A rebuttal to David Wilber about the Torah food laws and Mark 7
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 07. 2024
- Mark 7:19 ends with the phrase "Thus he declared all food clean." And this passage is a source of great controversy for our Hebrew Roots (aka Torah observant, pronomian) friends. David Wilber (of 119 Ministries) recently put out a video in which offers four reasons the traditional Christian reading of Mark 7:1-23 is wrong. And he also offers his own very interesting alternate interpretation. Let's check it out!
LINK TO DAVID'S FULL VIDEO
Did Jesus reject the Torah's dietary laws? (Mark 7:1-23)
• Did Jesus reject the T...
SCHOLARSHIP
In David’s video, he cited several scholars in support of his alternate interpretation of Mark 7:19. For those interested in scholarship on this issue, here are eight quotes from scholars who support the conclusion that Mark 7:19 teaches that Jesus’ teaching in this passage had the Torah’s kosher food laws in view.
rlsolberg.com/Mark7Scholarshi...
00:00 Open
00:48 A quick overview of Mark 7:1-23: the New Covenant, the Torah, and the kosher (kashrut) foods laws
06:05 David's point #1 Hypocrisy
09:59 David's point #2 Hand washing
11:29 David's point #3 Ambiguity
13:18 David's point #4 Continuity
16:27 David's alternate interpretation of Mark 7:19
Subtítulos disponibles en español
Marcos 7:19 termina con la frase "Así declaró limpio todo alimento". Y este pasaje es una fuente de gran controversia para nuestros amigos de las raíces hebreas (también conocidas como observantes de la Torá, pronomian). David Wilber (de 119 Ministries) publicó recientemente un video en el que ofrece cuatro razones por las que la lectura cristiana tradicional de Marcos 7:1-23 es incorrecta. Y también ofrece su propia interpretación alternativa muy interesante. ¡Vamos a ver!
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS CHANNEL:
czcams.com/users/RLSolberg?s...
FACEBOOK:
/ authorrlsolberg
MY WEBSITE:
www.RLSolberg.com
For the "crappy" theory, one only need to Ezk 4:14, where after being told to cook his bread over human excrement, Ezekiel balks at the idea because he had never defiled himself. This theory holds zero water.
Interesting point, Eric. Thanks!
Yoar shore ore WRITE!! The L-RD said, ZEKE!! YORE THEORY HOLDS ZERO WATER!!
Ezekiel. 22:26 Her priests have violated My law, and have profaned Mine holy things: they put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from My sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.
Question on Mark 7:19. You are convinced that the last few words are a summary statement from the writer. But, this wording is much different in the KJV, and in the Greek interlinear, at least the one I have. Why are you so confident in the modern translations. Is this a question of the original texts used? Is there other evidence supporting the new wording? Thanks.
Hello pastor ilove u so much.. Ihave question about what enters stomak does it mean we can swollow poison then we still safe?
Hello, Jaber. No, of course, Jesus isn't teaching about swallowing poison. He's talking about what makes a person unclean, not unhealthy! Blessings, RLS
@@TheBiblicalRoots unclean animala are not healthy. Check out swine and crustaceans are very unhealthy.
Thanks for this ongoing discussion with David on this topic. It's very helpful. I agree with both of you that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. So, I don't think the most important question is, what is required. I think the most important question is, what is most pleasing to the Lord we love. Again, I'll bet you and David agree. :)
if I can ask, are Christians free to eat anything including snakes?
You will not find one verse in the NT that says those laws are abolished.
The ceremonies of the sanctuary and priesthood are gone but the food laws are not ceremonial.
I have been studying the subject for a few weeks and have written a 9 pages study on it and have read numerous theological papers on the subject. The food laws are in the same category as the prohibition of homosexual lifestyle.
Thanks, Mike. Might I suggest, as part of your studies, taking a look at our 2-part video series called "Clean and Unclean"? In it, I make the case from Scripture that the kosher food laws no longer apply. I'd love to hear your take on it.
*Clean & Unclean Foods (Part 1 of 2)* czcams.com/video/UrhflvHknys/video.html
*Clean & Unclean Foods (Part 2 of 2)* czcams.com/video/RIZyCg-KVyI/video.html
Blessings, Rob
So after the resurrection, is the OT law ever emphasized or advocated for? It seems to me that: the moral law yes, dietary and feasts and such, no. Am I wrong about that?
I agree, Jesse.
@@justinbutcher44 How could you possibly read Galatians and think that St. Paul was preaching circumcision?
@@billyhw5492 R. L. is a master Scripture twister like Satan. He says Torah people teach its required to eat clean FALSE, God says IF we love HIM we WILL keep HIS commandments. R. L. or Rob is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
@@justinbutcher44
1 Cor... Not with the old leaven? The whole thing sounds very figurative to me... And are you doing what all Hebrew Roots followers do and equivocating on the meaning of the term 'law'?
@@justinbutcher44
No kidding! But that does not answer my question, does it?
Just watching through this, and have two comments so far.
1st you quote Ezekiel 36:26, but miss out verse 27 which gives context.
“And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.”
2nd you quote Mark 7:19b “in saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean” yet this part of the verse, is not found in all manuscripts and is more lily to be a scribe note added to the text at a later date.
But even if you disagree, it’s probably not wise to make doctrinal arguments based on contested verses. I would also say they context is about contaminating the food, rather then what food can be eaten.
Thanks, Scott. That's a good point about Ezekiel 36:27. Regarding Mark 7:19b, that text _is_ found in all manuscripts and is not highly contested. (Except by Torah-observant Christians, of course.) Shalom, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots
Unless of course we examine english translations of the greek texts prior to 1899!
The English those words (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) in Mark 7:19 are not found...
If we examine texts prior to 1899, we find this to be true.
What you will find quote to this example: " **Purifying all the meat** "
When You read this correctly you will notice no quote of (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
But the question should be which meat is Jesus talking about?
As for which meat?
Leviticus 11. If something isn’t BIBLICALLY CLEAN, then IT CANNOT BE FOOD; BEING CLEAN IS A REQUIREMENT FOR SOMETHING TO BE CONSIDERED FOOD. This is a point often ignored; NOT ALL THINGS ARE FOOD.
@@TheBiblicalRoots a worthwhile read is R Baruch PhD,s paper on this that looks at the Greek and compares the variants between manuscripts as well as the translations. It’s a short read, on a few pages. I’ve left the link below
static1.squarespace.com/static/563e5221e4b0030ce71a3a9b/t/5653501ce4b0beee37744978/1448300572733/What+Yeshua+Did+Not+Say.pdf
@@johanneangers2 You really should not define the meaning of a word in one verse using a completely different context in a completely different book of Scripture as if they were connected (other than of course both being God's word). In doing so you can pretty much prove anything using this method.
@@johanneangers2 czcams.com/users/shortsGUA3q7uS87s?si=v5Ypt_KV11gry1P2
There are some who not believe the sentence should be included in Mark 7:19. They reason the sentence was not originally in the gospel of Mark. This is significant since one very important principle of biblical interpretation is that we should not base any doctrine or teaching on an uncertain reading. Words and verses are uncertain when there is insufficient manuscript evidence to support their inclusion in the Bible. Those who claim that “Thus He declared all foods clean” should not be in Mark 7:19 argue that a copyist inserted the verse. They claim the best and oldest manuscripts of the gospel of Mark do not contain the verse. Therefore, they say Jesus never taught that we can eat any food that we desire. The implication is that we must still keep the Mosaic food laws prescribed in Leviticus 11:1-47 and Deuteronomy 14:1-21. In these passages God told the nation of Israel that some animals were unclean and some were clean. They could not eat the unclean animals. Therefore, our question is: should “Thus He declared all foods clean.” be included in Mark 7:19
Even the passage in Marc 7:19 “purging all meats” is a later addition. Meaning Jesus never said it.
Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught,
purging all meats?
Thanks, Frans! In this video I explained that Jesus did not utter the words, "thus he declared all foods clean." That was a summary statement added by the author of this gospel. What I didn't mention is that phrase was not a later edition, but is actually found in our earliest manuscripts. Blessings, Rob
Rob, how many of “earliest manuscripts” contain this phrase, and which “manuscripts”?
Something I learned over the years wrestling, boxing, and practicing various martial arts..
There are people who talk and theorize alot and there are people who bust tail sweating, bleeding, and enduring rudimentary training
Guess who ends up winning their fights?
The latter win the fights, the former become coaches.
@@TheBiblicalRoots So if Nothing that enters us defiles us then that means, Meth, Heroin, Marijuana, LSD, Cocaine, Fentanyl, and even human flesh doesn't defile us..... LETS PARTY DUDE !!
Iam with David on this one.
The content of Mark is not clean and unclean meat/food but some added law.
On Rob Key point on Yahshua purging all meat, did Yahshua made that statement or it is translators opinion?
Check the earlier manuscripts
Hi Rob,
I have 3 questions
1)If we have a new heart now, today, why do we have different laws written on our hearts? Why do some Christians think it's okay to be gay?
2) If Jesus did not say He declared all food clean, and its any an assumption, could Mark not be mistaken?
3) Please show me a Bible translation older than 100 years with the verse,
"Then Jesus declared all food clean"
Here is the dilemma for HRM:
"For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." - Gal. 5:3 KJV
" For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." - James 2:10 KJV
@@John3.36 Have you ever sinned?
@@alexblack6634 I don't claim to keep the law.
@@John3.36 okay so never sinned and are never going to sin?
1Jn 1:10 KJV If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1Jn 1:8 KJV If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
So I'll ask again, have you ever sinned? Yes or no
@@alexblack6634 I never claimed what Torah keepers claim. I am under grace not the law.
Explain what Isaiah Chapter 66 verses 15,16, & 17 mean!!
Amen. I know Yah is not a Liar.
Brother Rob, I so appreciate your sense of humor! And I appreciate this video and the clarity it was presented with. Thank you once again, God bless you!
The problem is when others demand these ideas of other people. I don't eat pork, nor shellfish. I also wash my hands before eating, because its healthy to do so. What do Christians around the world eat? I guess they would eat what they could if they were suffering persecution, or where food is sparce. The point of the matter is the heart. What matters more? How we treat others, or what they eat? That we check every box, or live the fruit of the Spirit?
"Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein." (Heb. 13:9)
"Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them. We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat." (Heb 13:9-10)
@@JeffSmith-it4tm Paul encourages us to not only not submit to you for a minute, but to not so much as eat as someone like you engaging in heresy seeking to bring people back into bondage.
