The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit

I was recently asked on a website, by someone named Tim, a Protestant, this question:

“Please do tell me how that works. How does the Holy Spirit guide YOU through the Catholic Church? Any robot could say “The Catholic church is the only true church”.

 

Although the following isn’t exactly what I told him, it does catch the jist of it.  I will add, as I do want to use this example of how the Holy Spirit does guide the Catholic Church.

 

 

So, the question more or less is:  How does the Holy Spirit guide ME through the Catholic Church?

After thinking about this very good question from Tim, I thought I’d start in scripture first and work my way forward.  So I asked a list of questions which the Apostolic Church had to address in Apostolic times.  That question occurs in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles,  St. Paul and St. Barnabus went to Jerusalem to address a problem that had come up in some of the Churches that St. Paul was evangelizing.  It was the question of whether the Gentile converts had to be made Jewish first, and be circumcised before becoming followers of Christ.  This group become known as the Judaizer party.

 

 

  • Is Tim a Judaizer?
  • Is Tim a Nicolaitan?
  • Is Tim a Gnostic?
  • Is Tim a Montanist?
  • Is Tim a Sabellianist?
  • Is Tim a Arian?
  • Is Tim a Nestorian?
  • Is Tim a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian?
  • Is Tim a Monophysite?
  • Is Tim a Catharist?
  • Is Tim a Anabaptist?
  • Is Tim a Lutheran?
  • Is Tim a Calvinist?
  • Is Tim a Morman?
  • Is Tim a member or one of the 45,000 different denominations of Protestantism?
What I ended up saying to Tim is that this is how the Holy Spirit protects and GUIDES Christ’s Church.  This is just one example of how the Holy Spirit protected the Apostolic Church against false teachings and heresies.  It is the funcion of the Church to expose every new wind of doctrine, of the trickery of men, who by craftiness in deceitful scheming can have have introduced false doctrines onto the faithful.  This has been occuring since Apostolic times.
The Holy Spirit, working through the Church, has throughout history, guided the church that Jesus Christ established on the faith of the Apostles with Himself as the Cornerstone.  One of the functions of the Church is to open the eyes of the blind who have been deluded and bewitched into believing the precepts of men. Such men as these men: Nicolaitas, Arius, Montanus, Nestorius, Pelagius, Huss, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Smyth, Smith, Smith, Smith, Johnson, Eddy, Smith, Young, and the list is around 45,000 other heretics long.

 

I reminded this person that Satan always comes as an angel of light, but is always found to be a wolf in sheeps clothing.  Another example is the Nicolaitans, warned about by Jesus Christ Himself.  Jesus hates heresy and curses those who do not follow Apostolic teaching and preaching.  Another point I made to Tim was that the Church didn’t start in 1517.  It started in the Upper Room on Pentecost 33 A.D.. There were 13 people present in the Upper Room that day. The 12 Apostles and Mary, the Mother of God. Mary encountered the Holy Spirit at the Incarnation of the Son of God, and again she encounters the Holy Spirit, this time at another birth: The birth of the Church, The one and only Church He established on the faith of the Apostles with Himself as the cornerstone.

 

A few examples on this matter from the Book of Acts will make sense on how the Holy Spirit guides the Church.  In chapter 15, St. Peter and then St. James both speak in one voice and rule that the Mosaic law requiring circumcision was no longer a requirement for Jewish converts who accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah.  Nor were the Gentile converts required to be circumcised, (Acts 15:6-11, Acts 15:13-29).

The key point in Acts 15 is verse 15:28

“For it seemed good to the HOLY SPIRIT and to US to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:”
Here is exactly how the Holy Spirit guided the early Church and still guides the Church.  And the Church that is quided by the Holy Spirit is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  The amazing thing is I keep hearing that the early churches were separate entities.  This is clearly an unbiblical view or belief.  Why would the Apostles and Elders of the Jerusalem Church send out letters to all the churches.  In Acts 15:22-24 –

 

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, …..

 

Notice that the Apostles, Elders and the Whole Church have SENT others out.  These are SENT.  Those SENT are on an Apostolic mission.  The Church is not in disunity unless they are being taught something not from the Apostles or those sent by Apostles and Elders.  Think of both the Judaizers and the Nicolaitans.
Another example of the Holy Spirit guiding the early Church can be seen in Acts 16:6-10

 

6 Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. 7 When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. 8 So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. 9 During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.
John 16:13

 

If anyone answers “Yes” to any of the above questions, then that person is not a member of The Church that Jesus Christ established on earth on the Faith of the Apostles with Himself as the cornerstone.

That Church is The Catholic Church.

 

In the Peace of Christ,
R. Zell
Advertisements

40 thoughts on “The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit

  1. Hi smlavini,

    Thanks, This question was asked of me three days ago. Acts is loaded with examples of how the Holy Spirit guides the Church Christ said would lead His Church into all truth. I’m waiting for the person, Tim to respond.

    History has many examples of the Holy Spirit guiding our Church. In fact, the great schism is another example of how the Holy Spirit works in guiding a church that splits off the mother Church. The Catholic Church recognizes all 7 sacraments of the Orthodox Church and so the Holy Spirit uses that Church in the work of salvation.

    It will be interesting to watch how the forces of evil in this world (and you know the religion I’m taking about), will bring back those churches not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Jesus prayed for unity of His Church in John 17. We will be the living witnesses to this unification as the growing persecution intensifies.

    This is why I’m a firm believer in dialogue with our separated brethren. If I produce even one soul to come to the knowledge of truth in the True Christ of the Catholic Church, all the angels in heaven will rejoice.

    In the Love of Christ,

    R. Zell

    Like

    • Wow! Interesting perspective. . . I have been thinking more along the lines of how forces within the Catholic Church–leadership, etc.–are leading us astray, so that perhaps only a remnant of the Catholic Church will exist in the future. Your thought is that we (i.e., all the Christian Churches, or at least a number of them) will reunite at some future point. I hope so. Great work R!

