trashing" or "mocking." I also don't believe it is wise or kind to attempt to manipulate people to agree with you.
@billyhw5492
@billyhw5492 Год назад
Please stop LARPing as a Jew.
@sundownsam3369
@sundownsam3369 Год назад
​@@coryharashaI am not trying to make people agree with me, and it is not my job to convince people to agree with me. I am quoting scripture and putting on the table what God made clear the first time he spoke. Scripture proves one wrong, and the fact that Robert Solberg and others do not respond to questions makes it clear to me that they are wrong according to Scripture. By the way, I am not posting to express my thoughts or give an opinion; I am posting what God made clear the first time he spoke.
@coryharasha
@coryharasha Год назад
@@sundownsam3369 I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. In the comment above, I didn't see you quote scripture nor directly address any of the ideas in the video. I can understand why they don't reply to you, and I think it has everything to do with your choice of tone and demeanor which appears to be lacking in kindness and empathy.
@sundownsam3369
@sundownsam3369 Год назад
​@@coryharasha You must be a new subscriber. Why don't you read all my posts? The one thing you will notice is that I quote scripture because scripture makes it clear what God made clear the first time he spoke. I don't know if you are one of them, but most Gentile believers would rather try trashing me without reading what I posted, and if they do read, they will still try to trash me to avoid answering my question. Robert Solberg will no longer respond to my post because I called him out, but prior to his not responding, he avoided many of my questions. Why don't you ask him why? You say that my choice of tone and demeanor appear to be lacking in kindness and empathy. Let me correct you: I am posting to be liked; I respond to refute false teachings; and when one continues to deliberately, with full consciousness, aggressively attack God's law, I will call them out and call them what they are according to the Scriptures. So before you make a statement like I do not quote scriptures, first read what I have been posting. I have over 150 pages of my dialogue with Robert Solbert, so he can never say he did not say something that he shouldn't have said or that he responded. Not to mention the numerous questions he has been asked, to which he has never responded. When I respond to Robert Solberg, no longer do I have to quote scripture; he knows exactly what I am saying from past videos. Tell me, do I have to give you scripture if I ask the following question? If God sits on his throne and the Son of God sits on the throne of David, is God also sitting on David's throne? If so, prove it to me through the Scriptures. Am I denying Yeshua's deity? NO! But God only addressed him as his Son and never as God; otherwise, God will go against his own words that there is no other God's before him, after him, or besides him. The Scriptures will support what I stated, and most Gentile believers will not look into this. If you are a Gentile believer, most likely you will do exactly the same.
@ralo1001z
@ralo1001z 5 месяцев назад
Italics, not parenthesis, are used in most versions to indicate words that are not in original manuscripts. Total phrases are almost always explained except in KJV.
@Christo-pv7eb
@Christo-pv7eb Год назад
Even here you see the deceit of Christianity. You have Rl solberg quoting Gods words in Leviticus saying these foods defile Israelites. Then you have him throwing it out saying “but Jesus says what really defiles a man.” You have Gods direct words and still deny it for Jesus.
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
Jesus' words _are_ God's direct words. RLS
@Christo-pv7eb
@Christo-pv7eb Год назад
@@TheBiblicalRoots So then you’re saying God lied in Leviticus and told the truth in the gospels? God doesn’t change. He doesn’t lie.
@billyhw5492
@billyhw5492 Год назад
You've manifested the Scott Adams "so" tell for cognitive dissonance. @@Christo-pv7eb
@brandonbackes930
@brandonbackes930 Год назад
Um, That verse you quoted, "Thus he declared all foods clean", it isn't in the Greek texts. I checked. Most English Bibles have a notation that the translators added this in, commenting on the text. Your translator is telling you that he thinks the text ought to mean that anything you want to eat is food. What Mathew 15 does say, however, is that what you eat is cleaned out of your body when you defecate. Incedently this chapter is not talking about foods that God asked Jews not to eat. It is talking about judging and condemning others for how they prepare the food God told them they could eat. These, according to the text, were people judging others for the technique they used to wash the food, the utensils, and the hands preparing the food. There was, and still is, a tradition about repeatedly washing things while praying with each wash. These particular people taught that if someone didn't do the washings exactly as they said to, then it had not even been done. According to their ritual technique, it was important to use a water container of the right material size and shape. With the right amount of the right water. Each washing must be of the right amount of water and accompanied by the right exact prayer thanking God for providing those particular people to be in authority over us and tell us this exact technique or we could never have known how God wanted us to do this kind of washing, since He neglected to put it in the Bible. Now there were and are different groups, even within the same sects, that had variations of this ritual and at that time each group taught that their way was the right way and if you used one of the other traditions, or were poor enough not to be able to afford to do their tradition, then you had not done it at all, and your standing before God was in doubt. Now according to Jesus in this passage there is nothing wrong with washing things. There's nothing wrong with praying. But there is something wrong with leaders adding to what God says and then telling people that they will be judged by God or lose their salvation based on how well they obey those leaders. As far as eating the things God defined as not fit to be eaten by the descendants of Israel, the Torah does not require that people from other ethnic groups abstain from eating other things. According to Torah Jews are to allow none Jewish people to eat non-kosher foods if they want. Jews are even permitted to provide non-kosher food to and even sell pork to foreigners if they want it. Things God has defined as unclean are often the most nutritious thing that is available in some communities. It may not be ideal but that's what is available. In Torah, there are teachings about morale imperatives and there are teachings about morale ideals. If, for instance, a Jew eats something non-kosher, for some reason, he is to quarantine for a set time and bathe. After that he is clean again. Now if he commits adultery, he has sinned. The reason that God gave for asking Jews not to eat unclean food, is so that the person responding to God's request can live abundant life. It is not and was not an issue to send people to hell over. Nor is the concept of kosher food some abhorrent aspect of the divine nature that God had to come kill himself to free us from. Its just a blessing. If you want it, it's yours, and if you don't want it leave it where it is.
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
Hi, Brandon! You should watch this video, I think you might find it informative. I actually show an image of a super early manuscript that includes that very text! Blessings, RLS
@billyhw5492
@billyhw5492 Год назад
Yes, absolutely that verse is in every single ancient Greek text, without exception. It is the punctuation that was not in the Greek text, because ancient Greek did not have punctuation, which was invented later. Please stop lying you lying, Judaizing liar.
@brandonbackes930
@brandonbackes930 Год назад
​​@@TheBiblicalRootsI found your link and reviewed the text comparing it with all the ones available to me. It still doesn't contain the phrase "Thus he declared all foods clean". My copies of the Greek text say the food is cleansed by "going out of the man". The text you provided says the food is cleansed by "being cast out of the man." It doesn't say anything about all things being food now. Here is a translation from the source you provided. ανον οτι ουκ Even since not ειϲπορευετε αυτου ειϲ it goes into his into την καρδιαν αλλ ειϲ the heart but into την κοιλιαν και ειϲ the collen, and into τον αφεδρωνα εκ the butt hole. Out βαλλετε καθαρι it is cast cleaning ζων παντα τα βρωματα the living being of all the food Also, notice the really cool trick here with the article. It can refer either to the body or the food. This forms a conditional statement based on the condition of the person eating. A morally unclean man contaminates clean food and a clean man eating dirty food is contaminated until the contaminant is excreted. This also implies that the wicked man is worse than the excrament that comes out of him.
@adamgilliland273
@adamgilliland273 9 дней назад
The law truly is perfect. If you do them you shall live by them. But if you break one you break the whole covenant. You'll have the sun and rain that fall on the wicked and the righteous and nothing else but the punishment for your sin. The law is so perfect you can even die to it to live for Christ by drinking the blood He gives.
@RebbeDaniel
@RebbeDaniel 10 месяцев назад
With all due respect, even though little respect on this channel is given to Torah observant believers... 1."Jesus declared all foods clean." as you know was added to the newer translations. 2. This passage has to do with a vision about gentiles coming to visit Peter and for him to accept them. If you continue to read, you'll see this is the conclusion that Peter came up with. 3. If the vision was simply about food, why did Peter ponder the meaning? Yet, we who did not have the vision simply know the answer... 4. When Yeshua said not one bit of the Torah would be done away with, is that not clear enough?
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots 10 месяцев назад
Hi Daniel! 1. You may have posted this comment before you finished the video, but I spend quite a bit of time demonstrating why your claim is false. 2. Peter's vision in Acts 10 was literally about food. People/Gentiles aren't even mentioned. 3. It was because Peter had been raised a good Torah-observant Jew and he knew how interconnected food and people are in the Mosaic law. 4. Actually, in Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus is talking about even more than the Law; it's about the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures! So here's the question: Do you believe that none of the Old Covenant commands have passed and they are all still required? For example, are we still obligated to make a blood sacrifice to atone for sin every year? Blessings, Rob
@AndreColon
@AndreColon 10 месяцев назад
@@TheBiblicalRoots "Peter's vision in Acts 10 was literally about food. People/Gentiles aren't even mentioned." Why then was Peter confused if it was "literal"?
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots 10 месяцев назад
@@AndreColon Here you go, Andre! In this short video I talk about why Peter pondered the vision. *Why Peter's vision has to be about food* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UA7cPR_Gv0Q.html Blessings, Rob
@BWyatt76
@BWyatt76 Месяц назад
FYI, shellfish, pigs, rabbits, etc., were never considered food, so yes, Jesus said all food is clean. Is eating bacon and lobster really that important to you?
