Nothing gets cleansed by being passed through the digestive system, so surely it should be obvious that this isn't what Jesus meant?
Here's the text in its entirety. Pray tell us all what other conclusion can one come to?
What is entering into him? Food right? These are Jews. None of them identify anything unclean as food so there's no reason to assume otherwise.
The food is going into the belly and then into the toilet purging or cleansing all food. One can read it as the food being purged from the body or the body being cleansed of what goes into the toilet. Does that make sense? Either way, there is nothing in this text that indicates a pronouncement abolishing the dietary laws.
'Foods' is the object of the verb 'cleanse'. The subject isn't made explicit, but is masculine singular. So it can't be the process of digestion previously being talked about (grammatically, that would be neuter);
Nope. The process (i.e. "katharizon" Nominative MASCULINE SINGULAR) as well as the toilet(i.e."aphedrona" accusative MASCULINE SINGULAR) are both masculine singular. FAIL. Care to try again?
You seemed to be assuming that it was the only reason.
The digestive process is the only one presented. Food doesn't go into one's heart which is where defilement ORIGINATES. Instead it does through the digestive process, and exits into the sewer. This is explicitly stated by the author. The digestive process does not declare anything more than it ever did in the past.
The Gentile church "were Jews"? That statement is utter nonsense!
I quite agree. You're presenting a Strawman argument. The church that Mark is referring to was most definitely Jewish as was Matthew's, and John's as well. Even Luke's account is of a more cosmopolitan Jewish sect of Judaism. People tend to conflate the Greek texts with the authors assuming that just because it was written in Greek, the people must have been Gentile. There is no doubt that gentiles were being brought into the church, but this doesn't mean that the church was composed of just Gentiles or that the church was then disregarding God's commandments to accommodate gentiles. This is just pure conjecture on your part.
So cannibalism would be OK if you slaughtered the victim yourself (so that he/she didn't die on their own)?
No, cannibalism is automatically acceptable because Christians no longer observe kosher slaughter. Kosher slaughter requires that the animal you eat be slaughtered quickly with a razor sharp knife. It also forbids eating anything that has died on its own. In other words if one discovers an animal that has just died, it cannot be eaten. Christianity has abolished the dietary laws so there is nothing preventing you from eating an animal that just drops dead. This is not an uncommon occurrence at slaughterhouses. Some slaughterhouses have signs notifying those bringing animals into the plant that they do not accept "downed animals", but there are plenty of slaughterhouses that don't have that requirement which is why observant Jews never eat anything that isn't kosher.
There is nothing in Christian doctrine that prohibits one from eating human flesh as long as the flesh isn't torn while it is slaughtered, and the blood can be drained out.
Fortunately cannibalism is prohibited by the secular laws of most countries, including mine.
Yep, but then that's beside the point I made which was in reference to actual cannibals who are being introduced to Christianity.
That isn't what I said, as you well know. You are exaggerating.
it's exactly what you said.
The reference in Acts 15 is much more comprehensive which is why I suggested it. Here's what it says:
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Trouble them? Trouble them with an exhaustive laundry list of do's and don'ts? Why not just address the most egregious problems? Does that make sense? Of course it does, and the reason why they don't need to regurgitate the entire Mosaic law to them is because they're already going into the synagogues learning God's word. This is the reason Luke provides:
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Did you catch how he's pointing out that the Mosaic law is being preached in the synagogues every sabbath day?
We can't nullify God's laws on our whim,
And yet this is precisely what you're arguing for. You're explicitly pointing out that God's laws are arbitrary. There is nothing inherently wrong with eating what God refers to as "filth; pollution". God even points out that to eat what he has prohibited is "an abomination". God places those who go beyond the boundaries he has set as "detestable". He places them on the same level as those who engage in sodomy.
but if God has declared the previously unclean 'clean', then who are we to argue with Him?
if he has declared it, I certainly wouldn't argue or deny the point. The fact is that there is nothing in your argument to support such a claim. You're simply Begging the Question.