      Like

  2. You should carefully read each verse in Romans 12, especially about the “measure of faith.” We all are indeed called to be saints when we are IN CHRIST, yet not all of us are called to martyrdom, or to be teachers, or to speak in tongues, etc.. We are all members of the Body of Christ. There is an Obedience of Faith we are all called to as bookended in Romans 1:5 and 16:26. This Obedience to Faith (which I am working out and plan to write an article to http://www.mysticalbodyofchrist.com/blog), encompasses the Life of Faith which is a Living Faith in Christ. Just yesterday as I was reading Col 3:12-17, it became clear that this is an example of a living faith; this is the life of faith. It’s a Life lived in Christ and we can therefore say: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”

    As long as we maintain our son and daughtership In Christ, even those Catholics that aren’t called to be outstanding leaders in the Church, or called to be teachers, etc, etc, will no go onto the line of Goats at Judgment. They were faithful, hearing and living the Word of God, Receiving the Eucharist proves a persons faithfulness to Christ, participating in the Catholic Mass, giving of owns treasure each week, blessing and praying, forgiving and being in the world, and not of the world also is what will save the faithful. As long as we always seek……Romans 2:6-7, seek the word seeking or seek. So long as we are always seeking, picking up our Cross daily, we are worthy of Christ.

    Praise God,

    R Zell

    Like

    • Thank you, my friend. I will definitely read Romans, as you suggested. Picking up our cross daily–an excellent reminder for me, for when I feel sorry for myself or think that life should be different and better.

      Like

  3. Thank you, my friend. I will definitely read Romans, as you suggested. Picking up our cross daily–an excellent reminder for me, for when I feel sorry for myself or think that life should be different and better.

    Like

  4. Life couldn’t be better, in this one or the next. Life is a gift and Jesus can to give us fullness of life. Think of Gods free gift of Grace. 🙂 Take St. Paul’s advice: “Be Joyous, I say it again, be joyous.”

    Like

  5. Greetings, you state: “In chapter 15, St. Peter and then St. James both speak in one voice and rule that the Mosaic law requiring circumcision was no longer a requirement for Jewish converts who accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah.  Nor were the Gentile converts required to be circumcised, (Acts 15:6-11, Acts 15:13-29).
    The key point in Acts 15 is verse 15:28
    “For it seemed good to the HOLY SPIRIT and to US to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:”

    If I may, I’d like to direct your attention to these verses in particular:

    ” 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.”

    The first thing that should jump out at you is that they are instructing them to abstain from idolatry, fornication, and non kosher slaughtering techniques which are part of the dietary laws. The reason for this thumbnail list is then given in the very next verse:

    “21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”

    They have access to the Mosaic law each and every Sabbath. Jesus says the same thing with regards to the Pharisees. He says to ignore their false teachings, doctrines, traditions, but to pay close attention to them when “they sit in the seat of Moses”, i.e. when they read from Torah. Why? Because God’s laws (not to be confused with traditions of men) are not a burden. They are “for” us, and our benefit.

    A Jew could take an animal that had not been slaughtered according to the dietary laws and give or sell it to a gentile. He could not give it to a gentile who decides to convert to Judaism, and this is precisely what is going on here. These new converts are no longer allowed to receive animals that haven’t been slaughtered according to the rules of Kashrut. Moreover it would make no sense to then allow them to eat non kosher animals as long as they are slaughtered property. No kosher butcher is going to slaughter non kosher animals.

    Paul and James are not presenting an exhaustive list. They are presenting the most essential aspects that need to be followed immediately, the rest can come as they learn more while they are in the synagogues on the Sabbath.

    Like

  6. Hi Teo, In many of Pauls Epistles, he is battling against the Judiazer Party or Pharisee Party. This is quite clear in many places. And in Acts 15 we are seeing several things at once:

    the Ecclesical authority of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven being exerted,
    the Church having authority of Christ Jesus to Bind and to Loose,
    the Holy Spirit guiding the Church at this first council, into all truth,
    the commandment of Christ Jesus that the Church is to act with the full authority of Christ,

    The question of circumcison became an issue for the early church. The 2 witnesses of this are Paul and Barnabus (ACTS 15:2), who go to the Church where Peter, the Apostles, elders and the Bishop of Jerusalem will debate and come to a decision. Their decision looses the requirement of the mosaic law on new converts and thus binds their decision on the churches that the Church we call Catholic heads, (Acts 15:28). A letter is sent to all the churches about their decision (ACTS 15:22-23).

    This is what jumps out at me. The Fathers of the Church bear this out as well.

    Blessings Brother. I can see you are a truth seeker.

    Like

    • Perhaps you didn’t notice this part of my post. Would you care to address or if you think it’s possible; refute this?

      If I may, I’d like to direct your attention to these verses in particular:
      ” 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.”
      The first thing that should jump out at you is that they are instructing them to abstain from idolatry, fornication, and non kosher slaughtering techniques which are part of the dietary laws. The reason for this thumbnail list is then given in the very next verse:
      “21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”
      They have access to the Mosaic law each and every Sabbath. Jesus says the same thing with regards to the Pharisees. He says to ignore their false teachings, doctrines, traditions, but to pay close attention to them when “they sit in the seat of Moses”, i.e. when they read from Torah. Why? Because God’s laws (not to be confused with traditions of men) are not a burden. They are “for” us, and our benefit.
      A Jew could take an animal that had not been slaughtered according to the dietary laws and give or sell it to a gentile. He could not give it to a gentile who decides to convert to Judaism, and this is precisely what is going on here. These new converts are no longer allowed to receive animals that haven’t been slaughtered according to the rules of Kashrut. Moreover it would make no sense to then allow them to eat non kosher animals as long as they are slaughtered property. No kosher butcher is going to slaughter non kosher animals.
      Paul and James are not presenting an exhaustive list. They are presenting the most essential aspects that need to be followed immediately, the rest can come as they learn more while they are in the synagogues on the Sabbath.

      Like

      • The gentiles converts do not go to the synagogues on the Sabbath. They went to churches or gatherings of followers of the Way, Paul is presenting a specific problem which arose as Gentiles were coming into the Body of Christ, which is the Church. I understand what you are trying to say. Paul also refers to these same things in his epistles:

        20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”

        Here you say this: These new converts are no longer allowed to receive animals that haven’t been slaughtered according to the rules of Kashrut.

        Jesus specifically states in Mark 7:1-5, 14-19 that all foods are clean. I am aware that some protestants disagree with the meaning of this.

        Yet it is interesting to read what Paul says in 1 Cor 8: 4-13. Please read that as well as 1 Cor 10:14-33 also touches on the dietary laws.

