things are different now...for me

[IMJerusha]

I'm talking about earlier traditions of the gospels, just read any footnote *not found in earlier traditions* and yes God did preserve them otherwise I would not know about the simple fact, He guides His sheep and teaches them all things just like He promises His disciples John 14:26, praise Ya and Amen.

I'm not real familiar with who David is or the relevance to the current topic, as far as sending my comments to Him, you are welcome to do so, but it's better if he desires himself to know God's word rather than someone else trying to spoon feed him something he might not be ready to stomach, no pun intended.

Well, some believe that Yeshua was making Messianic halakhah and setting priorities in regard to purity, some believe Mark (or the author of Mark) was making his own halakhic summary of Yeshua's words. I personally read the words as found in Young's Literal, Greek and Hebrew Interlinears and said to myself, I think I should pray on this, which I did. I have not been burdened by the Ruach to follow the dietary laws other than what is obvious in the decision of the Jerusalem Council. As far as David Stern is concerned, I have no need to pass along your words. Here is why. Dr. Stern included the parenthetical in his translation but explained away the parenthetical in his commentary from a Hebraic perspective. In other words, he took the rabbinical high road which I do not find unusual for a Jewish person or someone of Jewish descent but, considering his leaving of the parenthetical, I find as hypocritical as the Pharisees. That's why I thought you should pass your comments on to him. I have chosen to adopt the belief that Yeshua made Messianic halakhah based upon my reading, prayer and the lack of prompting from the Ruach. Many in Messianic Judaism have adopted this same belief and the reason for that, I would say, is due to Yeshua's words in the verse just prior. That footnote, btw, is not in all translations.

And for your information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Stern

 

[IMJerusha]

HEy Im,

while you are passing that memo onto David, make sure he knows (which he should have learned in seminary) that that particular addition is not in the older manuscripts.

it's possible he knew that, but included it anyway for the purpose of not leaving anything out from the catholic Christian tradition. (which is how these later text come to us). at least he kept in in parentheses like most other Bible translations do to let readers know.

No, I won't be passing onto the man what Yeshua already made comment on. If he hasn't figured it out by now, I doubt he will and from your earlier post regarding "the ancients" I doubt you will either. Not to worry. Halakhah/Kashrut is not salvific. I would caution you regarding the rabbinical high road/Talmud, however. Yeshua said "Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, phonies! For you travel around sea and land to make one convert, and when it has happened, you make him doubly the son of Gehenna that you are!"

 

[jeremysdemo]

No, I won't be passing onto the man what Yeshua already made comment on. If he hasn't figured it out by now, I doubt he will and from your earlier post regarding "the ancients" I doubt you will either.

well that's a shame, one should not leave another in ignorance if it is within there power to prevent it.

I beleive David had a good idea, a Jewish NT would be fitting, the problem I think he ran into was using the Greek exclusively for transliteration, an Aramaic reconstruction translated to Hebrew thought/custom/tradition could have been more accurate to the time period...but I digress...this really would be a better conversation between me and him.

for your own sake, you should know Y'shua never commented on that, at least not in the earliest traditions/manuscripts, that is why it is in parenthesis in the text of most translations, it is a known catholic addition, not found in other regions.

the reason it is not in parenthesis in all translations is because some are more built on church tradition than the older text...but again I digress....

Not to worry. Halakhah/Kashrut is not salvific. I would caution you regarding the rabbinical high road/Talmud, however. Yeshua said "Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, phonies! For you travel around sea and land to make one convert, and when it has happened, you make him doubly the son of Gehenna that you are!"

I accept your warning, tho I am not entirely sure what it is in reference to.

it seems we are at odds, which is saddening between a brother and sister, if there is something I have done to offend you I hope you would make it clear soon, I don't want to have to resurrect MarkA in here.

 

[jeremysdemo]

Well, some believe that Yeshua was making Messianic halakhah and setting priorities in regard to purity, some believe Mark (or the author of Mark) was making his own halakhic summary of Yeshua's words. I personally read the words as found in Young's Literal, Greek and Hebrew Interlinears and said to myself, I think I should pray on this, which I did. I have not been burdened by the Ruach to follow the dietary laws other than what is obvious in the decision of the Jerusalem Council. As far as David Stern is concerned, I have no need to pass along your words. Here is why. Dr. Stern included the parenthetical in his translation but explained away the parenthetical in his commentary from a Hebraic perspective. In other words, he took the rabbinical high road which I do not find unusual for a Jewish person or someone of Jewish descent but, considering his leaving of the parenthetical, I find as hypocritical as the Pharisees. That's why I thought you should pass your comments on to him. I have chosen to adopt the belief that Yeshua made Messianic halakhah based upon my reading, prayer and the lack of prompting from the Ruach. Many in Messianic Judaism have adopted this same belief and the reason for that, I would say, is due to Yeshua's words in the verse just prior. That footnote, btw, is not in all translations.

