“Therefore let no one judge you...”

[clefty]

“Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the Substance is of Christ” Col 2:16-17 NKJV

INTENTIONAL mistranslations: Do not let them prevent you from keeping God’s Holy Days - Church of God News

COGwriter Since Jesus and the Apostles kept the Sabbaths and the Holy Days, why do most who profess Christ not observe them? While social pressure, tradition, and twisted interpretation of scripture all play a role, one role that is overlooked by many is the fact that there are a few passages in...

www.cogwriter.com

Paul here was writing to the saints and faithful brethren in Colosse and addressing some issues they were facing in their new lives with circumcised hearts. In verse 15 we see Paul specify that principalities and powers were made a spectacle by Him which makes sense as His kingdom is NOT of this world but a spiritual realm “on earth as it is in heaven”...of course the “therefore” dont worry what people think...

Giving comfort to these new converts Paul reminds them that only FELLOW BELIEVERS...that is the Body of Christ is to judge them letting no one else do so...neither disbelieving jews or disbelieving countrymen.

Most have traditionally asserted that this text proves that Paul maintains the Law regarding food or drink or festival or new moon or sabbath was done away with. Then why did Paul not write that? Greek has tense yes? He writes in verse 17 all these “ARE a shadow” present tense and not these “WERE” in past tense as if they were done away with. Subtle but profound differing. Heb 10:1 echoes this law as HAVING a shadow and certainly NOT having HAD a shadow past tense.

Practically how does this play out?

Let’s assume the Law WAS done away with...who would judge these believing Colossians at all?

Would fellow non believing Colossians even care their believing countrymen are NOT keeping new moons according to the jews?

Or why would non believing jews care why Colossians would accept a false messiah which they reject and yet don’t keep the festivals? Would that really make non believing jews upset the believing Colossians were NOT keeping the Sabbath?

It only makes sense that non believing Colossians would ask why their believing countrymen WERE suddenly keeping “jewish stuff”...just like around here “why you judaizing?”

And it also only makes sense that non believing jews would resent these new “unclean” “converts” crowding into their synagogues clamoring to hear more about the resurrected One...

What comfort indeed that Paul wrote that these new converts in Colosse should look only to the Body of Christ to help understand their new life as circumcised hearts and dismiss any criticism from principalities and powers He made a public spectacle of.

 

[Nikephoros II Phokas]

Is this straight from the Church of the Seventh Day Arian website?

 

[clefty]

Is this straight from the Church of the Seventh Day Arian website?

Those that marry into another faith know the learning curve which awaits to get the details and minutia of their new faith correct-valid. Where to stand, what to pray, what image to kiss etc.

The views and judgements of any of their former faith matter not but only the affections and respect of their new spouse and her co religionists. She too like Paul would quickly dispel any criticism or doubt casting with a quick “don’t worry about them” even from those within the new faith “who didn’t get it”...

The love struck convert will normally be eager to learn as much as possible about his new faith its culture and beliefs often known as “the zeal of the convert” and often going well beyond those they have joined. These joys of belief and of faith David understood as he too had a LOVE of the Law “more desirable than gold...sweeter than honey” Just read the opening lines of the Psalms. “Oh how I love your Law I meditate on it all day long” Ps 119:97

Paul too continued his love of torah “therefore the Law is holy...just...good” Romans 7:12 “I DELIGHT in the Law” verse 22 Sadly ever since this love of His Law has diminished from those that claim they love Him...and now even from the commandments and traditions of man as fewer and fewer attend church on Sundays. Having said that any Orthodoxy with its tradition and history has become more attractive as mega churches their “cheap grace” run out of steam.

Paul (alleged author) wrote the Colossians after the Jerusalem council and affirms this Body of Christ be the only valid judge by which new converts were guided into their new circumcised lifestyle having clarified prior with the Romans that keeping the righteous requirements of the law will count uncircumsion as circumcision Rom 2:26 AND he that is NOT physically circumcised BUT FULFILLS THE LAW will judge even those who ARE cut. Verse 27.

This Body of Christ had met in Jerusalem 50AD to deal with the new gentile converts crowding their synagogues to hear of One resurrected. How were these “foreigners” these “alienated and enemies in mind by wicked works” but NOW RECONCILED (Col 1:21) to learn the SHADOWS of the good things still to come?

It is good council indeed from Paul to let no one judge us...our circumcised lifestyle to defraud us of our reward...but the Body of Christ.

 

[Nikephoros II Phokas]

Despite your obvious and failed troll job about how I came to the One True Faith, you don't really believe that keeping the Jewish Sabbath is just a variance of custom. You have quite explicitly stated on a multitude of occasions that keeping the Jewish sabbath is a LAW and requirement to be in good moral standing.

By the way the irony is that St. Paul implicitly refers to Jews judging Christians for keeping the Lord's Day as holy otherwise why would there be any need criticism of people attempting to keep the Jewish Sabbath. Even in St. Paul's time Jews and judaizers like you were attempting to do Satan's work to rip out the seedling Church of Christ before it could take root.

 

[clefty]

“Despite your obvious and failed troll job about”

relax...your experience was similiar to many goyim in that first century who wished to visit a synagogue to hear more of One resurrected...which prompted the Acts 15 council...

how I came to the One True Faith,

...which? Moscow or Constantinople?

you don't really believe that keeping the Jewish Sabbath is just a variance of custom.

but yours does with its “holy tradition”...a tradition even Protestants embrace not finding keeping Sunday in Scripture....the CCC #1957 also teaches the Law has various applications...

You have quite explicitly stated on a multitude of occasions that keeping the Jewish sabbath is a LAW and requirement to be in good moral standing.

Any other of the 10 commandments NOT part of good moral standing?
Any other of the 10 commandments considered “jooish”?

Or might we recall that at Mt Sinai a day of rest after six of work was given to more than 1/12 of Israel but to an ekklesia already full of those NOT of Judah.

In fact, these “strangers within thy gates” were ONLY specifically included in the Sabbath commandment...the irony.

By the way the irony is that St. Paul implicitly refers to Jews judging Christians for keeping the Lord's Day as holy

again...why would joos who rejected One resurrected care if goyim worshipped Him on another day?...you think joos were upset these goyim were NOT coming to synagogues to worship One they rejected?

otherwise why would there be any need criticism of people attempting to keep the Jewish Sabbath.

Joos criticized the Lord of the Sabbath His keeping of it. They claimed He broke the Sabbath...a violation of Law...a SIN which would forfeit His right to “sinless sacrifice”...and here you ignore the enmity He abolished Eph 2:15 that joos had for the “unclean” goyim?

Paul was encouraging that only the Body of Christ could clarify the nuance and subtle sophistications of the Torah which these believing goyim were being exposed to...BECAUSE Moses was taught every Sabbath to them. Acts 15:21

Paul understood the learning curve any new convert experiences but the faith one converts to is NOT changed to adapt him. We must hold fast...overcome...

Even in St. Paul's time Jews and judaizers like you were attempting to do Satan's work to rip out the seedling Church of Christ before it could take root.

your tradition needed time take root indeed. Paul however taught those that by faith follow Him are merely GRAFTED INTO a much OLDER TRADITION as a branch to a trunk with root...

Paul did NOT teach a new seedling was planted to sprout its own roots. And it was olive branch to olive trunk...not a mixing of apple branches to orange trunks...biologically impossible. Nor does the grafted branch change the trunk...

Paul knew the New Covenant of a circumcised heart was signed (by His blood) and sealed (at the cross) in accordance to the Last Will and Testament of the Testator PRIOR His death...and christened to a room full of joos...

And is why John affirms that if you claim to abide in Him? Live AS He did. 1 John 2:6

 

[clefty]

As already mentioned Paul wrote to the Colossians long after the Body of Christ met for council in Jerusalem in 50 AD

Here was demonstrated indeed that it was “branches grafted in” and not a new tree all together.

In Acts 15 James concludes that to ease their learning curve 4 things will be expected of goyim crowding into the synagogues to hear more of One resurrected. Four things ALREADY LISTED in the OT which were expected of the “strangers within thy gates” who lived amongst Israel.

1-abstain from food offered to idols Lev 17:8-9
2-abstain from sexual immorality Lev 18:6-26
3-abstain from blood Lev 17:10
4-abstain from meat strangled/carcass

The prohibition against meat eaten when not knowing how it was killed is interesting as it is ruled here at the council as NOT allowed...whereas in Deut 14:21 “meat died of itself/natural causes “ it to be given to the “strangers” or sold to a “foreigner” as they were “second class citizen”...

The Body of Christ forbidding the believing goyim their eating of this meat points to their complete inclusion into Israel...adopted by faith...grafted in...as it was even revealed to Peter his vision that believing goyim are NOT “unclean”.

The Greeks were cosmopolitan and had good manners. They long knew potlucks in synagogues did NOT include Swine, and thus were NOT insisting on Ham sandwiches after hearing Moses preached. However what believing Greeks needed insight into was that even clean meat could become UNCLEAN to eat.

This is WHY James et al concluded that the believing Greeks would do 1 2 3 and 4 BECAUSE they would hear Moses taught every Sabbath they came to hear of One resurrected. That conjunction “FOR” in verse 21 sums it up. “For Moses has been proclaimed in every city from ancient times and is read in the synagogues every Sabbath” Acts 15:21

The NEW tree with NEW traditions was planted long after this...but those grafted into Israel still hear Moses every Sabbath learning of One resurrected.