        In Acts 15, the gentile converts are given those instructions so they do not scandalize the Jews who are being preached to. In other words, not to thumb their noses at them.

        And also, the simple fact that Jesus didn’t tell us everything, we are given Peter as the Shepherd of Christ’s sheep and lambs until He comes again to judge the living and the dead. The Holy Spirit as we see in Acts 15 will lead the church into all truth. Again, this issue comes up again in Acts 21.

        I eat meat that is not slaughtered according to Kosher laws. Again. Jesus made all foods clean, including Pork. I am positive that Paul ate Pork.

        Why were the Jews not allowed to eat swine? I eat port all the time.

        Like

        • “The gentiles converts do not go to the synagogues on the Sabbath.”

          The reason Paul and James et al state “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them,..etc..” with an extensive list of do’s and don’ts is explicitly stated in verse 21 to be “21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” This is the explicitly stated reason why they aren’t troubling them with any further instructions. We know this because of the conjunction (Gk. “gar”) i.e. “For”, or “Because” indicates that this is the reason. Why would the elders of the church point out that these gentile converts have access to the teachings of Moses when they aren’t going to be going into these synagogues? This isn’t much of a reason, nor would it be valid, if they weren’t going into the synagogues on the Sabbaths. The whole reason for this thumbnail list would be false.
          ———————————
          “They went to churches…”

          There were no churches at that time.
          —————————–
          ” or gatherings of followers of the Way”

          Paul preached on the Sabbaths, and the gentile followers even asked Paul if he would be returning on the following Sabbath to preach. What a perfect opportunity for Paul to point out that he wouldn’t have to wait till the next Sabbath because it was done away; he didn’t do that. Instead he returned on the following Sabbath to preach and the entire town came out to hear him.
          —————————
          “, Paul is presenting a specific problem which arose as Gentiles were coming into the Body of Christ, which is the Church. I understand what you are trying to say. Paul also refers to these same things in his epistles:
          20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”

          “Things strangled”, and “from blood” are both references to the dietary laws.
          —————————-
          “Here you say this: These new converts are no longer allowed to receive animals that haven’t been slaughtered according to the rules of Kashrut. ”

          That’s exactly what “things strangled” and “from blood” means. These are explicit references to the dietary laws.
          —————————
          “Jesus specifically states in Mark 7:1-5, 14-19 that all foods are clean.”

          The first thing you should be aware of when engaging in apologetics is that ignoring a point is to concede that point. To then go and present a point or argument which you believe is negating my point is to spotlight a contradiction in your interpretation of scripture. You should always address and refute the point presented first, then move on to your next point.

          The subject of Mark 7 is established in verse 2 which states: “when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.” They found fault, not with what they were eating, but with the fact that they were not following the oral traditions. The oral traditions should never be confused or conflated with the Mosaic law. While a Jew may place them on an equal footing, scripture is quite clear in distinguishing them from each other. The gospel writer has Jesus make this distinction in verse 8 “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men,” For Jesus to then turn around and claim that the commandments are now done away with would be completely inconsistent and contradictory. There is nothing in the text anywhere to indicate this idea.

          However, there is a parenthetical remark that is found in the codex Bezae which migrated from the margins. The marginal note is as follows: “(Thus he declared all foods clean)”. This marginal note is nowhere to be found in any of the manuscripts for the first few hundred years, and it is only around the 4th century that it shows up in Codex Bezae.

          So the first thing we need to understand and admit is that Mark never wrote it, and Jesus certainly never said it. You can actually google the jpeg images of this manuscript and the parenthetical note isn’t visible because it is still off in the margins which are out of the scope of the picture.

          Moreover, the parenthetical remark makes no sense to the context for the salient reason that unclean foods include food that has become rotten. Good luck serving that at your next bbq. The other problem is that the idea of unclean foods is completely foreign to scripture. There are only clean and unclean animals; clean animals are acceptable as food. Unclean animals aren’t considered food to begin with, so the scribe who penned this is only spotlighting his own ignorance of scripture with this parenthetical remark.

          But just to drive the point home for anyone who is still not quite sure how this could be possible, let’s just take an identical clean law and substitute it into the text to see if that makes any sense. After all, it is the cleanliness, or holiness code that is being done away here. Given that this is no different than Jesus example of the Pharisees eagerness to do away with the law, this is a Pharisaic issue.

          “”Then came together unto Him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.  And when they heard of his disciple who had not performed the ceremonial cleansing after laying with his wife, they found fault.  Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why walk not Thy disciple according to the tradition of the elders, but refrain from washing after laying with his wife?”.  He answered and said to them, “Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This People honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me…. Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered; and many such like things do ye.”  And when He had called all of the people unto him, He said unto them, “Hearken unto Me every one of you and understand; There is nothing from without, that entering into can defile: but the things which come out, those are they that defile.  Because it entereth not into one’s heart, but is expelled during the time of separation,(Thus he declared all sexual activity clean)
          For from within out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:  All these evil things come from within, and defile, but to neglect washing does not defile.”  Mark chapter 7  NIPV (New Improved Pharisaic Version)

          For those who may not be familiar with this terminology, the oral tradition as well as the Mosaic law itself prescribe washing after sexual intercourse with one’s wife. The “time of separation”, or “period of separation” is a reference to when a woman is menstruating. This was not a time when sexual intercourse was allowed, primarily because it was an affront to God’s commandment to be fruitful, but also as an affront to God’s promise to make Israel as numerous as the stars of the sky. Regardless, this is an identical example of a clean law from the holiness code being done away with. Just as the digestive process cleans the body, the menstrual cycle cleans a woman’s reproductive system. The principle applies in each case, and is equally illogical. The parenthetical remark is a blatant non sequitur.

          The point that should be taken away from Jesus’ teaching here is where sin originates (in the heart), that we are all in an ontological state of defilement, and therefore we are already defiled. There is nothing that any of us can do to clean ourselves from this state. Only God can make our hearts clean.
          ———————————–
          1 Cor 8: 4-13. is a comment by Paul to act charitably towards those who may believe that we shouldn’t eat food offered to idols. This in no way negates the fact that swine, catfish, shellfish, etc. isn’t food. Paul isn’t using the pagan definitions of food. He’s using his own biblical definition of food. He’s also pointing out that if we act uncharitably towards our neighbor, in this case our brother Judah; we are the reason for their damnation. That’s something we will have to answer for.
          ——————————
          1 Cor 10:14-33 also touches on the dietary laws.”

