Posted on 07/03/2025 5:38:42 PM PDT by Angelino97
——>We know from Mark 7 that Jesus made all foods clean.
“The food was “clean” irrespective of whether the eater had or had not performed the prescribed ritual washings. This was the very point at issue (see on v. 2).”
The food they ate, ALL FOOD, but not including Levitical unclean flesh, which they would never have eaten, was made UNCLEAN by the fact that they didn’t perform ritual washings first.
Christ is saying a little dust on your hands transferred to your food is no big deal. It goes through the digestive system and out into the draught (toilet) THEREBY DECLARING ALL FOODS CLEAN.
Mark 7 is saying the Jews claimed all food was UNCLEAN FROM DUST unless the hands were ritually washed, etc… Jewish tradition vs the commandment of God.
Mark 7 has absolutely nothing to do with the Levitical dietary laws. How do you go from dust on the hands to 2500+ years of the Levitical dietary laws gone?
Don’t know what y’all talking about, but bacon is AWESOME!
A lot of people say the same thing about fornication and homosexuality.
——>Don’t know what y’all talking about...
Nothing for you to worry yourself about. It’s only about salvation vs eternal death. Have a great day.
But isn't this the basis of Protestantism? (You interpret Scripture the way you want to, which means you can't point fingers at someone who doesn't interpret it the way you do, and somehow,we're both right?) 🙄
You can open this question up to a hundred people here, and you will get a hundred and one different answers as to how these passages should be interpreted.
But because you have rejected the one body that has authority on the topic, you have no authority to claim your opinion here is more correct than anyone else's is.
Bacon = eternal death? Interesting.
Authority? You are more than welcome to believe anything you want. All I’m doing is giving my opinion with evidence FROM THE BIBLE. Take it or leave it. I don’t care. Your salvation is your business, not mine.
And yes, I reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and their cup of abominations.
Are non-repentant fornicators and homosexuals going to be in heaven?
I don't know. I'm not God. Apparently you think you are.
Also, nobody thinks eating bacon = faggotry, unless you're an ill informed faggot. Which you are. So reflect your question. If you are capable of doing so.
But so am I. What makes your opinion more valid than mine?
I mean, if Protestantism allows one to be his or her own pope, then another opinion is just as infallible as your opinion is, even if it's the complete opposite.
——>Also, nobody thinks eating bacon = faggotry, unless you’re an ill informed faggot.
All three are sins against the body and defile the temple of God. Eating unclean meat and homosexuality are both called abominations. Nothing unclean will enter heaven. Sounds like you’re the one who’s ill-informed.
——>What makes your opinion more valid than mine?
You focus on one statement, without considering WHY Mark said it and what it means. You don’t let the bible explain itself. I do. You also totally ignore the subject matter being discussed by Christ, which has absolutely nothing to do with the consumption of unclean flesh, designated by preincarnate Christ himself, in Leviticus. Matthew records the same event as in Mark 7. No mention of doing away with the dietary law that had been in existence for 2500+ years. In Acts 10, Peter had never heard of such a thing and doubted in himself what the vision could mean. Also, do you hear one peep from the Jews, accusing Christ of changing the Torah? Nope.
Christ talks about Jewish tradition/ritual/ceremonial washing of dust from the hands before eating, which the Jews claimed defiled a person, making them UNCLEAN. You associate the statement of Mark to then mean that the dietary laws of clean and unclean flesh, in existence for 2500+ years, was abolished, then and there.
Leviticus clearly states that eating unclean flesh is an abomination and detestable. And that it does defile your body. It makes you UNHOLY. God gave a specific command to not eat these things. Not washing your hands before eating/Jewish tradition has nothing to do with that. The digestive system will take care of that per Christ. It won’t take care of disobeying a direct commandment of God.
I could go on, because there are more texts to discuss and Greek word meanings, etc... But your whole argument rests on Mark 7:19, one text from the entire bible, and the “authority” of the Catholic church.
——>I mean, if Protestantism allows one to be his or her own pope, then another opinion is just as infallible as your opinion is, even if it’s the complete opposite.
Your church claims to have the authority to speak for God, forgive sins, and change His law. That alone makes any opinion coming from them an abomination, antichrist, and invalid.
Then you're not getting in. You are unclean.
Vespa, your Seventh Day Adventist non Christian cult was founded by a false prophetess, Ellen G White who had numerous failed prophecies. This makes her and the Adventist cult as Luciferan
White’s 1844 claim contradicts Hebrews 9:12. How do you test her visions against Scripture (Acts 17:11)?
I wouldn’t be so quick to judge if I were you. Either way, we’ll know soon enough.
I would note that the Judaism of today and Christianity are sister religions derived from the root that is 2nd temple Judaism.
2nd temple Judaism had many sects
1. sadduccees who kept only the Pentateuch and rejected everything else
2. Pharisees who had the entire what we call the Old testament plus the oral torah (which was discussed and written down in the 9th century as the Talmud)
3. Jesus movement Jews who had the additional Gospel and NT writings.
When the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, all the sects except Jesus movement , were destroyed as they were intrinsically tied to the temple.
