Peter in the Clementine Homilies Does Not Accept the Sacredness of the Pentateuch

[Secret Alias]

Was Jesus really only "about the heart"? Why cite the tenth commandment approvingly? Surely the heart has lust.

[davidmartin]

Yep thats my view, its the undercurrent of his teachings
Some people want pious teachings, they get embarrassed by Jesus

[John2]

Jesus was about the heart of things so the real Torah

Instead of telling you why I think Jesus is referring to the written Torah in Mk. 7:3-13, I thought it'd be better to ask you to explain what you mean by the "heart of things" and the "real Torah" and why you think Jesus is referring to that.

[davidmartin]

Instead of telling you why I think Jesus is referring to the written Torah in Mk. 7:3-13, I thought it'd be better to ask you to explain what you mean by the "heart of things" and the "real Torah" and why you think Jesus is referring to that.

Sure Jesus was referring to the Torah, but I see him highlighting the difference between legalism and ceremonial types of religious observations and the meaning within. I see this dichotomy being something real in the question over his words as we have them. I think if he'd been squarely within the establishment we'd never have heard of him but it appears many felt the establishment to be corrupt or else there'd not have been a Qumran community and there were many factions

[John2]

Instead of telling you why I think Jesus is referring to the written Torah in Mk. 7:3-13, I thought it'd be better to ask you to explain what you mean by the "heart of things" and the "real Torah" and why you think Jesus is referring to that.

Sure Jesus was referring to the Torah, but I see him highlighting the difference between legalism and ceremonial types of religious observations and the meaning within. I see this dichotomy being something real in the question over his words as we have them. I think if he'd been squarely within the establishment we'd never have heard of him but it appears many felt the establishment to be corrupt or else there'd not have been a Qumran community and there were many factions

I think Jesus is highlighting the difference between the written Torah and the Pharisees' oral Torah in Mk. 7:3-13. As 7:3 says, "Now in holding to the tradition of the elders, the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat until they wash their hands ceremonially." This is part of the oral Torah of the Pharisees and is not in the written Torah, which is why Jesus' disciples are said to not "walk according to the tradition of the elders” in 7:6. Jesus then hammers them about how they nullify many things that "Moses said" by what they say.

This was a big deal because the oral Torah is considered to be divine in Rabbinic Judaism to this day, so for Jesus to have taught against it put him as outside the establishment as the (in my view other) Fourth Philosophers who Josephus says had similarly altered "the customs of our fathers" in Ant. 18.1.1. In this respect they were all proto-Karaites.

[Secret Alias]

Steve

The actual normative traditions in antiquity (Samaritans, Sadducees) rejected invented halakhah. Ezra likely passed an oral tradition that might have reached someone like Philo. But the Pharisees were separate from that tradition. The Pharisees were garbage. Christianity went beyond the Sadducees and likely only accepted the ten or perhaps the tenth commandment as the summation of the other nine which preceded it.

[davidmartin]

Well, how about dietary requirements these are not the oral tradition
In Mark 7 Jesus is said to have declared 'all foods clean' by sayings like what you eat won't defile you

This could be a later re-interpretation or some say Jesus was doing away with that aspect of the Torah which is what 'all foods clean' suggests

Another possibility which I suspect is that he was just trying to break an obsession over diet and ritual cleanliness but accepted the dietary requirements as normal.. but later in a gentile context this could have been taken to mean doing away with them.. even if maybe Jesus would have been quite happy for his gentile followers not to have to follow it

[John2]

Well, how about dietary requirements these are not the oral tradition
In Mark 7 Jesus is said to have declared 'all foods clean' by sayings like what you eat won't defile you

This could be a later re-interpretation or some say Jesus was doing away with that aspect of the Torah which is what 'all foods clean' suggests

Another possibility which I suspect is that he was just trying to break an obsession over diet and ritual cleanliness but accepted the dietary requirements as normal.. but later in a gentile context this could have been taken to mean doing away with them.. even if maybe Jesus would have been quite happy for his gentile followers not to have to follow it

Since Jesus calls the Pharisees hypocrites for nullifying the Torah with their oral Torah, wouldn't he be a hypocrite too if he were to nullify any part of the Torah? So is he really saying that all foods are clean? While some translations say this, it doesn't look like the Greek supports it to me, and this article ("Did Jesus Declare All Foods Clean? A Hebraic Perspective on Mark 7:19") explains it better than I can.

As mentioned in the introduction, many modern Bible translations render Mark 7:18-19 as follows:

18 Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them [koinōsai / make him common]? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Yeshua declared all foods clean.) [NIV]

Note that Yeshua’s focus here is still on what makes a person common [koinōsai], and not what makes a person unclean. Remember, the subject of Mark 7 is bread – a clean food that had become “common” in the eyes of certain Pharisees. But if this is the case, then how does Yeshua arrive at the conclusion that all foods are now clean (verse 19)?

The short answer is: he doesn’t. Unfortunately, many modern translations insert a parenthetical into verse 19: “(Thus he declared all foods clean)” – but, as Bible scholar J.K. McKee points out in his commentary on this verse:

“Thus He declared” is an addition by Bible translators that is not in the Greek text. On the contrary, the text speaks of a person’s bodily elimination of food by excretion. This is confirmed by the parallel passage in Matthew 15:17: “Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated?”

A literal word-for-word breakdown of the Greek text with no words omitted shows that the phrase “thus he declared” is in fact absent from verse 19:

Strong’s Greek English

3754 ὅτι because
3756 οὐκ not
1531 εἰσπορεύεται enter
846 αὐτοῦ him
1519 εἰς into
3588 τὴν the
2588 καρδίαν heart,
235 ἀλλ’ but
1519 εἰς into
3588 τὴν the
2836 κοιλίαν, belly,
2532 καὶ and
1519 εἰς into
3588 τὸν the
856 ἀφεδρῶνα latrine
1607 ἐκπορεύεται, goes out
2511 καθαρίζων purging
3956 πάντα all
3588 τὰ the
1033 βρώματα food

So a more literal translation of Mark 7:18-19 might read:

18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot make him common 19 since it enters not his heart but his belly, and goes into the latrine, purging all foods?

By now the meaning of these verses should be very clear. Contrary to the tradition of the Pharisees, Yeshua teaches his disciples that the dirt on their hands (or plates, utensils, etc.) could not make them common because their stomach eliminates the impurities, and they are purged as waste.


https://messianicpublications.com/rober ... ods-clean/

[davidmartin]

lol, so it does. that is a rotten piece of translation i wasn't aware of in the NIV here
i think it's what Valentinus said "Light spoke through his mouth, and his voice brought forth life" this is not against the Torah

[ebion]

Please stop talking about Acts. Acts is not history. Acts is fiction. No time for this nonsense.

You seem to have a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach to Christian writings, and to me that would be like disregarding Josephus because of his faults. I suspect Acts was written c. 95 CE by someone who knew Paul and Josephus and was thus in a position to know some things about early Christianity and Jewish history and thus I see some value in it despite its faults.

i think Acts was wtitten as History: see Paul on Trial. See the videos for the fine details like the Pythia.