@TomMason-io1yn
@TomMason-io1yn Месяц назад
I like Doug Bachelors take on "is it a sin for christians to eat pork"
@qw2ps4
@qw2ps4 Год назад
Hey Rabbi Solberg, Jesus said its not what you eat that makes you unclean! So then we have Christians thinking we can eat anything, when God clearly defines what food is! So Christians ignore The Father, thinking Jesus changed His law! This kind of reasoning is why the alphabet people think they're saved! They'll say because Jesus didn't directly teach against the alphabet agenda .... and because He's all about love, its okay to make love to members of the same sex! So they, just like many "" Rabbinic Christians"", change doctrine to suit themselves!
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
The most important thing is that we follow what Jesus taught. If we love Him we will keep His commandments (John 14:15, 21). And He taught that all food is now clean (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:9-16), and He also taught that marriage is between one man and one woman (Matt. 19:4-6) and that sexual immorality is still wrong (Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21). And yes, the law has changed (Heb. 7:12), because the Sinai Covenant was broken by Israel (Jer. 31:31-32) and has become obsolete (Heb. 8:13). It's not about making up our own doctrine, Q. It's about reading and believing what the Bible says. Blessings! Rob
@billyhw5492
@billyhw5492 Год назад
He also changed the law to make divorce and remarriage impermissible. FYI. @@TheBiblicalRoots
@sundownsam3369
@sundownsam3369 Год назад
Anyone can reply, even you, Robert Solberg, but I doubt if you would respond, so regurgitate it, and while you regurgitating it, maybe God will open your eyes. You Gentile believers who hate reading should read before responding. God told Adam, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food. Tell me, did God put a tree of the knowledge of good and evil to eat of? Remember that in Genesis 1:29 he said every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed he may eat? You might say that afterwards he gave a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Okay, let's assume you are right, so let's go to the next question: The manchineel tree is one of the world's most poisonous trees. Consumption of the fruits is potentially lethal and frequently causes burn-like blisters in the mouth and esophagus. Now in Genesis 1:29, God said that every tree, in which the fruit of a tree yields seed, is food to you. Tell me, is it okay to eat from the manchineel tree? Remember that God said every tree, and the Machineel tree was not mentioned. So, to respond to Genesis 9:3, just because it says every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you does not necessarily mean that God is permitting one to eat of the unclean beast, just like it says you can eat of every fruit tree in which beareth seeds does not mean that you should go eat of it (referring to the manchineel tree) unless you want to drop dead. Here are two other poison trees: Taxus baccata and the Eucalyptus tree. Tell me, being that God said that you can eat of every tree that bears fruits, does that include the three trees I just mentioned, and would you eat the fruits of those trees? Now go back to Genesis 9:3, read the verse again, and with the above, you should understand that God is not permitting one to eat of the unclean beast; if it does, why don't you then try the fruits of the poisonous tree I just mentioned, being that God said every fruit tree you can eat of?
@Gigi2four
@Gigi2four Год назад
Eden was a perfect place before sin entered. Perhaps these trees you mention were not poisonous at that time? Many trees and plants certainly are poisonous now! According to Eve, when talking with the serpent, God told them that they could eat from any of the trees except the tree of knowledge. This is the only non-edible fruit mentioned in scripture concerning this topic (that I know of). It would seem that they didn’t eat animals at that time because it would require death to do so. Genesis 6:21 is an account of God telling Noah to take into the ark all foods that are edible for himself and the animals. Interesting…what was edible? What did the vultures and carnivores eat?🤔 It’s also mind bending as to the vast quantity of food to last them and all of the creatures for over a year. (Not to mention cleaning up after those critters😱) Then in Genesis 9:3 God declares that all living things are edible including plants. Also interesting. Which is it? Without reading into scripture or citing non scriptural evidence? These are just observations and questions.
@kiruiandrew1
@kiruiandrew1 Месяц назад
It is reasonable to compare this argument in Mark 7 with it Synoptic gospels. Matthew clears it all Matthew 15:20 [20]These G5023 are G2076 the things which G3588 defile G2840 a man: G444 but G1161 to eat G5315 with unwashen G449 hands G5495 defileth G2840 not G3756 a man. G444
@luiscajigas5567
@luiscajigas5567 Год назад
The codex saniaticus and all the original manuscripts does not have the entry that Jesus made all food clean, thst was added in by theilogian whi misintrepret the scripture by adding these words base on jesus words on what goes into mouth is clean. It does not say that Jeses made all food clean.
@sundownsam3369
@sundownsam3369 Год назад
Robert Solberg is the one who said it, and they would rather believe him than allow the Spirit of God to teach them.
@josephlarrew
@josephlarrew 9 месяцев назад
He literally showed the Codex Sinaiticus having the phrase.
@luiscajigas5567
@luiscajigas5567 9 месяцев назад
@josephlarrew if you read for yourself it does not. What they do is read the words in codex sinaiticus and interpret them to mean that he declare all food clean, but it doesn't. Check it out for yourself, don't accept what I am telling.
@sttuffwithjoe4477
@sttuffwithjoe4477 6 месяцев назад
@@luiscajigas5567 Well the Greek words in Codex Sinaiaticus literally read "Declared clean/made clean (masculine verb) all the food (things eaten)." So Codex Sinaiaticus does in fact say that. The verb needs someone who is doing the action, and in the context, it would be Jesus. The Textus Receptus has the same phrase, but the first word "made clean" is a neuter verb instead of a masculine verb.
@luiscajigas5567
@luiscajigas5567 6 месяцев назад
@sttuffwithjoe4477 you keep on believing theologians doctrine, I suggest you take a copy of that verse and translated and check for yourself if it says what it has been interpreted for you, then get back to me. Also, read leviticus 11 and count how many times God calls it an abomination. Then ask yourself the question: Did God alter his words after telling us that he doesn't alter his word.
@troynewsome3710
@troynewsome3710 9 месяцев назад
You are an intelligent man, how can you be so oblivious? So are you saying 1. God changed his mind on what his Torah is ? 2 what is the biblical definition of sin ? 3. Also "let no man judge you" BECAUSE you are keeping those things. 4 are you also saying that the disciples that knew Jesus best ate unclean animals after Jesus died on the cross or before even? Think about what you're saying if Jesus ate unclean animals ( not declared food by God himself) or changed the law ( not upholding the law ) he couldn't be our sinless sacrifice. Blessings on your future studies my friend. But be careful to not lead others into sin with the twisting of the truth, because teachers are judged more strictly.
@genevawilkerson4245
@genevawilkerson4245 Год назад
Jesus didn't die in the cross so we can have pork chops. whenever there’s an issue of lifestyle choices People always argue about that because it requires them to make choices that are uncomfortable.
@joshuamelton9148
@joshuamelton9148 Год назад
The dietary Law is Not a Universal moral truth. It was given exclusively to the Nation of Israel on Mt Sinai.
@adamguy33
@adamguy33 Год назад
Yeah JESUS did way more then just THAT , Jesus also killed the old covenant and brought in a way better one. Sounds like you like the old covenant more , maybe go join the dead Judaism religion sense you seem to like it more anyway. Guess what you won't have to eat pork , and you can truly follow Torah and you get to still go to hell .
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
I agree, Geneva! Jesus didn't die on the cross so we can have pork chops. He died to atone for our sins! And BTW, a life without eating pork chops or bacon is not an uncomfortable life. We've still got steaks, hamburgers, lamb chops, chicken, fish, etc. This isn't an issue of comfort. It's an issue of what Scripture says. And Jesus has declared all foods clean. Eating biblically clean was never forbidden, so you're free to do so if you choose! But it is not required of any follower of Jesus. Blessings, Rob
@joe4369
@joe4369 Год назад
@@TheBiblicalRoots Professor, I have to say, it's quite clear that you're well-versed in your beliefs. However, I respectfully disagree. Admitting that abstaining from pork can be a challenge and that we should strive to choose God over our desires is indeed a significant aspect of faith. After all, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross wasn't to grant us the freedom to sin without consequence. The question arises, what is Jesus atoning for if there are no rules? Regarding the notion that Jesus declared all foods clean, it's worth noting that many scholars believe the verse "thus Jesus declared all foods clean" to be a fifth-century addition to the gospels. This raises questions about its authenticity. I appreciate your perspective, but it's important to consider various interpretations in the field of biblical studies.
@joe4369
@joe4369 Год назад
@@joshuamelton9148 If you follow Christ, you are, in a sense, part of the Nation of Israel. As the Bible suggests in Genesis 32:28, 'Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.' In a broader context, 'Israel' signifies someone who has undergone a profound encounter or struggle with God, resulting in a transformative experience. It signifies a deep connection to God and a fundamental change in one's relationship with the Creator. Disavowing your belonging to Israel is akin to renouncing your devotion to the Father.
@chaselien4679
@chaselien4679 6 месяцев назад
You not worry about people say you manipulate the Scripture since "Jesus declared all food are clean" is mentioned in ESV Bible? Where are the verses support your statement that after Jesus' declaration, the disciples are still having strict diet? Why would Romans 14:20 also not in unison with your statement?