Then, Rabbi Yohannan Ben Zakkai, a Pharisees scholar, created rabbinical Judaism by rejecting the Septuagint (as that was used by the Jesus movement), replacing temple-priests-animal sacrifice with synagogue rabbi and todah.
So they aren’t quite the same as 2nd temple Judaism, which itself was quite diverse.
Vespa, you wrote “In the final analysis, one will either side with the papacy and keep Sunday....or with the Seventh day Adventist message and keep the Bible Sabbath. In the end there will be no other option. The Mark of the Beast will concern God’s law. Just as a decree issued in Daniel’s day concerned God’s law. Daniel 6:5”
Your Adventist claim hinges on a narrow interpretation that Sunday worship equals the “Mark of the Beast” and aligns with the papacy, while only the seventh-day Sabbath is biblical. That’s a bold leap, but it doesn’t hold up. Colossians 2:16-17 clearly states that Sabbaths are shadows fulfilled in Christ, our true rest. Romans 14:5-6 allows believers freedom in choosing worship days—no mandate for Saturday only. The “Mark of the Beast” in Revelation 13 is about loyalty to anti-God systems, not a specific day. Your Daniel 6:5 reference? It’s about Daniel’s faithfulness, not a prophecy of Sunday laws. Forcing a Saturday-or-papacy binary ignores Scripture’s broader context and Christ’s unifying work
Vespa, you wrote “In the final analysis, one will either side with the papacy and keep Sunday....or with the Seventh day Adventist message and keep the Bible Sabbath. In the end there will be no other option. The Mark of the Beast will concern God’s law. Just as a decree issued in Daniel’s day concerned God’s law. Daniel 6:5”
Your argument is a tangled mess of half-truths and Adventist dogma that doesn’t survive scrutiny. Let’s cut through it.
You claim Catholics teach all Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath, but then say they swapped the seventh day for Sunday by papal authority. Fine, let’s follow your logic: if the papacy’s change is unbiblical, why trust their Catechism at all? You can’t cherry-pick their teachings to prop up your Sabbath obsession while condemning their authority. That’s inconsistent.
Your “dual covenant heresy” jab at evangelicals is a caricature. Nobody serious says the Old Testament is pure law and the New Testament is pure grace. The Bible’s clear: the law points to Christ, who fulfills it (Matthew 5:17-18). Galatians 3:24-25 says the law was a guardian until Christ came—now we’re under Him, not Mosaic rituals. Colossians 2:16-17 explicitly calls Sabbaths shadows of Christ, not eternal mandates. Romans 14:5-6 gives freedom on worship days. Where’s your verse demanding Saturday worship for New Testament believers? You don’t have one.
Your snark about stealing cars or adultery misses the mark. Moral principles like “don’t steal” or “don’t commit adultery” are reiterated in the New Testament (Ephesians 4:28, Hebrews 13:4) as part of Christ’s ethic, not because we’re bound to the Ten Commandments as a legal code. The Sabbath, though, isn’t commanded for Christians in the New Covenant—show me where it is. You can’t.
Your “Mark of the Beast” claim is recycled Adventist fearmongering. Revelation 13 ties the Mark to worshiping the beast, not picking a worship day. Daniel 6:5 is about Daniel’s prayer, not a Sabbath decree—stop twisting it to fit your end-times fan fiction. Genesis 2:1-2 and Mark 2:27 show the Sabbath’s creation and purpose, sure, but they don’t mandate its observance over Sunday or any day for Christians. Hebrews 4:9-11 says our rest is in Christ, not a calendar day.
You insist it’s papacy/Sunday or Adventist/Sabbath, as if God’s holiness hinges on your day-planner. That’s not biblical—it’s legalism dressed up as piety. God’s not checking your calendar; He’s looking at your heart (John 4:23-24). If you want to cling to Saturday, go ahead, but don’t pretend it’s the only way to honor God. Prove your case with clear New Testament commands, not Ellen White’s talking points. I’m waiting.
Your claim that “no law = no sin” oversimplifies and distorts biblical truth. Yes, 1 John 3:4 says sin is lawlessness, and Romans 7:7 shows the law reveals sin. But your fixation on the Law—presumably the Ten Commandments, with the Sabbath as the centerpiece—misses the bigger picture. The Law condemns, as you admit, but it’s not the eternal yardstick you make it out to be. Galatians 3:19-25 says the Law was temporary, a guardian until Christ, who fulfills it (Matthew 5:17). Sin isn’t defined solely by the Mosaic code; it’s rebellion against God’s will, exposed by the Spirit and Scripture (John 16:8-9, Romans 2:14-15).
You say the world ignores the Law, and God records all. Sure, God sees everything (Hebrews 4:13). But you’re implying the Sabbath is the ultimate test, as if God’s judgment hinges on a day. Where’s the New Testament command for Christians to keep the seventh-day Sabbath? You won’t find it. Colossians 2:16-17 calls Sabbaths shadows of Christ, our true rest. Romans 14:5-6 gives freedom on worship days. Your legalism elevates a ritual over faith in Christ, who alone saves (Ephesians 2:8-9).
If the Law defines sin but can’t save, why cling to it over the One who does?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.