 

[clefty]

The issue of diet continues to come up in the SB with Mark 7:19 “...(Thus He declared all foods clean)” attempted as a proof text we can indeed eat swine...rats bats and wombats.

The King James Version has this verse as “purging all meats” as does the Douay Rheims. The INT has it at “thereby expelling all foods” a personal favorite of mine. It is a phrase in parentheses in most contemporary versions as it was NOT in the oldest Greek manuscripts.

“We can eat bacon!” is also a teaching NOT understood by Matthew who used Mark as resource and omitted this phrase entirely in his gospel account of the same teaching event Matt 15:17.

Placing the text in context the issue is NOT that the disciples are eating pork but that they do not wash their hands prior to eating their clean food. Mark 7:2.

Our Master was teaching that it is NOT what comes into the body that defiles us but what is already there in the heart.

He reminds His listeners that food does not go into the heart but the stomach and finally into the sewer.

It is NOT unwashed hands that defile clean food but that the uncircumcised heart defiles a man just a surely as lust originates in the heart LONG BEFORE the act of adultery occurs.

Only an uncircumcised heart would think certain unclean acts as clean.

For a more eloquent argument:

(Thus he declared all foods clean) Part 1 | Mark 7:19

Did Jesus really ‘declare all foods clean’? What does the Greek text say?

apaulogetic.com

But but but He made all food clean. And yet even Muslims reject that this Prophet abrogated the customs Moses delivered.

Did Peter miss this delightful culinary event in Mark?

In Acts 10 Peter refrains from pork chops ham or bacon THREE times. This being long after the resurrection and Peter STILL claims to be clean and refuses Heaven itself to eat from what is lowered in a vision.

But had not all foods been declared ok to eat back in Mark? I mean he was there! Yet Peter here still does not consider pagan food as his own.

How did Peter interpret his vision in Acts 10?

Already in verse 28 Peter makes it clear: “Then he (Peter) said to them (goyim...but devout men) “you know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. BUT Yah has shown me that WE CAN EAT SWINE”...LOL..of course NOT...but ”that I should not call any man common or unclean”

Peter again in verse 34 repeats “In truth I perceive that Yah shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation WHOEVER hears Him AND WORKS RIGHTEOUSNESS is accepted by Him”

So it’s NOT just for da joo eh? Or just by faith alone. Or works of righteousness as defined by man’s traditions...

Peter again 43”...WHOEVER believes in Him will receive remission of sins”...See? NOT just da joo...but goyim too are NOT common or to be avoided...

An understanding Peter ACTS on demanding they be baptized these believing goyim 47”...who have received the Holy Spirit JUST AS WE HAVE”

These goyim however were DEVOUT as chapter 10 clearly defines 2”...one who feared Yah with all his household...gave alms generously...and prayed to Yah always” and even fasted verse 30. You expect Cornelius to be swine eating and forgetting of the sabbaths?

Holy belongs to holy...clean to clean.

Peter has to defend his new understanding of going to the “unclean goyim” in chapter 11 even eating WITH them verse 3...note it is not eating AS they do...but merely WITH...and these being devout...

Peter again confirms his understanding of the vision NOT as “we can eat bacon!!” but that as the goyim are NOT unclean but given the Holy Spirit...the SAME gift verse 17 “He gave us when we believed”

Those contentious circumcised ones marveled verse 18 “Then Yah has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life”...INDEED...yes it was hard for da joos to accept that goyim could repent “turn back” change their ways and be grafted INTO Israel.

These joos had forgotten (or rejected until Peter’s teaching of his vision) that this gift of inclusion was already available at Mount Sinai...on condition. “Whoever fears Yah and works righteousness”

Chapter 11 concludes with more and more believing goyim added...leading up to the crowding of synagogues and to the council in Acts 15 of what to expect of these excited goyim eager to hear of One resurrected...every Sabbath.

Sadly Peter still wishes to appease joos with their “don’t eat with goyim” prohibition and even Paul in Gal 2 has to remind him: verse 14“If you being a joo live in the manner of gentiles (cosmopolitan...mixing...socializing) and not like the joos (with false piety and separatist/supremacy issues) then why do you compel gentiles to live as joos?”

Good question Paul! Why indeed were disciples compelling gentiles to works of repentance and righteousness at all if a jooish monopoly with its separatism and supremacy remained?

Paul goes on to remind Peter that He causes justification and not a following of Law...certainly NOT jooish social customs...

Happily on the understanding of the vision Peter stands and delivers Acts 15:7 “...you know that a good while ago Yah chose among us that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So Yah Who knows the heart acknowledged them (the devout goyim) by giving them the Holy Spirit JUST AS HE DID US 9and made NO DISTINCTION between us and them purifying their hearts by faith”

So Peter affirms the vision as ONE group with NO distinction and inclusive of believing goyim...but if some of that first century ekklesia ate swine and worshipped on another day that would be distinct yes?

 

[Nikephoros II Phokas]

I can't make heads or tails of what your link is trying to prove other than they are of the absurd belief that anything in the New Testament that runs counter to their Judaizing practices are spurious insertions or even worse - deletions. I don't know what to say to the assertion that the phrase was inserted into the text and is not present in the earliest manuscripts when the phrase is attested to in the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus in addition to every Byzantine text-type (Majority Text), other than to say that assertion is patently false and I won't be debating such lies and the liars that perpetrate them any further. Making it into a parenthetical phrase can be seen as modern but since the grammar changes in the phrase in question from the first part of the verse it's not an unreasonable thing to do. The Koine of NT period didn't have parenthesis or indeed any punctuation at all. When you get right down to it, all punctuation, spacing and versing was added to the Holy Scriptures generations later. The originals were all written in unspaced and unpunctuated majuscule.

Having dealt with that, let's look at the phrase in the original Koine Greek and investigate the claims of mistranslation. St. Mark 7:19 from the Majority Text:

ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ’ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα

The Koine Greek word used in Mark 7:19 is καθαρίζων (katharizon) which means cleansing/purifying. It's the third person singular active present participle of its root's verb form κᾰθᾰρῐ́ζω (katharizo) so in English it would be rendered as: [he/she/it is] cleansing/purifying [item(s)] {e.g. he is cleaning this item or these items}. It can mean purging but not very commonly. We need more context. Let's look at another use of the same root word in the NT since Mark 7:19 is the only time that this particular verbal inflection is used for the root word which is καθαρός (katharos) - keep that root word in mind because we will be coming back to it later.

Let's look at the First Epistle of St. John 1:7 in the Majority Text and then the KJV.

ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν, ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί, κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ’ ἀλλήλων, καὶ τὸ αἷμα Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας.

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

As you can see καθαρίζει (katharizon), the active indicative (making a statement of fact) of the verb katharizo, obviously doesn't mean clean from dirt or soil or this verse doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Christ's Holy Blood is supposed to be used as bath soap? It means making spiritually pure in the NT. It's rendered several times in the NT this way in various forms and the meaning is the same so I shall not bore you with more examples. The NT doesn't make many direct references to distinctions between unclean/clean food except for in one prominent verse but let's save that for later because we need to broaden our research a bit to get a better understanding of the Koine words in question.

You remember the root word katharos? Let's now circle back to it by taking a look at how that word is used in the Septuagint (LXX), not just any verse, but ones highly relevant to the topic of this discussion. We really need to see this root and its antonym in use in the same phrase so we'll look at Leviticus 7:19 first. It was translated into Greek in the LXX as:

καὶ κρέα ὅσα ἂν ἅψηται παντὸς ἀκαθάρτου οὐ βρωθήσεται ἐν πυρὶ κατακαυθήσεται πᾶς καθαρὸς φάγεται κρέα

Now lets look at what the KJV says since this particular verse is identical in the Masoretic or LXX:

And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire: and as for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof.

Notice the antonym in red - ἀκαθάρτου (akathartou) with a case change to genitive neuter. The root (nominative masculine singular) would be ακαθαρός (akatharos) which means unclean. It's composed of the Greek prefix α (not) + καθαρός (clean). In other words, not clean or unclean. So katharos and akatharos are opposites in reference to ritual purity. I wonder what Koine Greek word the LXX used to specifically describe unclean/unkosher meats - especially pork which you vociferously abhor? Lets find out - from Leviticus 11:7

καὶ τὸν ὗν ὅτι διχηλεῗ ὁπλὴν τοῦτο καὶ ὀνυχίζει ὄνυχας ὁπλῆς καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἀνάγει μηρυκισμόν ἀκάθαρτον τοῦτο ὑμῗν

ἀκάθαρτον (akatharton) is the nominative neuter case of akatharos. And once again no difference in Masoretic or LXX so let's use the KJV:

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Woah!!! So akatharos means unclean specifically in reference to food or simply put unkosher. Therefore katharos specifically means clean or kosher when used in reference to food therfore, it logically follows that is verb form katharizon means specifically making (ritually) clean or kosherizing, if you will, when used in reference to food.

Now I can already hear you protesting that the LXX was translated quite some time before St. Mark wrote his Gospel and the meaning had probably changed by the time of the Apostles. Remember that prominent place in the NT referring to ritualistically unclean food? Yeah, that's right. St. Peter's vision of the sheet in Acts 10:14:

Ὁ δὲ Πέτρος εἴπεν, Μηδαμῶς, κύριε· ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτον.

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

Exact same word used in Leviticus 11:7. EXACTLY.

Katharos is still around in modern Greek by the way. Specifically it's the Greek word for kosher and has been since the time of the Apostles:

καθαρός being the Greek word commonly used of kosher food . . . .