And for your information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Stern

yes, I looked him up, his credentials and family life before the initial comment on his translation of Mark.

 

[jeremysdemo]

and from your earlier post regarding "the ancients" I doubt you will either.

I wish you would clarify this for my own sake.

clefty commented on religion being but chaff to the spiritual kernel of wheat, and I agreed being familiar with the saying:

John 12:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit

and I added all this was in the writings of the ancients, I don't understand how that brings doubt I will figure something out?

I'm sorry but just don't follow....

die to self, we must decrease that he must increase...these are are common spiritual themes throughout the Bible...?

 

[clefty]

No, I won't be passing onto the man what Yeshua already made comment on. If he hasn't figured it out by now, I doubt he will and from your earlier post regarding "the ancients" I doubt you will either. Not to worry. Halakhah/Kashrut is not salvific. I would caution you regarding the rabbinical high road/Talmud, however. Yeshua said "Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, phonies! For you travel around sea and land to make one convert, and when it has happened, you make him doubly the son of Gehenna that you are!"

Am I wrong to be reminded that this (....) in Mark is much like the italicized word "day" in texts supposedly referring to the first day of the week rather than the first of the sabbaths of the seven to Pentecost?

A word in italics, we are told, is not in the originals...

Mia ton sabbaton was not understood by translators as the count towards Pentecost thus they inserted the word day to make it read "on the first day of the seven" (days of the week) and not first sabbath of the seven sabbaths

Or

Obviously the translators had an agenda to maintain- namely the church's assimilation of pagan traditions-

But yes dietary laws are not Salvific....drum roll....NO law is-

 

[jamie]

The purpose of Israel's priesthood was to teach people the difference beween what was holy and what was not holy and the difference between the clean and unclean.

And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy and between unclean and clean and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses. (Leviticus 10:10-11)​

There were no pig farms or oyster bars in Israel in Jesus' day.

What Jesus said about his disciples not washing their hands was said in the context of Jewish culture.

 

[IMJerusha]

well that's a shame, one should not leave another in ignorance if it is within there power to prevent it.

One has to be open to receiving the Truth. In this case, the Truth is that Kashrut is not salvific.

I beleive David had a good idea, a Jewish NT would be fitting, the problem I think he ran into was using the Greek exclusively for transliteration, an Aramaic reconstruction translated to Hebrew thought/custom/tradition could have been more accurate to the time period...but I digress...this really would be a better conversation between me and him.

I'm amazed you're on a first name basis with a man you knew nothing or very little about. The book of Mark was originally written in a Latinized Greek so I don't have a problem with David Stern translating that literally. I have a problem with his choice of tradition over Yeshua's words.

for your own sake, you should know Y'shua never commented on that, at least not in the earliest traditions/manuscripts, that is why it is in parenthesis in the text of most translations, it is a known catholic addition, not found in other regions.

For my own sake? Let me reiterate that Kashrut is not salvific. Additionally verse 19 with or without the parenthetical is built on verse 18 and as far as the parenthetical not being found in other regions, you're full of hogwash!

the reason it is not in parenthesis in all translations is because some are more built on church tradition than the older text...but again I digress....

A translation is not the same as a region and you are getting the two confused. Regions are often governed by tradition. Translations should not be so the best thing anyone can do is read multiple translations. The parenthetical is not in verse 18.

I accept your warning, tho I am not entirely sure what it is in reference to.

I think you do and you're simply behaving in the same manner as you did when you claimed to know nothing of David Stern. If I am incorrect, please accept my apologies. Yeshua was clear that we need to be very careful not to nullify God's Word with our traditions and that includes the traditions of the "ancients".

it seems we are at odds, which is saddening between a brother and sister, if there is something I have done to offend you I hope you would make it clear soon, I don't want to have to resurrect MarkA in here.

There is nothing wrong with Brother and Sister disagreeing and you have done nothing to offend me. Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Eḥad

 

[IMJerusha]

Am I wrong to be reminded that this (....) in Mark is much like the italicized word "day" in texts supposedly referring to the first day of the week rather than the first of the sabbaths of the seven to Pentecost?