I emailed you on your website - let me know if you didn’t get it
Also, another question ❓....isn't Matthew chapter 15 a parallel storyline, of the events that was happening that day, In Israel mind you. And also, wasn't he talking to some self-righteous Priests, and scribes, and elders that came too? And didn't He say " why are you breaking the Commandments " ? Then Jesus used one of His real Kingdoms rules right? Honor your mother and father....then told them they would rather get their glory at the church house ..than Obey the real commands Of Yahovah. And then obviously everyone reading this has to realize, the setting is Israel, Yeshua was talking to Alllllll Jewish folk.... None of them ever ate any baby back ribs! 10 years after the Messiah ascended Peter still had NOT....10 years, later showing up to Cornelius's House...things that make you go Hmmmm. However , none of those highly religious folk said nothing...nada...zilch about what they were eating? That should be a big CLUE ! They was talking smack about washing Hands....
If it wasn't ok to eat certain foods or meat, why did God tell Noah he could eat whatever he wanted with a few exceptions? Many want to put a yoke on people because think it make us more than righteous than. If that is what makes you righteous, there would be no need for the atonements.
That is why we can eat foods that were considered unclean in the levitical priesthood.
You are right about that, we shouldnt focus on the extrenarl as much as the internal, but you see some farasees were focusing more on the external. How ever this is where you look the other way. Yeshua said, Matthew 23: 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Yes you should focus on the weighter matters of the law, but he is not teaching to leave the keeping of the sabbath, or keeping of the feast or the food laws undone, and if you want to say that this was only for Israel you could do that but Yeshua said. MAthhew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of Yeshua: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. You are teaching the nations to leave other commandments undone, Yeshua prohibits this. In Mathew 5 speaking of the torah he said. Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. U are breaking and teaching not to keep the smallest commanments of the torah.
Can you eat food sacrifice to Idols? was that law done away with by Yeshua? where does it say thus He made all food clean?
Hello, Luis!
"Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience-I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? (1 Cor 10:24-30)
"Thus he declared all foods clean" (Mark 7:19b)
Shalom,
Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots first in the original KJV the word he made all things clean does not appear not even in the original Greek manuscripts, so your argument holds no water. According to your theology Messiah came to change what God abhors and call it detestable/abomination to him. Do you know what is meant by abomination it means sin. But not according to you. Do you know why God gave law, commandments, and dietary law, can you answer this question, it's okay if you don't know?
@@TheBiblicalRoots you didn't answer the question can you eat food offer to idol's? Yes or no
@@TheBiblicalRoots So then your response is definite YES, so you tolerate the women Jezebe/Balaaml who calls themself a Prophetess/Prophets and she/he teaches and lead My servants astray, so that they commit act of immorality and eat things sacrifice to Idols, and I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality. God bundle these acts of immorality and eating to Idols as one. So please answer and explain away God word like you have been doing?
@@TheBiblicalRoots Regarding Mark 7:19, the oldest manuscript found was in the 4th century, which was right after 325 AD, around the time of the first Council of Nicaea, which was also in the 4th century, who wanted nothing to do with the God of Israel nor with the Jews. So, one can understand why a phrase was added with parenthesis.
A parenthesis is used when something is inserted to complete a sentence. The fact that the chapter has nothing to do with clean or unclean, the person who inserted "declaring all food clean" shouldn't have done that, but he most likely did to stir confucion or to support what he believed. Another thing: Yeshua was not talking about the law. In fact, he told the Phariees that they had set aside the "commandments of God" in order to follow human tradition. In other words, they were shoving their distorted views down the people's throats, no difference to what you appear to be doing.
You are pulling verses out of context!
Your production is amazing. Nice presentation and organisational to ur vids. Give your editor a raise
Ha! Thank you! Blessings, Rob
Nice work man. I come here for the comments section, and don't really watch much of the videos since I have family members that have been in it for over a decade. I spent years studying it, and reading their materials as well as materials against it, so I am pretty familiar with the stuff you have in the videos. Like I said though, I love the comments section. Great that you take time to engage your viewers and answer questions, or present counter arguments to Hebrew Roots. Good stuff.
@@TheBiblicalRoots You're a superstar, till judgement day.
When did YeHoVah remove the tag of abomination/detestable from something he called abomination/detestable from scriptures, or did Messiah removed it on his own? if Messiah removed the tag of abomination/detestable from food that YeHoVaH tag as such, was he send to override what the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob tag as abomination/detestable?
This question is for all on this page. Why did YehOVaH Elohim give His people Law, commandments and dietary law?
The Law of Moses was given to Israel to grow them from a rag-tag group of former slaves into a nation set apart for Yahweh. R.
@@TheBiblicalRoots So God's people are a bunch of misfits to you, but God said they Holy. Second, you lack understanding as to why God gave them law/commandments, so that they would not follow after the traditions and acts of the people in the land that they were going to possess. He wanted to make a distinction between them and the world, because they are holy and chosen by YeHoVaH for His purpose. So who are consider unholy unto the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, heathens who have no law given to them by God Himself. And what are you promoting believers to be like, the heathens of this world, by teaching the believers in Messiah they are permitted but not required to follow God's law. So who are the lawless one Messiah mention, those who are without Law(anomia) just like the lawless(anomia) one to come. People who use the word misfits,(the Germans called the Jews misfits, Hitler called them Race-tuberculosis,) only the heathens would use these words, as you just did.
Are you stating that Israel, which includes the two houses, was a worthless people and that God chose them because of that, and you tell me that you are not anti-semitic? Is that the way you look at us Jews, worthless, if that is what you are implying? As I previously stated from the beginning, you appear to want nothing to do with the Jews, and that is the way you just described us, it says it all. Should I post that you hate Jews and that your proceeds from your books are just to camouflage your hypocrisy?
You are getting worse! You want nothing to do with the God of Israel, you are using his Son to pin his Father, and the fact that you continue to aggressively attack God's laws like a mad man says it all. May the Lord rebuke you!
If that is what you are implying, that God chose Israel because they are worthless, can one conclude that what you are really saying is that God did not choose the Gentiles because they are not worthless?
God chose a people for himself; He gave them instructions (the Torah) on how to walk in order for them not to sin against him and to be a light to the world, and you claim God chose them because they were worthless (if that is what you implied)? Do you know that Yeshua died on the cross to pull men out of the state of condemnation and damnation that they put themselves in to bring them back to a state of glory?
You need to explain what you meant or you need to remove that statement if that is what you are implying that we are worthless.
@@TheBiblicalRoots How did Noah receive the same Laws (instructions & guidelines) that Moses received from The Creator and the Israelites + Moses wasn't even born yet?
I believe I seen you talking about the Laws of God & Laws of Moses as separate instructions.
Can you give the list of only the Laws of God ?
Also I believe I notice you are combining the teachers of the Tulmudic Laws & traditions of Tulmudic (of the Leaders, Elders, Pharisees, Sadducees within 2nd temple era in the timeframe of Jesus & the Laws of Moses as the same Laws?
Are you able to distinguish between Tulmudic Laws vs the Laws of Moses?
Lastly are the Laws of Moses truly a burden? If so why?
1Jn 2:4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,
1Jn 2:5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him:
Jesus told us that what we put in our mouth doesn't defile us, because it is cleansed , and go into the toilet.
It was ceremonial unclean to eat certain foods , but Jesus said it doesn't make us unclean to eat them. We are no longer ceremonial unclean because we don't offer sacrifices anymore. Jesus is the only sacrifice that counts to forgive sins.
Paul called it being weak in faith if they think they shouldn't eat what was called unclean under the levitical.
Peter had a problem with this also. Even though Jesus said it didn't make you unclean, Peter still had a problem with it.
God told Noah he could could eat most anything. Still most want to go by the levitical. 😊
Here is what i don’t understand about the classic teaching that you are promoting. Why then in Acts did Peter protest to God he had not eaten anything unclean if Jesus had already told them when He was alive that they could? Mainstream thought is that both passages demonstrate unclean food now being clean but the passage in Acts makes no sense if that’s what Christ said while alive. I agree with David.
Well done Rob! So then… Kosher Kacke ?? I’ve heard that story before. Maybe David might want to confer with some Jewish believers in Messiah, because I have an acquaintance here locally who believes, and is also Jewish, and just a few weeks ago, he decided that he needed to do a mitzvot, a ritualistic cleansing, due to the fact that he worked outside around a septic tank! I don’t think he considered the kacke to be “kosher” or “clean” at all!!
*Why was Peter still avoiding certain foods as far as the Book of Acts 10:14*
Hello, Ismalia. Peter was under no obligation to stop eating kosher. Keeping a kosher diet was never for bidden or prohibited. Under the New Covenant it is permitted but not required. Blessings, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots Wouldn't make sense that all the characters in the Old Testament in Covenant were constantly disciplined for disobeying the Creator's guidelines & instructions and rewarded with blessing when they were faithful in the Creator's way, just to eventually get to a new Covenant of preferred choices of any direction granted. If this were truth, Wouldn't this be called the Yo-Yo Covenant?
Satan is good in persuading Yo-yo's effects to the Creator's ways.
But the New Covenant is one in obedience to all the Creator's ways with full heartedly of the written Laws of Moses ingrained in the heart.
Mark 7, Peter's Vision and Paul's examples of eating with others wasn't about freedom from the Creator's foods. The unclean in Leviticus 11 was not thought of as food ever.
So when Paul says to eat the food presidented in front of you, what he mean't was what God considers food. Not none foods listed as unclean animals, fish, birds and bugs of Lev 11.
The modern day definition of food, is not the Creator's definition of foods.
Paul taught to eat food that is food that the Creator defined as the examples of Clean in Lev 11 & the natural growing foods such as from seeds of fruit trees / herbs / gardens, etc... as seen in Genesis.
No where is dogs, cats, spiders, coachrochers on the menu. Or can you provide Paul's Menu with those he ate with?
'Cause he was a Jew
@@johanneangers2 Good points Johanne, and I can see that these points are close to your heart. Just a quick comment, that you keep referring to the old covenental laws as the Creators ways. But what about people before the old covenant that ate anything, kosher or not. Like Noah for instance when God said that he can eat of any meat. The point is, God chose to work differently with the nation of Israel, and now, as a gentile, he has a new covenant with you which gives you liberty in Christ. Nobody eats spiders that I know of, but I would have I have no other option. Be blessed
@@nicoarnold2200 I fully understand your reasoning, yet I would bag to differ that when God told Noah to start eating again after protecting all animals. Noah understood that the clean one were the only option as food. The unclean was never considered food. Noah lived out doing the commandments as seen in the Laws of Moses. Even though Moses wasn't born yet... See his examples and compare to the Laws of Moses his lifestyle is an exact match.