JEWS, FISH, FOOD LAWS AND THE ELDER PLINY on JSTOR

T.J. LEARY, JEWS, FISH, FOOD LAWS AND THE ELDER PLINY, Acta Classica, Vol. 37 (1994), pp. 111-114

www.jstor.org

 

[Nikephoros II Phokas]

The King James Version has this verse as “purging all meats” as does the Douay Rheims. The INT has it at “thereby expelling all foods” a personal favorite of mine. It is a phrase in parentheses in most contemporary versions as it was NOT in the oldest Greek manuscripts.

I'd like to add that the KJV borrowed wholesale from the Douay Rheims despite attacking it in the preface. Secondly, and more importantly, the notion that you are doing the original Greek texts justice by looking up a word in an English-Koine lexicon and then picking the English word that has the connotations you're seeking to impart to the Greek in the first place is condemnable and deliberately false. Lastly, in modern translations, alternative readings are bracketed [ ] in the text and not parenthesized () when the translators want to imply that a particular reading is not attested to in their definition of so-called critical texts.

 

[clefty]

I can't make heads or tails of what your link is trying to prove other than they are of the absurd belief that anything in the New Testament that runs counter their

What is in the New Testament...specifically what He taught/lived...is exactly the issue and NOT any exegesis or eisegesis...by parenthetical phrasing in attempts for clarification of an alleged new doctrine...

FOUR WORDS in Greek “kaqarizwn panta ta brwmata”

and do these words spell out ”Thus he declared all foods clean” (RSV, NRSV and NAB); “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’” (NIV); “By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable” (NLT); “Thus he pronounced all foods clean” (NJB); “Thus He was making and declaring all foods [ceremonially] clean [that is, abolishing the ceremonial distinctions of the Levitical Law]” (AMP)...or any other similar iteration...

Appealing to the Latin do we find “in saying this Jesus declared all meats clean” or any other similar iteration?

19 quia non introit in cor eius sed in ventrem et in secessum exit purgans omnes escas

This menu was established by Him for His faithful with great fanfare...dreadful thunders and lightning and was ancient tradition...a tradition including that failure to keep the Law was even corporate death...even at this time Rome was yet another oppressor for their disobedience of the Law...and yet you would have Him teach contrary His Father’s Will with such a casual aside “nevermind...eat pig now because once digested it is eliminated”

...as if pig eaten in the OT was never eliminated...else it would be made clean?...

 

[clefty]

they are of the absurd belief that anything in the New Testament that runs counter to their Judaizing practices are spurious insertions or even worse - deletions.

...again and again you miss that what He gave at Sinai to those He saved was NOT just to those of the tribe of Judah...but to all 12 tribes of Israel...

and already there at the mountain it was an ekklesia and already full of those NOT of Abraham...all those ”strangers within thy gates” specified in the Sabbath commandment...the only commandment literally including non joos...lol

But maybe just a quick Mark 7:19 read through of all the various translations into English in BibleHub will reveal the scope of these 4 words’ application and usage...KJV and Douay Rheims agree to “purging all meats”...ISV has it as “expelling all foods”...

BTW-That Matthew did NOT include this teaching “...(thus He declared all food clean)” in his telling doesn’t actually mean a deletion of the text yes?

Perhaps he just didn’t see it your way? Matt understood what the teaching was as “whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated.” Matt 15:17 nothing there about “thus He declared all foods clean”...

(question: what would enter the mouth of one with an uncircumcised heart vs one circumcised? )

Matt concludes this teaching with His confirming it is about UNWASHED HANDS and NOT “we get to eat pig now!” See verse 20...

Mark also confirms this whole thing is not even about clean or unclean meat but that it is about clean bread defiled by unwashed hands. Mark 7:2

Handwashing did not come up at the Acts 15 council either...

 

[Nikephoros II Phokas]

I guess it's time for another lesson in Greek. This time we'll look at the grammar of the entire verse in question. But first, I'll start this off by saying that this musical translations shit you judaizers bamboozle illiterate rubes on the Congo with doesn't work on us Orthodox Christians. We know the meaning of the original Greek Holy Scriptures because we've been speaking Greek, reading Greek, writing Greek and worshipping the Most Holy and Live-Giving Trinity in Greek for literally millennia. We've never stopped. Not once. We have no need for translations for we are not the barbarians.

To grasp the meaning of the trailing phrase in Mark 7:19 we need to back up and see all of the sentence in Greek since it is interrupted by a verse break. It starts at the beginning of verse 18 and continues through to the end of 19 (like before I'll be using the Majority Text).

18 Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; Οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι, 19 ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, ἀλλ’ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν· καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα.

Unlike English, Koine Greek has fully preserved cases for nouns and adjectives along with inflection, tense and voice for verbs. This is done by appending different endings on to words and changing them slightly. Although there is a normal practice for word placement in Koine, every word position combination is technically grammatically correct since these different word endings operate independently of position or context. Word position doesn't matter like it does in English. Instead of using position and placement like in English, adjectives and the nouns they modify must agree in case, gender and plurality in Greek.

You can see the grammar structure of the verses in the Greek here:

https://biblehub.com/text/mark/7-18.htm
and

Mark 7:19 Greek Text Analysis

Let's start with the first verb we come across - λέγει (legei) which is a third person present active indicative verb would be rendered "[He] says" in English or even better "[He] asks" as we'll soon see. The pronoun here is understood in the Greek but written out it would be the masculine singular nominative or αὐτός (autos). Keep the case and gender of that pronoun in mind because it's important later. Just like in Spanish, nominative pronouns are very often dropped in Greek because the verb conjugation implies the pronoun (vamos = nosotros vamos) so "He" is implied in Greek but needs to be added to the English translation in this context. The next verb is ἐστε (este) which is a second person plural present active indicative meaning "[you] are" but not "[thou] art". Judging from the switch in verb person here He is asking an obvious question so legei is best translated as "He asks". You on board still? Another second person plural active verb follows νοεῖτε (noeite) then the grammar switches voices to passive middle for the an explanation of the question clause with some active aorist infinitive articles. This pattern repeats in verse 19 since it's a mirror of the first part of the question and ends with a final passive verb ἐκπορεύεται (ekporeuetai).

Then the voice abruptly shifts back to the active but not just any active verb, a participle. In fact, the verb we discussed previously, καθαρίζων (katharizon). Participles are part verb and part adjective since they modify nouns. Because of this unique property, they not only have a verbal inflection (tense, voice, mood, etc) that verbs have in Greek but they also have the conjugation properties of adjectives (case, gender, plurality). For katharizon, these adjective conjugational properties are nominative, masculine and singular. If you remember from before that the conjugation of an adjective must agree with the noun it modifies. The same rule applies to participles. So then, what noun is katharizon modifying? It's easy to find out - just look for the nominative, masculine, singular nouns. Looking in verses 18 and 19 we don't find any. What gives? Remember the verb legei, the first verb we come across? What was its subject? That's right. Its implied subject is the pronoun αὐτός (autos). Remember what the case, gender and plurality of autos is? Why it's nominative, masculine and singular just like katharizon. Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a match. The only possible match. It's clear from the grammar of the verses that the literal word for word translation is - "[He] (meaning Christ) purifying all the foods".

From here on out it's just a judgment call about balancing the literal word-for-word translation, preserving the underlying words of the text at the expense of comprehension, or trying to figuratively translate to best convey the idea the Greek phrase is trying to impart at the expense of exact fidelity to the Greek. First we'll make the implied nominative/subject pronoun explicit and get "He purifying all the foods". This is obviously ungrammatical in English. We need to add a helper verb "is" to convey the mood of the Greek. Very few would quibble with making a translation grammatically correct. So then we have "He is purifying all the foods". This still doesn't make sense in English because while now it's grammatically correct, it remains idiomatically incorrect. English speakers would never write it this way in this context, in other words. We can make a couple of more changes to help that. We can change the tense of the phrase to match English idiomatic use in this context and we can add an adjective to show cause and effect that reflects the Greek sense and grammar better. While were at it, we'll get rid of the indefinite article that wouldn't be used here in English. So now it becomes: "Thereby, He purified all foods." That's pretty good but people might still have difficulty understanding the broader context. We've already established katharizon means "ritually purifying" or "kosherizing" when applied to food. Since "kosherizing" or another similar word doesn't exist in English we need to add or change some words. "Thereby, He ritually purified all foods". Almost there. We can go a step further paraphrase it. How did Christ "kosherize" all foods? He just stated it was so in the verse or in other words He declared them pure. We'll write our paraphrase down - "Thereby, He declared all foods ritually clean". At no time does any of this introduce a spurious doctrine - it's simply trying to accurately convey the message of the Greek phrase in a way that's easier for modern English speakers to understand.

You have this frankly bizarre notion that four words in Greek must come out to four words in English but that is an idiotic idea because the languages are very different. What is understood by the use of inflection and case in Greek requires the use of more words to accurately and grammatically convey the meaning in English. You can cry and snivel all you want about how now it's different but that's the price you pay for idiotically requiring exacting textual criticism from translations that by their nature can never exactly match the original one on one.