@danherring5577
@danherring5577 9 месяцев назад
Some English translations have added the words “making all foods clean”, which are NOT in any original manuscript, Aramaic or Greek. In the first century pork was not even considered food, and it is unthinkable in a completely Jewish environment to think that Yahshua is telling His disciples that they can eat pork and the Pharisees would simply let it pass and not even condemn Him for it. It is clear from the context and also the cross reference of Mat 15:16-20 that the subject is eating without washing according to Rabbinical tradition and not even about meat at all. Also, in Acts 10 with Peter's Vision, Peter clearly says that he never ate any unclean meat. This was probably 15 years after Yahshua spoke this in Mark 7. If pork and shellfish were made clean in Mark 7, Peter would not have been surprised when he heard the voice telling him to "Slaughter and Eat". (Peter's initial understanding was that the voice was telling him to eat unclean animals. However, nowhere did the voice tell him to specifically eat the unclean animals on the sheet, the voice could've just been referring to the clean animals on the sheet. Also, the true meaning of the vision was to declare the good news to the gentiles who could now be grafted into Israel).
@RebbeDaniel
@RebbeDaniel 10 месяцев назад
This "teacher" says that Jesus' commandments were the one about loving your neighbor and loving God. Yet in 1 John 5 it says to love your neighbor, you are to obey the commandments. And then to love God, you are to keep the commandments. So, clearly loving your neighbor and God are NOT the commandments that 1 John is referring to. But because I can refute his position, I'll probably get banned from commenting again. Read your Bible.
@flyguymt
@flyguymt Год назад
So does this really settle the entire discussion on if Jesus declared all foods clean? Well consider these points. In the three Gospels that record the trial of Jesus before the chief priests and Sanhedrin, nowhere is it recorded that Jesus was rightly found guilty of taking away or adding words to the Law of Moses (Deut 4:2) or leading others to disobey YHWH’s commands (Deut 13:4-5) which would make him a false prophet. Mar 14:55 “Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any.” They could only get false testimony against Jesus. That info was recorded by three different Spirit filled writers. Did they leave something out? Another point is, since several Apostles were present for that teaching in Mark apparently teaching all foods clean, why several decades later did Peter state to the Lord that he had not eaten anything unclean? The vision from God would have no impact at all because there was no more unclean animals? Or why at that time of Peter’s vision, again decades later, did the apostles have any issues eating with gentiles? Another point is, if nothing that you eat can defile a man, which is quite different from the point being made that NOTHING entering man can defile him, why then does Jesus in the book of Revelation chastise two churches for those EATING things sacrificed to idols and tell them to repent (Rev 3:14,20)? Is Jesus pulling a Biden here and forgetting what he said 2K years earlier? Another point is your Heavenly Father YHWH set the food rules of what is food and what is not food, not the Jews as Rob lightly stated. Since there are parentheses in the Mark 7:19 verse making it very unique and controversial, this Berean will go with the safer account in Matthew. “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man (Matt 15:19-20).
@kiruiandrew1
@kiruiandrew1 Год назад
Professor, Is the Passage, "Does he declare all #Foods clean" same as, "Does he declare all #animals / #beasts clean". If food eaten with unclean hands was to enter into the heart as by Yeshua statement, it would defile someone. If Yeshua is the one cleansing food but not the belly, would it be impossible for Him to cleanse food if that food was to go to the heart?
@musicinspire1745
@musicinspire1745 Год назад
What is the basis legalists picks and choose as to which Laws they believe are still required for today? Deuteronomy 13 is clear that nobody is to take away from, nor add to the Law, and yet today, the legalists teach only a small hand full of them as allegedly being valid for today by way of observance. Leviticus 12 commands circumcision. I haven't heard them commanding their male converts must be circumcised. What about putting "fingers" on the corners of clothing from Numbers 15, bind God's word on the head and the arm in Deuteronomy 6, to affix the mezuzah to the door posts and gates of their house from Deuteronomy 6, and to appear in the sanctuary as stated in Deuteronomy 16 on festivals? Invariably, they have told me that there's no temple for them obey that. Well, even if there were, I doubt they would all obey that Law. What about Uzzah, when he found out the hard way that there is no excuse for disobedience...I mean, after all, he was trying to do good, to find a justifying alternative to obedience to Yah when he placed his hand on the Ark with the best of intentions. Even the Jews, who could have had a tent tabernacle, still did not seek to obey, even they could have. Are the HR people any different? They too could have had a tabernacle in their locale, but they don't. Why? Isn't Torah supposed to be observed? This all smacks of hypocrisy. Singer and all his yammering seems to also make excuses for his and all their disobedience. Since when does it have to be a stone temple, when they had a tabernacle in the desert that traveled with them? Yah was flexible then, so they not now? As an Israelite, to my ears this all smacks of the sin of convenience to teach one thing, and do so much of all else...again, in the name of convenience and excuses that simply fail the tests of credible practice!
@jonasbauer3942
@jonasbauer3942 10 месяцев назад
Why was some animals declared unclean for food? I think it was for our benefit, our health, Today it is not a salvation issue. Then why eat unclean food?
@ChristCenteredEschatology
@ChristCenteredEschatology 10 месяцев назад
Jesus did not bring the dietary laws to an end at that time. Jesus declared all food cleaned because the Jews who would except Christ, would die to the law and be born again under the new covenant. The dietary laws remained in effect for those Jews who rejected Christ, and thereby remained under the law until all of the law was fulfilled. Gentiles were never under the law. Today the law and the prophets have been fulfilled and therefore the law, including the dietary commands, have no standing.
@kimartist
@kimartist Год назад
Awesome. Good video. I read the same passages & came to the exact same conclusions 👈😁👍
@elijahirvin5911
@elijahirvin5911 Год назад
If God says something is evil can it ever be good
@billyhw5492
@billyhw5492 Год назад
Do you still obey the bed time your parents set for you as an infant?
@elijahirvin5911
@elijahirvin5911 Год назад
@@billyhw5492 is adultery still wrong yes. Is stealing still wrong yes. Is bearing false witness still wrong yes. Is covenant something that belongs to your neighbor still wrong yes. Is a man lying with a man stealing abomination yes. So eating lobster catfish shrimp pork still a abomination. If it's not that makes God a liar
@elijahirvin5911
@elijahirvin5911 Год назад
Psalms 89:34
@VikTorahYAH
@VikTorahYAH Год назад
​@@billyhw5492Sir, you're Holy Father is to be obeyed. Lean not to your own understanding. 24:33
@sundownsam3369
@sundownsam3369 Год назад
​@@elijahirvin5911 Psalms 89:34 is a verse I give them, and either they do not respond to it or they distort the verse.
@salpezzino7803
@salpezzino7803 Год назад
RL can you address Torahism, rebuking of Mark 7 by bringing up that if Jesus made all foods clean, why didn't Peter know this in Acts 10. TIA
@boltingpuppies
@boltingpuppies Год назад
Yes, if Mark 7 had Jesus telling Pharisees they could eat unclean animals as food, why did Peter not already know this. Excellent point.
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
Great question, Sal! In short, I would say this is just what we’ve come to expect from Peter. Remember he openly opposed Jesus during His ministry, to the point that the Lord had to tell him, “Get behind me Satan.” And in the confrontation with the Pharisees where Jesus taught that "there is nothing outside a man that can defile him," it was Peter who asked Jesus to explain what in the world He was talking about (Matt 15:15). And in Acts 10, Jesus comes to Peter in a vision. And Jesus knows how hardheaded Peter can be. (They have a history of this, don’t they? Peter denied Jesus three times, and three times Jesus asked Peter, “do you love me?”) And so we see Jesus repeating _three times,_ “What God has made clean do not call common.” And guess what? It didn't stop there. Peter has to be confronted a *_third time_* about this same issue! In Galatians 2, Paul rebuked him publicly because Peter had been eating with the Gentiles for some amount of time, but then (because of the Judaizers) Peter started separating from others over food again (Gal. 2:11-14). This is behavior Paul called "not in step with the truth of the gospel" (v. 14). This is the hard-headed, stuck-in-his-ways nature of Peter. And I, for one, am comforted that the Bible reveals this sort of character flaw in an apostle. Because it's a flaw I share! You can find a more in-depth answer here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RIZyCg-KVyI.html Blessings, Rob
@joe4369
@joe4369 Год назад
@@TheBiblicalRoots Oh, by all means, feel free to cherry-pick the Bible to suit your own agenda. Discredit anyone whose words don't align with your narrative, right? Peter's lifelong adherence to Biblical principles, even after Jesus' crucifixion, should serve as a glaring example. But I suppose you, sir, are absolutely unswayable and resolutely stuck in your ways. In your view, you're probably no less knowledgeable or devoted than Peter himself.
@salpezzino7803
@salpezzino7803 Год назад
@@TheBiblicalRoots got it. Funny I never connected the 3x . God Bless You Brother
@boltingpuppies
@boltingpuppies Год назад
@@salpezzino7803 The 'three times' is directly connected to the three men who came to Peter. Peter explains his own vision and never mentions unclean animals as now being considered food. Isaiah says the Lord is going to destroy those eating swine's flesh, rats and the abomination when he (Jesus) comes in flaming fire (2nd coming). We are to keep the commandments of God. Jesus did.