          No, it doesn’t. It touches on the laws against idolatry. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the dietary laws and everything to do with one’s conscience being tormented by food offered to idols. This is explicitly what is stated in this passage.
          ————————–
          In Acts 15, the gentile converts are given those instructions so they do not scandalize the Jews who are being preached to. In other words, not to thumb their noses at them.”

          I don’t know where you’re getting that from in your bible because what he’s talking about is the fact that there are those who believe that one must obey the law to be saved. This is denied by scripture, and the church. The law is what is followed after one is saved; not before. This is no different than what Jesus said in Mark 7. Only those who have been regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit have a heart that can keep the law.
          ————————-
          Acts 21. is simply pointing out the same issue, i.e. that there were some who believed keeping the law was what saved, rather than the grace of Christ. Paul obviously doesn’t have a problem with the law at all, or he never would have gone along with the vow. In fact, he’d made one himself earlier, and this was part of what he was also required to perform anyways.

          “26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
          27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,”

          So what we have here is Paul and James pointing out that the horse comes before the cart, rather than the cart before the horse. You seem to think it’s better to just get rid of the cart altogether, but James would point out that faith is a workhorse, and must pull a cart of works, or she isn’t worth her name.
          ——————————-
          ” I am positive that Paul ate Pork.”

          And I am certain that you are deceived. Pork is literally Heb. “traif”, i.e. “garbage, pollution, filth”. To eat pork disgusts God, and is explicitly referred to as “an abomination”
          —————————-
          “Why were the Jews not allowed to eat swine?”

          It wasn’t so much that they weren’t allowed to eat it, but that it was probably one of the most filthy animals imaginable back then. Swine have no sweat glands, and back then especially they were most likely to be eating rotting flesh. Swine are incredibly efficient at containing filth and toxins. They’re God’s vacuum cleaners. Today farmed swine aren’t as likely to be eating rotting flesh. However, it isn’t as uncommon as one might think at the bigger pig farming operations. A sick pig doesn’t last long once it ends up on the ground, and it’s hard to see them when one goes down. Regardless, they are still efficient at containing their own toxins.

          What you don’t realize or understand is that for someone who has never eaten pork, the toxins will be such an insult to their digestive system that the effects will be nothing less than violent vomiting and whatever doesn’t come up will be quite unpleasant, to say the least; later.

          Even with improved farming techniques and regulations the effect is effectively the same for all except those with the most hearty of constitutions. This is not something that an older observant Jew is likely to do without hazardous results.

          Now, I will admit that there are exceptions with shellfish if they are purged prior to being boiled. This isn’t usually the case in most restaurants though, and most people aren’t even familiar with the procedure. Regardless, it doesn’t negate the fact that the biblical God views this as nothing less than an abomination. It is on par with sodomy. Your arguments are also quite popular with homosexuals, and just as illogical e.g. “it’s not what goes in that defiles, etc.”

          What Christians of all stripes are going to have reckon with one of these days is the fact that they’re arguments are being effectively used against them by the secular world to support and condone depravity. If it’s true for you, it’s going to be just as true for them.

          I will stick with God’s instructions that are given to us for our benefit. There is no inconsistency or contradictions within my arguments.

          Like

          • Teo, You have put so much here that I can’t even begin to comment without writing a thesis. I will just pick up on one of your errors. I ask: “Why were the Jews not allowed to eat swine?”

            You give me a ridiculous argument. Nothing God put on this earth disgusts God. He saw it was Good.

            Now, what do the Israelites grumble about in the desert?

            Ex 16:3. The sons of Israel said to them, “Would that we had died by the LORD’S hand in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat, when we ate bread to the full; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.”

            Teo, the fleshpots in Egypt were swine.

            You may claim there is no inconsistency or contradictions within your arguments. But I disagree.

            Like

          • “Teo, You have put so much here that I can’t even begin to comment without writing a thesis.”

            I am simply addressing the points you made and refuting them with scripture; the same scripture you referenced. There really isn’t that much to address. It’s irrefutable.
            ———————–
            “Why were the Jews not allowed to eat swine?”

            Good question. In point of fact, the distinction between clean and unclean animals predates the flood, therefore it is not just contingent upon Jews, but all survivors of the flood. Noah was told to bring a pair of every unclean animal and seven pairs of every clean animal. The clean animals are the only animals that were fit for sacrificial purposes as well as for consumption. The unclean were there to clean up the filth that would naturally accumulate. That’s what unclean animals do, they eat up filth and contain it. That’s what they’re good for. They’re not good for eating, unless of course you have a taste for garbage.
            ————————-
            “You give me a ridiculous argument.”

            Perhaps you’d like to back that up with an argument of your own. Baseless assertions only spotlight that you have no argument.
            ————————
            ” Nothing God put on this earth disgusts God. He saw it was Good.”

            False dichotomy. While it is true that nothing God created disgusts him, the fact is that when people misuse what God put on earth, that does disgust him. Swine were put here for a purpose, and that purpose is quite evidently to clean up the garbage that is lying around rotting. Garbage is not meant to be eaten. God sees sex as an intrinsic good as well, but he has parameters that must not be violated. These same boundaries exist for diet as well. If you want to remove boundaries for one, then you necessarily will be removing them for all. It is no coincidence that this is precisely what we see happening now.
            ———————-
            Now, what do the Israelites grumble about in the desert?
            Ex 16:3. The sons of Israel said to them, “Would that we had died by the LORD’S hand in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat, when we ate bread to the full; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.”
            Teo, the fleshpots in Egypt were swine. ”

            Perhaps, but this is besides the point, and it doesn’t actually say that in the text you just quoted. Moreover, the fact is that the Israelites weren’t keeping any of God’s laws while they were in bondage. That’s what it means to be in bondage. The ironic thing here is that as soon as they migrated into the Sinai peninsula, God asks them “How long will you continue to trample my Sabbath?” They were just freed from bondage, so God is obviously pointing out that the Sabbath was instituted long before He freed them from bondage in Egypt.
            ———————-
            “You may claim there is no inconsistency or contradictions within your arguments. But I disagree.”

