This had nothing to do with clean or unclean food. It had to do with ritual washings:
Mat 15:1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying,
Mat 15:2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."
Jesus was condemning the ritualistic, non-biblical practices and traditions of the scribes and Pharisees. His point was that if you're worried that a little speck of dirt or something else is going to make you "unclean" then don't worry about it..that little speck is going to come out when you go the bathroom.
You're suggesting, again based ONLY on warped view of this through the prism of tradition, that Christ was saying it's okay to eat pork. This is ridiculous since scripture SHOWS what he was talking about, hand washing. And IF he was suggesting they could eat pork then the scribes and Pharisees had him....he was NOT God or God's prophet because he was specifically violating a law of God. But they didn't do or say anything like that because it's not what Jesus meant and it's not what they understood.
“This had nothing to do with clean or unclean food. It had to do with ritual washings:”
As a matter of language, it must encompass not only ritual washings, but everything that enters a man:
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
And it reads just as explicitly in its parallels:
Mar 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.
Mat 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?
All the carnal ordinances, whether it be in washing or meats and drinks, I will add, were only imposed on us until the time of reformation:
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
“His point was that if you’re worried that a little speck of dirt or something else is going to make you “unclean” then don’t worry about it..that little speck is going to come out when you go the bathroom.”
I can’t help but to notice that your interpretation of Jesus is superficial. His purpose was not merely to say “it’ll come out of you anyway,” but to show that what actually defiles a man is what COMES OUT OF HIM, that is, his heart:
Mat 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?
Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
This is a revolution to the entire Old Testament system, which regards all ritual uncleanliness as coming from without a man. This sort of message is absolutely hostile to the UCG, since what goes into you really CAN leave you defiled.
“And IF he was suggesting they could eat pork then the scribes and Pharisees had him....he was NOT God or God’s prophet because he was specifically violating a law of God.”
But Jesus did all KINDS of things that would have accounted Him unclean under the law. For example, one must not touch a leper:
(Mat 8:2) And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
(Mat 8:3) And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
Nor did He follow the Sabbath according to the Law, but did as He pleased, since He is ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ too:
Exo 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
Exo 16:30 So the people rested on the seventh day.
Compare:
Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
“Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.”
(Mat 12:5-8)
Such even the Jews confess:
R. David Kimchi in Josh. vi. 11:
““the day on which Jericho was taken was the sabbath day; and that though they slew and burnt on the sabbath day, “he that commanded the observation of the sabbath, commanded the profanation of it”.’’
“You would do well to learn the difference between “koinos” and “akathartos”. The word translated “unclean” here in Roman 14 is “koinos”...ritually unclean....It means that...something normally clean that is made koinos, or common, by association with something akathartos, inherently unclean.”
From the former Worldwide Church of God, now with a new name and a new mission after renouncing the teachings of Armstrong:
“The Louw and Nida lexicon lists koinos as a synonym of akathartos, saying: “It is possible that there is some subtle distinction in meaning, particularly on a connotative level, between koinos and akathartos in Ac 10.14, but it is difficult to determine the precise differences of meaning on the basis of existing contexts. The two terms are probably used in Ac 10.14 primarily for the sake of emphasis.”
http://www.gci.org/law/unclean
Compare Thayer’s definitions:
“Thayer’s Definition
not cleansed, unclean
in a ceremonial sense: that which must be abstained from according to the levitical law
in a moral sense: unclean in thought and life”
Thayer’s Definition
common i.e. ordinary, belonging to generality
by the Jews, unhallowed, profane, Levitically unclean
I’ll also add, if Akathartos means “inherently unclean,” then that means that children without a Christian parent can be “inherently unclean”:
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean (akathartos); but now are they holy.
This verse uses the same word:
Ephesians 5:5
For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Yet, an “unclean” person, whom you say is inherently clean, can be sanctified and washed by God. The same is true of “every creature,” provided it is “received with thanksgiving”:
1 Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
Notice that “every creature” can be cleansed, provided it is received in thanksgiving, BECAUSE “it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”
If something that is “akathartos” cannot be sanctified by the word of God and prayer, then there will be many people out there who will forever be damned.
“Again, there are specific greek words used to denote the holy days of God.”
“Again,” is just a repetition, and utterly boring, and soon I’ll probably stop responding to you entirely, as I know how these things degenerate. It does not reply to anything I wrote. You are also still ignoring the other verses I presented, and are still refusing to explain what this chapter even means, if anything. Just claiming that Paul should hve used this word or that word, doesn’t explain the words that are there.
“1Co_5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast [HEORTAZO), not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”
I will happily keep the feast with unleavened bread of SINCERITY AND TRUTH, as opposed to actual unleavened bread, as your religion demands. Paul also entirely spiritualizes the Passover, applying it wholly to the person of Christ. From verse 7:
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
This verse is fatal to your religion, as the Passover, one of six feasts you claim we are obligated to obey in order to join the Godhead, is to be literally enjoined, not spiritually fulfilled in Christ.
“Act_18:21 but took leave of them, saying, “I must by all means keep this coming feast[HEORTE] in Jerusalem; but I will return again to you, God willing.” And he sailed from Ephesus.
Who to believe? Paul and Jesus Christ...”
From Clarke’s commentary:
I must - keep this feast - Most likely the passover, at which he wished to attend for the purpose of seeing many of his friends, and having the most favorable opportunity to preach the Gospel to thousands who would attend at Jerusalem on that occasion. The whole of this clause, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem, is wanting in ABE, six others; with the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Vulgate. Griesbach leaves it in the text, with the mark of doubtfulness; and Professor White, in his Crisews, says, probabiliter delenda. Without this clause the verse will read thus: But he bade them farewell, saying, I will return again unto you, if God will. And this he did before the expiration of that same year, Acts 19:1, and spent three years with them, Acts 20:31, extending and establishing the Church at that place.
By the way, I’ll believe in Paul and Jesus Christ, and you are free to believe in whatever you like.
“or some guy who looks at a scripture, lifts it out of context, and applies a 21st century belief to a 1st century situation?”
Remember though, both Ignatius and Polycarp were men of the 1st century, dying early into the second. And they were both with me. Not with you. And so does 2,000 years of Christianity. That’s really the only thing “Ecumenical” about this whole thread!