@pmalachibond
@pmalachibond 10 месяцев назад
Respectfully, "Monte Judah" is a "Hebrew Roots" teacher (a group that I do not associate with), and a false prophet... he has made numerous false prophecies concerning the exact return of the Master. Most of us who strive to be Torah Observant steer clear from Monte and his nonsense. He does NOT represent Torah Observant/Pronomian Christians.
@simonpilarcik6838
@simonpilarcik6838 11 месяцев назад
If God criticized the pharasies for disobeying the law, and then abolishes that law, he can't be God.
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots 11 месяцев назад
Hi, Simon. Jesus didn't criticize the Pharisees for disobeying the law, he criticized them for adding to it. He also didn't abolish the law, he fulfilled it. Blessings! Rob
@not1just4words
@not1just4words Месяц назад
Have you seen the Tares Among the Wheat documentary by Chris Pinto? It's about how certain parts of the Bible were edited out in the Wescott and Hort text. Do you think it's true???
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Месяц назад
Hi N1J4W! The Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament was based on a critical evaluation of the available Greek manuscripts at the time. They didn't "edit out" parts of the Bible, but they did make textual decisions that differed from the _Textus Receptus,_ which was the basis for the KJV. The _Textus Receptus_ was compiled from later Byzantine manuscripts, which are often fuller in some respects compared to the older Alexandrian manuscripts used by W+H. From what I've studied, W+H made different textual choices based on their analysis of the manuscript evidence, they did not intentionally edit out parts of the Bible. The differences reflect their attempt to provide a text that they believed was more faithful to the original writings. Shalom! RLS
@not1just4words
@not1just4words Месяц назад
@@TheBiblicalRoots Thanks so much for your detailed reply! I love your channel and I've read Torahism. Have you seen the documentary I was referring to, "Tares Among the Wheat"? I know you're a very productive person and probably short on time but I would really, really, find your "take" on this documentary helpful. Here's a brief synopsis and link: Tares Among the Wheat will likely challenge what most scholars believe about Bible history, and the origins of modern Textual Criticism. In the 19th century, a revolution in biblical scholarship was prompted by the publication of a never-before-seen manuscript called Codex Sinaiticus. The work was discovered by a German scholar named Constantine von Tischendorf, who declared it to be the oldest Bible ever found. Yet shortly after his discovery was published, a renowned Greek paleographer named Constantine Simonides came forward and declared that the manuscript was no ancient text at all, but had been created by him in 1840. The controversy surrounding these events is, perhaps, the most incredible untold chapter in Bible history. It involves the Jesuits, the Pope, a high-minded German, a collection of Anglo-Catholics, and a mysterious Greek patriot. It is a story that (while quite true and well documented) a vast majority of modern academics know nothing about. Yet the subject matter dramatically impacts the world's understanding of biblical scholarship to this day, and the footnotes in your Bible are the proof of it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qe3CMDXeG4w.html
@kingPerry34
@kingPerry34 20 дней назад
Hi Rob I have a question: was it a sin to eat unclean animals in the Old Testament?
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots 19 дней назад
It was for Israel after Sinai.
@SDsc0rch
@SDsc0rch 3 месяца назад
16:56 --- so we're talking about whether food defiles a man or not and in so doing, "He cleansed" all food : ) brilliant!
@sundownsam3369
@sundownsam3369 Год назад
The reason why Yeshua said, "Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him," is because sin originates from within the person. Read verses 20-23 so you know what proceeds from within, which is sin. Pork being unclean will not defile you; what will defile you is being disobedient to what God told you to abstain from. Why don't you read Matthew 15 and ask yourself why the phrase "he declares all food clean" isn't mentioned there? Mark 7:19 had nothing to do with clean and unclean, nor was it discussed in the passage, or was it? You are not only ignorant of God's word, but you have deliberately, with full consciousness, distorted scriptural truths. One day you will be asked a question by me in front of many people, and God is going to let everyone know who you are according to the Scriptures.
@billyhw5492
@billyhw5492 Год назад
Your arguments from silence are astonishingly weak.
@sundownsam3369
@sundownsam3369 Год назад
​@@billyhw5492 When one does not allow the Spirit of God to teach, they make remarks like yours. By the way, I asked you questions in the past, and you still have not responded to them. I guess you concluded that it is better for you not to answer than to allow the Scriptures to correct you. You could not even respond to what I wrote, Robert Solberg. Here is one question for you: if God sits on his throne, does God sit on the throne He promised David as well, or does the Son of God sit on it? On whose throne does Yeshua sit?
@VikTorahYAH
@VikTorahYAH Год назад
​@@billyhw5492Sir.how would you rate the response you just gave in terms of substance?
@kimartist
@kimartist Год назад
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." ~ Romans 14 : 7
@karlcooke3197
@karlcooke3197 3 месяца назад
Nonsense. You read Mathew 15 and Mark 7 in Context. The Messiah is talking about unclean hands. Deut4v2 do not to My Word or Takeaway.... Pro 30v6. Matthew 5v19
@joshuamelton9148
@joshuamelton9148 Год назад
Great video as always. I enjoyed the interview that you had with vocab Malone. I can help but think about 1 Timothy 4:1-5 especially verse 3 "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer." Some within the Hebrew roots movement live out the scriptures below 1 Timothy 6:3-5 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the soundwords of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, 5and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
I see the resemblance to many "Torah-keeping" Christians, too, Joshua. May they find truth and freedom in Christ! RLS
@joshuamelton9148
@joshuamelton9148 Год назад
@@TheBiblicalRoots Amen
@sundownsam3369
@sundownsam3369 Год назад
I would respond to your 1 Timothy passages if you would promise to respond to my questions in my response to you. I have to put it this way because Gentile believers tend not to respond to questions, nor do theologians, such as Robert Solberg, who has not responded to many of my questions. Just recently, he decided not to respond to my post.
@joshuamelton9148
@joshuamelton9148 Год назад
​@@sundownsam3369 Hello Sam. You are the guy that likes talks about Marcion the heretic. If you want to talk about the verses above that is fine, if not that is fine as well.
@sundownsam3369
@sundownsam3369 Год назад
@@joshuamelton9148 I don't talk about Marcion; I am pointing out that that is what Robert Solberg is teaching and believes. The way he responds depicts Marcionism. I will talk to you, provided you promise to God that you will not shy away or ignore my questions. I will do the same. We will discuss what God made clear the first time he spoke according to the Scriptures. If so, you can start the topic; if not, then you made it clear to me that you would not answer my questions.
@carlosrueda6355
@carlosrueda6355 Год назад
Excellent explanation Professor Solberg. Is your book available in Spanish? thank you
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
Unfortunately, no, Carlos. None of my books are available in Spanish. Hopefully one day they will be! Blessings, Rob
@sundownsam3369
@sundownsam3369 Год назад
Read the Scriptures and let the Spirit of God reveal to you scriptural truths, if you lean on books you will be misled.
@evilsbane7773
@evilsbane7773 11 дней назад
Let’s say the this he cleansed all foods is accurate. Would the term food apply to the unclean animals? I don’t think the audience would think so.
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots 11 дней назад
Hi, EB. The Bible consistently uses the word "food" (אָכְלָ֑ה or אֹ֜כֶל or βρώματος) in a neutral sense to refer to anything that can be eaten. Some food is clean, some food is unclean. For example, Lev. 11:34 shows one way that clean food can become unclean food: “Any food in it that could be eaten, on which water comes, shall be unclean.” And Hosea 9:3 says, “they shall eat *unclean food* in Assyria.” Best, Rob
@evilsbane7773
@evilsbane7773 10 дней назад
@@TheBiblicalRoots thank you for the reply
@humblejoes3263
@humblejoes3263 9 месяцев назад
But but but…those words in parentheses don’t change the meaning of Jesus’s words one iota. Get rid of the parenthetical and Jesus still eliminated all foods that could defile one’s heart. Jesus didn’t care a whit which Jews would call him an apostate or a blasphemer. His words came directly from the Father. Was The Father an apostate? The Father was “perfecting” the law. Keep the rest of The Fathers perfected laws. Like Mat 5:21-22. There’s bigger ideas to ponder than unclean food. Mountains of minutiae.
@RebbeDaniel
@RebbeDaniel 10 месяцев назад
1 John says that if we abide in Him, we are to walk as He walked. He was Torah observant. He also said not one bit of the law would be done away with until all of heaven and earth were gone. He also commanded is to follow the instructions given from the seat of Moses, uhm that's Torah folks.
