Attack of the Judaizers

[danschance]

I don't think you have had much experience with humanity to make that declaration. Where do you read, or where did you learn all humans have the moral laws on their hearts? This idea is curious at best.

“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” Heb 10:16

If God has not given His laws to all men then those men whom God did not write His laws on their hearts can not be held accountable for their sins!

Therefore all humans on the planet have been given the laws of God on their hearts because all will be judged by God.

I am surprised you never pondered this?

 

[Historicist]

Elin,

You refer to "the law of Christ." What does it say about eating chimpanzees, pigs and dogs, as do the heathen; about putting one's money out to usury, about forcing one's slave, or an employee to work all seven days straight, week in and week out, i.e., with no sabbath, with no fourth commandment day of rest; about same sex "marriage"; about interracial marriage; about debt release; about what government should do when someone opens an aborticide clinic; about civil punshiment for kidnaping, rape, theft, perjury, armed robbery, etc. These things are all addressed in the Law of the Lord, the moral law given by God through Moses. If as antinomian teachers say, these laws were, apparently, worthless and therefore abrogated, what did Jesus replace them with? What did He say about eating chimpanzees? What did He say about forcing one's employee to work without at least one day in seven off, i.e., without a fourth commandment sabbath. Please tell me, how and where does "the law of Christ" address these things.

 

[danschance]

Your post was right on. It seems that anyone that stands up for the Law of God is denigrated for being a Judaizer.

Now John, that is not true. No one should ever be insulting or "denigrating" here. I understand that at times tempers do flare but that is sin.

Keep in mind Christians are under the law of Christ so that is the law of God.

 

[Elin]

I was kinda hoping you would...

Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For the commandments, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," "YOU SHALL NOT MURDER," "YOU SHALL NOT STEAL," "YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS," "YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is
any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely,
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

So fulfilling the law in this case means that love is the summation of the Commandments, not the doing away of them.

Agreed. . .love is the fulfillment (accomplishment, performance) of the Commandments (Mt 22:37-40; Ro 13:10).

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

Oops. . .shoulda' been Gal 5:6:
"The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."

Christ being the fulness of God is not the question but since you referenced it...

Right, it's the answer to the question.

You can't be the "fullness" of God without being the "fullness"( fulfilling) of the law.

Joh 5:37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.

"You" refers to the crowd to whom Jesus was speaking, not to all mankind.
They, in contrast to Jesus who has, had not heard the Father's voice.

Joh 6:46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.

No one has seen or heard the Father at any time, but Adam and Eve heard and saw someone...

Incorrect. . .no one (in general) has seen the Father,
while you (this group) have not heard the Father.

Scripture does not state that no one has heard the Father.

Gen 3:8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

The text does not state they saw anyone.

Abraham heard and saw the LORD, but it was not the Father...

Gen 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless.

Scriptures shows this appearance is not the face of God, which is all his glory, which no one has seen (Ex 33:18-20; Jn 1:18).

Scripture states that no one has seen God (Jn 1:18), meaning seen the face of God (Ex 33:18-20).

All Israel heard someone, but it was not the Father...

Exo 20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying:

Please give Biblical basis for God Almighty not being the Father.

Who was this?

1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea,
1Co 10:2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
1Co 10:3 all ate the same spiritual food,
1Co 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

This was Jesus Christ.

Yes, Scripture states that Christ was the rock.

However, Scripture does not state that God Almighty is not the Father.

You have not Biblically shown that Jesus spoke on Mt Sinai.

 

[danschance]

Can you produce some scripture that delineates the Old Testament ceremonial Laws?

No, I do not think that exists. In the OT it is simply called law.

Here is a link that discuss the aspects of the law. I browsed thru it and found it interesting.
What is the difference between the ceremonial law, the moral law, and the judicial law in the Old Testament?

 

[Elin]

Was it I AM who spoke to Moses?

Exo 3:14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

Christ was the Word the one known as I AM.

Backwards again.

God is the I AM.

Christ was calling himself God when he said he was I AM.

 

[Elin]

I thought you would appreciate that. Look... I have something new! It replaces something old. What is old didn't work any more, so I had to replace it. I would never known what to buy if I didn't have this old thing to compare it with. The old work well for it's purpose, but the product has been made better.

Not a good analogy.

The OT has not been replaced with the NT.
It is simply the foundation of the NT, as the foundation is to the Temple.

 

[Elin]

As far as issue, my issue is with you for twisting and
misrepresenting scripture by lifting it out of context and misapplying it.

Assertions without demonstration are without merit.

They don't rise above the level of personal opinion.

 

[Elin]

Especially the scripture, you post opinion.

More assertion without demonstration and, therefore, without merit.

 

[Elin]

arguments are going so fast that they are being missed by others who are arguing with each other. LOL
No learning happening here.