 

[clefty]

I guess it's time for another lesson in Greek. This time we'll look at the grammar of the entire verse in question.

you can better spend your time...I have no beef with the Greek as even the KJV and Douay Rheims and others nailed it...and as does Matthew in his account...have you seen it? Matthew 15:17

But first, I'll start this off by saying that this musical translations shit you judaizers bamboozle illiterate rubes on the Congo with doesn't work on us Orthodox Christians. We know the meaning of the original Greek Holy Scriptures because we've been speaking Greek, reading Greek, writing Greek and worshipping the Most Holy and Live-Giving Trinity in Greek for literally millennia. We've never stopped. Not once. We have no need for translations for we are not the barbarians.

feel better?

To grasp the meaning of the trailing phrase in Mark 7:19 we need to back up and see all of the sentence in Greek since it is interrupted by a verse break. It starts at the beginning of verse 18 and continues through to the end of 19 (like before I'll be using the Majority Text).
18 Καὶλέγει αὐτοῖς, Οὕτως καὶὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; Οὐνοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐδύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι, 19 ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦεἰς τὴν καρδίαν, ἀλλ’ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν· καὶεἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζον πάντα τὰβρώματα.

yes yes...it is quite clear Who is speaking all this but where it becomes mush is what is meant by His speaking...happily even Matthew clarifies...

(Mark is clear in the KJV and Douay Rheims and only muddied with later inferences implications and commentary...)

Unlike English, Koine Greek has fully preserved cases for nouns and adjectives along with inflection, tense and voice for verbs. This is done by appending different endings on to words and changing them slightly. Although there is a normal practice for word placement in Koine, every word position combination is technically grammatically correct since these different word endings operate independently of position or context. Word position doesn't matter like it does in English. Instead of using position and placement like in English, adjectives and the nouns they modify must agree in case, gender and plurality in Greek.

You can see the grammar structure of the verses in the Greek here:

https://biblehub.com/text/mark/7-18.htm

and

Mark 7:19 Greek Text Analysis

yes...yes I can see the grammar structure of the verses...but again the Greek or its grammar...or even the last four words in the text seen here is not the issue...

what I DON’T see is...namely this ”...(in saying this Jesus abrogated Levitical law by making all flesh clean)” or some similar iteration...I do NOT see that...even IMPLIED in the Greek...nor did King Jimmy or the Douay Rheims...is why even Matthew concludes as he does...and Peter and Paul continue to live as they do...

Let's start with the first verb we come across - λέγει (legei) which is a third person present active indicative verb would be rendered "[He] says" in English or even better "[He] asks" as we'll soon see. The pronoun here is understood in the Greek but written out it would be the masculine singular nominative or αὐτός (autos). Keep the case and gender of that pronoun in mind because it's important later. Just like in Spanish, nominative pronouns are very often dropped in Greek because the verb conjugation implies the pronoun (vamos = nosotros vamos) so "He" is implied in Greek but needs to be added to the English translation in this context. The next verb is ἐστε (este) which is a second person plural present active indicative meaning "[you] are" but not "[thou] art". Judging from the switch in verb person here He is asking an obvious question so legei is best translated as "He asks". You on board still?

on board? sure...”on bored”...but I do feel His frustration in trying to explain to stiff necks that eating bread with unwashed hands is merely breaking man’s tradition and NOT defiling in accordance to His precepts...both Mark and Matthew confirm His struggle to teach this “what comes out of a man defiles him”...and NOT “we can eat pig now”...

Clearly defilement or “breaking the Law” begins in the heart...

Matthew even recalls the teaching that more than “Do not kill” it is “do not be angry” and that “Do not commit adultery” is even “do not look with lust”...what circumcised heart would put in his mouth that which his Creator deemed unclean?

Are you still on board? Having been grafted into Israel yes?

Another second person plural active verb follows νοεῖτε (noeite) then the grammar switches voices to passive middle for the an explanation of the question clause with some active aorist infinitive articles. This pattern repeats in verse 19 since it's a mirror of the first part of the question and ends with a final passive verb ἐκπορεύεται (ekporeuetai).
Then the voice abruptly shifts back to the active but not just any active verb, a participle. In fact, the verb we discussed previously, καθαρίζων(katharizon). Participles are part verb and part adjective since they modify nouns. Because of this unique property, they not only have a verbal inflection (tense, voice, mood, etc) that verbs have in Greek but they also have the conjugation properties of adjectives (case, gender, plurality). For katharizon, these adjective conjugational properties are nominative, masculine and singular. If you remember from before that the conjugation of an adjective must agree with the noun it modifies. The same rule applies to participles. So then, what noun is katharizon modifying? It's easy to find out - just look for the nominative, masculine, singular nouns. Looking in verses 18 and 19 we don't find any. What gives? Remember the verb legei, the first verb we come across? What was its subject? That's right. Its implied subject is the pronounαὐτός(autos). Remember what the case, gender and plurality of autos is? Why it's nominative, masculine and singular just like katharizon. Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a match. The only possible match. It's clear from the grammar of the verses that the literal word for word translation is - "[He] (meaning Christ) purifying all the foods".

umm ok...so is why “purging all foods” suffices...as King Jimmy left it...

as even in the latin it remains “purgans omnes escas” and without the editorial of His OKing pork eating.

...and here in Mark 7 it is about that eating foods (more specifically BREAD nothing about meat) with unwashed hands is cool...what is not cool is thinking He here abrogated what He set up at Sinai...which isn’t even literally in the Greek but added in later English translations...or else that would have been BIG NEWS and not some grammatical editorial...

The unique use...and by that I mean the ONE occurrence of this word here καθαρίζων(katharizon) is because of the context of His describing the end result of a biological process known as digestion...that is “purging” or to be blunt “shitting”...obviously not used again elsewhere in the NT and certainly not in context of making anything ritually pure.

From here on out it's just a judgment call about balancing the literal word-for-word translation, preserving the underlying words of the text at the expense of comprehension, or trying to figuratively translate to best convey the idea the Greek phrase is trying to impart at the expense of exact fidelity to the Greek. First we'll make the implied nominative/subject pronoun explicit and get "He purifying all the foods".

yes good...again “foods” not meat...Greek has a more specific word for meat even unclean meat...which is not used here

This is obviously ungrammatical in English. We need to add a helper verb "is" to convey the mood of the Greek. Very few would quibble with making a translation grammatically correct.

yup...I for one accept KJV and Rheims...and am quibble free...

So then we have "He is purifying all the foods". This still doesn't make sense in English because while now it's grammatically correct, it remains idiomatically incorrect. English speakers would never write it this way in this context, in other words.

mainly because He was NOT purifying what English translators at the time considered food...so they left it at “purging all food” without the theological implications which would reverse His teaching and demonstrated lifestyle...again that would be BIG NEWS at the time causing significant ramifications which even Gamaliel would not accept...as if He made pig clean to eat...

We can make a couple of more changes to help that.

lol...yup...making more changes is tradition...it’s true...the very issue He was dealing with here in Mark 7: man’s changes or Yah’s commands...

We can change the tense of the phrase to match English idiomatic use in this context and we can add an adjective to show cause and effect that reflects the Greek sense and grammar better. While were at it, we'll get rid of the indefinite article that wouldn't be used here in English. So now it becomes: "Thereby, He purified all foods." That's pretty good but people might still have difficulty understanding the broader context.

lol...and by “broader context” you mean the reading INTO IT that He says we can eat pig now...a context lost in the KJV and Douay Rheims as they don’t include it

We've already established katharizonmeans "ritually purifying" or "kosherizing" when applied to food. Since "kosherizing" or another similar word doesn't exist in English we need to add or change some words. "Thereby, He ritually purified all foods". Almost there. We can go a step further paraphrase it. How did Christ "kosherize" all foods? He just stated it was so in the verse or in other words He declared them pure. We'll write our paraphrase down - "Thereby, He declared all foods ritually clean". At no time does any of this introduce a spurious doctrine - it's simply trying to accurately convey the message of the Greek phrase in a way that's easier for modern English speakers to understand.

yes yes modern English speakers...should take it up with Matthew who obviously missed what you wish to contend here...or leave it as King Jimmy and Douay Rheims have it...

Most people have no problem reading the broader context of what is discussed here bread eaten with unwashed hands is ok...even a more specific context that becoming unclean stems from the heart...and not from outside...

But get to the alleged “we can eat pig now” part and that really packs them in...

Alas the appeal of spurious doctrine...also known as idolatry already in the OT...

You have this frankly bizarre notion that four words in Greek must come out to four words in English but that is an idiotic idea because the languages are very different.

King Jimmy did a fine job with the Greek...as did Douay Rheims...Matthew confirms that too...concluding He said food is eliminated...as into the “draught” or “privy” and NOT made ritually pure for being shat into the shitter...

What is understood by the use of inflection and case in Greek requires the use of more words to accurately and grammatically convey the meaning in English.

yeah yeah...to convey a meaning you wish to imply...which is why added is “...(by this Jesus abrogated the Levitical law so you can eat pig now)” or some similar iteration...

You can cry and snivel all you want about how now it's different but that's the price you pay for idiotically requiring exacting textual criticism from translations that by their nature can never exactly match the original one on one.

King Jimmy did just fine...thanks though...

I still stand with Peter “we ought to obey Yah rather than man” Acts 5:29

 

[clefty]

Yup same thing going on in German.

Luther-Übersetzung 1545:
Mk 7,19 Denn es gehet nicht in sein Herz, sondern in den Bauch und gehet aus durch den natürlichen Gang, der alle Speise ausfeget.

Luther-Übersetzung 1912:
Mk 7,19 Denn es geht nicht in sein Herz, sondern in den Bauch, und geht aus durch den natürlichen Gang, der alle Speise ausfegt.