            Pointing out that you disagree isn’t an argument. However, it is a claim that doesn’t need to be proven. Of course we already knew that you disagreed, we were hoping you might actually supply us with something more than what is already a given; some arguments to prove that your position was valid. Here is the pertinent scripture proving that eating that which is considered unclean Heb. “traif: pollution, filth, etc.” is an abomination. The word abomination literally means disgusting.

            Here are God’s instructions codified against these abominations. Of course you might have some arguments from the New Testament which you believe refute or nullify these laws. I invite you to post them. I will address each and everyone and refute them all. You’re also free to post each and every single argument I’ve already posted along with your response if you think you have one. Otherwise I can only conclude that you can’t refute any of them. If you aren’t going to address them, then why did you start this forum in the first place?

            Deuteronomy 13:308

            “Thou shalt not eat any ABOMINABLE thing.
            4 These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,
            5 The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.
            6 And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat.
            7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.
            8 And THE SWINE, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.”

            Note: They weren’t even to touch a dead carcass much less eat it.

            Lev. 11:7-13

            And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
            8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
            9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
            10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an ABOMINATION unto you:
            11 They shall be even an ABOMINATION unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in ABOMINATION.
            12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an ABOMINATION unto you.
            13 And these are they which ye shall have in ABOMINATION among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an ABOMINATION: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,”

            Like

    • The issue of circumcision really isn’t what is at issue between the early church and the legalists. The issue is salvation based in obedience to the law, or is it the grace of Christ. The issue of circumcision is just one of many issues that exemplify this problem, and the ironic thing is that Paul is quite clear in pointing out that he is in no way doing away with the commandments of God. He is simply pointing out two major themes. Justification or establishing one’s righteousness does not happen by keeping the law, and the sacrificial system pointed to Christ’s sacrifice. So, the former reason is to spotlight that this was never the purpose of the law, and the latter is to point out that the sacrificial system is no longer required.

      I would like to also point out that to ignore a point in someone’s argument is to concede that point, and a counter argument only spotlights that your interpretation presupposes a contradiction in scripture. This doesn’t bode well for those who don’t believe scripture or church doctrine is contradictory. So my next question would be to ask if you do believe scripture and church doctrine are contradictory and you are perfectly fine with that assessment, or do you believe there are no contradictions in your argument? If you believe the former, I can see why you don’t really see any point in addressing my points. If you don’t believe there are any contradictions between the passages I have cited and explained and the one’s you are presenting, then I’d seriously like to see how you reconcile your interpretation.

      Like

  7. I neglected to document the references to “strangled” and “blood”. Here they are:

    Lev. 17:10,15

    “And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.. And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger,…etc.”

    Notice that this isn’t just contingent upon Jews, but even strangers who are visiting.

    Like

  8. Gentile converts to the Catholic Faith did not visit the synagogues on the Sabbath. Rather worship was conducted on the Lord’s Day – Sunday. That which was preached “the scripture” in the early Church was the Septuagint. That was what the existent scripture.

    The early Church had their own synagogues at the time. Notice Acts 1, a new synagogue exists in accordance to Jewish Law. The claim that no churches existed is asinine at best, and a claim of a neophyte.

    Paul who as a Rabbi taught by St. Gamaliel. He was well known in the Jewish community. He visited JEWISH synagogues to preach The Way and engaged in polemics and debate. The Early Church had its own synagogues.

    Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. This is James rendering a judgement not Paul speaking.

    As for Oral Tradition it is also from the Lord as is the Written Law. What Christ is pointing out is a very specific Gezeirah in the Takkanah. This halakha was applied to priests only, however at some point while Hillel was nasi this was extended to everyone else as a Gezeirah which many persons outside the Levi’im found very hard to keep. Christ is not actually attacking the Oral Tradition which He Himself gave to Moses.

    Pork is called hahzir in Hebrew (I am spelling is phonetic). Where did you learn Hebrew again??? It is apparent that Paul did not follow mizvot when it conflicted with his interest in bringing gentiles to the Faith. He sat with the gentiles and ate their food, unlike James. Peter on the other hand only did so when the Jews were not around ready to judge him. So Paul would have eaten anything placed before him by the gentiles.

    Like

    • “Gentile converts to the Catholic Faith did not visit the synagogues on the Sabbath.”

      I would dearly love to believe these baseless assertions, however, as I’ve already pointed out with one quote from scripture and one reference to another, the fact is that they were going into the synagogues on the Sabbath and learning Torah. Is anyone ever going to address Acts 15:21??? e.g. ” “21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”

      This is the explicit reason stated as to why they would not trouble them more than to relate the most important things to be aware of as new converts. Why is everyone ignoring this sentence? Could it be because you’d rather just believe that some false interpretation of another verse justifies ignoring this one? Why do people seem to feel that an understanding of scripture as inherently contradictory is somehow to be preferred over one that is logically consistent?
      ——————–
      “Rather worship was conducted on the Lord’s Day – Sunday.”

      Says you. I’d really appreciate it if people would have the decency to back up their claims from scripture. Is that really too much to ask?
      —————
      ” That which was preached “the scripture” in the early Church was the Septuagint. That was what the existent scripture.”

      Yep, and that would be the entire Old Testament, which includes remembering the Sabbath, observing the dietary laws, forbidding usury etc.
      —————-
      “The early Church had their own synagogues at the time. Notice Acts 1, a new synagogue exists in accordance to Jewish Law.”

      You must have a different bible than me because I don’t see what you’re talking about. Perhaps you might post a quotation with the verses you’re referring to. Otherwise, no one could possibly know what you’re talking about. However, just glancing at chapter one I did notice that they talked about “a Sabbath’s days journey” so we can still see that they’re observing the Sabbath in chapter 1. Why else refer to it in those terms? They could just as easily given an actual distance, but they author chose to use proper Jewish terminology.
      —————-
      ” The claim that no churches existed is asinine at best, and a claim of a neophyte.”

      Again, perhaps you’d care to back up your comments with something more than your assertions.
      —————-
      “Paul who as a Rabbi taught by St. Gamaliel. He was well known in the Jewish community. He visited JEWISH synagogues to preach The Way and engaged in polemics and debate. The Early Church had its own synagogues.”

      In case you’re trying to pull a fast one here, you do know that a synagogue is a Jewish house of worship, don’t you? You do know that these are all Jews and gentiles who have converted to this new sect of Judaism, right????
      ——————
      “Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. This is James rendering a judgement not Paul speaking.”