@Lotterywinnerify
@Lotterywinnerify 8 месяцев назад
“Call no one on earth Rabbi” except yourself apparently
@ivovanerp5914
@ivovanerp5914 4 месяца назад
1/3: Mark 7:18-19 18And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) [ESV] The parenthetical phrase “(Thus he declared all foods clean)” is not in any of the original manuscripts; this has been added to God’s Holy Scriptures by men. Jesus never spoke those words, nor did Mark ever write them! It’s not in any of the Greek or Aramaic texts whatsoever, and it’s not in any English translation printed before the 20th century. This parenthetical phrase, or variations of it, has only been added to ‘contemporary’ bibles [e.g., ASV, BBE, CET, CSB, ESV, GNT, GWT, HCSB, NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, RSV, WNT] in the last 100 years or so. We are being lied to! Whether it is deliberate or in ignorance is irrelevant, it’s still deception. The Greek text for Mark 7:19 in the ‘Textus Receptus’ is as follows: www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/textus_receptus_king_james/mark/mark07.htm Mark 7:19 οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου εις την καρδιαν αλλ εις την κοιλιαν και εις τον αφεδρωνα εκπορευεται καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα οτιG3754 CONJ ουκG3756 PRT-N εισπορευεταιG1531 V-PNI-3S αυτουG846 P-GSM ειςG1519 PREP τηνG3588 T-ASF καρδιανG2588 N-ASF αλλG235 CONJ ειςG1519 PREP τηνG3588 T-ASF κοιλιανG2836 N-ASF καιG2532 CONJ ειςG1519 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM αφεδρωναG856 N-ASM εκπορευεταιG1607 V-PNI-3S καθαριζονG2511 V-PAP-NSN πανταG3956 A-APN ταG3588 T-APN βρωματαG1033 N-APN becauseG3754 CONJ notG3756 PRT-N enterG1531 V-PNI-3S hisG846 P-GSM intoG1519 PREP theG3588 T-ASF heartG2588 N-ASF butG235 CONJ intoG1519 PREP theG3588 T-ASF abdomenG2836 N-ASF andG2532 CONJ intoG1519 PREP theG3588 T-ASM privyG856 N-ASM dischargedG1607 V-PNI-3S purgingG2511 V-PAP-NSN allG3956 A-APN theG3588 T-APN foodG1033 N-APN The Greek text from ‘Codex Alexandrinus’ and ‘Codex Vaticanus’ says the exact same thing as the ‘Textus Receptus’ above, word for word; manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_02, digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209?ling=en. The Greek text from ‘Codex Sinaiticus’ says the same thing as the ‘Textus Receptus’, ‘Codex Alexandrinus’ and ‘Codex Vaticanus’ except for one word; εκβαλλετε is used instead of εκπορευεται: codexsinaiticus.org/en Mark 7:19 οτι ουκ ειϲπορευετε αυτου ειϲ την καρδιαν αλλ ειϲ την κοιλιαν και ειϲ τον αφεδρωνα εκβαλλετε καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα. Strong’s G1544, is εκβαλλετε/ekballo, which Thayer’s Greek Lexicon states as: to cast out; to drive out; to send out. This is used instead of Strong’s G1607, εκπορευεται/ekporeuomai which Thayer’s Greek Lexicon states as: to go forth, go out, depart. As you can see, these are very similar terms. Again, the “Law-changing” words “(thus he declared all foods clean)”, were not spoken by Jesus, they are not in the original Greek! They are nowhere to be found in any manuscript! They have been added by contemporary men! It’s not a footnote, a side bar commentary, nor even noted as an opinion; it’s added right into the ‘verse’ itself, as if it were inspired Scripture! ‘Men’ added to the Word of God in order to promote man-made doctrine. The English words “all” and “food” are in the Greek text. βρωματα/G1033, brōmata, which is translated as “food”, is from bibróskó/G977, which means “to eat”. This is in reference to the “bread” that the Pharisees were complaining was being eaten without first “properly” washing the hands (Mark 7:2, 3 & 5), which is a ‘man-made tradition’ and not a Command of the Almighty. By the way, in five of the translations I listed above, the Greek word G740 ἄρτους/artous which is ‘bread’ in English, has been deleted from the Word of God, on purpose, twice! The topic of discussion is ‘bread eaten with unwashed hands’. The context is not meat/flesh, and whether or not pig, rat, camel or any other unclean animal is now ‘declared clean’; those words are NOT in the original text. By deleting words and adding words, the “translators” have purposefully steered you, the reader, away from the true context and message of the Word of God, in order to promote their own man-made doctrine. The parallel verse in Matthew verifies the actual context of what is truly being said in Mark 7:19.
@ivovanerp5914
@ivovanerp5914 4 месяца назад
2/3: What does the text say? Matthew 15:17 “Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast-out into the draught (i.e., sink)?” (KJV) Matthew 15:17 “Do ye not understand that all that is going into the mouth doth pass into the belly, and into the drain (i.e., sewer) is cast-forth?” (YLT) To claim that this verse ‘(declares)’ that anything you can shove into your mouth, which goes through the human digestive system, and then gets discharged/purged into the sink/sewer is now ritually, ceremonially or lawfully “clean” to eat has no scriptural foundation and is pure eisegesis. Back to Mark 7:19; καθαριζον/G2511, that is katharizō, can be translated as ‘to cleanse’, but in the context of ‘to purge’ or ‘to drain’. However, what is completely ignored by mainstream theology, is the true definition of this word. In Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, the very first definition of G2511, katharizō is: to make clean, to cleanse - “from physical stains and dirt: e. g. food, Mark 7:19″. This is in direct correlation with ‘the washing of hands before eating bread’ in verses 2-5. This verse has absolutely nothing to do with the God-ordained definitions of what are “clean” and “unclean” animals; it has EVERYTHING to do with the CONTEXT of the discourse: the tradition of washing hands from physical dirt before eating & elevating man-made traditions above God’s Commandments! Mark 7:8-9 8You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” 9And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! Jesus is railing those in authority for not keeping the Laws of God and for elevating their own personal traditions above God’s commands. The parallel account in Matthew blatantly exposes the translators’ errors and reveals the TRUE context of Mark 7:19. What does the text say? “But to eat with unwashed hands does not ‘defile’ anyone.” | Matthew 15:20 It doesn’t say ‘But to eat anything you want does not defile anyone…’; it says, “eating with unwashed hands does not defile you”! The following study ‘Nothing Outside a Person can Defile Them… Nothing?‘ is another good source for understanding verses 15 through 20 of Mark 7. Context, Context, Context! Next ~ There are 3 critical points that are never discussed by mainstream Christianity regarding this notion that Jesus “(declared all foods clean)” in Mark 7:19 ~ First, are we to honestly believe that Jesus railed and condemned the Pharisees and Scribes in Mark 7:7-13 because they were voiding and overriding the Commandments of God, then Jesus himself voids and overrides the Commandments of God just 3 sentences later??? That would have been absolute hypocrisy and rebellion from the Son of God! Secondly, if Jesus is saying what the modern translators have ‘(declared)’ in Mark 7:19, that anything is now clean to eat, then the New Testament Scriptures are in contradiction, and we have to throw it all out. ‘Acts 10’ and ‘Acts 15’ declare the exact opposite of the parenthetical statement ‘(that all foods are now clean)’. Peter, who I assume knew what Jesus ‘(declared)’ in ‘Mark 7’, claimed in ‘Acts 10’ that he had never eaten anything common or unclean years after Jesus supposedly said this. Peter even told God, straight to His face three times, ‘NO, I will not eat unclean animals’! Peter claimed his doctrinal position in ‘Acts 10’ is that there’s still “unclean” animals to avoid years after the ‘Mark 7’ event!!! Then, in ‘Acts 15’, James the head of the Christian Church, claimed new believers in Christ “must not” eat blood or strangled meat! This food command is directly from the Law of Moses and obviously still valid in the mind of James and the Christian Council. So, “IF” Jesus ‘(declared all foods clean)’ then Peter and James are contradicting the Son of God!!! Lastly, as a prophet of Israel, Jesus could not have changed or voided the Commandments of God ~ Deuteronomy 12:32-13:4 32“Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it. 1“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the LORD your God If Jesus had added to or had taken away from the Commandments of the LORD, he would have violated the Law of Moses (which is sin), and so he was a sinner. Jesus would have disqualified himself as Messiah, because he would have been teaching rebellion against the LORD God. Please read ‘Examining the Scriptures’ or watch it on RU-vid at ‘Examining the Scriptures’.