Luther-“Übersetzung” 2017:
Mk 7,19 Denn es geht nicht in sein Herz, sondern in den Bauch und kommt heraus in die Grube. Damit erklärte er alle Speisen für rein.

Luther and the earlier translations leave it as "Because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach and goes out through the natural course that sweeps out all the food."...Prost!

Makes sense...food goes into the stomach and comes out...typical biological function known as digestion...what indeed is purged or "swept out" here? Food from the stomach or pig from the unclean category?...How does it get to "Jesus says here Moses was wrong" or some similar iteration?...

Only when modern readers needed “help to understand they could eat pig now” and so "Damit erklärte er alle Speisen für rein." was necessarily added...which is not in the Greek...

Man and his tradition of changing things...

 

[clefty]

I don't know what to say to the assertion that the phrase was inserted into the text and is not present in the earliest manuscripts when the phrase is attested to in the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus in addition to every Byzantine text-type (Majority Text), other than to say that assertion is patently false and I won't be debating such lies and the liars that perpetrate them any further.

so this “...(in saying this Jesus declared all foods clean)” is in the originals yes? Or implied? “Attested to”...

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus oti ouk eisporeuetai autou eiV thn kardian all eiV thn koilian kai eiV ton afedrwna ekporeuetai kaqarizon panta ta brwmata Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus oti ouk eisporeuetai autou eiV thn kardian all eiV thn koilian kai eiV ton afedrwna ekporeuetai kaqarizon panta ta brwmata Byzantine Majority oti ouk eisporeuetai autou eiV thn kardian all eiV thn koilian kai eiV ton afedrwna ekporeuetai kaqarizon panta ta brwmata Alexandrian oti ouk eisporeuetai autou eiV thn kardian all eiV thn koilian kai eiV ton afedrwna ekporeuetai kaqarizwn panta ta brwmata Hort and Westcott oti ouk eisporeuetai autou eiV thn kardian all eiV thn koilian kai eiV ton afedrwna ekporeuetai kaqarizwn panta ta brwmata

Please point to it...I don’t even see His Greek name there...

Let’s recap:

Mark 7 begins with accusation that HIs disciples are defiling themselves with BREAD by eating with unwashed hands...nothing there about them eating pig.

And so it is about bread...food...not meat...and remember His audience here at His time did not consider all flesh/meat as food...such as pig...or rat...or human...

Making it into a parenthetical phrase can be seen as modern but since the grammar changes in the phrase in question from the first part of the verse it's not an unreasonable thing to do.

yeah it gets clunky and awkward as translation is not easy and interpretation even harder...maybe is why King Jimmy and Douay Rheim...(oh and Matthew)...don’t say it that way? But it’s all greek to me...lol

The Koine of NT period didn't have parenthesis or indeed any punctuation at all. When you get right down to it, all punctuation, spacing and versing was added to the Holy Scriptures generations later. The originals were all written in unspaced and unpunctuated majuscule.

Hebrew too...if that matters to you...translating ain’t easy...interpretin’ too...especially with an agenda or motive...is why only later “muh pig” English translations used the “()” to “help” make sense of these “traditions of the elders”...

Having dealt with that, let's look at the phrase in the original Koine Greek and investigate the claims of mistranslation. St. Mark 7:19 from the Majority Text:

ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦεἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ’ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶεἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζωνπάντα τὰβρώματα

The Koine Greek word used in Mark 7:19 is καθαρίζων(katharizon) which means cleansing/purifying. It's the third person singular active present participle of its root's verb form κᾰθᾰρῐ́ζω(katharizo) so in English it would be rendered as: [he/she/it is] cleansing/purifying [item(s)] {e.g. he is cleaning this item or these items}. It can mean purging but not very commonly.

yes!...it CAN INDEED mean “to purge” is why King Jimmy and the Douay-Rheim agree on that...”eliminate” says Matthew in his account...

and yes not very commonly at all...in fact only ONCE here in verse 19 is it used in the NT...for very good reason...joos back then were not as fixated to potty humor as joos today...lol

And yes...the one using the latrine is indeed cleaning out his stomach of these items and into the sewer...not purifying them for eating...

We need more context.

we don’t need more context as what inspired Mark provides is enough here...

Mark in this lesson recalls Him having to deal with accusers who (like you) wish Him to address the customs of His believers...

The context begins in verse 2 regarding eating BREAD with unwashed hands a “tradition of the elders”...and the laying aside the commandment of Yah for the traditions of man...the washing of pitchers and pots and other stuff verse 8...

Mark has Him continue the context of this teaching with His lesson that nothing that enters a man from outside can defile him but that it remains a matter of the heart verse 15,21...as becoming unclean is not about the biology of digestion...but the CHOICE (from our hearts) we make of food we eat...

In other words ONLY an uncircumcised and thus ALREADY defiled heart would CHOOSE to defile himself by eating what He declared unclean.

The act of putting the unclean food in one’s mouth does NOT defile as the choice prior the act reveals the heart is ALREADY defiled.

So there is all the context one needs as to why Mark would use this word HERE and NOW...understandably as no where else in the NT is shitting discussed this specifically...

Let's look at another use of the same root word in the NT since Mark 7:19 is the only time that this particular verbal inflection is used for the root word which is καθαρός (katharos)- keep that root word in mind because we will be coming back to it later.

Yes this particular verbal inflection is unique to ONE use here in Mark 7:19 as no where else in the NT is this biological process of shitting discussed so intently...the elimination of food “into the draught” as King Jimmy put it...”sewer” however is only mentioned again in Matt 15:17 is why I asked you if you have read his account of His teaching...

the other times the usage of this particular verb is NOT about eliminating fecal matter from the stomach by the one using the latrine...but cleansing, purifying and both materially/literally washing AND spiritually...

but HERE the teaching is that eating food with even unwashed hands goes into the stomach and finally from there purged eliminated “swept out” into the sewer by the one using the latrine ...

Food certainly does NOT go into the heart no matter its choice of clean or unclean food...

Again here in Mark 7 MORE SPECIFICALLY the teaching is clean bread is NOT defiled by unwashed hands according to Him...because washing hands was MAN’S tradition and not His command...

Mark 7 is certainly NOT a teaching that digested food eaten by His kosher audience once shat into the sewer makes all swine a clean meat to eat...

In verse 18 we can note His surprise in His flabbergasted response to His disciples prior His comparative teaching of what is discharged from the body biologically from what is discharged from the uncircumcised heart...in thought or deed...that which defiles a man...concluding that what comes out of the heart defiles a man...like a decision to eat Ham...

Let's look at the First Epistle of St. John 1:7 in the Majority Text and then the KJV.

ἐὰν δὲἐν τῷφωτὶπεριπατῶμεν, ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷφωτί, κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ’ ἀλλήλων, καὶτὸαἷμα Ἰησοῦχριστοῦτοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦκαθαρίζειἡμᾶς ἀπὸπάσης ἁμαρτίας.

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

As you can see καθαρίζει(katharizon), the active indicative (making a statement of fact) of the verb katharizo, obviously doesn't mean clean from dirt or soil or this verse doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Christ's Holy Blood is supposed to be used as bath soap? It means making spiritually pure in the NT. It's rendered several times in the NT this way in various forms and the meaning is the same so I shall not bore you with more examples. The NT doesn't make many direct references to distinctions between unclean/clean food except for in one prominent verse but let's save that for later because we need to broaden our research a bit to get a better understanding of the Koine words in question.

feel free to read through the other 30 times it is used in the NT and note the scope of application and usage...but yes ONLY ONCE as it was in Mark 7:19...it being a unique ending...pun intended...lol

You remember the root word katharos? Let's now circle back to it

by taking a look at how that word is used in the Septuagint (LXX), not just any verse, but ones highly relevant to the topic of this discussion. We really need to see this root and its antonym in use in the same phrase so we'll look at Leviticus 7:19 first. It was translated into Greek in the LXX as:

καὶκρέα ὅσα ἂν ἅψηται παντὸςἀκαθάρτουοὐβρωθήσεται ἐν πυρὶκατακαυθήσεται πᾶς καθαρὸςφάγεται κρέα

Now lets look at what the KJV says since this particular verse is identical in the Masoretic or LXX:

And the flesh that toucheth any uncleanthing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire: and as for the flesh, all that be cleanshall eat thereof.

Notice the antonym in red - ἀκαθάρτου (akathartou) with a case change to genitive neuter. The root (nominative masculine singular) would be ακαθαρός(akatharos) which means unclean. It's composed of the Greek prefix α (not) + καθαρός (clean). In other words, not clean or unclean. So katharos andakatharos are opposites in reference to ritual purity. I wonder what Koine Greek word the LXX used to specifically describe unclean/unkosher meats - especially pork which you vociferously abhor?

I vociferously abhor? I love bacon...pepperoni etc but that is not the issue...He finds it an abomination...detestable...and so well...so must I...or be unclean...

Oh and it remains such abhorance into the future prophecy see Isaiah 65:4,66:3,17

Lets find out - from Leviticus 11:7

καὶτὸν ὗν ὅτι διχηλεῗὁπλὴν τοῦτο καὶὀνυχίζει ὄνυχας ὁπλῆς καὶτοῦτο οὐκ ἀνάγει μηρυκισμόν ἀκάθαρτοντοῦτο ὑμῗν

ἀκάθαρτον(akatharton) is the nominative neuter case of akatharos. And once again no difference in Masoretic or LXX so let's use the KJV:

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is uncleanto you.