Judaizers are not interested in learning.

 

[Elin]

Mk 7:19 could not be clearer:

"(In saying this, Jesus declared all food 'clean.')" no matter your attempt to alter it.

Take it up with Mark.

All food? How about nighshade mushrooms? Fugu?

You confuse "unclean" with "healthy."

It is neither sin nor immoral ("unclean") to eat any food.

 

[Angela53510]

I am not one to cut and paste, but this article does answer a lot of people in this thread, although I think it was written to encourage Christians who are attacked by non-Christians.

TIM KELLER|10:00 PM CT

[h=2]Making Sense of Scripture's 'Inconsistency'[/h]I find it frustrating when I read or hear columnists, pundits, or journalists dismiss Christians as inconsistent because "they pick and choose which of the rules in the Bible to obey." Most often I hear, "Christians ignore lots of Old Testament texts---about not eating raw meat or pork or shellfish, not executing people for breaking the Sabbath, not wearing garments woven with two kinds of material and so on. Then they condemn homosexuality. Aren't you just picking and choosing what you want to believe from the Bible?"


I don't expect everyone to understand that the whole Bible is about Jesus and God's plan to redeem his people, but I vainly hope that one day someone will access their common sense (or at least talk to an informed theological adviser) before leveling the charge of inconsistency.
First, it's not only the Old Testament that has proscriptions about homosexuality. The New Testament has plenty to say about it as well. Even Jesus says, in his discussion of divorce in Matthew 19:3-12, that the original design of God was for one man and one woman to be united as one flesh, and failing that (v. 12), persons should abstain from marriage and sex.
However, let's get back to considering the larger issue of inconsistency regarding things mentioned in the Old Testament no longer practiced by the New Testament people of God. Most Christians don't know what to say when confronted about this issue. Here's a short course on the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament.
The Old Testament devotes a good amount of space to describing the various sacrifices offered in the tabernacle (and later temple) to atone for sin so that worshipers could approach a holy God. There was also a complex set of rules for ceremonial purity and cleanness. You could only approach God in worship if you ate certain foods and not others, wore certain forms of dress, refrained from touching a variety of objects, and so on. This vividly conveyed, over and over, that human beings are spiritually unclean and can't go into God's presence without purification.
But even in the Old Testament, many writers hinted that the sacrifices and the temple worship regulations pointed forward to something beyond them (cf. 1 Sam. 15:21-22; Ps. 50:12-15; 51:17; Hos. 6:6). When Christ appeared he declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19), and he ignored the Old Testament cleanliness laws in other ways, touching lepers and dead bodies.
The reason is clear. When he died on the cross the veil in the temple tore, showing that he had done away with the the need for the entire sacrificial system with all its cleanliness laws. Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for sin, and now Jesus makes us clean.
The entire book of Hebrews explains that the Old Testament ceremonial laws were not so much abolished as fulfilled by Christ. Whenever we pray "in Jesus name" we "have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus" (Heb. 10:19). It would, therefore, be deeply inconsistent with the teaching of the Bible as a whole if we continued to follow the ceremonial laws.
[h=3]Law Still Binding[/h]The New Testament gives us further guidance about how to read the Old Testament. Paul makes it clear in places like Romans 13:8ff that the apostles understood the Old Testament moral law to still be binding on us. In short, the coming of Christ changed how we worship, but not how we live. The moral law outlines God's own character---his integrity, love, and faithfulness. And so everything the Old Testament says about loving our neighbor, caring for the poor, generosity with our possessions, social relationships, and commitment to our family is still in force. The New Testament continues to forbid killing or committing adultery, and all the sex ethic of the Old Testament is re-stated throughout the New Testament (Matt. 5:27-30; 1 Cor. 6:9-20; 1 Tim. 1:8-11). If the New Testament has reaffirmed a commandment, then it is still in force for us today.
The New Testament explains another change between the testaments. Sins continue to be sins---but the penalties change. In the Old Testament sins like adultery or incest were punishable with civil sanctions like execution. This is because at that time God's people constituted a nation-state, and so all sins had civil penalties.
But in the New Testament the people of God are an assembly of churches all over the world, living under many different governments. The church is not a civil government, and so sins are dealt with by exhortation and, at worst, exclusion from membership. This is how Paul deals with a case of incest in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 5:1ff. and 2 Cor. 2:7-11). Why this change? Under Christ, the gospel is not confined to a single nation---it has been released to go into all cultures and peoples.
Once you grant the main premise of the Bible---about the surpassing significance of Christ and his salvation---then all the various parts of the Bible make sense. Because of Christ, the ceremonial law is repealed. Because of Christ, the church is no longer a nation-state imposing civil penalties. It all falls into place. However, if you reject the idea of Christ as Son of God and Savior, then, of course, the Bible is at best a mishmash containing some inspiration and wisdom, but most of it would have to be rejected as foolish or erroneous.
So where does this leave us? There are only two possibilities. If Christ is God, then this way of reading the Bible makes sense. The other possibility is that you reject Christianity's basic thesis---you don't believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God---and then the Bible is no sure guide for you about much of anything. But you can't say in fairness that Christians are being inconsistent with their beliefs to follow the moral statements in the Old Testament while not practicing the other ones.
One way to respond to the charge of inconsistency may be to ask a counter-question: "Are you asking me to deny the very heart of my Christian beliefs?" If you are asked, "Why do you say that?" you could respond, "If I believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God, I can't follow all the 'clean laws' of diet and practice, and I can't offer animal sacrifices. All that would be to deny the power of Christ's death on the cross. And so those who really believe in Christ must follow some Old Testament texts and not others."
This article originally appeared in Redeemer Presbyterian Church's monthly Redeemer Report.