Scripture made simple. God bless you sir.
WHY in Acts 10:28 the interpretation of Peters vision why wasn't food or the Dietary commandment included ? And the NC that you claim we're in is the Torah written on our hearts, wouldn't make sense if the Torah wasn't for us today, You need to stop teaching because you will be judged more strictly. James 3:1
@@Jeffmacaroni1542 Paul encourages us not to submit to someone like you for one minute. Repent of your heresy.
I think the video poster continues to fail to understand. It is talking about eating food with defiled hands. Read Matthew 15
It's actually bigger than that, Tature. I unpack it in more detail here:
*Do the Old Testament food laws apply to Christians?*
czcams.com/video/i1Hy9GVBm4M/video.html
Blessings, Rob
So then what about eating junk food - fast foods most of the time , gluttony, smoking, etc... This can't be the case.
Do you need biblical rules to tell you not to eat too many Big Macs, lol.
@@lavieenrose5954 No you don't. So if long ago God had regulations on certain foods not to eat, such as lobster, crab, (their like scavengers in the ocean), pork, etc.. Then why later on in time would he now say its Ok to have them? I don't like crab or lobster, but I like spare ribs and pork chops.
Solberg lost this debate on this..David is right. The issue in the passage isn’t food, but the tradition. For that matter, food in 1st century Israel wasn’t ever anything unclean, in fact biblical hermeneutics shows that anything mentioned as “food” in scripture is always clean food, not unclean.
"Pronomian" is a term recently coined by Caleb Hegg of Messiah Matters. Caleb Hegg can't utter more than a few sentences without " scholars say." Caleb is simply imitating his father, Tim Hegg. David Wilber is a Messiah Matters devotee. His comment " I have to say it is a red flag when people denigrate scholarship"......is because David mimics the Heggs.
R. L. is a master Scripture twister like Satan. He says Torah people teach its required to eat clean FALSE, God says IF we love HIM we WILL keep HIS commandments. R. L. or Rob is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
DIFFERENTIATING THE TRUE FROM THE FALSE
The words of the law of the covenant of the Lord God Yehovah the most high as truthfully and surely testified (witnessed) by Yehovah by his spirit through his prophets in the book of the law, the prophets and writings of Yehovah
Yehovah is the true God
Yehovah is the God of truth
Truth is of Lord God Yehovah
The word of Yehovah is truth
The law of Yehovah is truth
The commandments of Yehovah are truth
The ordinances of Yehovah are true
The testimonies of Yehovah are true,sure and trustful
Anyone no matter who that is contradicting the words of the law of the covenant of Lord God Yehovah the most high is false, lying and deceiving
Deuteronomy 29:9,29 ASV
Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do. [29] The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Psalm 119:142,151,160 ASV
Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, And thy law is truth. [151] Thou art nigh, O Jehovah; And all thy commandments are truth. [160] The sum of thy word is truth; And every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever.
Psalm 19:9 ASV
The fear of Jehovah is clean, enduring for ever: The ordinances of Jehovah are true, and righteous altogether.
Psalm 19:11 ASV
Moreover by them is thy servant warned: In keeping them there is great reward.
Psalm 119:165 ASV
Great peace have they that love thy law; And they have no occasion of stumbling.
Psalm 19:7 ASV
The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul: The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple.
Psalm 93:5 ASV
Thy testimonies are very sure: Holiness becometh thy house, O Jehovah, for evermore.
Jeremiah 10:10 ASV
But Jehovah is the true God; he is the living God, and an everlasting King: at his wrath the earth trembleth, and the nations are not able to abide his indignation.
Psalm 31:5 ASV
Into thy hand I commend my spirit: Thou hast redeemed me, O Jehovah, thou God of truth.
Genesis 2:16-17 ASV
And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: [17] but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 3:1-6 ASV
Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden? [2] And the woman said unto the serpent, Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat: [3] but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. [4] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: [5] for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. [6] And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.
Deuteronomy 13:1-5 ASV
If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he give thee a sign or a wonder, [2] and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; [3] thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams: for Jehovah your God proveth you, to know whether ye love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul. [4] Ye shall walk after Jehovah your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. [5] And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, because he hath spoken rebellion against Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which Jehovah thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.
Noah was a Gentile before any Law or any Jews, and he knew about the distinctions between clean and unclean animals, as the clean animals were boarded in larger numbers (seven pairs) as they were permitted by God food, and the Bible tells us that Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. Gentiles claim to keep the Noachide laws, so that must include about unclean animals?
My brother, are you serious on what you said? Read Mark 7 again, it has nothing to do with clean foods...it is about the traditions of washing hands...what saddens me is because I am seeing many people are applauding you. Let us dig deeper into the bible.
Sure, it began as a discussion about washing hands, Job. But Jesus turned it into a much bigger "teachable moment," as He often does. The Pharisees brought up the man-made tradition of washing hands, and the next thing you know, Jesus is talking about what defiles us! Which, for His Jewish audience, would have instantly brought to mind the kosher food laws. The Torah explicitly says that _eating unclean foods_ is what defiles a man (Lev 11). But Jesus taught, "Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:18-19)
Blessings, RLS
Solberg that is a scandinavian last name.. I am from Sweden watching your programs. Lots of hebrew root movement here. And it is increasing..
Hallå Josef. Yes, my last name is Norwegian. I have been to Norway many times but I have not visited Sweden...yet! I am starting to receive messages from Scandinavia about the Hebrew Roots. Maybe I will need to come visit soon. ;-) Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots I will adress this issue in a sermon this Sunday. I think Gal 4:10-11 is clear on this issue. It is a verse about the hebrew root movement..
*Alcohol can defile someone (i.e make them sin)*
Rob Solberg you cannot use this argument about new covenant. New covenant doesn't mean a new Torah New mitzvot new religion etc.
This way of thinking is totally wrong for so many reasons.
In Jesus time, just as now, people argued over many foolish things. Thanks for making this clear.
Another thing that I forgot to mention was that you arrogantly stated that you liked the fact that david wilber addressed you as a critic of the law. This proves what I previously stated that you hate God's law and being that you delight in attacking God's law, just remember what I said about Romans 1.
Details matter, Sam. I said that I liked the fact that David addressed me as a critic of Pronomian theology. I am certainly not a critic of God's law! ~R.
@@TheBiblicalRoots david wilber stated that you are a "spoken critic of pronomian." He defined pronomian by adding, "That is pro-torah." In short, he is stating that you are a critic of God's laws.
He also posted that you are not a rebellious antinomian but just sincerely wrong about what the Brit-Chadashah teaches. You can see that even that he also appears to be speaking double-mindedly, stating that you are a critic of the law, following up with "you're not a rebellious antinomian."
The Apostle Paul was pro-Torah. Being that Gentile believers in Christianity do not have a clear understanding of what the Apostle Paul was talking about because they pull verses out of context, they make it appear that he was anti-Torah. Rob, you don't have a clear understanding of what the Apostle Paul was talking about, and it would probably be better for you if he never wrote about the Torah.
Another thing, being that you take great delight in attacking God's laws, is causing you to be unable to think with clarity, which is why you are not realizing that you are speaking double-mindedly. Continue attacking God's laws, and you are going to cause your heart to be hardened to God's laws, and you are going to become totally lawless, and the lawless shall perish. Several times, I said to you to read Romans 1.
That's just plain quackery to claim the text was talking about some alleged "purification process" of the digestive system. If that were true, then how is it that we can get food poisoning where dogs do not? I mean, come on!
Come on now, Musicinspire. It's not plain quackery! It's _exceptional_ quackery. ;-)
R.
Thanks for the rebuttal, Rob. For whatever it is worth, my "crappy theory" is not unique to me but is based on the comments of NT Scholars David Garland, who wrote about it in the NIV Application commentary for Mark, and Dr. Logan Williams, who won SBL's "Paul J. Achtemeier Award for New Testament Scholarship" for his work on this passage. Williams goes further to demonstrate that this rendering of the verse is widely attested in church history. You don't have to agree with what NT scholarship says regarding this verse, but merely reasserting your view by saying "that's not a biblical teaching," while not actually dealing with the grammatical arguments, is not persuasive. Nevertheless, as these same scholars (and many more) point out, even if this is Mark's parenthetical statement, it is reading into text to make this verse be about clean/unclean animals when that is simply not the context of the passage. In any case, great effort.
I think Rob says "Alternate Theory" not "crappy theory" (0.45)... unless I missed it. Do you have a time stamp when he said that?
@@andrewhundeby It is toward the end of the video. He was making a pun. His response was funny (I'll give him that), but it was unjustifiably dismissive because he just claims it is a crappy theory without even attempting to deal with scholars' treatment of the text. Disappointing.
I can’t help but hear/read numerous appeals to authority in David’s arguments. Everyone holding the same position as him is a “scholar,” whereas those who hold what I’ll call the more traditional Christian view are skeptics or, at best, teachers. I’m told to believe we are to keep Torah because David can cite the names of some scholars who said so? I’m sure David is a great person, no doubt. But his attempts at persuasion don’t resonate with me at all.
Despite what scholars say, last I checked, God mentions in the Torah that excrement is not clean and commands it be buried (Dt 23:12-14).
@@KyleKlink Thanks for the criticism, but relying on NT scholarship is not an appeal to authority. And I never use the word "skeptics" for other Christians who disagree with me. And also, you don't have to believe something just because a scholar says so-I have never implied that anyone should. The reason I constantly cite and quote NT scholars is because I am not very smart and am extremely unoriginal, so I rely on NT scholars who have done the work and have already said things better than me. To be honest, Solberg made this same criticism in another video response to me, and I have to say that it is a red flag to me when people denigrate the use of scholarship. It reminds me of the heretic I had a formal debate with one time who believes that 1 Enoch is Scripture. Anytime I would quote a scholar, he would mockingly say, "Why rely on the words of MEN instead of scripture?!" Scholarship is good!
This is great but wouldn't it just be easier to show him Colossians 2:16-23. Let no man judge you for what you eat, a new moon or sabbath...
We're seeing a dangerous rise in pharisitical teaching today. Legalism is everywhere and varying degrees of antinomianism (mainly the prosperity gospel).
Oh, how I wish it was as easy as pointing out Col. 2:16-17, Sean! David has an entirely different interpretation of that passage. He says it teaches not to let any man judge you for *_how_* you keep the commands. In other words, we're still fully expected to keep them, but we shouldn't let anyone judge us for how we do it.