      Sure, glad you finally decided to post some scripture, did you notice that I already pointed out that these are all references to the Mosaic law? Did you notice that “things strangled, and from blood” are all right from the dietary restrictions? Did you notice I already posted the relevant passages from Leviticus and Deuteronomy? Did you know that they are from the Septuagint?

      I’ll post it again in case you missed it: “Lev. 17:10,15
      “And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of BLOOD; I will even set my face against that soul that EATETH BLOOD, and will cut him off from among his people.. And every soul that eateth that which DIED OF ITSELF, or that which was TORN with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger,…etc.”
      —————–
      “As for Oral Tradition it is also from the Lord as is the Written Law. What Christ is pointing out is a very specific Gezeirah in the Takkanah. This halakha was applied to priests only, however at some point while Hillel was nasi this was extended to everyone else as a Gezeirah which many persons outside the Levi’im found very hard to keep.”

      What are you talking about??? I already pointed out that Jesus himself pointed out that their traditions weren’t to be followed, but God’s commandments Read Exodus. God plainly calls “ALL” of Israel to be a holy priesthood.
      ——————
      ” Christ is not actually attacking the Oral Tradition which He Himself gave to Moses.”

      Technically, this is correct, however the scribes and Pharisees embellished the Oral traditions by adding to them. They turned a simple washing before eating into a ceremony. This is what Jesus was condemning.
      ——————
      Pork is called hahzir in Hebrew (I am spelling is phonetic). Where did you learn Hebrew again???”

      And it is “unclean”, “unacceptable”, or in the Hebrew “traif” “polluted, filth, garbage”. All unclean animals are garbage.
      ——————–
      ” It is apparent that Paul did not follow mizvot when it conflicted with his interest in bringing gentiles to the Faith.”

      Yet another unsubstantiated claim. Please document
      ———————
      ” He sat with the gentiles and ate their food, unlike James.”

      If you think that this means he was eating pork, or shellfish, you are sadly mistaken. You are assuming that pork, shellfish, catfish, etc. is food. Scripture doesn’t define it this way and neither do observant Jews. Just fyi, Paul, James, Peter, John, etc. were all Jews. There is no prohibition anywhere in the Mosaic law or even in the Oral Tradition that forbids sitting down with gentiles. In point of fact, it was the scribes and Pharisees who insisted upon these aspects of Judaism.

      “Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart….22 Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten, so thou shalt eat them: the unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike.” Deut. 12:15,22

      You’re assuming that these gentiles were eating pork, but nowhere in the text does it state that. This would be no different than assuming that because Jesus associated with prostitutes that he must have been engaging their services. It’s a non sequitur; it simply doesn’t follow. You’re probably also assuming that people back then were as uncharitable and inconsiderate as people are today. Back then a considerate gentile would never think to offer an observant Jew pork, or anything that wasn’t kosher. Contrary to popular opinion, gentiles back then were just as kind and charitable as Jews.
      ————————
      “Peter on the other hand only did so when the Jews were not around ready to judge him.”

      Yep, he was a bit of a spine donor for a while.
      ——————
      ” So Paul would have eaten anything placed before him by the gentiles.”

      Please refrain from making these baseless assertions. If you’re going to make these silly claims, please have the decency to provide something from the text to document it.

      Like

  9. Zell would you mind reminding as to how many Greek, Hebrew, Italian scholars have been exposed in debates as frauds who did not know any actual Greek, Hebrew or Italian? He is someone trying to teach Hebrew and Greek without knowing either. Every time these mavens were exposed as liars and frauds. Not one time have any of these mavens stood up to scrutiny. How many PhD have we exposed as being frauds? I believe we have taken down three fake PhD claimants so far. But again and again we come across these phrauds, fakes and phonies.

    Like

    • I’ve made no claims to teach anyone anything, nor have I presented any credentials, or made any claims to being a scholar. I’ve simply presented some quite simple facts. Does one need to be a scholar to present a fact here? Perhaps you’d care to refute any of my claims with a factoid of your own. Evidently that’s not going to happen any time soon. I’ve run into your kind before, and the technique is tiresome and pointless. First you present what you believe is some sort of fact, which indicates that if you can present an argument you’ll do it immediately. However when addressed and refuted, you have no recourse but to then follow up with trolling comments about the person rather than the content of their arguments. It’s called ad hominem, and of course you have to mix in a few trolling comments about something I didn’t say being “asinine”. Arguments of straw are all you have. So go ahead and knock down as many as you like, but my post will still be sitting there waiting for someone to respond to it.

      What else, oh yeah, how about a tour through history, church fathers, etc.? That’s always good as a deflection, not to mention a laugh or two. Or how about accusing me of being one of those no good Protestants? There again, I have to laugh because I can’t think of anyone as idiotic as a Catholic with no defense for their faith, except for a Protestant that is too stupid to even realize that half their beliefs are the doctrines of Papists, and nowhere to be found in their bibles; so much for sola scriptura.

      The bottom line? Neither has a clue what their own bible really says, and what little they think they know is easily proven to be illogical and contradictory. Now we know why all these idiotic atheists and skeptics keep babbling on about contradictions; because they’re listening to Catholics and Protestants that have chronic reading comprehension problems. So it really doesn’t matter what one’s level of education is when they’ve been brainwashed to believe nonsense and can’t be bothered to look at what a text is plainly stating.

      God bless you for trying, but you’ll have to try harder if you want to post something relevant.

      Like

      • Instead of giving facts, you make assertions and blather nonsense which no one bothers reading, I certainly haven’t. No sane person has the time to read drivel spewed which is an protestant exercise of my verse trumps your verse. This is protestant exegesis in a nutshell. Assertions are mere straw, and dismissed likewise.

        No one has the time to give someone a “tour” of the Fathers of the Church as their writings are more extensive that the bibles, perhaps over a hundred volumes of compiled books are required to do these justice. Given that you believe that one could provide another a “tour” demonstrates the very lack of knowledge regarding the subject.

        Every catholic has run into your kind before. A typical imbecilic, moronic protestant clodhopping troll who blathers without cease spewing nonsense upon nonsense without bothering to read and comprehend as you have chosen to do here. A typical protestant will never let you know which denomination/sect/cult he or she might belong to as they are too ashamed to admit to being a member of that particular denomination/sect/cult. Ask one as to which denomination/sect/cult one should join and all you will receive is a black stare.