Making Sense of Scripture’s ‘Inconsistency’ – The Gospel Coalition Blog

 

[Historicist]

I am using the term jew to mean Hebrews, Israelites and even modern jews. In Modern times that is how this term is used.
The dictionary defines Jew as:


Gentiles are everyone else. The dictionary defines them as:

danschance, you just revealed that the origin of your antinomian heresy lies in secular definitions of scriptural terms. Since when does one define "Jew" and "Gentiles" using other than original context? This violates the rules of interpretation. "Jew," in scripture, identifies a portion only of Israel, i.e., the Judah portion. "Jew," in its Biblical context does not identify today's Ashkenazi-Khazar counterfeits, there own historians admit this. "Gentiles," in scripture is a broadly defined word, one applied to Israelites of the dispersion, i.e., the Christians in Paul's epistles. Romans, in other words, is an epistle to non-Jew Israelites of the dispersion, the Diaspora. Jesus referred to them as "...other sheep I have which are not of this fold" (John 10:16). In John 7:35 these non-Jew Israelites are referred to as "...the dispersed among the Gentiles (Greeks). And you refer to "modern Jews." They, according to their own historians, are not representative of twelve tribed Israel (see The Invention of the Jewish People by Israeli professor Sholmo Sand; The Thirteenth Tribe by Jewish intellectual Arthur Koestler, and the 2012 Johns Hopkins Jewish DNA study). Please define things in context.

 

[Elin]

That explains a lot. . .I don't do cut and paste.

Especially the scripture, you post opinion.

I don't cut and paste either.

 

[WomanLovesTX]

I am using the term jew to mean Hebrews, Israelites and even modern jews. In Modern times that is how this term is used.

Gentiles are everyone else. The dictionary defines them as:

Yes, Jews are historically Hebrew and from Israel. However, the point that not just I make, but the Word of God makes is that the "children of Israel" is all 12 tribes and all companions who have joined the "children of Israel". After the kingdom was taken from Solomon and divided into two kingdoms, God's word is consistent in when it says "House of Israel" or "Ephraim" or "House of Judah". The House of Judah is made up of the tribe of Judah, Benjamin and half Levites. While calling these members of the House of Judah a Jew, is quite appropriate, they are not now or ever where of "The house of Israel/Ephraim", but are included in "children of Israel".

This is very basic knowledge from the Word (all - OT and NT). Your misuse of who are who could very well be the reason you do not understand the Law of Christ and His Kingdom.

A few basic scriptures:

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

**HIS PEOPLE:

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
​

**WHAT SINS?:

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law (Torah): for sin is the transgression of the law (Torah)​

Psa 111:6 He hath shewed his people the power of his works,
that he may give them the heritage of the heathen (Gentiles).
Psa 111:7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment;
all his commandments are sure.
Psa 111:8 They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth
and uprightness.
Psa 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath
commanded his covenant FOR EVER: holy and reverend is his name.
Psa 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom:
a good understanding have all they that do his commandments:
his praise endureth FOR EVER.
​

***Keep THE Commanmdnets:

(Deu 4:2) Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

(Deu 6:17) Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee.

(Deu 7:11) Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.

(Deu 8:6) Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to fear him.

(Deu 10:13) To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

(Deu 28:9) The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways.

(Psa 119:115) Depart from me, ye evildoers: for I will keep the commandments of my God.

(Mat 19:17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

(Rev 12:17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

(Rev 14:12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

​

Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Eze 37:22 And I will make them ONE NATION in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and ONE KING shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

Gen 35:10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
Gen 35:11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation [SUP]H1471 [/SUP]and a company of nations[SUP]H1471[/SUP] shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
Gen 35:12 And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed (SINGULAR SEED=JESUS) after thee will I give the land[SUP]H776[/SUP].