Rob
@TheBiblicalRoots you're following a man. It means what it says along with other passages that confirm this. This isn't producing fruit. It's producing pride
God does not change.
Amen!
As I was listening to your video I was reminded of the story of Antiochus Epiphanies during the time of the Maccabees.
Sometimes it feels like Hebrew Roots folks don't fully see Jesus as God.
So then if your offered bat soup , or dog , or monkey they Too are clean ? ... Mr. Solberg won't have his Heart circumcised to obey God's New Covenant Law .
Yep! In the context of biblical food laws, “clean” doesn’t mean delicious or bacteria-free. Lev 11 is about _ritual_ cleanliness.
Shalom, Rob.
I keep the Law of Moses like Paul did. Romans 3:31.
Yet you incessantly bear false witness breaking the Law like a hypocrite 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@JGez83 Truth is hate to you and others who hate the truth.
@@Jeffmacaroni1542 LOL who blocked whom how many times on Facebook with multiple accounts and said I blocked YOU........That was YOU
@@JGez83 Wa wa wa. You blocked me son because you got outdebated and you had to protect your reputation.
@@JGez83 Tony Yu blocked me because I out debated him, He ran away like a scared little girl the way you did.
Spot! On!
WHY in Acts 10:28 the interpretation of Peters vision why wasn't food or the Dietary commandment included ? And the NC that you claim we're in is the Torah written on our hearts, wouldn't make sense if the Torah wasn't for us today, You need to stop teaching because you will be judged more strictly. James 3:1
Proverbs 12:17 says, "He who speaks the truth declares what is right, but a false witness speaks deceit." Rob has not been speaking according to the Scriptures but has distorted the Scriptures because he wants nothing to do with the law of God.
Rob speaks ambiguously and confusedly. Another way of putting it is that he speaks double-mindedly. I previously wrote to him the following: The word double-minded comes from the Greek word dipsuchos, meaning "a person with two minds or souls," and it also refers to being split in half, vacillating like a "spiritual schizophrenic." The word dipsuchos appears to reflect him; one soul directed toward God, the other toward Satan; one soul inclined to exalt God, the other inclined to turn away from God. He does not realize that when it comes to the scriptures, he contradicts himself. He is still eating grass.
Another thing is that Yeshua never spoke against the law but walked according to the law.
The "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean" is actually more like "thus purging all foods" in the Greek. Most translators are not getting this because of their textual bias. By the way, you cannot say Mark added the comment later because our manuscripts are older. Saying that it is post crucifixion, nice try. That's simply an attempt to walk around the idea that if Jesus did say that he is in fact invalidating himself as Messiah, teaching against Torah, which Deut 13 and 18 forbids even if the person is doing signs and wonders. So, "since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (thus purging all foods) meaning that all foods get digested and go into the latrine. That's all that mistranslation that everyone fusses about is trying to say.
Jeremia 31:31-34 still did not happen because if you are reading further you can clearly understand that this prophecy doesn’t came true and by the way if the scripture is mentioning AFTER THOSE DAYS are always in context of after the Great Tribulation so those new covenant will be approved only after THOSE DAYS meaning after Great Tribulation
So if you messing up Jeremiah 31:31-34 and teaching that it is the New Covenant you are miss leading people like the writer of the letter of Hebrew
Same for Ezechiel 36:26 why are you not quoting Ezechiel verse 24 because there it starts that you can understand that it will happen only in the future you are talking out verses and explaining them like it already happened and that is not true !!!
Those passages are happening in the end time and so on AFTER THOSE DAYS
I guess you know exactly what I am talking about ???
Thanks, Vojtech. If the New Covenant has not begun yet, how would you explain Jesus' comment in Luke 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25? Or Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 3:6? And how would you explain Hebrews 8:13, 9:15 and 12:24?
Shalom, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots Hi Rob
I say with 100% sureness that Jeremiah 31:31-34 doesn’t happened neither Ezechiel 36:24-29 and more
So in the last half year I got that with the sureness that the New Testament is the New Bike and the Old Testament is the Old Bike and made up I am sure specially and now answer to my question please who will choose he need to choose between the new and an old bike what you think how many people will choose an old bike instead of a new bike? Including you what do you choose or you chose ?
Because I am still Romain Catholic Christian who got things in order and find out that the whole NT is a big lies
I believe in God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of Israel.
What is in the NT such a Jesus doesn’t existed if he existed at all
For the moment I am doubting that stuff as well .
Please answer to my question and I will give you one more .
Thx
@@vojtechferencz3729 Thanks, Vojtech. So If the New Covenant hasn't begun, how would you answer the question I asked you? How do you explain Jesus' comment in Luke 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25? Jesus said, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Will Jesus be crucified again and shed His blood in the future? Or how do you explain Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 3:6 where he calls Christians "ministers of a new covenant"? And how do you explain Hebrews 8:13, 9:15 and 12:24?
Shalom, Rob
You are wrong. The food laws are in the New covenant.
Where?
RLS
Hand wash a man made rules. That's kind a weird way to say. That's the first thing we teach our children to wash their hands before eating. You don't go directly to the dinner table after visiting the toilet. Jesus' accusations against the Pharisees are, in my opinion, completely beyond the pale
The reason Jesus refuse to wash his hands was because they were claiming the hand washing ritual was from God. The Jews still practice this ritual today it includes a Blasphemous prayer that falsely claims the ritual was commanded by God. Jesus is pointing out that the Pharisees didn't follow God's laws and that they would go out of their way to follow these man-made laws such as the washing of hands and that they would put it at a greater priority than actually following God's laws.
The words :" hereby he declare all food clean" is not in the text! Just see the Greek. Solberg seems to be a replacement-Theology. He seems to show that Jesus goes further in order to end in the so called New Covenant. But the view that appears in the sermon on the mount and this discussion was just what the Rabbis did then they teach. So what Solberg does is to cut the message in NT from the Rabbinic interpretation in that time as the 13 interpretation of Yismael which was the tool in order to write the NT. Last the commandment is valid and requered for us Jews today. period. Even though they should be Christians.
All food is clean; food is given by God. Then there is the unclean which is not techinally food, which we're not supposed to eat. :)
@@SapphireSweed No it is not all clean sinde G-d very clearly said it not Pigs and camels for instance. They shall be unclean for you: Whom? the Jewish people in all times. The Sinaicovenant is valid as long the earth is standing and heaven is in place. The misstake Solberg dos is that he refute the outer laws by a sort of a inner law. Please do not add in the meaning sucha word.," Hereby he proclamed all food clean" Because this is a Paraphas and not a translation. Solberg is on a wrong interpretation road.
@@folkeholtz6351 I think we agree, there is food, which is to be eaten.. then there is unclean, which is not to be eaten. shabbat shalom!
Respectfully disagree. It's important to remember the context of a Hebrew person saying all "food" clean. Every animal isn't food according to the culture. Same way we don't eat horsr in America but other cultures do. Horse isn't food to use.
Thanks, IM! 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, RLS
You promote "Another" Jesus christ. that isn't found in Scripture. See 2 Thess 2. The falling away from the Torah.
Wow. So, it was not actually Jesus saying these things which changed "the law," but Marks internal musings about these teachings after His ascension? What incredible acrobatics to avoid the obvious incompatibility between your interpretation here an your interpretation of Matthew 5 (found here czcams.com/video/bTCi5SRpq6g/video.html ) Eisegesis achievement complete!
It's not acrobatics, Arch, it's just what the text reveals. The phrase καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα is set off in the Greek manuscripts to indicate this was a statement by the author, rather than the author quoting Jesus.
Blessings, Rob
@RLSolberg those manuscripts are not the original, so what they can tell us by what is "set off" is what the scribe thought, not the original author. Which manuscripts are you referring to? I am interested in seeing this for myself.
Update: Just checked high-res scans of Codex Vaticanus. Didn't see what you claim. In fact, if anything, the phrase, "καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα" is "set off" from what follows it rather than what proceeds it there. There is a space following "βρώματα", which in a Greek Uncial text is unusual. Vaticanus is dated to the 4th century, so it's fairly close to the original.
@@ArchDLuxe Hi, Arch! Check out the Codex Sinaiticus, which is the oldest complete copy of the Greek New Testament that we have. codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=34&chapter=7&lid=en&side=r&verse=19&zoomSlider=0.
The presence of that text is not in dispute among even secular biblical scholars. It is found in both the Textus Receptus and the Novum Testamentum Graece. So it is as well-attested as any other text in the New Testament.
Blessings, Rob
@RLSolberg thank you for the link to Sinaiticus, but in it, the phrase, "cleansing all the foods" is not "set off" from what comes before it. No one here is disputing the existence of this phrase, only its proper interpretation. Based on the evidence you provided, your claim that the phrase is "set off" from Jesus's preceding words in the manuscripts is misleading at best. Were you hoping that I would just take your word for it?
Rob, you appear to want nothing to do with the God of Israel, and you continue to aggressively attack God's laws like a mad man, and that is because you want nothing to do with God's laws. Remember what happened to Nebuchadnezzar? At the end, he acknowledged the God of Israel. I'd rather see you eat grass so that at the end you would acknowledge the God of Israel and his laws than have God drive you deeper into your delight, which is aggressively attacking God's law. Read Romans 1.
Well explained Rob!
R.L Solberg clearly states the following at Mark 2:16-2:24:
Whether it's ritually clean or unclean. Ultimately passes through our body and is expelled... **OUR STOMACHS CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KOSHER AND UNKOSHER FOODS.
Really that's the evidence presented? LOL... (but actually this statement is no laughing matter in the eyes of the Creator!)
There are many things on the body that cannot tell the differences of things, but that dosen't mean it makes those differences right!
There been a big "deal of" examples in cases of blessings that are done with the right hand in Scriptures... If the hands (right or left) can't tell the difference between themselves,
then why using the right one (get it right one, lol) was important in the following scenario?
Then Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands knowingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn. - Genesis 48:14
How about our fingers, do they know the difference? Well according to the Creator command to one of the Priestly role it did.
Then the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle some of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord. - Leviticus 14:16
Come on... Do the hands REALLY know the difference ?
But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, - Matthew 6:3
Does it really matter what side we are on, on the day of judgment?
And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: - Matthew 25:33-34,41
Okay let's say you find these examples ridiculous...
Let's examine other parts of our bodies that can't tell the difference...
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, - Galatians 5:19
How about the parts that are covered, when someone commits Adultery or participates in fornication do these covered fleshy parts know the difference from one place to another while committing these sinful actions?
And let's review again this verse in Galatians (we will remove Adultery and fornication since we touched on those body parts already.