@ivovanerp5914
@ivovanerp5914 4 месяца назад
3/3: Let’s take another look at “All Food” ~ In 30 A.D. Israel, the definition of “all food”, was what the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had ordained as “all food”. Every single Israelite (including Jesus and the Pharisee’s of ‘Mark 7’) knew what this definition was: besides all of the plants yielding seeds, it was ‘all’ of the “clean” animals listed in ‘Leviticus 11’. Here in America, if I set a plate in front of you that had a chicken leg and a dog leg on it, and then asked you to eat ‘the food’ on the plate, what would you select? You would pick the chicken leg, yes? That’s because it’s the only thing on the plate that is considered ‘food’ in our culture. Similarly, for Jesus, his disciples, the Pharisee’s and every other Israelite, if someone had set bread, a pork chop and shrimp down on a table in front of them, and asked which one is ‘food’, they ‘ALL’ would have picked the bread, and only the bread. Advertisement Privacy Settings Here is the disconnect: we have been taught for centuries that anything you can shove into your mouth is ‘food’, and that in times past, some of it was considered ‘clean-food’ and some of it was considered ‘unclean-food’. That premise is 100% Scripturally wrong! God NEVER said, ‘pig, crab, camel, shrimp, dog, vulture, etc. were ‘unclean-food’; He said, they were “unclean creatures” and “NOT to be eaten” | Leviticus 11. In the eyes of Almighty God, the unclean creatures of Leviticus 11 are not what some today call “food”. The dogma that Jesus taught against or changed the Law of Moses, removing or adding to the list of ‘clean animals’ is pure fiction! Didn’t Jesus come to fulfill the Law? How could He fulfill the Law by changing it…? Think logically, not emotionally. In Mark 7:19 Jesus did not change anything in the Law of Moses; if you read the entire discourse in context the exact opposite is the case; Jesus upheld and promoted the Law of Moses. The ONLY context of ‘Mark 7’ and ‘Matthew 15’ is, Jesus railing some of the leaders of his day because they were putting their Man-Made laws and traditions in higher authority than the Laws of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The fact is, the ‘Word of God’ proclaims Jesus did not come to change Moses: Acts 6 ~ Acts 6:11-14 “Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.”” What did the “false witnesses” claim about Jesus? The “false claim” was that Jesus came to change Moses! According to the ‘Spirit-Inspired-Word-of-God’, it is a FALSE statement that Jesus came to change Moses. So, if ‘Mark 7: 19’ has Jesus “(declaring all foods clean)”, that declaration by him changes the ‘Leviticus 11’ clean and unclean animal Commands from the Law Moses, and then ‘Mark‘ and ‘Acts‘ are in contradiction. The ‘Gospel of Mark’ and the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ are therefore, in opposition to each other and MUST be torn out of every Bible as contradictory writing. And since Luke also wrote the ‘Gospel of Luke’, I would assert that it should be removed as well, on the grounds that he is an unreliable source. It doesn’t stop there; Luke was held in high regard by the apostle Paul, and if Luke is unreliable, then what does that say about Pauls’ judge of character? What does it say about Pauls’ own character??? This line of reasoning cannot just be dismissed out of hand. The truth of the matter is, Jesus, the-Word-of-God-in-the-flesh, rebuked the leaders of Israel for not obeying the Commands of God, and for overriding God’s Law with the traditions of men’ | Matthew 15:3-9, Mark 7:6-13. Except for when he was telling parables about the Kingdom, Jesus spent the majority of his time telling everyone to stop elevating man-made instructions/laws/traditions and turn-back to following Gods Instructions/Laws. The first word the Messiah spoke in his public ministry was “Repent”, ‘Matthew 4:17’, which means ‘stop sinning and return to following God’s commandments. As the prophesied “Messiah of Israel” and the Son-of-God, it is impossible that he sinned. If he had added-to or taken-away from the established Law of God given through Moses, then Jesus sinned and was not the Messiah, but a heretic. Therefore, since we all know that he did not sin, then we also know he did not add-to or take-away from the Law of Moses, including the list of what is considered food and what is not considered food. Final Thought: Jesus revealed the true interpretation of both parallel accounts in ‘Mark 7’ and ‘Matthew 15’, as he explained it to his disciples in Matthew 15:15-20 ~ 15But Peter said to him, “Explain the ‘parable‘ to us.” 16And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? 18But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20These are what defile a person. But ‘to eat with unwashed hands‘ does not defile anyone.” | Matthew 15:15-20 Take note, verse 15 right here states this is a “parable”, not a Decree, Statute or Command from the LORD! In ‘Matthew 15’ and ‘Mark 7’. Jesus was speaking in a parable, and he just “(declared)” to everyone, everywhere the understanding of it in verse 20! He was not adding to or taking away from the Law of God. Jesus explained to his followers, in a parable, ‘an established understanding’ that they should have already known, that “eating bread with unwashed hands doesn’t defile you“. Richard Wheeler
@jeffreybrannen9465
@jeffreybrannen9465 9 месяцев назад
It would help is the HR people would make the distinction between “Positive Law” and “Moral Law”. Moral law: love your neighbor as yourself. (Unchanging and forever in every circumstance) Positive law: drive the speed limit (if someone’s life needs saving by getting them to the hospital it can be ignored and broken) There are Positive Laws I gave my 6year old that do not apply to my 16 year old. “Do not drive the car.” As his father, I am free to change the Positive Laws I have placed over him because I am his father. Now, if I told him to break Moral Laws, I have no authority to do so. “Boy, grab your gun and kill the family next door because they won’t turn down their music.” HR have elevated Kosher to Moral Law when it is Positive Law. They would even deny Jesus to his face, rejecting his authority because of their mistaken categories. They deny that God is free to change his Positive Law and in so doing deny Jesus, Peter, Paul, the early church, manuscript evidence, and translations. It is a grand conspiracy so people can eat bacon. Really?
@retro-orthodox
@retro-orthodox Год назад
Look, I’m a survivor of Torahism, so I do not think the dietary restrictions apply to us today. However…. this ain’t it, chief. If in that moment Jesus was truly declaring all food clean, he can not reasonably be said to have put himself under the Law as a perfectly obedient servant. It’s like saying “I bowled a perfect game,” while having changed the rules in my bowling alley to where it counts if I run up and knock down all the pins by hand that I missed. Acts, Galatians, and more all have stronger evidence that gentile converts weren’t meant to keep things like dietary laws. I’ve seen your discussions about this conflict with several videos, and you give the “well, it could be this… could be that.” If I was still Torah Observant, a video like this would only have bolstered my belief that non-TO people had no idea what they were talking about. If you can’t give a reasonable explanation that accounts for how he could simultaneously perfectly uphold the Law while changing it the middle of his life, or how this doesn’t completely contradict the bit from Matthew about not even a joy or tittle passing away until all had been fulfilled, then just stop making videos about this particular verse. As is, I have no doubt that any TO person who saw this would easily find their false practices strengthened. I apologize if this sounds harsh, I do not want to come across that way. I think you’re seriously making the best content out there to dispute this false religious practice, but this is the one verse I feel like just doesn’t gel well with your other content. For kicks, I’ll add that my view has evolved to one where I think it’s about the ritual elements where they think simply eating the food without following rabbinical traditions made one unclean, rather than Jesus redefining what “food” meant to his audience and changing the rules he was going to be “perfectly obedient to” mid-ministry. There is an argument to be made that this is a shadow of the full truth that will be revealed later, but that would be the furthest I think one could reasonably defend.
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
Great feedback, retro-orthodox. Thank you. I didn't take it as harsh at all. I think we too often anachronistically apply our modern Western ideas of legal contracts and precise time to the ancient Near Eastern text of the Bible. Scripture shows that God deals with us in liminal states and progressive revelation. Perhaps the most blatant example is the “already but not yet” nature of the kingdom. Some passages indicate it's already here (Matt. 3:2, 12:28; Luke 10:9, etc.). Others indicate it is yet to come (Matt. 5:19; John 18:36, etc.) So there is this idea of a progressive introduction to the kingdom, It has been introduced, but it's not fully here yet. Another example: Jesus told the Samaritan woman, “Believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father... the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.” (John‬ ‭4‬:‭21, ‭23‬) So is the hour coming? Or is it now here? Was Jesus teaching that people no longer need to worship at the temple in Jerusalem _before His resurrection?_ So for Jesus to give a teaching to the Pharisees in Mark 7, which the author of the Gospel of Mark would summarize _decades later_ by saying "Thus he declared all foods clean," does not (for me) present a timing problem with the covenants. Especially when considered within the context of the ancient Near Eastern authors of the Bible. Blessings, Rob
@jimharmon2300
@jimharmon2300 10 месяцев назад
Isaiah 65:4 (KJV) Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable [things is in] their vessels; Isaiah 66:17 (KJV) They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one [tree] in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD. You are in error .
@genevawilkerson4245
@genevawilkerson4245 Год назад
What is food? Jesus would not define a pig as food.
@billyhw5492
@billyhw5492 Год назад
So unclean food is not food? Please lament the 19th Amendment with me.
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
The Torah commanded that, for Israel, some food was ritually clean, and other food was ritually unclean. But all of it is food. Sojourners and foreigners could eat the unclean food, but the Israelites were not allowed to do so. "“You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God." (Deut 14:21) RLS
@sundownsam3369
@sundownsam3369 Год назад
Robert Solberg You forgot to add two things: 1) If a foreigner joined Israel, if I may put it that way, they would have had to follow God's law. 2) Those who were not God's people were Gentiles; God did not give them the law. Oops, I continue to forget that you are a theologian. Why were the Jews to be a light to the Gentiles? I forgot that you would not respond to my post.
@Gigi2four
@Gigi2four Год назад
@@sundownsam3369since God did not give Gentiles the law, WE certainly don’t need to be insisting that they keep it. We are not to become Jews, but to remain as we are. The Holy Spirit convicts us of our sins and His law is written on our hearts. It is argued that this is a future tense thing, but I disagree Since the Jews (for the most part) totally and vehemently refused Jesus, He then offered salvation to all.
@Gr8motives
@Gr8motives 7 месяцев назад
I see where you are coming from especially when youbwent from the older text. you said it translates too Jesus made all foods clean, but werent they talking about dirty hamds make their clean food unclean. I would believe that a conversation between a group of jews the unclean animals were never considered food.
@m.h.1806
@m.h.1806 Год назад
Thank you I was confused about the unclean food. I understand now.. but lol! I don't eat pork anyway 😂
@ChrisMusante
@ChrisMusante Год назад
The difference between HOLY or NOT is as easy as what one is willing to 'accept'. Use Joseph and Job as examples.