H1471
gôy gôy
go'ee, go'-ee
Apparently from the same root as H1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts: - Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

H776
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

Joh 7:35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the "DISPERSED" among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

The Jews knew the prophecy that the kingdom would be restored to One Kingdom under One King for ALL THE EARTH.

What I am saying is this, please don't butcher the story anymore. Use correct terminology....it means EVERYTHING to GOD and He wants us to have understanding and wisdom. and through the proper reading and terminology we can gain much knowledge. However, whom he gave to and would not do, he taketh away and leaves you utterly in the dark. All light is snuffed out of your understanding and all you have left is your TRADITIONS OF MEN.

I'm not being ugly or rude. What I am is patiently repeating over and over TRUTH.

My daily prayer: Psa 25:5 Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day.

Psa 25:10 All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as KEEP HIS COVENANT and his testimonies.

Jer 31:10 Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations (gentiles), and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a SHEPHERD DOES HIS FLOCK.

Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

***SHEEP: Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

 

[chubbena]

Mk 7:19 could not be clearer:

"(In saying this, Jesus declared all food 'clean.')" no matter your attempt to wriggle around it.

Take it up with Mark.

All food clean but not all food.

 

[Elin]

And again, lifted out of context and twisted. What are we talking about here?

Mar 7:1 Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem.
Mar 7:2 Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault.

It is the hands they say are unclean, not the food.

2) The disciples were condemned for eating with unwashed hands.

Aw but there is more...

Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders.

Mar 7:9 He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

The problem here is not God's Law of clean and unclean, it is the commandments of men.

Clean and unclean food was a matter of the Levitical law.

"Jesus declared all food 'clean'." (Mk 7:19)

Mark is addressing the law, not the commandments of men.

None of this alters that Jesus declared all food clean in Mk 7:19.

What agenda drives all the wriggling with the plain word of God in Mk 7:19?

Your issue is with Mark, not with me.

 

[Elin]

All food clean but not all food.

Read Ge 9:3 again.

 

[Historicist]

No, I do not think that exists. In the OT it is simply called law.

Here is a link that discuss the aspects of the law. I browsed thru it and found it interesting.
What is the difference between the ceremonial law, the moral law, and the judicial law in the Old Testament?

That you would post link giving us the option of legalizing sin ("sin is the transgression of the law" [1 John 3:4]) does not surprise me. Again, the real Jesus was not telling us it is now okay to eat pig, chimpanzee or snake. Neither did he, or Paul tell us it's now okay to force one's emplyee to work seven days straight, week in, week out, with no day off, i.e., with no fourth commandment seventh day of rest. Please, stop using the name of Jesus in your attempt to legalize sin.

 

[RickyZ]

And again, lifted out of context and twisted. What are we talking about here?

Mar 7:1 Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem.
Mar 7:2 Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault.

Two things to note..

1) it was bread and not meat, from Thayer's...

G740
ἄρτος
artos
Thayer Definition:
1) food composed of flour mixed with water and baked
1a) the Israelites made it in the form of an oblong or round cake, as thick as one’s thumb, and as large as a plate or platter hence it was not to be cut but broken
1b) loaves were consecrated to the Lord
1c) of the bread used at the love-feasts and at the Lord’s Table
2) food of any kind
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G142
Citing in TDNT: 1:477, 80

2) The disciples were condemned for eating with unwashed hands.

Aw but there is more...

Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mar 7:4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?"

The rule being referenced here is a tradition of the elders.

Mar 7:6 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR FROM ME.
Mar 7:7 AND IN VAIN THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.'
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men— the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do."
Mar 7:9 He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

The problem here is not God's Law of clean and unclean, it is the commandments of men.

Mar 7:10 For Moses said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, 'HE WHO CURSES FATHER OR MOTHER, LET HIM BE PUT TO DEATH.'
Mar 7:11 But you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban"—' (that is, a gift to God),
Mar 7:12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother,
Mar 7:13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

What was the problem? Making the Word of God of none effect by their traditions which they have handed down.

Mar 7:15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man.
Mar 7:16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!"

So, if you eat with unwashed hands and get some dirt in your mouth, it will not spiritually defile you, the foul and filthy things that come out of your mouth will defile you.

Mar 7:17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable.
Mar 7:18 So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him,
Mar 7:19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"

Now it is obvious that he is saying here that if something dirty enters your mouth, that it passes through and is eliminated but it does not defile you spiritually.

This is not teaching about God's Law of clean and unclean, it is teaching about the traditions of men replacing the Law of God.

Like misrepresenting this passage to be speaking of doing away with the Law of clean and unclean by the traditions of men.

Awesome. Very well put.

I would add that while the Mark 7 passage starts with a specific subject (about washing rituals), that specific serves to introduce a general discussion of 'what is unclean'. And that is what I believe Jesus addressed here, not the specific of hand washing but the general issue of spiritual cleanliness.