“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!
I sit here amazed that you will completely toss out scripture and pretend that Jesus said something he didn't just so you can keep your tradition:
Mat 15:17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated?
Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,
murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."
Again, in the larger context of the whole chapter Christ was referring to the man made laws and traditions of the Pharisees.
Mat 15:3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
Does it make any sense that Christ would yell at the Pharisees about transgressing the commandment of God by their tradition and then establish a tradition that transgresses the commandment of God?
Mat 15:7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
Mat 15:8 'THESE PEOPLE DRAW NEAR TO ME WITH THEIR MOUTH, AND HONOR ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR FROM ME.
Mat 15:9 AND IN VAIN THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.' "
This has NOTHING to do with the Lord Jesus Christ's designations of clean and unnclean food. It has to do with the MANMADE TRADITIONS and MANMADE COMMANDMENTS that caused the pharisees to transgress God's laws. That caused them to harden their hearts and not practice love and compassion but to elevate their traditions above the Lord.
And this probably hits home with you because you're doing the same thing. Against all context, scripture, and the words of Christ in the Hebrew scriptures and in the new testament you would rather keep your tradition rather than obey Christ.
Again you totally lifted a verse out of context and twisted it to keep your tradition. We'll look at the quote in CONTEXT:
Heb 9:1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary.
Heb 9:2 For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary;
Heb 9:3 and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All,
Heb 9:4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;
Heb 9:5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
Heb 9:6 Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services.
Heb 9:7 But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people's sins committed in ignorance;
Heb 9:8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing.
Heb 9:9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—
Heb 9:10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
Heb 9:11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
Heb 9:12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
What are these verses about...IN CONTEXT? They're all about the sacrificial system. The tabernacle and the ordinances concerned with sacrifices.
The whole chapter is about why Christ is our perfect sacrifice so the sacrificial system is no longer needed.
The "meats and drinks" are the sacrificial meats and drinks.
The washings are the washings that had to do with the preparation for sacrifice.
what you did was take this verse out of context, rip out it's true meaning and intent, and ascribe your own intent. You made your own opinion superior over what God put down in scripture.
In a nutshell here is how you derive your theology. You pick verses out of the bible and remove them from entire context in which they were presented and taught. You then make up pretend philosophies and attempt to prove them by taking these verses and applying them. This works and has worked, but only on those who are ignorant of scripture. Those who don't bother to read or study for themselves.
This is a perfect description for our time:
2Ti_4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
2Ti 4:4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
This is also a perfect description of today:
Eze_22:26 Her priests have violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.
Jesus Christ followed the sabbath law that he created perfectly. He did NOT follow the sabbath laws as DEFINED and ADDED to by the Pharisees.
You quote two veses from Exodus 16 and matthew 12 to "prove" that the Lord God violated his sabbath which he made holy in the beginning:
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
Gen 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
Your first clue that you're completely wrong is that YOU'RE on the side of the Pharisees...you're right next to them, yelling at Jesus that he violated the sabbath law.
You presume to tell God almighty, the Lord of the sabbath, WHAT the sabbath law is.
That alone should have made you study the issue a little more before you posted this nonsense. Jesus had not much good to say about the Pharisees. They were grossly in error in their doctrine and had violated the Lord's written laws in order to keep their traditions. That should make you pause and think...gee....why am I agreeing with the Pharisees and accusing Christ?
In context Exodus 16 actually affirms the sabbath...it was given as a reminder to Israel that the sabbath was created holy in the beginning and they should honor it. And this was done BEFORE Israel got to Mt. Sinai and the formation of the old covenant. In other words, the sabbath stands outside of the old covenant. At least according to God.
I shouldn't have to read or quote the entire chapter to for you or anyone else to see the verses in context.
You then quote Matthew 12:1 to presumably "prove" that Exodus 16:1 applies to matthew 12:1. Obviously not but of course you made the same mistakes the pharisses made. You think you know better than the Lord how his sabbath should be kept.
There's nothing wrong with what Jesus did on the sabbath with his disciples. The pharisees DEFINED it as being wrong. They may have though it violated exodus 16, but they also thought it violated commmandments about working on the sabbath because they considered these actions as "harvesting". They had hundreds of micro-managed rules about what could or could not be done on the sabbath. They made the sabbath a burden instead of a delight as the Lord intended:
Isa_58:13 "If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on My holy day, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the LORD honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words,
You have no explain so you quote the opinion of someone else who has no explanation but a pretend one.
Tnat's pretty amusing. Gee...we can't figure out why holy scripture says that Paul, a Pharisee of Pharisees, who was told in scripture to keep the feasts of the Lord, who followed the example of his Lord Jesus Christ who kept his feast, who specifically told his congregation to "keep the feast" (1 Cor 5:8)....we just can't figure out why he would go to a feast in Jerusalem!
I know...let's make something up! He was going to go meet his friends...yeah, that's the ticket. And to preach the gospel...yeah, that sounds good.
This verse appears in the oldest of the greek manuscripts and then wonders of wonders, Jerome removes it from the Latin Vulgate when he translates it in the 4th century.
It took (and takes) a tremendous amount of twisting, deception, denigration and obscuring to hide the holy days of the Lord Jesus Christ from the consciousness of Christians. But the truth will always win in the end.
Paul doesn't entirely "spiritualize" it. As a partly physical/partly spiritual people God knows that we can benefit and use physical things to learn spiritual lessons. During this time Paul rightly recognizes that leaven represents sin. By avoiding leavening during the feast of unleavened bread is a yearly reminder that we are to avoid sin...which will "puff us up" in pride.
Here's some references for further study:
Hebrew Roots-The Feast of Unleavened Bread
The Feast of Unleavened Bread-Replacing Sin with the Bread of Life
And if you ACTUALLY do observe the feast as Christ said we should and as Paul told his gentile congregations that they should...then welcome to the party pal.