@edwardmiessner6502
@edwardmiessner6502 9 месяцев назад
You realize that the anti-missionary rabbis like Rabbi Tovia Singer, Rabbi Michael Skobac, and Rabbi Stuart Federow are going to have a field day with this, demonstrating that Jesus was an apostate! And you know what Deuteronomy 13:1-12 commanded the people of Israel on how to deal with apostates. Second, Matthew 15:1-20 which is slightly different from Mark 7:1-23 in that Matthew clearly states that it's not about eating the flesh of unclean animals but about eating with uneashed hands only. So Matthew's Jesus is not apostate he's just being stupid because washing one's hands before they eat, and washing dishes, cups, utensils, kettles, pots, and pans is just good hygiene because then they won't get food poisoning or ingest their own human solid waste if they've done the number 2. Then there's Acts 10:9-16 where Peter was shown all manner of unclean animals on a large sheet or carpet and a voice commands Peter to kill and eat. Peter objects, saying that nothing unclean or common has ever passed his lips. Obviously he didn't get what Jesus meant in Mark 7 despite being right there! And later on he still doesn't get it---after he has the Centurion Cornelius and his household baptized (Acts 10:17-49), he is called on the carpet by his brethren and he relates the vision of the animals and the moral of the vision he received (Acts 10:28, 11:1-18). And the moral of the vision is that he is to call no _person_ unclean or common and he confirms it by recounting how Cornelius and his house came to believe, receive the holy spirit, and be baptized, and the others confirm it too by acknowledging with joy that God has granted life-giving repentance to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Besides, _the flesh of unckean animals was not meant to be food for the Israelites!_ (Lev. 11, esp. v. 46-47) So declaring all foods clean could simply be Jesus being redundant!
@billyhw5492
@billyhw5492 9 месяцев назад
Every day I thank Jesus that Tenak (sic) Talk is the most intelligent representation of modern-day Judaism on the RU-vids.
@paulwiederhold7629
@paulwiederhold7629 Год назад
Why did this not start at Mark 7:2 where I think the whole context gets established? The Pharisees Noticed Some disciples didn't Wash Their Hands before Eating = that's the context. Not that Jesus got so frustrated with them (Pharisees) that He declared all foods clean, because they have dirty hands but not dirty hearts - so eat what you want. Redonkulous.
@Lotterywinnerify
@Lotterywinnerify 8 месяцев назад
The context in no way affects what is said. Jesus used this example to illustrate a larger point about what really matters and in so doing declared all foods clean. Whether or not people understood it right away doesn’t really matter. One’s answer to a criticism need not be limited only to the immediate pressing questions especially if you believe there is a larger issue and a good opportunity to deal with it.
@paulwiederhold7629
@paulwiederhold7629 8 месяцев назад
@@Lotterywinnerify what are you saying? That Jesus said clean food; not pork, shrimp and lobster, but clean food going into your mouth with dirty hands is not what defiles you, but what comes from the heart through the mouth is what defiles you.
@Lotterywinnerify
@Lotterywinnerify 8 месяцев назад
No, what Jesus was saying is that the "Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking." @@paulwiederhold7629
@farmingbyfaith4210
@farmingbyfaith4210 Год назад
What do I care if you both have your different oral law of interpretation. You are too focused on food interpretations along with Mr Judah. Your definitions are just as divergent. You have failed theology and so does he. Why not change the discussion to show that the new testament has no definition of what a true or false prophet is.... so according to you, we cant use torah definitions for the topic because "its not in the new testament". you have just as dangerous theology as him in a completely different topic
@2HungerandThirst
@2HungerandThirst Год назад
I was working on a small project last year wherein I was cataloguing all verses in parentheses across translations. Genesis alone proves their theory very incorrect. Would they REALLY claim Genesis 14:18 isn’t true? That’s got monumental theological interpretations for later verses!!
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
_Excellent_ point, sir! RLS
@sundownsam3369
@sundownsam3369 Год назад
What is the point you are trying to make on Genesis 14:18? Please respond, thank you.
@ashersian2563
@ashersian2563 3 месяца назад
Brother Solberg you are out of context. This is not discussing clean and unclean meat at all but the traditions of the Pharesees. (Mark 7:2 KJV) And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. (Mark 7:3 KJV) For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. (Mark 7:4 KJV) And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. Also in: (Matthew 15:20 KJV) These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. Take note: Peter heard Jesus teach this, why then in Acts chapter 10 ( where you are out of context too in you other presentation) said (Acts 10:14 KJV) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. ( if all meats are already clean based on your explaination of Mark 7:19)
@dustinsicedragon
@dustinsicedragon Год назад
Can you give the link in the description to online earliest NT?
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
Here are a couple, Dustin- Codex Sinaiticus: codexsinaiticus.org/en/ Its the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Codex Vaticanus: digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209 Blessings, Rob
@Bszoza
@Bszoza 6 месяцев назад
@@TheBiblicalRoots pardon me textus receptus is better i think
@isacnoel4326
@isacnoel4326 Год назад
If Jesus declared all foods clean, then he changed Gods law. Adding or taking away from the law is sin, so you would be saying that Jesus sinned. If that's the case, then my 42 years of believing Jesus was the Messiah is wasted. I think you dont realize what's being said. Jesus was to be sinless in order to be Savior, my friend. Please reconsider your teachings. I humbly ask you. If not, we are not preaching the Jesus of the bible.
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots Год назад
Hi, Isac. I'm following the logic of your statement and agree that Jesus was our sinless savior. And yet, the Bible says that Jesus declared all foods clean. Not only in Mark 7:19, but also in Acts 10:9-16. RLS
@isacnoel4326
@isacnoel4326 Год назад
@RLSolberg Although I don't agree with your interpretation of Mark 7 and Act 10. Even if those chapters were in your favor. "Making all FOODs clean" was not in the original and if it was.... not all things are food. For example, food is what God calls food Lev 11, Duet 14. Just because we can swallow it or chew it, by no means does it make if food. We can not eat human flesh and say, "God made all meats clean." That is not considered food.
@isacnoel4326
@isacnoel4326 Год назад
@RLSolberg Also, Isaiah 65 and 65 clearly are speaking of the future, yet condemns the eating of swine flesh. So either God changed(which would be unfare to those who lived prior to Jesus) or we are misinterpreting Jesus and Paul.
@luiscajigas5567
@luiscajigas5567 Год назад
this is the interpretation for Greek Manuscribe for Mark 7:19 in the codex Saniaticus, first the Greek (ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ’ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;) now the Englisth (because it does not penetrate into the heart but into the belly, and it comes out into the reservoir, do they cleanse all the odors?) so your understanding in the Greek does not give you the liberity to add to scriptures., For you all out there listening to this video go check it out for yourself, and you will find out that this theologian is deceiving you once again on shabbath.
@humblejoes3263
@humblejoes3263 9 месяцев назад
The Father only cares about your heart. He doesn’t give a whit about your diet unless you feel it makes you closer to Him. Then have at it. He sure as hell doesn’t care what you do about the elbow skin on your accoutrement. The Father is never petty. There’s enough real issues to deal with. Try Mat 5:21-22 then just stop.
@jorgenjohnson2168
@jorgenjohnson2168 8 месяцев назад
is human meat ok to eat?
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots 8 месяцев назад
I'm always cared when someone asks that question. I hope its not because you're making dinner plans. ;-) RLS
@boltingpuppies
@boltingpuppies Год назад
Eating unclean animals is defiling yourself (beginning at 17:48). For some reason you think unclean animals = food. This is not so. Unclean animals are not food. Jesus did not wash himself (according to the ceremonial washings required by the Jews) before eating in Luke 11 and Jesus' disciples did not wash themselves (according to the ceremonial washings required by the Jews) in Acts 15. Unclean animals are not food. FOOD is cleaned by the body and everything on it that is not food goes out into the toilette. All FOOD is clean. Scripture defines what food is. Isaiah says the Lord will destroy those eating swine's flesh, rats, and the abomination (other unclean animals like shrimp, lobster, camel, dog, cat, etc.) when he comes in flaming fire (2nd coming). They will meet their end altogether. Abraham *believed* God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness. God told Noah and those on the ark which animals were clean and unclean. If we truly *believe God* then those animals are unclean. Why would we eat them? Isaiah says those who do eat them will be destroyed when the Lord comes in flaming fire.
@kiruiandrew1
@kiruiandrew1 Год назад
You reasoning is as mine, Professor take the words as saying, "BY THIS YESHUA DECLARED ALL ANIMALS CLEAN".
@georgenassif5777
@georgenassif5777 Месяц назад
I'm confused. My question is that I understand that Jesus was primarily referring to eating food with unwashed hands in Mark 7 but why wouldn't he have said directly that stuff eaten with unclean hands does not defile you (which I understand is part of the lesson) rather than saying "Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated" thus implying that whatever that whatever would enter someone's stomach cannot defile them? Also, in Acts 10 Peter is rebuked by God for not eating the animals on the sheet because they were unclean and God said they were now clean. In Acts 10 Peter's understanding of it led him to accept gentiles which is one clear interpretation but why would God tell him to "kill and eat" the animals in the first place instead of just using people in the vision if it was only about gentiles. My understanding is that Peter was stubborn and that's why he came out of the vision with only one interpretation or moral (which was vastly more important than the food moral I understand). Peter denied Christ three times after Christ's crucifixion just like Jesus predicted even though Jesus taught people to never deny him. The exchange between God and him happened three more times until the sheet was taken into heaven. Also what about 1 timothy 4:4-5 or Romans 14:14?