        Instead they snipe at some low hanging fruit which is their MO. I see that you are no different. Just look at how much nonsense you can spew, asking a questions which were answered again, just because you did not get the answer you were trained to received.

        Sorry, but you will not get the nonsense answers your bible thumping pastors spoon feed you, These days most non-denoms are not even Christians latching on the heresies with their own reading of scripture and challenging everyone if they cannot refute their particular reading should join their cult of one. Little wonder everyone of the non-denoms cannot agree on anything except Catholicism is wrong.

        Like

        • “Instead of giving facts,…blah, blah, blah”

          I’ve posted the scriptures others only referred to, and yet, when these passages are presented, you don’t see them as factual? Interesting, but not surprising.
          ———————
          “No one has the time to give someone a “tour” of the Fathers of the Church…”

          And yet, you still feel the need to bring them up anyways. The best you will ever be able to come up with is ad hominem attacks and arguments of straw. Of course my favorite is to just claim you’re right because you have the authority when any child can see your feeble claims to authority are patently false. I absolutely love it when you clowns present your arguments up front, only to have them dashed with the hard cold reality of irrefutable facts. Inevitably the very next post is an ad hominem because you have nothing left. Thanks for playing along as long as you could, you gave up quicker than most; probably because you’re too ignorant to know much of anything about the text itself. Your ignorance is only surpassed by your incredible inability to comprehend what you’re reading.

          Like

    • So perhaps you might be interested in exposing all those little children who have learned elementary Greek grammar as frauds. I’m actually surprised no one has posted anything to do with the (false) claim that Peter is the “rock” on which Jesus built the church.

      Here’s the argument for anyone who isn’t familiar with it.

      The Protestant claim is that the Greek “petros” refers to a stone, while the Greek “petra” refers to an immovable boulder. The Catholic church responds that these distinctions existed in Attic Greek, but no longer in the koine Greek of Jesus’ day. This is true. Any good lexicon will be more than enough to prove this point.

      The Protestants then claim that the Gk “petros” is masculine, but the Gk “petra” is feminine, and cannot refer to a masculine noun or name. This is true, but the Catholic response is to point out that the author couldn’t very well give Peter a feminine name now could he? A good point. The problem with this response is that it doesn’t negate the fact that grammatically “taute te petra” cannot refer to the masculine “petros”.

      Moreover, as the Catholics have already pointed out, this distinction between a stone and a boulder no longer existed, therefore there is nothing preventing the author from writing “and on this rock” in the masculine form e.g. “tautw tw petrw” to agree with the masculine “petros”. This would have made the gender specific Greek just as seamless as the gender neutral Aramaic.

      The best explanation I have heard from more than one apologist for the Catholic position is that the gospel writer made a mistake. This isn’t a compelling response for a document that has no blatantly ridiculous grammatical errors anywhere. The author of this gospel narrative is writing in a gender specific language that denies the Catholic teaching that Peter is the rock upon which Christ said he would build his church. I would seriously like a better explanation than that the author made a mistake.

      Like

  10. “The gentiles converts do not go to the synagogues on the Sabbath.”

    Yet James clearly stated: ” “21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”  Acts 15:21  This is the explicitly stated reason why they would not trouble them with anything more than the most serious violations of the Mosaic law
    Your response? 

    Like

    • Yet James clearly stated: ” “21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”  Acts 15:21  This is the explicitly stated reason why they would not trouble them with anything more than the most serious violations of the Mosaic law
      Like I said, you did not bother reading.

      Like

      • LOL! James votes that they not bother these new converts with anything but the most glaring problems he sees, i.e. idolatry, fornication, and the violation of the dietary laws. Why? “21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”  Acts 15:21

        So someone thinks that they need not bother talking about the Mosaic law because if they want to know more about the Mosaic law they can just go right into a synagogue on the Sabbath. Evidently you conclude that James is being facetious here? James isn’t suggesting that they go into the synagogues on the Sabbath at all, is that it? LOL. Yeah, that’s it. James is a real clown sometimes. He’s a real cut up at the parties, isn’t he? LOL.

        Like

      • What post? You haven’t addressed anything I’ve posted. There’s just this glaring deflection. The sad thing here is that I actually could be completely wrong, and no one is going to show me the error of my ways. Why? Because no one here has one single fruit of the Spirit, unless they’ve come up with trolling as the newest authorized spiritual gift. Fat chance of that leading anyone into the truth.

        Just tell people they’re wrong, that’s enough for you. Why? Because you really don’t know yourself. You’ve just placed your trust in those who told you to just accept it because they said so. The blind leading the blind.

        Like

  11. Then there’s this: “14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the SYNAGOGUE ON THE SABBATH DAY , and sat down.” Acts 13:14  This is a good 15 years, if not longer; after the death and resurrection of Christ.  

    Your response? silence

    Of course I’ve saved the best for last:  
    “42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next SABBATH.
    43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious PROSELYTES followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
    44 And the next SABBATH DAY came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.”

    Again, what a perfect opportunity for Paul to point out that he would not have wait until the following Sabbath to preach the word of God to them. Paul is quite clear in his letters to denounce the legalists of his day so we know for a fact that he is not keeping the Sabbath because he’s a legalist. We know he’s keeping the Sabbath because he explicitly points out that “12Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Romans 7:12
    Your response? 

    Like

  12. “Jesus specifically states in Mark 7:1-5, 14-19 that all foods are clean.”.

    The subject of Mark 7 is established in verse 2 which states: “when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.” They found fault, not with what they were eating, but with the fact that they were not following the oral traditions.

    The oral traditions should never be confused or conflated with the Mosaic law. While a Jew may place them on an equal footing, scripture is quite clear in distinguishing them from each other. The gospel writer has Jesus make this distinction in verse 8 “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men,” For Jesus to then turn around and claim that the commandments are now done away with would be completely inconsistent and contradictory. There is nothing in the text anywhere to indicate this idea.

    However, there is a parenthetical remark that is found in the codex Bezae which migrated from the margins. The marginal note is as follows: “(Thus he declared all foods clean)”. This marginal note is nowhere to be found in any of the manuscripts for the first few hundred years, and it is only around the 4th century that it shows up in Codex Bezae. 
    Your response?  

    I’m breaking these all up into easily digestible bite sized pieces so as not to overwhelm anyone. Perhaps this might generate an actual response? One can only hope.