Woah!!! So akatharos means unclean specifically in reference to food or simply put unkosher. Therefore katharos specificallymeans clean or kosher when used in reference to food therfore, it logically follows that is verb form katharizon means specifically making (ritually) clean or kosherizing, if you will, when used in reference to food.

so shitting food out into the sewer makes all food ritually pure? LOL
You’d think that understanding would ALREADY be found in the OT as it even covers that shit...and literally...Deut 21:13...

No wonder Matthew did not include your interpretation in his gospel nor did Peter begin to eat swine arriving at your conclusion of this lesson...and he was there...

Now I can already hear you protesting that the LXX was translated quite some time before St. Mark wrote his Gospel and the meaning had probably changed by the time of the Apostles. Remember that prominent place in the NT referring to ritualistically unclean food? Yeah, that's right. St. Peter's vision of the sheet in Acts 10:14:

ὉδὲΠέτρος εἴπεν, Μηδαμῶς, κύριε· ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινὸν ἢἀκάθαρτον.

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

Exact same word used in Leviticus 11:7. EXACTLY.

Because obviously Peter knew the OT custom in Leviticus which Moses delivered was NOT abrogated in Mark...because He did NOT change it in that teaching in Mark...

In fact ”THINK NOT!” is His instruction and yet you do...keep and teach the least of the commandments He continued....but you would have Him teach against even the big ones...

making false claims for His teaching as did the joos Mark 14:57 Matt 26:60...ironically also confusing the biology/material vs spiritual line

I specifically addressed how Peter understood and interpreted his vision in the above post #7...but ignoring/avoiding stuff seems to be one of your strong points...

You/yours here wish for Him to have declared swine clean like joos trying to slander Stephen claiming He changed the customs Moses delivered...but that was FALSE WITNESS as Luke makes clear in Acts 6:13-14

Had He changed the customs Moses delivered there in Mark 7:19 well then the joos would be TRUE in their witness...but Stephen also did NOT teach that eliminating food into the sewer makes all meat ritually clean to eat...

And as already discussed...Peter also remained clean...and in Greek.

Katharos is still around in modern Greek by the way. Specifically it's the Greek word for kosher and has been since the time of the Apostles:

καθαρόςbeing the Greek word commonly used of kosherfood . . . .

oh? And is that written on the label applied to a pork chop from proper slaughter and drainage of blood?...LOL

Yup...no wonder Matt in his gospel account did NOT include your interpretation...

and the Acts 15 council did NOT conclude your analysis of Mark’s Greek...and upheld what was already expected in Leviticus of goyim believers...as if draining all the blood from a pig makes it clean to it...”but but Moishe I drained all the blood from this rat I brought for Sabbath potluck here at the synagogue!”

(question: were any other commandments done away with in Acts 15 as only 4 things were expected? Could believing goyim steal...covet...dishonor parents...lie etc...?)

“Kosher” Peter warned of unstable minds twisting Paul’s writings to their own destruction...

And IF Paul would have taught that changes to the Law were indeed made...even abrogation of it...THEN at his trial zealous Pharisees bent on destroying him would NOT have said “we find no evil in this man” Acts 23:9

But you would have Paul teaching the One resurrected declared “because we poop everything out...we can eat that which was formerly unclean”...

But then Paul could also not have claimed at his trial that he STILL believed “all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets” Acts 24:14

Zealous joos were pursuing Paul and had serious complaints about him “which they could NOT prove” Acts 25:8 as Paul asserted “neither against the Law nor against the Temple...have I offended in anything” verse 9...

BOTH of these would be IMPOSSIBLE if Paul was teaching “we can eat pig now cuz He said eliminating waste from our stomachs into the latrine makes all flesh clean to eat”

Myriads of joos believed and were STILL zealous for the Law Acts 21:20...and they had Paul prove he too walked orderly and kept the Law verse 24.

As if Paul taught “Mark 7:19 really does say that Christ declared all foods even pork ritualistically clean and my joodaizing ways are an abomination unto the Lord”...

 

[Nikephoros II Phokas]

feel free to read through the other 30 times it is used in the NT and note the scope of application and usage...but yes ONLY ONCE as it was in Mark 7:19...it being a unique ending...pun intended...lol

You're the most dangerous kind of heretic - both extremely stupid and extremely energetic. You're barely literate. No wonder you've fallen pray to the innovationist doctrines of the Watchtower. You know the inflection of a verb doesn't change it's root meaning right? Does walking mean something completely different than walk? That's exactly the argument you're making.

So you want that exact inflection eh? We can find it in the LXX. Again Leviticus this time 14:11

καὶ στήσει ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ καθαρίζων τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν καθαριζόμενον καὶ ταῦτα ἔναντι κυρίου ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου

and the priest who pronounces [him] clean shall present the man to be cleansed and the aforesaid before the LORD at the doorway of the tent of meeting.

That's the exact meaning of the word when discussing purity which Christ and St. Mark were. It literally means "declare clean in a Levitical sense" Are you seriously going to argue καθαρίζων really means "expelling"? Is the priest shitting the man out that is to be cleansed?

You also seem enamored of the word purge and think the word anachronistically carries the same connotations as it does now or even worse its cognates in other languages also carry the same connotation as it does in modern English. Let's look at the etymology of the word English word purge:

c. 1300, purgen, "clear of a charge or suspicion," from Anglo-French purger, Old French purgier "wash, clean; refine, purify" morally or physically (12c., Modern French purger) and directly from Latin purgare "cleanse, make clean; purify," especially in reference to the body, "free from what is superfluous; remove, clear away," but also figuratively "refute, justify, vindicate," from Old Latin purigare, from purus "pure" (see pure) + root of agere "to set in motion, drive; to do, perform" (from PIE root *ag- "to drive, draw out or forth, move"). By mid-14c. as "to cleanse (a person or soul) from sin or moral defilement; to cleanse, clear, purify"

So much for your pet word . . .

Please point to it...I don’t even see His Greek name there...

It doesn't need to be spelled out because the inflection of the verb λέγει implies it - like Spanish speakers mostly just say vamos instead of nosotros vamos. You can't do this in English except in extremely limited circumstance because verb inflections aren't specific enough so you almost always need to add the pronoun in the translation. Since the only noun or pronoun in the passage that matches the inflection of καθαρίζων is λέγει (He says) the only person or thing that can be doing any purifying in the passage is the one that was the talking in the first place - Christ. If you can offer another noun or pronoun that's in the passage doing the purifying, whether explicit or implied by the inflection of a verb, then point it out. - the verb καθαρίζων must have a subject. Some one or something is purifying. Then we can look and see the inflection of the word to see if it agrees with the inflection of καθαρίζων. If it doesn't then it can't be καθαρίζων anything. The only way your reading makes any sense is if you mistake καθαρίζων as being neuter because that is what the rest of the nouns are in the quote by Christ. Apparently that's what the KJV and DR translators did. They got lazy and assumed that was the case and didn't bother looking.

I explained all of this to you but your reading comprehension is so bad that anything more than a one page JW tract is too much for you:

Let's start with the first verb we come across - λέγει (legei) which is a third person present active indicative verb would be rendered "[He] says" in English or even better "[He] asks" as we'll soon see. The pronoun here is understood in the Greek but written out it would be the masculine singular nominative or αὐτός (autos). Keep the case and gender of that pronoun in mind because it's important later. Just like in Spanish, nominative pronouns are very often dropped in Greek because the verb conjugation implies the pronoun (vamos = nosotros vamos) so "He" is implied in Greek but needs to be added to the English translation in this context.

 

[clefty]

You're the most dangerous kind of heretic - both extremely stupid and extremely energetic. You're barely literate. No wonder you've fallen pray to the innovationist doctrines of the Watchtower. You know the inflection of a verb doesn't change it's root meaning right? Does walking mean something completely different than walk? That's exactly the argument you're making.

well no...not quite...the argument is not “walk VS. walking”...but more like to physically walk with the Lord literally while He was here incarnate VS. to walk with Him after His ascension...you know…walking with Him now…in us…as we daily walk...or sit...and post...

Are you walking as He walked?

So you want that exact inflection eh? We can find it in the LXX. Again Leviticus this time 14:11

καὶστήσει ὁἱερεὺς ὁκαθαρίζωντὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν καθαριζόμενον καὶταῦτα ἔναντι κυρίου ἐπὶτὴν θύραν τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦμαρτυρίου

and the priest who pronounces [him] cleanshall present the man to be cleansed and the aforesaid before the LORD at the doorway of the tent of meeting.

That's the exact meaning of the word when discussing purity which Christ and St. Mark were. It literally means "declare clean in a Levitical sense"

and a definition coming in dead last:

1 to make clean, cleanse
A. from physical stains and dirt
i utensils, food
ii a leper, to cleanse by curing
iii to remove by cleansing
B. in a moral sense
i. to free from defilement of sin and from faults
ii. to purify from wickedness
iii. to free from guilt of sin, to purify
iv. to consecrate by cleansing or purifying
v. to consecrate, dedicate
2 to pronounce clean in a levitical sense

...huh? Mark and Christ were discussing purity? Thought Mark was just recording what He said…without contributing further editorial…

Are you seriously going to argue καθαρίζων really means "expelling"? Is the priest shitting the man out that is to be cleansed?

oh my...