Okay now let's address what Rob Solberg actually said again
Whether it's ritually clean or unclean. Ultimately passes through our body and is expelled... **OUR STOMACHS CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KOSHER AND UNKOSHER FOODS.
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: uncleanness - Galatians 5:19
Yes your Stomach dosen't know the difference for the digestive system to work, its function is not to know between one sin or another sin, its function is to digest.
But Leviticus 11 teaches us what food is... and only clean Animals, fish, birds and bugs are defined as food. And these foods are characterized as clean.
And unclean animals, fish, birds and bugs are not mentioned as foods and are characterized as unclean.
Even though your body parts can't know the difference...
And even though as Rob Solberg states OUR STOMACH CAN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE...
there is The Creator who can!
Disobedience and desiring fleshy things against the Creators ways is committing sin and Galatians 5:19 clearly shows this
Sin is Sin no matter how you slice and dice it, no matter if your body fleshy parts are unaware of the difference.
There’s nothing “new” or *distinct* about the NT arguing for purity of heart. The OT is replete with passages calling for an *circumcised* and pure heart toward God. Moses and the Israelites did not believe one was “pure” by abstaining from unclean meats (pig, etc.), but by a pure heart toward God. Yeshua was not addressing a notion that unclean meats in the OT made a PERSON impure - the meat itself is impure and not fit for consumption. Mark 7 does address what became a false notion of impurity - but not from the thing consumed, but by eating with ritually unwashed hands (by which the Pharisees believed one could attract unclean spirits). Yeshua was correcting false belief about ritual washing. The disciples were eating grain, which is “clean” in every regard.
Nowhere in the NT are animals rendered unfit for consumption by the OT now fine to eat. And nowhere in the OT does consuming unclean animals make a person’s soul unclean. They are simply unfit for consumption. Period.
Thanks, MM. When you say that "the meat itself is impure and not fit for consumption," ar you saying it is unfit for sanitary/health reasons? If so, where are you finding that idea in the Torah?
Thanks!
RLS
@@TheBiblicalRoots yes, thanks for the clarifying question. I don't think the Torah explains why (or I'm just missing it perhaps). It merely says that, for example, the pig is tamei (unclean) without explaining why. Tamei refers to things unclean like certain animals corpses, etc. A human can become tamei, but also become tahor (clean). In the NT, the equivalent for tamei is akathartos. Tamei/akathartos are always unclean. Another word sometimes rendered "unclean" is koinos, which is also rendered "common" which can have a bad or good connotation depending on it's use. Jude refers to our common (koinos) faith. The grains the disciples were eating in Mark 7 would be biblically tahor (clean), but were considered koinos (common) by the pharisees because they were eating them with unwashed hands.
He kept the Torah law ie 613 mitzvot perfectly??
That's not correct according to the gospels.
Forgiving a woman who has committed adultery is not according to Torah law. There are many examples of offences.
Torah says you cannot forgive someone who committed adultery? Weird. Nathan probably should have called for david to be stoned. Wonder why that didn't happen 🤔
@@tbishop4961 David Ha-melech sins was not adultery which is a very serious crime.
@@Leon-jp7ch he slept with a married woman. That is adultery 🙄
@@tbishop4961 It doesn't come as a surprise. The whole book of Tehillim is about David's complaints. He was the great anointed king and the law applies to everyone equally. David Ha-melek confesses his sins. Jesus' story of just forgiving a random lady's adultery and working on Shabbat is quite special
David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die!
Very interesting! David does some mental gymnastics to get his stomach and waste products to make sense for himself….
Ha, it's extremely straightforward. Jesus destroyed the Torah (and the Old Testament generally) in His body on the cross. That is what the New Testament is saying- because the Old Testament was given through angels (including the Angel of the Lord- Jesus, the Memra, etc), in the hands of a mediator.... who was Moses. But NOW we are baptized into the Living Son and follow God directly, without a mediator... because Jesus is our mediator with the Father. There ARE NO national or dietary laws (which are the laws of angels for the nations) once God has come and been raised as a man in the New Covenant. The Old Covenant died in the cross. And those buried with Christ in water baptism are likewise "covered" by His pure death (made blameless under the Law of Moses). Therefore, one who is IN the New Covenant is NO LONGER under anything except God and Christ, as ONE NEW MAN and ONE BODY- the church. If Jesus saved you, there IS NO Old Testament.
Then Paul must be a false teacher, Every sin listen in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and every sin in the NT comes from the Torah. IF your claim is true then the NT is false.
Hi, Christopher! I agree with much of what you said, but I don't think the NT teaches such a severe separation from the OT. Jesus did not "destroy" the Torah, He lived by it and then fulfilled it. And for the Christian today, the OT is still part of our sacred Scripture; it remains the inspired word of God and is not to be thrown away. It still plays an important role in the life of the follower of Jesus.
Shalom, Rob
Exactly Rob .
The overarching principle remains inviolable :
"Permitted but not required".
Fulfillment of the requirements of the Law further clarifies any mention of "continuity".
Thus , justification before God is wholly apart from any behavioral performance (works) .
Always was & will be : John 3:16,4:10-14,5:24,6:28-47,11:2327,20:31 ; Acts 16:31 ; 1 Timothy 1:16 ; Romans 3:20-5:11,11:6 ; Ephesians 2:8-9 ; Titus 3:5 ; Book of Galatians ; Hebrews 4,7-10 (etc.) .
@@Jeffmacaroni1542 Every sin listed by Christ in the New Testament and every sin listed by His followers in the New Testament do NOT include dietary laws. Paul expressly argues against this. In fact, he says that whatever food you eat doesn't matter... as long as it isn't an offering to an idol. Acts 15, also makes this point. Dietary laws are not required of the New Covenant believer, because the New Covenant believer is NOT under the Law of Moses, but under the Law of Liberty which is IN Christ.
@@TheBiblicalRoots I agree, Rob that we don't throw away the Torah or the rest of the Tanakh. They show us what happens when we tempt the Lord, etc. But Christ's commandments are different than Moses'. We are to keep Christ's commandments and not Moses'. I think Dialogue with Trypho and other Early Church writings are illustrative here. Ha, Paul even rebukes Peter for living like the Gentiles, but then separating himself when the Jewish brethren came. There is no Jew or Gentile in Christ, because He made of twain one new man- which is the Israel of God (Ephesians 2). Paul is pretty clear in Galatians and 2nd Corinthians 3:11, when he says that the ministration of Moses is done away with. In verse 13, he says the Law of Moses is abolished. The whole chapter really goes into this. Paul is not mincing any words.
If someone wants to participate in dietary laws, that is fine... but it is not required and is more of a cultural nicety. This is because Christians are the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3)- and that seed was given by faith BEFORE circumcision of the flesh (Romans 4, etc). So, we are not to be lawless. We are just under a different law. The law of Christ, and this is how we are knit into Israel (Romans 11). But we can fall away, just like those who tempted God in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10, Jude, Matthew 7, 2 Peter, etc).
So, of course we need ALL of Scripture. But it has a different emphasis for the Christian than the follower of Moses. We are in the New Covenant poured out in His blood on the cross (the last supper, etc), we are not saved through baptism in the red sea but baptism into Christ's death (Romans 6)- which is death to sin.
I think there is a strong division. It doesn't mean we can't show love with any other unbeliever, or patient continuance in teaching them the faith... but this does not mean that we are under the Old Covenant. Clearly, those in the New Covenant who are born again, are NOT under the old death because that is the penalty of sin in the Old Covenant (the law of sin and death). And the Christian is to serve the Lord without the fear that always held those in the Old Testament in bondage (the fear of death and judgment). This is Zacharias' prophecy in Luke 1:64-79.
Those in Christ serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness all the days of our life.
Thanks be to God in the highest for a crystal clear rebuttal of this heresy of torahism. Forcing what the gospel says based on preconcieved biase is so downright deceptive and a lie. A totally rejects torahism. I am a gentile and a "dog" and i will never be a jew....and i thank God for that because for His mercy and grace to be magnified for HIS GLORY ALONE.
Pro 30v6 Add thou unto words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a lair. (Thus, he made all food clean) is not found in any Greek Manuscripts.Why are some foods unclean and not food for us to eat? I'm neither a Jew or a Gentile, I'm born again bible believer.
You keep saying new covenant, so you are saying the twelve tribes were back in Israel at the time of Jesus, Jeremiah 31 :30 has not yet happened it is an end of days prophecy, 30 Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant. And for this new covenant to be made Israel and Judah have to be back in the land of their fathers, in the time of Jesus there was only the southern tribes.
Can you elaborate on that?
I also do not believe the New Covenant has started yet because Hebrews 8:11 says that everyone will know the Lord from the least to the greatest (which hasn't happened yet). Also the New Covenant is always referred to as the promise to come even after Jesus's resurrection.
I think it's an extremely difficult position to hold that the new covenant has not yet begun. Not just because of Hebrews chapter 8, but because of Jesus' owns words. "And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the *new covenant* in my blood" (Luke 22:20, See also 1 Cor 11:25).
And there is also:
"Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a *new covenant,* not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Cor 3:5-6)
"In speaking of a *new covenant,* he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13)
"Therefore [Jesus] is the mediator of a *new covenant,* so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant." (Heb 9:15)
"and to Jesus, the mediator of a *new covenant,* and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel" (Heb 12:24)
"This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant" (Heb 7:22).
Shalom, Rob
I appreciate your attempt to challenge my view however I think you need to take another look at those scriptures.
The New Covenant talked about in Hebrews 8 very clearly is not currently in effect because not everyone knows the Lord right now (Hebrews 8:11), we do have to still tell our neighbor about the Lord. God's laws are not put into everyone's minds and written on their hearts (Hebrews 8:10). Right now people's hearts are deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9)
Hebrews 8 is quoting Jeremiah 31. After the quote of Jeremiah 31 it says in Hebrews 8:13 "By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear (Hebrews 8:13).
Note: he says "well soon disappear" not has disappeared. I'm sure you agree that the book of Hebrews was written well after the death and resurrection of Jesus so unless you are going to hold the position that the Bible is wrong and you have scripture that contradicts Hebrews 8:13 then I do not know what other conclusion you can possibly come to. Hebrews 8:13 makes it very clear that the New Covenant did not go in effect after Jesus's death or Resurrection. Hebrews 8:11 (when everyone knows the Lord) cannot be fulfilled until after the white Throne judgment (when all the wicked are destroyed in the Lake of Fire) in Revelation 20 which has not happened yet.