@boltingpuppies
@boltingpuppies Месяц назад
@@georgenassif5777 You've asked several good questions. I'll try to be brief. I'll answer in separate posts. 1st post *Discussing Mark 7* The Jews _ritually_ washed their cups, bowls, hands, bodies etc. before eating. This was a ritual *they* made up. Jesus was saying two things. First, anything on the hands (in this case) that got on the food (food is defined in Leviticus) would go into the body and then out into the toilette. The body takes what it needs from the food (cleans the food) and puts the rest of it out into the toilette. *Second, Jesus was highlighting something even more important.* Something (like physical dirt on your hands) that goes into your stomach isn't what defiles you (isn't what makes you unclean). What _really_ makes a person unclean is what comes out of the person (what's in the person's heart). Sins like murder, adultery, fornication, theft, etc. start in our hearts and then manifest into actual sins when we commit them. We lust after someone in our heart _and then_ wind up committing adultery physically. It starts inside of us (in our heart) and then comes out of us. *That* is what makes a person truly unclean. Anything that we think or do, that is against what God said, is what _truly_ makes us unclean. Even our thoughts are unclean unless we subject them to God. 1Chronicles 28:9 "As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him wholeheartedly and with a willing mind; *for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts.* If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever. Isaiah 55:7 "Let the wicked forsake his way, *and the unrighteous man his thoughts;* Let him return to the LORD, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon."
@boltingpuppies
@boltingpuppies Месяц назад
@@georgenassif5777 2nd post *Discussing Peter in Acts 10* God did not rebuke Peter for not eating the animals on the sheet nor did God say the unclean animals were now clean. Let's look at closely at what happened and what God did say. Peter was very hungry and in a trance and saw: "and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." And a voice spoke to him again the second time, _"What God has cleansed_ you must not call common." This was done *three times.* And the object was taken up into heaven again. (Acts 10:11-16) Four corners...this is a reference in scripture that usually refers to the four corners of the earth, in other words, the whole earth. In this sheet are animals that were 'unclean' and 'common'. Peter tells God that he has never eaten anything 'common' OR 'unclean'. There are two groups of animals that we are *not* supposed to eat: 1) Animals that are born unclean...never intended to be food. Like pigs. 2) Animals that are born clean but become ritually 'common'. Like a cow. A cow is a clean animal but if it is offered to demons or dies of itself (dropped dead because of disease), or was torn by a wild animal it is no longer considered 'clean' it has become 'common'. It's not set apart for God (to be an offering) or for God's people (to eat). Peter said he had never eaten anything 'unclean' (like a pig) or common (like a clean animal that has become unclean). What was God's response? *"What God has cleansed* you must not call _common." _ No matter what you do to an unclean animal (unclean from birth, like a pig or a camel), it will _always_ be an unclean animal. God wasn't addressing that category. God was addressing the category of animals that were clean animals that had become ritually 'common'. What God has cleansed, (not just anything but what God has actually cleansed) do not call 'common'. Peter was confused and wondered what this could mean. The vision happened *three times.* That is significant. Next we read that *three men* show up. *Three gentile men* Jews considered themselves clean (because they knew the true God) and gentiles unclean because they didn't know God. Jews believed they should not even eat with 'unclean' gentiles let alone go into their house. Acts 10:17-20 "Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate. And they called and asked whether Simon, whose surname was Peter, was lodging there. *While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, **_three men_** are seeking you. Arise therefore, go down and go with them, **_doubting nothing; for I have sent them."_* Peter goes to their house and says: Acts10:28; 34-35 "Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But *God has shown me that I should not call **_any man_** common or unclean.".......Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows *no* partiality. But in *every nation* _whoever_ fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. You can read the rest of the story. Peter gives them the gospel and they eagerly receive the good news and believe in Jesus and God cleanses them (just as He cleansed believing Jews) and gave evidence that they were clean and acceptable to Him by giving them His Holy Spirit. It was very evident that God had cleansed them because His Holy Spirit was living in them. To make it totally obvious they received the gift of tongues and began praising God. The sheet vision (given three times) was representing men of every nation in the four corners of the world. We are not to call any man 'common' or 'unclean'. The person who comes to God, through Jesus, will be cleansed and acceptable to God. Acts 10:44-48 "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed *were astonished,* as many as came with Peter, *because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles **_also._* For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit *just as we have?"* And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord..." Peter retells this story when other Jews get upset that he ate with 'unclean' gentiles. Acts 11:1-18 "Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, saying, *"You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!"* But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying: "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object descending like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came to me. When I observed it intently and considered, I saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' But I said, 'Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.' But the voice answered me again from heaven, _'What God has cleansed_ you must not call common.' *Now this was done **_three times,_* and all were drawn up again into heaven. *At that very moment, **_three men_** stood before the house where I was,* having been sent to me from Caesarea. Then the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man's house. And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, 'Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, *'who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.'* And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' *If therefore God gave them the same gift as [He gave] us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"* When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, *"Then God has **_also granted to the Gentiles_** repentance to life."* We are not supposed to call any man *who God has cleansed* 'unclean' (someone who was born _never to be_ accepted) or common (someone who has sinned and will never be able to become acceptable). All men are able to be accepted by God IF thy repent and put their faith in Christ Jesus.
@boltingpuppies
@boltingpuppies Месяц назад
@@georgenassif5777 3rd post *Discussing 1 Timothy 4:4-5* I'm going to back up a couple of verses and post these scriptures. 1Timothy 4:1-5 "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, *and commanding to abstain from foods which God **_created to be received_* with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; *for it is sanctified **_by the word of God_** and prayer.* God created certain animals to be received as food and other animals not to be received as food. Nothing is to be refused because it is sanctified (set apart) by two things 1) the word of God and 2) prayer. God's word _does not_ sanctify (set apart) unclean animals as food. Leviticus 11:46-47 "This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth, *to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and **_between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten."_* Unclean animals are not sanctified as food. Now, if we go to the market place and find a clean piece of meat (like a cow) and want to eat it we can do so without asking questions. We pray over it and the prayer *sanctifies* this _food_ (this clean animal that as far as we know of was not offered to an idol and did not die of itself and was not torn by a wild animal). The prayer will make it acceptable. It is sanctified by the word of God (listed as a clean animal) and prayer (in case something has made it unacceptable that we were unaware of).
@deanbright2314
@deanbright2314 9 месяцев назад
Mr. Solberg, I appreciate your desire to defend the biblical roots. My problem with you is that you is that you ignore parts of the bible that disagree with you and hang your hat on hard-to-understand verses that. are easily twisted. Like I take all the epistles of Paul and compare them to his words and works in acts 21 and 24. where he supports the continued validity of the Old Testament. The proper understanding of the Mark 7 passage is that clean foods are not defiled by unwashed hands because any bacteria or defilement would be handled by the gastrointestinal system. This offends the pharisees because they were teaching that foods eaten with unwashed hands does defile the body. They were offended because their strongly held beliefs were challenged. Why I believe I am correct. First this maintains the validity of the Torah and keeps Jesus the spotless lamb of God instead of a law breaker. Secondly Matthew 15 Tells us that it was Peter who asked for the explanation. If it meant what you said why didn't he change the way he ate? In acts 10 he says that he never ate anything unclean or defiled (usually translated as common but the same Greek word is used in acts 10 and Mark 7). Peter also tells us to be Holy as God is Holy quoting Leviticus 11 where clean and unclean meats are given. Finally, your reading of Colossians 2 is twisted. Paul is talking to a bunch of converted gentiles who are trying to live according to what Paul taught them. They are being judged by a couple of groups. The first is pagans who the converts abandoned. Another group is Pharisees who are trying to bring them into teachings that Jesus condemned. Paul is saying don't let others judge you, I taught you how to worship keep the way. Also, Paul's use of the future tense about the shadow shows that not all has been fulfilled and according to Jesus in Matthew 5 if the Old Testament has not been fulfilled not a jot or a tittle has been taken from the law. I know your heart is for God, and I hope that He will lead and bless you as you walk to please Him.
@TheBiblicalRoots
@TheBiblicalRoots 9 месяцев назад
Thanks, Dean! But there was no concept in the first century of bacteria or the gastrointestinal system. Mankind didn't even realize that germs could be spread by unwashed hands until Ignaz Semmelweis, a 19th-century Hungarian doctor, discovered the practice of hand washing as a way to stop the spread of infection in 1847, during an experiment in a Vienna hospital's maternity ward. When the Bible talks about something being "unclean" or "defiled" it is always speaking in a ritual sense. Blessings, Rob
@achristianconvertedtochris5862
As far as this Greek goes, if the catholics were using it to start there fire. This is how little regard that they had for this. Greek, why are we using it in our bibles? Unless we're trying to figure out a way or a we can sin.
Далее
The Gnostic Gospels
1:36:42
Просмотров 716 тыс.
Поплатился за подлые удары!
01:00
Beautiful Military 🏅
00:10
Просмотров 1,2 млн
Are Christians under a New or Renewed Covenant?
35:27
Mark 2 - The Old and New Covenants
45:08
Просмотров 51 тыс.
Grafted Into What? Jews, Gentiles & Israel
33:59
Просмотров 21 тыс.
Поплатился за подлые удары!
01:00