A word in italics, we are told, is not in the originals...

Mia ton sabbaton was not understood by translators as the count towards Pentecost thus they inserted the word day to make it read "on the first day of the seven" (days of the week) and not first sabbath of the seven sabbaths

Or

Obviously the translators had an agenda to maintain- namely the church's assimilation of pagan traditions-

But yes dietary laws are not Salvific....drum roll....NO law is-

To accept Yeshua's words and come to the conclusion found in the parenthetical especially in light of Peter's vision as recorded in Acts is not pagan. Many have come to the same conclusion different translators did without pagan influence. I wouldn't assign evil to translators without knowing their hearts and the fact is that we don't.

 

[clefty]

To accept Yeshua's words

I do

and come to the conclusion found in the parenthetical

is the issue, and I don't ---not just because its in parenthesis which means editorialization on the part of translators and not in the original but because it fundamentally changes the purpose of the law...clean and unclean...separation...Yah's and not Yah's

especially in light of Peter's vision as recorded in Acts is not pagan.

Peter's vision was symbolic to spreading the message to the those formerly considered unclean...please be careful with applying literal to symbolic...we don't eat Christ, walk through Him like a door, or light our darkened basements with His light.

many have eaten of His bread and died...not lived forever as He said

Many have come to the same conclusion different translators did without pagan influence. I wouldn't assign evil to translators without knowing their hearts and the fact is that we don't.

by their fruits we will know them...

their conclusions might have come from not understanding or yes, evil intent...

if Peter understood and accepted the parenthesis in Mark he would not have argued "I haven't eaten unclean" because he could have since before the death and resurrection of Yahusha...

but it was clearly understood

"When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

see? there's no "and YAY we get to eat fried bacon!!


there is no need for the later implications of the vision which are false...the vision was understood by Peter and others as preaching to the unclean not eating it...


twisting and distorting the law...is changing it...and dietary laws are much bigger than jots or tittles combined...but the essence of understanding clean and unclean is a value known since Noah...

translator's might not have meant to...but it is corrupting the word and the law...and that is indeed evil...

btw pagan is merely meaning "not of Yah"

 

[jeremysdemo]

One has to be open to receiving the Truth. In this case, the Truth is that Kashrut is not salvific.

I'm sorry, did I say it was?

you know it can be, for example 1 out of every 10,000 people are allergic to shell fish and can die instantly from anaphylactic shock should they consume it, not eating what is not called food in the Bible would "save" a person from death in that case....but I digress.

I'm amazed you're on a first name basis with a man you knew nothing or very little about. The book of Mark was originally written in a Latinized Greek so I don't have a problem with David Stern translating that literally. I have a problem with his choice of tradition over Yeshua's words.

I didn't feel the need to say his whole name here every time we spoke of him.

Mark Twain once said, and I tend to agree, that the purpose of words is to communicate thoughts to one another. Since it was you whom brought him up by his full name it seemed there would be no miscommunication as to whom we are referring to in the discussion when saying David.

is there another David in the thread that where you confused?

I'm guessing the answer is no, so you did know whom we were talking about, and this is just nitpicking like people do over spelling when they know very well what the other person is trying to convey....I'm not on any basis with him, haven't spoken to him yet, I am speaking to you, I thought.

I beleive we are saying the same thing (highlighted), and have been all along, since I too do not agree with him siding with tradition over the older manuscripts..... ?

that being said, I will reiterate, that the discussion over his choice of method for making a Jewish NT would be better fitting between him and me.

For my own sake? Let me reiterate that Kashrut is not salvific.

again, never said it was.

Additionally verse 19 with or without the parenthetical is built on verse 18 and as far as the parenthetical not being found in other regions, you're full of hogwash!

don't trust me on it, do your own research, if at the end of that you still want to disparage me (though you probably won't) so be it, I've got broad shoulders, so pile it on. :idea:

A translation is not the same as a region and you are getting the two confused. Regions are often governed by tradition. Translations should not be so the best thing anyone can do is read multiple translations. The parenthetical is not in verse 18.

I think we are going down a rabbit trail here are are too far removed from the original discussion to even remember what the point is (at least I am). it's all good, all is forgiven, and peace be with you in the name of Y'shua, Amen.

I think you do and you're simply behaving in the same manner as you did when you claimed to know nothing of David Stern. If I am incorrect, please accept my apologies. Yeshua was clear that we need to be very careful not to nullify God's Word with our traditions and that includes the traditions of the "ancients".

truly sorry if my choice of words offend you, I refer to anything from 2000 years or more ago as ancient, it's nothing personal toward anyone or anything.