I am aware that Jesus referred to his blood as the payment for the New Covenant but the Bible refers to this payment as a dowry and now he goes to heaven to prepare a place for his bide (not wife). Jesus is always referred to as the bridegroom and has yet to be referred to as the husband. Because the Bible refers to Jesus's blood payment as a dowry and because he is still referred to as the bridegroom we know that his payment represents the promise not the Fulfillment and also because that understanding would contradict Hebrews 8:13 as I mentioned before. The wedding Feast does not happen until revelation 21 (which has not happened yet)
If you go back and reread all of the scripture that pertains to the New Covenant you will notice that it all refers to the New Covenant as the promise to come.
I believe the Bible teaches that Jesus will make us perfect under the New Covenant. The fact that we are not perfect right now is proof that we are not under the New Covenant. Right now we are under grace which Jesus paid for. He is the new high priest of the melchized Covenant and he will continue to be the high priest into the New Covenant.
@@TheBiblicalRoots Show me in the CHRISTIAN OLD TESTAMENT as Christians call it ( And also change the words in it, when it suits them ) where it says a human being can die for our sins, when God classes human sacrifice as an abomination, And why would God say I am going to send my son to die for the sins you have committed against me, as I have said before Christians are blinded by the church so you will follow them and not God, it was very easy for the church to put words into the mouth of Jesus who never wrote one word in the new testament, but if he did say some of the things he was supposed to have said he lied, where does it say you prepared a body for me in the Hebrew scriptures, even when the N.T. does give a passage from the bible they try to make it sound like it means something else (example ) I was taught this in church and so have millions of others, 14 So says the Lord: A voice is heard on high, lamentation, bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, she refuses to be comforted for her children for they are not. How many have been taught the next two verses, 15 So says the Lord: Refrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for there is reward for your work, says the Lord, and they shall come back from the land of the enemy. 16 And there is hope for your future, says the Lord, and the children shall return to their own border. Jeremiah 31. please Christians read and study Jeremiah 31 and you will see that the new covenant will be made with the 12 tribes of Israel, and when your Pastor or priest tell you a verse read the whole chapter so you know the context, God Bless.
@@richardbluett958 Do you think the New Covenant starts after the first resurrection and the thousand year rain with Jesus as mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 or do you believe it starts when there is a new Heaven new Earth and a New Jerusalem (Revelation 21) ?
The author of Mark would not have added a summary statement with respect to "Jesus declaring all foods clean," when we know that dietary laws were not even in view. If the author meant that "Jesus declared all foods are clean." Then we have a serious issue with Biblical authority with respect to the Book of Mark since the author would have been inserting his own theological viewpoint into the text, contrary to the subject Jesus was addressing.
Also, there is such a thing as translator bias. A quick glance at newer translations tend to favor "Jesus declaring all foods clean" while older translations tend to favor the idea of "food being purged."
I disagree, Justin. By saying, "there is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him," (v. 15) Jesus was bringing dietary laws into view. Just as a person under the Law of Moses would be rendered unclean by touching an unclean person or by touching a couch that a woman having her period had sat on, he would be made unclean by eating unclean food. Thus, if Jesus said that nothing entering you (i.e., through your mouth) can defile you, then this speaks directly to food and means that the ceremonial clean and unclean food distinction is no longer applicable, even if the realization of this principle came later on. Mark's inspired parenthetical statement follows directly from what Jesus taught in verse 15 and is supported by many other passages in the New Testament. There is only an issue with biblical authority for those of your position who don't accept the obvious teaching of this passage (and many others).
The Greek word katharizo means "to cleanse" or make clean. There is no difference between saying "purging" or "cleansing." Purge is a more archaic word than clean and thus appears in older translations like the KJV.
Exactly!
Mark was writing under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who is the third person of the Holy Trinity, and also God.
@@maxwellbrown4837 thank you for your response. I am happy to discuss this a bit.
//I disagree, Justin. By saying, "there is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him," (v. 15) Jesus was bringing dietary laws into view. Just as a person under the Law of Moses would be rendered unclean by touching an unclean person or by touching a couch that a woman having her period had sat on, he would be made unclean by eating unclean food.//
I would be inclined to agree with you if this was with regard to eating unclean food as explained in Torah. However, the issue in question is ritual hand washing, which was never required of those not performing the duties of a priest. Jesus was pointing out that the religious leaders were in error by imposing there own rules on the disciples outside of those required by Torah.
//Thus, if Jesus said that nothing entering you (i.e., through your mouth) can defile you, then this speaks directly to food and means that the ceremonial clean and unclean food distinction is no longer applicable, even if the realization of this principle came later on.//
I understand why you are arriving at your conclusion. However, as explained above, this point is moot when considered in light of the fact that the issue being addressed had to do with misapplication of the Torah. With that considered, the religious leaders who were being addressed knew full well that their traditions were not part of the Torah, yet they tried to enforce them on others. This is why Jesus addresses "what comes out defiles a person." We do not need to assume that what Jesus is teaching is more than what is being stated.
//Mark's inspired parenthetical statement follows directly from what Jesus taught in verse 15 and is supported by many other passages in the New Testament.//
Respectfully, this is according to your interpretation.
//There is only an issue with biblical authority for those of your position who don't accept the obvious teaching of this passage (and many others).//
Again, and I sincerely mean this. Respectfully, this is not a problem for me. Asserting that you have the support of Scripture without proof will not further the conversation.
//The Greek word katharizo means "to cleanse" or make clean. There is no difference between saying "purging" or "cleansing." Purge is a more archaic word than clean and thus appears in older translations like the KJV.//
Here is the verse from Young's Literal Translation:
Mar 7:19 because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.'
Notice that this says nothing about making all foods clean. Again, this is one of many translations that disagree with you and in ***my view*** align better with the context and the Greek. There is a reason why I mentioned older translations and the idea of "purging" or in the above translation "purifying." And it has to do not only with the words, but entire way the passage is translated. So again, the point you have made is moot and unfortunately misses the spirit of my argument. I will, in good faith assume you have read the many translations as well as the Greek. I hope if nothing else, this clarifies my OP.
Finally, in asserting that the author of Mark understood Jesus to be teaching a principle or changing a pre-existing law, not only outside of the context, but in opposition to the Torah does two things:
1. It makes Jesus a false prophet in accordance to Deuteronomy 13, and
2. as previously stated, it discredits the author of Mark and its inspiration for the reasons already stated.
@@justinbutcher44 Thanks for the reply.
First, with regard to you saying I just made assertions, it should be understood that a CZcams comments section is not adequate for offering full expositions of passages. I am more than willing to engage you either here or offline in a full exchange of ideas (though I doubt you would convince me or I would convince you). I could challenge you on statements you made that were not fully developed, but it should just be understood that there is not adequate space here to expound on everything.
You said that remarks that I made were my interpretation. Given that we have differing opinions (interpretations) about the same passage, the same could be said of you. I could (and would) say that your comments are your interpretation, or in this case, your misinterpretation. It's a given that in making competing claims about a passage that each party has an interpretation, so I don't see the point in your remark.
You said on a few occasions that the issue of foods is "mute" but I would say in reply that by limiting Jesus' reply you are nullifying His teaching. There are many times when Jesus answers a question by making a broader, more foundational or spiritually significant point than what initiated His comments. I don't see in any way that the burden of proof is on me to limit Christ's comments to hand washing (which nobody denies to be the topic which initiated His comments) given what He says in the entire passage.
Jesus specifically addresses the issue of traditions outside of Torah all the way up until verse 13, but the comments in question start in verse 14, which are addressed to the crowd that He called to Himself. The problem with your interpretation is Jesus' actual words indicate a broader application. He said there "is NOTHING outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him." What does "nothing" mean in this passage according to your interpretation? Nothing is an absolute word. Actually, your position constitutes the absolute opposite of what Jesus said, because your interpretation essentially says "well actually, Jesus, you're wrong, eating un-kosher foods can defile you." Jesus says there is nothing you can eat that can defile you, but you apparently believe there are things you can eat that can defile you. Whom should I believe here, you or Jesus? He also says later "WHATEVER goes into the man from outside CANNOT defile him." Again, "whatever" is an absolute word covering anything that a person can ingest and pass out of their body. Please explain Christ's use of these absolute terms when He could have said that it is ONLY eating with dirty hands that can't defile you.
Over the years I have read MANY translations of verse 19 of this passage and I am familiar with the Greek. The Young's Literal translation that you supplied in no way disagrees with my interpretation (nor has any translation I've ever read). It (like the KJV) is just a bare bones rendering of the Greek: katharizon (cleansed, or really "He cleansed") panta (all) ta (the) bromata (foods). You have in no way offered an explanation of why there is a substantive difference between "purge" and "cleanse," nor have you explained what "purifying all the meats" means in your interpretive framework. And incidentally, katharizo is the same verb used in Acts 10:15 when God commanded Peter to kill and eat unclean foods ("what God has cleansed you must not call common").
I will strongly disagree with you saying that my interpretation would make Jesus a false prophet according to Dt 13. I will stop here and say that I am sure we would have major differences in the application of the old and new covenants and how it applies to this issue. Since Jesus fulfilled the Law and since He is Lord it would be His prerogative to change the Law. And please don't act as if you are living under all the laws of Torah.
"For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." (Hebrews 7:12)
Amen
If Jesus declares all foods clean. He was only talking about what is considered foods according to Leviticus 11 of the clean animals, birds, fish and bugs; yet one thing that R.L.Solberg didn’t explain was that unclean animals, birds, fish and bugs have never been considered foods. So Jesus can not speak of foods that are not even foods. Because R.L.Solberg thinks that like example Pork, lobster and cockroaches are considered foods because it can go into the stomach to be digested like the true clean foods, yet God never considered unclean things as foods. Especially for the saints.
And Noah when he got off the boat, when God says you can eat all things, God knew that Noah knew that meant only clean things as food. Notice how Noah brought into the the boat 7 pairs of the clean animals (food) and only 1 pair of unclean animals (not food)
Now after coming off the boat if there is only two pigs and Noah ate one, what would of happened to the pigs?
Mark 7 was about bread. Not even part of Lev 11
And Peters visions about dogs, cats, hawks, rats, spiders was never about eating them.
I can’t say that I agree with that statement because, I believe it would be redundant if Jesus was declaring all foods clean, if they were already considered to be clean before hand! I believe also it’s in accurate because in context, on the sheet that was being lowered were all kinds of animals that were considered to be “unclean“. So to remain in context, you would have to say that he was referring to what was previously considered to be “unclean“.