But not so fast tough guy...there are TWO words about cleansing here:

14:11 καὶ στήσει ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ καθαρίζων τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν καθαριζόμενονκαὶ ταῦτα ἔναντι κυρίου ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου

Leviticus 14:11 - Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek-English Interlinear

Let’s deal with the first instance καθαρίζων where we will see WHY Levitical purity is its LAST definition.​

But in using the NIV which has it as “priest...pronounces clean” this skips many vital steps in a lengthy and sophisticated process of cleansing...just like the digestion process in Mark...there was much time and effort spent towards the final pronouncement of “clean!”...a process which includes of course the act of ACTUALLY WASHING...that is physically removing...expelling...purging...cleansing materially...the dirt from the poor individual who had leprosy in order to be pronounced pure...

Here’s a copy paste sample of how others have translated καθαρίζων

New Living Translation
Then the officiating priest will present that person for purification, along with the offerings, before the LORD at the entrance of the Tabernacle.

English Standard Version
And the priest who cleanses him shall set the man who is to be cleansed and these things before the LORD, at the entrance of the tent of meeting.

Berean Study Bible
The priest who performs the cleansing shall present the one to be cleansed, together with these offerings, before the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.

King James Bible
And the priest that maketh him clean shall present the man that is to be made clean, and those things, before the LORD, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:


In fact read here Lev 14 from the beginning and learn all that it entails to physically prepare the individual recovered from leprosy PRIOR to being pronounced “pure”...here’s the process:

14 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “These are the regulations for any diseased person at the time of their ceremonial cleansing, when they are brought to the priest: 3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine them. If they have been healed of their defiling skin disease,[a] 4 the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the person to be cleansed. 5 Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. 6 He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. 7 Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the defiling disease, and then pronounce them clean. After that, he is to release the live bird in the open fields.
8 “The person to be cleansed must wash their clothes, shave off all their hair and bathe with water; then they will be ceremonially clean. After this they may come into the camp, but they must stay outside their tent for seven days. 9 On the seventh day they must shave off all their hair; they must shave their head, their beard, their eyebrows and the rest of their hair. They must wash their clothes and bathe themselves with water, and they will be clean.
10 “On the eighth day they must bring two male lambs and one ewe lamb a year old, each without defect, along with three-tenths of an ephah of the finest flour mixed with olive oil for a grain offering, and one log[c] of oil. 11 The priest who pronounces them clean shall present both the one to be cleansed and their offerings before the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting.

Having been struck with leprosy a plaque that forced the individual to live outside the camp a homeless scavenger and refugee...imagine how dirty that poor fella must have been...makes sense the need for such thorough PURGING of dirt and grime ...ya dig?

I like “officiating priest” but still prefer the KJV as it doesn’t have the priest merely “pronounce clean” but actually has the priest ”maketh him clean” which implies ALL that action of sacrifice and sprinkling and cleaning PRIOR the time that recovered leper is to be “made clean”...that is finally declared pure...

but yes the inflection of the verb in question is to the priest who is cleaning/washing/purging and not the second καθαριζόμενον in the process towards purification...that meaning is when the recovered leper is FINALLY now spiritually pure to live in the camp with the other clean...

but are they all spiritually clean? Their fruits will determine that...doubtful the one cleansed of leprosy celebrated with pepperoni pizza though...

BTW...KEEP reading Lev 14 past verse 11 and learn there still remains a sophisticated process to make that recovered leper fit to live among others “clean”...including in verse 19 a sin offering for the atonement of the one to be cleansed because of his uncleanness...DESPITE his being not only washed…but SHAVED...lol

Oh sorry...another BTW...καθαρίζων is also found in Mal 3:3 as a purifier of silver...I imagine fire would be used to burn out/purge all the material impurities?...and not a spiritual pronouncement “this silver here has confessed…sacrificed… and is now atoned and without sin”...lol…I mean joos don’t think silver unkosher yes?

Is SIN physical material to wash off? Something to think about every baptism...

Could the blood of bulls and goats take away sin? See Hebrews 10:4

You also seem enamored of the word purge and think the word anachronistically carries the same connotations as it does now or even worse its cognates in other languages also carry the same connotation as it does in modern English. Let's look at the etymology of the word English word purge:

c. 1300, purgen, "clear of a charge or suspicion," from Anglo-French purger, Old Frenchpurgier"wash, clean; refine, purify" morally or physically(12c., Modern French purger) and directly from Latin purgare"cleanse, make clean; purify," especially in reference to the body, "free from what is superfluous; remove, clear away," but also figuratively "refute, justify, vindicate," from Old Latin purigare, from purus "pure"(see pure) + root of agere "to set in motion, drive; to do, perform" (from PIE root *ag-"to drive, draw out or forth, move"). By mid-14c. as "to cleanse (a person or soul) from sin or moral defilement; to cleanse, clear, purify"

So much for your pet word . . .

it’s a good one no? To “wash, clean, refine,” PHYSICALLY and from Latin...”especially in reference to the body”...that is material and physical matter...stuff like dirt and shit...but yes also figuratively...what a great word...

Love that it’s from the root “agere”...that is “to set in motion, drive, TO DO, perform...draw out or forth, MOVE”...hmmm as in bowel MOVEment? LOL

It doesn't need to be spelled out

and yet LATER translators felt a need to DO exactly that...spelling out this ending to verse 19 ”...(in saying this Jesus here declares Moses wrong)” or some similar iteration...

because the inflection of the verb λέγειimplies it - like Spanish speakers mostly just say vamosinstead of nosotros vamos. You can't do this in English except in extremely limited circumstance because verb inflections aren't specific enough so you almost always need to add the pronoun in the translation. Since the only noun or pronoun in the passage that matches the inflection of καθαρίζων is λέγει (He says) the only person or thing that can be doing any purifying in the passage is the one that was the talking in the first place - Christ.

...maybe you miss the one actually doing the purging of his stomach into the sewer?

If you can offer another noun or pronoun that's in the passage doing the purifying, whether explicit or implied by the inflection of a verb, then point it out. - the verb καθαρίζων must have a subject.

how about the dude who put the bread into his mouth which goes into his stomach and NOT into his heart and then he shits it out?

Some one or something is purifying.

yes...him using the latrine...purifying his stomach and colon of food...eliminating the food stuffs into the sewer...GONE no more AWAY...a biological process known as digestion is his cleansing his stomach...a frequent action after which many feel refreshed...renewed...PURE...

ask any who’ve been constipated for a-bit how relieved and purified they feel after purging that shit into the shitter…

He did NOT describe a biological purification process that by shitting you magically make pig... rat...or human flesh...a clean meat to include on every menu for the circumcised heart...

They were dumping in the desert for years and it never made pig clean...

Then we can look and see the inflection of the word to see if it agrees with the inflection of καθαρίζων. If it doesn't then it can't be καθαρίζων anything. The only way your reading makes any sense is if you mistake καθαρίζων as being passive voiced neuter because that is what the rest of the verbs and nouns are in the quote by Christ. Apparently that's what the KJV and DR translators did. They got lazy and assumed that was the case and didn't bother looking.

Matthew too then was too lazy to arrive at this interpretation for the moral of the story...this CLIMAX...the ENDING of an ancient tradition which set apart a people from ALL other nations...as in Matthew’s account he kept it as “dude was eliminating the food stuffs into the sewer”...

yup…Matt totally purged your teaching this ACT of purging fecal matter purges what Moses delivered...

Hey even goyim Dr Luke did not include His miraculous anatomy and physiology lesson to confirm for Europeans their “muh pig”

nor did John in his account of all things spiritual in His ministry…

Peter who was there listening to Him talk about a dude eliminating food stuffs into the sewer did NOT go out and get him some ham hock arguing “but He said pig is ritually pure to eat now”

No no…Peter wrote to goyim pilgrims of this incorruptible and undefiled inheritance to “be holy…obedient…not conforming yourselves to the former lusts as in your ignorance” and went on to repeatedly warn of false teachers and those returning to their prior traditions like dogs to their vomit…

I explained all of this to you but your reading comprehension is so bad that anything more than a one page JW tract is too much for you:

LOL...yes resort to clever ad Homs and stick to mockery...gives your fanbois something to cheer...

Let's start with the first verb we come across - λέγει (legei) which is a third person present active indicative verb would be rendered "[He] says" in English or even better "[He] asks" as we'll soon see. The pronoun here is understood in the Greek but written out it would be the masculine singular nominative or αὐτός (autos). Keep the case and gender of that pronoun in mind because it's important later. Just like in Spanish, nominative pronouns are very often dropped in Greek because the verb conjugation implies the pronoun (vamos = nosotros vamos) so "He" is implied in Greek but needs to be added to the English translation in this context.

...even after all this effort posting Matt...Peter...Paul...did not “vamos a comer” when it came to pig...maybe cuz they didn’t read “...(in saying this Jesus made all meat clean)” which was added later on...

 

[Nikephoros II Phokas]

and a definition coming in dead last:

As if the definition listing in a English lexicon has any bearing on anything.

Here’s a copy paste sample of how others have translated καθαρίζων

New Living Translation
Then the officiating priest will present that person for purification, along with the offerings, before the LORD at the entrance of the Tabernacle.

English Standard Version
And the priest who cleanses him shall set the man who is to be cleansed and these things before the LORD, at the entrance of the tent of meeting.

Berean Study Bible
The priest who performs the cleansing shall present the one to be cleansed, together with these offerings, before the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.