    Like

  13. The parenthetical remark makes no sense to the context for the salient reason that unclean foods include food that has become rotten. Good luck serving that at your next bbq. The other problem is that the idea of unclean foods is completely foreign to scripture. There are only clean and unclean animals; clean animals are acceptable as food. Unclean animals aren’t considered food to begin with, so the scribe who penned this is only spotlighting his own ignorance of scripture with this parenthetical remark.
    Your response?  silence.

    Like

  14. Let’s just take an identical clean law and substitute it into the text to see if that makes any sense. After all, it is the cleanliness, or holiness code that is being done away here. Given that this is no different than Jesus example of the Pharisees eagerness to do away with the law, this is a Pharisaic issue.

    “Then came together unto Him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.  And when they heard of his disciple who had not performed the ceremonial cleansing after laying with his wife, they found fault.  Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why walk not Thy disciple according to the tradition of the elders, but refrain from washing after laying with his wife?”.  He answered and said to them, “Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This People honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me…. Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered; and many such like things do ye.”  And when He had called all of the people unto him, He said unto them, “Hearken unto Me every one of you and understand; There is nothing from without, that entering into can defile: but the things which come out, those are they that defile.  Because it entereth not into one’s heart, but is expelled during the time of separation,(Thus he declared all sexual activity clean)
    For from within out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:  All these evil things come from within, and defile, but to neglect washing does not defile.”  Mark chapter 7  NIPV (New Improved Pharisaic Version)
     Your response?  silence

    This is an identical example of a clean law from the holiness code being done away with. Just as the digestive process cleans the alimentary canal, the menstrual cycle cleans a woman’s reproductive system. The principle applies in each case, and is equally illogical. The parenthetical remark is a blatant non sequitur.

    Your response? Still thinking?

    Like

  15. 1 Cor 8: 4-13. is a comment by Paul to act charitably towards those who may believe that we shouldn’t eat food offered to idols. This in no way negates the fact that swine, catfish, shellfish, etc. isn’t food. Paul isn’t using the pagan definitions of food. He’s using his own biblical definition of food. He’s also pointing out that if we act uncharitably towards our neighbor, in this case our brother Judah; we are the reason for their damnation. That’s something we will have to answer for.

    Here it is in case someone might not understand where I’m getting this from.

    1 Corinthians 8:4-13 4So then, ABOUT EATING FOOD SACRIFICED TO IDOLS: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one LORD, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. 7But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But FOOD (not to be confused with things like  pork, shellfish, catfish, vulture, rat, dog, etc. None of these things are considered food by an observant Jew, and all the writers of scripture were observant Jews) does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. 9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.
    Your response?  nada

    Like

  16. 1 Cor 10:14-33 also touches on the dietary laws.”

      Here it is: 
    1 Corinthians 10:14-33 14Therefore, my dear friends,FLEE FROM IDOLATRY(not to be confused with dietary laws). 15I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf. 18Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19Do I mean then that  FOOD(not to be confused with swine, shellfish, cat, vulture, etc.) sacrificed to an IDOL is anything, or that an IDOL is anything? 20No, but the SACRIFICES of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21You cannot drink the cup of the LORD and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the LORD’s table and the table of demons. 22Are we trying to arouse the LORD’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he? 23″I have the right to do anything,” you say-but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”-but not everything is constructive. 24No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. 25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it.” 27If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if someone says to you, “This has been OFFERED IN SACRIFICE then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? 31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether JEWS(who observe the dietary laws, e.g. Paul, Peter, James, John etc.), Greeks or the church of God- 33even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.”
    Evidently that’s not part of your program.
    Your response?

    Like

  17. Acts 21. is simply pointing out the same issue, i.e. that there were some who believed keeping the law was what saved, rather than the grace of Christ. Paul obviously doesn’t have a problem with the law at all, or he never would have gone along with the vow. In fact, he’d made one himself earlier, and this was part of what he was also required to perform anyways.
    “26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
    27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,”
    Your response? Why does it seem like all I hear is Simon and Garfunkel singing “the sounds of silence”?

    Like

  18. ” I am positive that Paul ate Pork.”

    And I am certain that you are deceived. Pork is literally Heb. “traif”, i.e. “garbage, pollution, filth”. To eat pork disgusts God, and is explicitly referred to as “an abomination”

    Just for clarification, I’m not saying “traif” is the word for swine, but that swine is “unclean, unacceptable, filth, pollution, garbage”
    Your response?  zilch

    Like

  19. “Why were the Jews not allowed to eat swine?”

    Good question. In point of fact, the distinction between clean and unclean animals predates the flood, therefore it is not just contingent upon Jews, but all survivors of the flood. Noah was told to bring a pair of every unclean animal and seven pairs of every clean animal. The clean animals are the only animals that were fit for sacrificial purposes as well as for consumption. The unclean were there to clean up the filth that would naturally accumulate. That’s what unclean animals do, they eat up filth and contain it. That’s what they’re good for. They’re not good for eating, unless of course you have a taste for garbage.
    Your response?  silence

    Like

  20. ” Nothing God put on this earth disgusts God. He saw it was Good.”

    False dichotomy. While it is true that nothing God created disgusts him, the fact is that when people misuse what God put on earth, that does disgust him. Swine were put here for a purpose, and that purpose is quite evidently to clean up the garbage that is lying around rotting. Garbage is not meant to be eaten. God sees sex as an intrinsic good as well, but he has parameters that must not be violated. These same boundaries exist for diet as well. If you want to remove boundaries for one, then you necessarily will be removing them for all. It is no coincidence that this is precisely what we see happening now.
    Your response?  the sound of silence…

    Like

  21. “Why were the Jews not allowed to eat swine?”

    Deuteronomy 13:308
    “Thou shalt not eat any ABOMINABLE thing.
    4 These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,
    5 The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.
    6 And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat.
    7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.
    8 And THE SWINE, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.”
    Note: They weren’t even to touch a dead carcass much less eat it.
    Lev. 11:7-13
    And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
    8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
    9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
    10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an ABOMINATION unto you:
    11 They shall be even an ABOMINATION unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in ABOMINATION.
    12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an ABOMINATION unto you.
    13 And these are they which ye shall have in ABOMINATION among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an ABOMINATION: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,”
    Your response?  the sounds of silence…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s