Hello Johanne! If we were to accept your distinction about what is food, it would mean that Jesus declared all *clean* food clean. Why would He need to do that? Clean foods are _already_ clean. And regarding Noah, it's clear from the text that God meant *all* foods. (Notice the same categories are mentioned here that are later mentioned in Lev 11: _beasts, birds, things that creep on the ground, sea food, etc._ )
"And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. *Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you.* And as I gave you the green plants, *I give you everything."* (Gen 9:1-3)
Shalom, Rob
@@savvycavvy7859 As I pointed out, I said “if” Jesus declares all foods clean. remember the part of the statement declaring all foods clean was not what Jesus originally said. This (in brackets) statement of declaring all foods clean is not in the original Greek text. On a side note the context about this discussion was about washing hands, and the example used was only bread. And bread is not outlined in as a Lev 11 description of examples because bread is in itself is clean.
As for Peters vision, he never once mentioned to start a unclean non food BBQ of cockroaches, spiders, dogs, cats, mouses, rats, worms, etc... the context was saving even Gentiles that were considered unclean through Talmudic traditions.
@@johanneangers2 I’m assuming you listened to Rob‘s video so I do not want to repeat everything that he explained in that. I think the point being is that the author added that in there, and still my point remains. There would be no need to “declare all foods clean,“ if they were already previously foods that were considered to be clean already, it would be redundant. Even if that’s added in at a later date, to be honest, an intelligent person would not phrase it in that way grammatically. That would be kind of like saying “I’m going to clean the dishes,“…AFTER they have already come out of the dishwasher.
@@johanneangers2 I respect the fact that you are searching the scriptures to find answers, as am I, but it’s really difficult to believe that in over 2000 years of scholarly and academic study and research, that something like that would just “slip in there“ and they all let it go! The vast majority of the godly men and women who worked on our precious Bible, do not believe that Christians, especially Gentile Christians, are required to keep the entire law of Moses. To practice the festivals, and to enjoy the feasts, can be very wonderful as I have done so for many years. But still, it would be very difficult to make a statement that the vast majority of all of the Christian theology for 2000 years is all wrong and that a small band of believers within the last 50 to 100 years has now discovered the truth. I personally believe it is a dangerous path if believers start teaching others that it is “mandatory“ to be Torah observant and observe all of the laws. Fact of the matter, most people who believe they are “Torah observant“, really are not keeping it like they think they are! Remember, if you fail and even one, you’ve failed the whole thing, Jesus fulfilled it all into place every bit of our faith in him covers us completely!
LoL..., "a crappie theory" .
Mark 7:1-23 has nothing to do with clean or unclean food, and not even the Greek insinuates that, nor is that phrase in the Gree . Verses 6-9 tell us exactly what this chapter is all about, which is the Pharisees' laying aside the commandments of God and teaching for doctrine the commandments of men. Rob Solberg, you are deliberately ignoring and attacking God's commandments in order to teach a doctrine that contradicts the Scriptures, which is why you continue to attack the commandments of God, using phrases like "not required but permissible" to camouflage your hostility toward God's commandments.
Here is my definition of a "christian theologian": someone who studies God and its doctrine in order to deliberately go against it. Theologians are a big part of the blame for false teachings. They have distorted true scriptural teachings based on the lies they have been engraved with. Therefore, the title fits you! You are deliberately distorting the scriptures.
The reason why Yeshua said, "Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him," is because sin originates from within the person, which had nothing to do with permitting one to eat unclean food. Read verses 20-23 so you know what proceeds from within, which is all sin. You are so ignorant of God's word, and that is because you cannot even understand it.
I continued to tell you that the Spirit of God is the one who gives us understanding of the truth of God's word, what God made clear when he first spoke, and you even asked what I meant by "what God made clear when he first spoke." Yeshua was clear when he first spoke, but he had to tell his disciples in Mark 7, "Are you so without understanding also?" In other words, Yeshua was clear in what he said, and they could not even understand it. Scriptural truth is clear, but you cannot comprehend it, unless you do not want to believe it.
If you're a theologian, why don't you do research on Mark 7:19 and why don't you read Matthew 15 and ask yourself why isn't the phrase "he declares all food clean" mentioned there? Oops, I forgot, you're a theologian, and I already gave my definition of a theologian.
You stated that it was critical that Yeshua not teach against the Torah so that he could meet the criteria of a true prophet. Is that the reason why he did not eat unclean animals: for him not to teach against the Torah, so that he could meet the criteria of a true prophet? To meet the criteria of a true prophet? I do not believe your brain is infected with pus, but what I do believe is that you are deliberately distorting the scriptures to suit your distorted view. You want nothing to do with the law and you want nothing to do with the God of Israel.
Your "permitted but not required" phrase says everything about you and what does it say?
1) You despise the God of Israel and want nothing to do with him.
2) Israel's God is not your God.
3) You have used God's Son to pin his Father, the God of Israel.
4) You have made the Son of God your God (I am not denying deity).
5) You want nothing to do with God's law.
6) You continue to attack God's law.
You speak double-mindedly. The word double-minded comes from the Greek word dipsuchos, meaning "a person with two minds or souls," and it also refers to being split in half, vacillating like a "spiritual schizophrenic."
Sam, you forgot number 7), and you REST your case, and by the way, He mention in his debate with Rabbi Tovia Singer, anyone that oppose the teaching of the Law of Moshe/Gods law is to be consider a False Prophet, He is condemning Himself with what is coming out of His own mouth. Rob, isn't ironic here you are arguing Mark7?
@@luiscajigas5567 What is amazing is that you can point it out to him and he will deliberately blind himself to not admit that he is speaking double-mindedly.
Hey, Sam! Just a friendly reminder that one day you will stand before the Lord and have to account for bearing false witness against me. Blessings, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots on judgment day we will all stand before the God of the Old Testament as you put it and you tell YeHoVaH that you received divine assignment from Him to write books and speak against His Law. Remember your words permissible but not required. Do you really know what you are telling the hearer on your video, choose this day if you will obey or disobey the Law of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Ponder on these words for a minute.
@@TheBiblicalRoots Rob, one day we will all stand before God, and that day will be a miserable day, but remember that the Scriptures tell us that those who are without law will perish (cast into eternal damnation), and those with law will be judged by the law. With this being said, would you rather perish and be sent to eternal damnation, or would you rather be judged by the law knowing that there will be an advocate next to you to defend you, telling God, "Yes, he is guilty, but you sent me to die for him, to make him your righteousness in me, and all his sin I bore so that he might be made your righteousness in me, and as you know, you sent me, your Son, into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world through me might be saved." Think deeply about what is being conveyed.
Rob, if all come before God for judgment, who will advocate for those who have no law? And tell me, will Yeshua advocate for the lawless?
With the above being said, I hope you have a clear understanding of what is being said. It is not about me judging you, it is about pointing out that you are not speaking according to the Scriptures, but teaching what is not scriptural. Seriously, you need to stop attacking God's law and start teaching how to walk with God in Yeshua. There are many Gentiles who call themselves believers, but they are walking with a crooked back, and that is because they stand on a foundation made of sand.
Thank you for clear and sound Biblical teaching Rob!
Christianity is a very gruesome story about a very loving thing God did to save his people: Adam had two sides to him, (two roots) one evil and one good: (THIS GIVES THE CHANCE TO FORM A WILL and MAN = HIS WILL): Adam chose the evil root (HaSatan) and refused the GOOD ROOT (Messiah): IF Adam would have chosen to obey God, he would have been the MESSIAH RIGHT THEN and THERE:
Since Adam did not chose the good root, Hashem cast Adam out into the world with his evil root (evil inclination) that manifests lashon hora (evil tongue) and "LET" him develop that EGO (evil inclination) till the FULLNESS OF TIME (away from Hashem/God) and then Adam would be FORCED to return (REPENT, DO TESHUVAH) because God put a time limit on the curse which is the EGO, the evil inclination:
Adam could choose (DO TESHUVAH) before his "APPOINTED TIME"" the HOUR of his VISITATION of Hashem, and things would go better for him in life because he would once again WALK WITH GOD by the POWER of the HOLY OIL, the anointing the GOOD ROOT: However, if he didn't return or repent before his time, GOD WOULD SUDDENLY come into his temple and destroy the yetzer hora, the ego, the false identity, the strong delusion' READY OR NOT: Before he does this, he sends ELIJAH to prepare us, but how? Elijah is the DESIRE FOR HASHEM TO RISE IN US and he does it by the POWER OF THE GOOD ROOT, the ANOINTING, the HOLINESS without which NO MAN shall see the LORD: So the HOLY OIL is the Messiah: Elijah is our desire for that HOLY OIL, for the Messiah: Hashem is IN THE MESSIAH or HOLY OIL reconciling the world to himself:
So what is Jesus? OR WHO is Jesus? He is the name of the heart that is circumcised by the HOLY OIL: Meaning what? He is the JEW (Judah/David) whose heart is circumcised by the MESSIAH by giving birth to him through the heart: He is the root and offspring of Judah who follows the DESIRE of the PRIEST (Aaron) John the Baptist, Elijah up to the place of the skull where the priest is beheaded of the ego and the MESSIAH lays his head on the shoulders of those who DIED to their ego to get the HEAD OF HASHEM:
So Jesus is a graphic picture of Judah/David keeping the VOW to keep the solemn feast days of Judaism, but not the tradition, but the ACTUAL ONCE in a life time event I experienced in 1992 and I was not a Jew, but I understood the whole Bible after this event:
the blood of Christ is Gods anointing that gives LIFE to the SOUL, hence LIFE is in the blood: In animals it is in the red blood but in MAN (resurrected Adam) it is LIGHT, white, hence though your sins be as scarlet I will make them white as snow/wool: God cleanses the soul by giving us a HIGHER SOUL (neshama) to work within the animate soul (Nephesh), but the HIGHER SOUL comes from the HOLY OIL inverting the root (good part of our heart/desire) to become the CROWN OF LIFE (KETER) from where the HOLY OIL FLOWS through the soul (ten sefirot):
this inversion happened to me in 1992 so I know its real and I know its POWER and I became a "WITNESS" OF what the Bible calls SALVATION:
here is the dilemma: Jews can say, WE ARE THE SUFFERING SERVANT and they are right: Christians can say WE have faith in Jesus and it turns out to be the Jews which is a shock: BUT, if the JEW DOES NOT KEEP that solemn feast which is also ABRAHAMS COVENANT that all his descendants must KEEP, the law will never be written in their inward parts so they get a NEW HEART AND NEW MIND: It all stays a story till someone keeps the VOW and becomes the JEW who brings the KING OF THE JEWS and the KING OF ISRAEL into this world:
so far, rightfully so, the KING (HASHEM) came through Abraham (Jesus therefor said, Abraham saw MY DAY (day of the LORD) and was GLAD): And since that time with Abraham, Hashem has been building his HOUSE (his TEMPLE for 2000 years which is the TABERNACLE OF DAVID) at this lowest level (ASIYAH) Malchut: The earth is his footstool: He puts his enemies "UNDER" his feet through David/Judah: Not one person 2000 years ago, but Messiah the GOOD ROOT OF ADAM resurrects in the "many sons" (Israel) to bring them to GLORY so it fills the earth as the waters cover the sea: When all Judah/David is resurrected, Malchut, this lower level will be revealed as Gods Kingdom on earth as in heaven: TILL THEN, the war is manifested on earth but it is actually in heaven:
since the war originates in heaven (the upper world, upper dimension) where it is won or lost, all the carnal weapons down here won't protect Israel forever: They have to finish their INNER WAR against the evil inclination, get the HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL TO RISE IN THEM and overcome the evil inclination and evil tongue, and this will MANIFEST AS PEACE ON EARTH and GOOD WILL IN MAN:
Nah 1:15 Behold upon the mountains the feet of him that brings good tidings, that publishes peace! O Judah, keep thy solemn feasts, perform thy vows: for the wicked shall no more pass through thee; he is utterly cut off.
