You have nothing of which to be proud You are a vile disgusting ***** who dances on the dead bodies of the babies your shitty kith and kin murdered for the
GLORY OF YOUR 'god'. You are as depraved as was the catechism whore
who shoved her filth down your throat while you were still a child. It would have
been better if you had taught you some decent English grammar.
See what I mean, there is a dirty force within you, and it comes out of your mouth. Just like Jesus said, it not what goes in, but what comes out of the mouth. Go ahead and eat pork, its not going to hurt you.
Jesus never said "go ahead and eat pork"------you should not quote a book
you never read. Doing so proves that you are a poser and a liar. If you read
a bit, you might learn a bit of the grammar that the catechism nun neglected
to teach you --------being busy shoving her filthy little hatreds down your throat----
or whatever she was doing for the priest down your throat.
No kidding, you obviously do not know the new testament, he said its what comes out of the mouth, not what goes in, so yeah he might of ate pork. Hey pork even if raw can't hurt you, with the filth that comes from your mouth.
That is a very attractive proof text. It appears, as I remember in both Matthew and Mark. The contradicting text, about the law being in force and fulfilled appears in Matthew, Luke and John. This is something of a paradox. I think the saying may be genuine (not a later interpolation) but the modern non-Jewish implication that
kashrut was out the window is probably a mistake.
The documents from Qumran and elsewhere seem to show that the apocalyptic wing of first century Judaism was strict and enthusiastic about dietary law. It ispossible that the saying you cite came from the Pauline churches which practiced a Christianity without circumcision or kashrut and were believers in the obsolescence of Torah. There are a number of other passages in the Gospels which depict Jesus as dismissive of the strict interpretations of the Pharisees and Sadduces and we know from Acts that this was hot topic for Paul and the Jerusalem apostles.. Hard to tell, isn't it?
I appreciate your discussion and I agree emphatically with most of it. I especially agree with you that the story is a PERFECT fit for PAULINE doctrine-----but I saw
nothing in the reliable parts of the NT that come close to suggesting that Jesus
was the founder of Pauline doctrine------Paul was. I do not believe that Matthew
knew Jesus at all-----He, whoever he was, just wrote stuff that was consistent with Pauline doctrine. Matthew seems to me to be an apologist for Paul. -------getting back to hand washing----an interesting anecdote>>> My hubby is from a very
traditional background-----born in a shariah cesspit his parents came to Palestine
circa 1940 with two kids and had eight more. The hand washing before eating is
REMARKABLY firm in members of his community-----even the kids-----kids who are
kids now who occasionally come to visit----virtually AUTOMATICALLY wash their
hands--------no one has to tell them-----not washing ones hands-----is SO WEIRD---
that I once explained the story to hubby------I cannot begin to describe the look
of incredulity on his face as in "HUH?----HE DIDN'T WANT TO WASH HIS HANDS"??? ------like.....it is so much a part of 'normal'----that refusing would be
tantamount to spitting in the pot of soup.