I asked for clarity on what your warning was about because I have no idea what is is in reference to, and all I get is you think I already know? how is that Loving me to leave me in the dark on this matter?

is it even important? :think: if so, let it be known.

There is nothing wrong with Brother and Sister disagreeing and you have done nothing to offend me. Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Eḥad

there is if there is no real good reason for it.

 

[clefty]

I'm sorry, did I say it was?

you know it can be, for example 1 out of every 10,000 people are allergic to shell fish and can die instantly from anaphylactic shock should they consume it, not eating what is not called food in the Bible would "save" a person from death in that case....but I digress.

lol...

but even they eventually die...

NO one is saved from the first death...ok maybe 2 and those alive when caught up to meet Him at the end...

but points for style...

 

[jamie]

Was it Matthew or Luke where it talks about Jesus eating ham with his family on Easter Sunday?

I know it must be there because Jesus certainly practiced what he preached. If Jesus said it was okay to eat scavenger animals it had to be from his own experience. I wonder if he had a preference for calamari? Yeah, probably so or he wouldn't have said it was good to eat.

 

[clefty]

Was it Matthew or Luke where it talks about Jesus eating ham with his family on Easter Sunday?

I know it must be there because Jesus certainly practiced what he preached. If Jesus said it was okay to eat scavenger animals it had to be from his own experience. I wonder if he had a preference for calamari? Yeah, probably so or he wouldn't have said it was good to eat.

lol

well...but certainly only after His death and resurrection ...then its all good

didn't you say?

"The Law of Moses is the statutes and judgments God gave for the people of Jacob and that Moses recorded in the Book of the Law. These statutes and judgments were only for Israel and only until the coming of Christ to the Jews.

The Law of Moses is ancient history."

or?

 

[jamie]

Actually, God created food before he created the Mosaic law.

God is not big on change so what he said was unclean a few years ago is still unclean today. It's not about the law, it is about personal integrity. You are what you eat.

For some reason many people seem to think there was no right or wrong before Moses or after Jesus' resurrection.

 

[clefty]

Actually, God created food before he created the Mosaic law.

that is true...all clean...

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

and vegetarian...

God is not big on change so what he said was unclean a few years ago is still unclean today. It's not about the law, it is about personal integrity. You are what you eat.

It is not about us or a matter of personal integrity... but Yah and His law...its dangerous and idolatrous to make it about anything but Him...

For some reason many people seem to think there was no right or wrong before Moses or after Jesus' resurrection.

lol

but that is understandable as it all gets less clear than when the dietary laws were actually stated in the mosaic law which, well,

you said is in post #83 inoperable #87 nullified #89 fixed by God so no one can keep it
#107 cannot be kept without priest or temple #130 is history

....these claims are echoed by many people

most Christians believe we live by grace...the law fulfilled, abolished, nailed to the cross...

 

[jeremysdemo]

lol...

but even they eventually die...

yes die once, but we don't have to be in a hurry! or purposefully do something to make it happen prematurely.... :think:

but points for style...

these are much like the points on Who's Line Is It Anyway...

 

[jamie]

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

and vegetarian...

Are you saying Jesus was a vegetarian? If so he not only did not fulfill the law he didn't even keep the law of which eating the Passover was an integral part.

If you believe complying with a law does away with it why don't you share your theory with the IRS? Explain to them that you previously complied with the law and now it is done away.

 

[clefty]

Are you saying Jesus was a vegetarian?

No, I am not saying Jesus was a vegetarian. Where do you get that?

I am replying to your statement

"Actually, God created food before he created the Mosaic law."

If so he not only did not fulfill the law he didn't even keep the law of which eating the Passover was an integral part.

I am not saying that...He prepared fish to eat

the last supper btw was not the Passover meal

If you believe complying with a law does away with it why don't you share your theory with the IRS? Explain to them that you previously complied with the law and now it is done away.

I don't believe complying with a law does away with it...

Do you even read my posts?

I said many christains do...share your analogy with them

You, however, claim the law is

post #83 inoperable #87 nullified #89 fixed by God so no one can keep it
#107 cannot be kept without priest or temple #130 history

 

[jamie]

No, I am not saying Jesus was a vegetarian. Where do you get that?

Somebody said, "that is true...all clean...

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

and vegetarian..."

Was that you?