King James Bible
And the priest that maketh him clean shall present the man that is to be made clean, and those things, before the LORD, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:

LOL. You know that you could have just said "yeah καθαρίζων really means making things pure in a Levitical sense but since so much of my heretical theology is built upon erroneous translations and readings made centuries ago by guys that really didn't know Greek all that well, I'm just going to ignore what you are saying and give some irrelevant exegesis instead of discussing the language used."

Speaking of that.

Oh sorry...another BTW...καθαρίζων is also found in Mal 3:3 as a purifier of silver...I imagine fire would be used to burn out/purge all the material impurities?...and not a spiritual pronouncement “this is silver which has confessed is now atoned and without sin”...I mean joos don’t think silver unkosher yes?

You know the LXX is based on an older text type from the Masoretic which made changes to greatly tone down anything referring to Christ which Malachi 3 most definitely is. The opening in the LXX reads like this in a literal way . . . "And He will sit melting and purifying like silver and like gold and will purify the sons of Levi [Levitical priests] . . . The bold lettering is an adjective phrase and just a figure of speech. Christ isn't going to be melting and purifying gold. If you delete the entire phrase then the meaning doesn't change at all. Christ will making things spiritually clean and the Levitical priesthood is at the top of his list to that to.

eh?...it’s a good one no? To “wash, clean, refine,” PHYSICALLY and from Latin...”especially in reference to the body”...that is material and physical matter...stuff like dirt and shit...but yes also figuratively...what a great word...

Funny thing that you should bring up Latin because it brings up a peculiarity in your choice of translations - Luther's, Douay-Rheims, and King James Version - which have important similarities. The translators of the KJV and Luther's Bible weren't all that proficient in Greek. Therefore, they had to consult translations in languages they knew for what appeared to be difficult passages. Chief among them was the Latin Vulgate. Luther's Bible is more of a translation of the Vulgate with occasional consultation of the Greek than a direct translation. Luther himself was barely literate in Greek and so was his team. They relied extensively on the Vulgate therefore Luther's Bible has very noticeable Vulgate readings (excepting the parts Luther deliberately mistranslated that now come with printed warnings as to their unreliability). The Douay-Rheims was a direct translation of the Vulgate which the KJV relied heavily upon in much the same manner. This is made worse by not having the LXX translation to consult since the NT carries over most of the terminology from the Septuagint. Naturally, all this consultation necessarily introduced philologically unsound readings from the Vulgate into their translation. This isn't helped at all by St. Jerome's paraphrastic approach to translation in the Vulgate. For the record, I'm a gigantic fan of the KJV. It's truly a work of art but I do not rely on it because it is just a shade of the Greek original. Now's a good time to look at the Latin grammar of the Mark 7:19 phrase in the Vulgate to see how this can happen.

uia non introit in cor eius sed in ventrem et in secessum exit purgans omnes escas

Purgans is the present active participle of purgo (to purify). It's as close as you can get to a one word match of καθαρίζων but it's not an exact match because in Latin these participles don't have case and gender so no way to tie it in the subject noun alone. Jerome didn't add a pronoun there so the Latin can certainly be read as either a commentary by Mark or a continuation of what Christ was saying. Why not? Maybe because Jerome thought it obvious it's Mark's comment because he must start verse 20 with λέγει (He says) again to signal to the reader that his own explanatory commentary has ended and Christ is speaking again.

This double reading only gets injected if you think the gender of καθαρίζων is neuter (even though it's obviously masculine) like it can be in purgans. It carried over from the early translators because they relied so heavily on the Vulgate and not so much the original Greek, at least in this passage.

Still not convinced? Of course not. Let's see what Early Christians and Church Fathers had to say about this. Surely being native Greek speakers, they would know whether the passage in question is a comment by Mark or a continuation of a quote by Christ right? We'll start with Origen of Alexandria in his Commentary on the Gospel of Mark from the late 2nd century:

For if not that which enters into the mouth defiles the man, but that which proceeds out of the mouth, Matthew 15:11 and especially when, according to Mark, the Saviour said these things making all meats clean, Mark 7:19 manifestly we are not defiled when we eat those things which the Jews who desire to be in bondage to the letter of the law declare to be unclean, but we are then defiled when, whereas our lips ought to be bound with perception and we ought to make for them what we call a balance and weight, Sirach 28:25

Woah there a native Greek speaker in a much earlier time has no problem making out who is exactly speaking the phrase καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα. He says it's obviously Mark's comment.

Now on to an even greater figure - a true spiritual giant among men and widely proclaimed as the greatest exegete of the East Roman Empire - St. John Chrysostom of Constantinople. You should really read his Homilies Against the Judaizers. You would find a lot there that would be edifying to your soul provided you hadn't already sold it to the Watchtower Tract and Bible Society for their semi-gnostic gibberish. Anyways. his homilies on Mark did not survive but he references the passage when discussing Matthew.

Mark says cleaning all meats Christ spoke [of] this. But He did not say this directly or say "but to eat such and such meats does not defile the man" for neither could they [the Pharisees] endure to be told so directly. And accordingly His conclusion was "But to eat with unwashen hands does not defile the man"

This is the middle of Chrysostom's exegesis of this story of Christ, that he was taking an indirect approach to the meat question as to not rile the Jews, at least not yet.

Lots to ponder there right clefty?

I'll defer judgment on this phrase to the Church fathers, being not only native Greek speakers working with the original Greek texts but also giants in Christian history over some one man sect saying the contrary whose only proof is readings from translations made a millennium in the future.

You are correct in your own way. Man has certainly injected his own narratives into translations, twisting His Holy Scripture, sometime intentionally and sometimes not. You were just off by about 500 years when this started happening.

 

[clefty]

As if the definition listing in a English lexicon has any bearing on anything.

well you referenced it to support your claim Mark 7:19 is “to pronounce clean in a Levitical sense” and IF that interpretation had been singular primary or at least first on the list of all possible meanings within this context then yes...certainly there would be less need of the lexicon at all here...

...no need of it as well IF this conjecture added in parenthesis actually had been what He was teaching clearly and specifically in Mark 7...

The Master Teacher was clear enough “think NOT that I have come to destroy the Law” and yet you/yours DO think He did come to destroy the law or change it as if fulfilling the requirements of a recipe changes the procedure, ingredients even temperature of it...or by following the recipe we abrogate it entirely...or does fulfilling the obligation of a traffic law on one day mean “drive as thou whilst” the next day?...or by satisfactorily fulfilling the obligation to assist in the Mass of a most Orthodox Mass means “feel free to make changes” or even “ now you don’t have to come next Sunday”

So you’re teaching me Greek? Please help here:

πληρῶσαι (plērōsai) — 4 Occurrences
Matthew 3:15 V-ANA
GRK: ἐστὶν ἡμῖν πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην
NAS: it is fitting for us to fulfill all
KJV: us to fulfil all
INT: it is to us to fulfill all righteousness

So did He here alter righteousness or even destroy the necessity for believers to be baptized as He was?

Matthew 5:17 V-ANA
GRK: καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι
NAS: to abolish but to fulfill.
KJV: to destroy, but to fulfil.
INT: to abolish but to fulfill [them]

So the will of the Father “on earth as it is in heaven” is for His Law to be fulfilled ONCE and then “forget about it?”

Romans 15:13 V-AOA-3S
GRK: τῆς ἐλπίδος πληρώσαι ὑμᾶς πάσης
NAS: of hope fill you with all
KJV: the God of hope fill you with all
INT: of hope may fill you with all

So Paul is wishing the Romans destroyed with all joy and peace in their believing?

Colossians 1:25 V-ANA
GRK: εἰς ὑμᾶς πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον
NAS: on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the [preaching of] the word
KJV: for you, to fulfil the word of God;
INT: toward you to complete the word

Did Paul receive stewardship from Yah to destroy the Word of Yah?

(I have seen believers use Paul to destroy His Word it’s true...at least twisting certain sections of it...maybe not the whole thing)

...and so was He a hypocrite for saying He would not destroy the Law...but then He did according to you/yours?

IF that was His mission of His Father’s Will then He could be blunt and just say “DO think I have come to destroy the Law...so you can finally eat pig now” then this later “clarifying” commentary “by Mark” would not have even been necessary...nor this English lexicon to study it out…it would also have been supported in other teachings and even exemplified by His disciples later...I mean Bacon tastes GOOD right? Imagine how happy joos would be to finally be able to partake of BBQ’d pork...or stuffed Ham...or Rat shish kebab...or stewed Bat...

As it stands the Greek originals do NOT have that parenthetical editorial in Mark 7...and because He was NOT abrogating or purging Levitical purity categories...but since your tradition insists He did we must resort to lexicons to help have Scripture translate Scripture...and not rely on “muh pig” translator/interpreters...

You also miss we are NOT using a lexicon for comparing the Greek to the Greek or the Latin to the Latin (as the phrase “with this saying Jesus ritually cleansed all flesh” was NOT present in either of these languages) but how Mark 7:19 was later translated in other languages for more modern ears...in more cosmopolitan and contemporary cultures...you know...in dis globohomo ya dig? The great common good equalizer of “men and woman are the same…...all days holy...all food is clean” fame...but getting ahead of myself here...sorry

 

[Nikephoros II Phokas]

Did you not see how, native and fluent Greek speakers and readers, St. John Chrysostom and Origen read it over a millennium before the KJV? Or did they not have the right dictionaries to consult? Your reading was injected by the Vulgate, ironically a product of the Roman Catholic Church you so despise.

From Galatians 3:

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