If Judah (the whole house of David) doesn't keep their vow, the evil root is not cut off and there is no point in blaming Jesus for not doing what the Messiah is supposed to have done: REMEMBER, YOU are the Messiah, the suffering servant so ...........
and all gentiles (those who do not bring the Messiah but get the ANOINTING THROUGH THE CIRCUMCISED HEART, the Jew, ) PRAY for the peace of Jerusalem and for "Jesus" to come: Meaning, pray for the Jews to KEEP their SOLEMN VOW and keep their SOLEMN feasts:
if you ever wonder why Hashem seems so upset with Israel for not getting the heart circumcision, this is why: THE SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION of the whole world (Adam resurrected) depends on them because they TOOK THE VOW to do it: In truth, all who keep the vow become the true Jews, true circumcised hearts:
Deu 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked.
Deu 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.
So Tovia unwittingly just told all Jews to hurry up and DO WHAT JEWS are supposed to do: Those who convert, you will be sure to finish that vow as well:
PS, so Jesus is not a person but the heart (SOUL) of David who gives the BLOOD OF HASHEM, the ANOINTING to the world, through all the branches of the tree of knowledge, making it a TREE OF LIFE to those who NOW GRASP TORAH
Nobody reads long posts.
Time stamp 18:06 - you are intentionally conflating unclean animals with touching a dead animal. As a Bible scholar, you know the difference between these issues; yet, you are willing to mislead your followers in order to make your point. That is despicable. Leviticus 11:1-23 provides a list of unclean animals that cannot be eaten. There are no statements regarding washing oneself at evening and becoming clean after eating an unclean animal. These animals are unclean and cannot be cleansed. Leviticus 11:24-40 discusses the removal of dead animals. While one can avoid eating unclean food, one may not be able to avoid removing dead animals from one's home or environment due to health concerns. Therefore, the removal - touching - of the carcass of a dead animal makes one unclean until he is able to wash himself and his clothing. Likewise, household items that can be washed, must be washed if a dead thing touches it. If the household item cannot be sanitized (clay), it must be destroyed. These are absolutely sanitary issues. Do you not wash your hands, clothes and anything else it might touch if you pick up a dead mouse, to dispose of the germs and parasites? As for "there are no health issues with eating unclean animals" - perhaps you should research the health issues of eating predators and waste/carion disposers - which are of what unclean animals consist. Research the benefits of eating rumins (clean mammals) and birds with gizzards versus other birds. God created the world and everything in it. Would you defend that He wouldn't create specific food for His creation? Afterall, we don't eat every kind of plant simply because our digestive tract makes all "food clean." If you truly believe that, perhaps you would be willing to eat poison ivy?
Hi, Trinity. It seems you missed my point at 18:06 regarding Lev 11:39-40. The point I was making was that the categories of "clean" and "unclean" in the Bible aren't a matter of physical cleanliness or health concerns. Rather it is about _ritual_ cleanness. Do you disagree with that point?
RLS
Yummy cats and dogs!
You need to change your name to, Defending the lawless roman catholic roots of counterfeit Christianity
I don't know, Mac. That's an awfully wordy name!
DLRCRCC is kind of long.
Interesting theory- but I think you guys are over complicating the matter. The food laws were designed for health issues. Washing hands makes sense from a health perspective. Removing the blood and using salt to clean the meat is healthier. Pigs and shellfish eat “you know what”. Seems rather simple.
What do you think about farm raised catfish? That’s no longer a bottom feeder
@@savvycavvy7859 I was talking strictly about biblical times. Regarding shellfish, let’s say the Mediterranean does not have anything resembling Alaskan king crab or Nova Scotia Lobsters. Logically, it makes sense to avoid consuming predators or dirty animals.
That's an interesting theory, my kilt wearing friend! Do you have any scriptural evidence for your claim that "the food laws were designed for health issues"?
Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots To me it’s common sense. Salt kills bacteria, removing blood extends the shelf life of meat, value animals with no blemishes, avoid animals eating “nasty stuff” such as pigs or shellfish.
As for scriptural evidence- did the kosher food laws save Hebrew lives during the plagues? Cleaning of the kitchen with salt water once a year? Getting rid of all the “old stuff”. I can also refer to the Black Plague- the kosher food laws were the reason why Jews died at a fraction of the Christians in Europe.
Remember the hail storms? When hail melts on grain you get nasty bacteria. The oldest Egyptian child got a double portion of food ( or a double portion of poison). Kosher food laws meant that the grain was hands off to the Israelites.
You can paint a similar argument on why boys get circumcised. It prevents infections and diseases.
Washing your hands without soap just spreads the germs around.
🤣👍
Jesus confirms gods commandments in this mark 7 incident
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the dippings of pots and cups. And many other such things you do.
Mar 7:9 And He said to them, Do you do well to set aside the commandment of God, so that you may keep your own tradition?
He confirms the law twice.
How could jesus be abolishing the food laws, if he just confirmed the law twice.
Also, your stance contradicts. U said jesus completed the food laws and that they no longer stand. But then u say your in the new covenant with the torah written on ur heart?
This makes no sense brother
Actually, Indo, I said that Jesus transposed the Torah's food laws from outer physical rituals of purity like kosher food restrictions, to the inner purity of our hearts. Blessings, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots i must say. If jesus is teaching the law and prophets, it sure comes off Confusing when he says it’s not what goes in that defiles a person.
I respect your stance and understand how you come to that conclusion
@@indo3052 once again Indo Paul said eat whatever an unbeliever puts in front of you….you can’t do that if you observe Torah because ever meat that comes from the gentile market is unclean
Rob, you're either distorting Scripture to fit your agenda or you don't understand what this chapter is about. Mark chapter 7 has nothing to do with clean and unclean food. The statement Yeshua made was a general statement to make one understand that what defiles a man is what comes out of him, which is sin. You are doing the same with Jeremiah 31:31-34, you are distorting this passage of Scripture, not to mention, you have no understanding of what the new covenant is all about.
God makes a new covenant with his people (the Jews), and along comes a Gentile trying to explain what is being said, when it clearly states what God will do.
This video shows me the reason why you could not answer my question, who is your God the God of Israel or Yeshua. You want nothing to do with the God of Israel, you have deny him and made Yeshua the new God.
It's sad that people are falling for your distorted view.
Let me make this clear: under no circumstances am I denying the deity of Yeshua, but one needs to address him the way God addressed him, the Son of God.
Thanks, Sam! By way of response, I would simply say to watch this video. Blessings, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots Rob, I do not comment unless I watch. As I stated, assume that Yeshua was not yet born, remove the Brit-Chadashah, now read Jeremiah 31:31-34 and ask the question what is God going to store in the minds and write in the hearts of both houses, and what does he read it to?
This has got to be the dumbest video yet. Just to get this straight, we are to believe that Jesus followed Torah perfectly while teaching a new way that we are to follow once in the New Covenant after His resurrection, but that doesn't mean He was teaching against the Torah because that would be a violation of the Torah. So, post-resurrection, we are now supposed to disregard how He lived His life because that was just so HE could be righteous to die for us and then put HIS righteousness on us so that we don't have to obey all that God said anymore. So really, half of what He taught is supposed to be ignored because He was just doing that for show (so He could be the sinless sacrifice), like quoting Deut. 8:3 that says we are to live by EVERY WORD that comes from God. Jesus actually set us free from that teachnig.
It sounds like Jesus has a heart issue because He was only teaching things to make sure He was sinless, but secretly teaching things to set us free from obedience. Jesus really had a deceptive ministry.
Hi, Chad. My apologies if I did not communicate my message very clearly here. I have never suggested Christians should disregard how Jesus lived His life, nor that we don't have to obey God anymore. In fact, I strongly oppose both of those ideas. Jesus was our model and we ought to obey everything He has commanded us.
It's important to note that not every command that God has given applies to every person at all times. Some of His commands were only given to certain people (ex. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses), or for certain times (ex. global flood, gathering manna, exile) and we're each only expected to keep the commands of God that apply to us, right? So it's not just impossible, it would be foolish for anyone to try to literally keep "every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord" (Deut 8:3). We would all need to sacrifice our sons on Mount Moriah (Gen 22), build an ark (Gen 6), and prophecy naked and barefoot for three years (Isa 20).
We're each only expected to keep the commands of God that apply to us. And the ceremonial Mosaic commands do not apply to Christians today. (ex. Repeated blood sacrifices for sin are no longer required.) We are released from the Law of Moses, 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).
Blessings, Rob
Keeping Fathers commandments that apply to us, Jesus didn't keep everyone, is not a theory. Its Scripture. Sunday Pastors teach the opposite of Scripture.
Jesus had no reason the repeat the entire Torah because He was speaking to first century Jews who knew the Torah already and telling them to make sure you keep the Sabbath, dietary etc is like telling a scuba diver, Make sure you put your mask on before going into the water. A football player, Make sure you put your helmet on.
Can we just admit that David is a false teacher and should be avoided.
R. L. is a master Scripture twister like Satan. He says Torah people teach its required to eat clean FALSE, God says IF we love HIM we WILL keep HIS commandments. R. L. or Rob is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Define what David is teaching that makes him according to Scriptures a false teacher?
*Alcohol can defile someone (i.e make them sin)*