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

77 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. “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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. “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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. “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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. “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

  21. 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

  22. “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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. ” 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

  29. “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

  30. ” 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

  31. “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

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. “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

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. 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

  38. I didn’t bother reading what??? I read everything written here, AND responded to all of it with passages from “the word of God” itself to refute it. Your response? Some vague reference to something unstated that I supposedly didn’t read. You’ll never get around to responding to anything I’ve posted because you have no defense for your sad excuse for a faith. You clowns are so lost in your pointless and incoherent doctrines and traditions you will never have a clue where to start to respond to anyone who poses even the most rudimentary questions to your faith. Good luck with the fiery darts of Satan because if you can’t handle the “slow pitch” posts I’m leaving here, you’re screwed

    Like

  39. Teo, Me personally, I didn’t read your worthless and 20 page comments. If you want to be heard you need to keep it short and contrite.

    It’s you who are following heresies. Go back to your father Lucifer. If you are responding to Sumsapientius, I found his comment in the “Needs Approval Bin” so didn’t know he responded to you. I don’t check these things often.

    Like

  40. Obviously you don’t read much of anything as I broke it up into nice little bite sized pieces that an imbecile could comprehend. Resorting to ad hominem attacks only spotlights the fact that you have no clue how to respond to a legitimate argument. Of course what else can one expect from those who are hopelessly deceived by their antichrist beast system? I’m sure you will have a front row seat while heretics of all sorts parade into the kingdom as you stand there wailing and gnashing your teeth at them.

    Like

  41. You are the one who resorted to ad hominem attacks dude. What don’t you go on your merry way and worship to your Master, Lucifer. You have zero interest in honest debate and dialogue.

    Stay in schism. In other words, stay lost.

    I always find it extremely funny when heretics even use the word Heretic. Are you kidding me?

    Thank about it, I can’t even take somebody like you to the Church because you do not belong to the Church. You are outside the Church.

    Tell you what, why don’t you go my youtube channel and take the Zell Challenge:
    The Zell Challenge – A Catholic Challenge to Protestants ~~~ https://youtu.be/OeOfW_gI61M

    Pick your favorite heresy and lets see if you can prove your heresies are biblical.

    I’m not interested in 20 page commentaries. Just follow the instructions.

    Blessings and may you one day find the Church Christ did established and we call Catholic.

    Like

  42. Given that you’re the one so fond of using his name like he’s your best friend, I’ll leave you and your son of perdition to work out your heresies on your own. Your ‘challenge” is a pathetic joke. Not that it needs to be repeated, but the glaring fact is that you can’t be bothered to respond to my simple and quite short questions because you have no defense for your silly traditions. This is painfully evident in the fact that you did present what you thought was a response immediately after my first post appeared here. After i shot that down, you had nothing except ad hominem and pointless obfuscation. We both know that if you had a response, you’d present it. I honestly don’t know who is on a faster track to hell, Papists, or Protestants. it’s like you can’t wait to see who can dig a deeper pit to fall into. morons; one and all…

    Like

  43. Like

    So, just in case you can’t find these quite simple refutations of your glaringly obvious examples of your profound ignorance, I’ve posted them once again for your convenience. I quite courteously addressed and refuted your facile, and sad excuse for an argument. How about extending the same courtesy? No doubt, each and every point was scrutinized for any possibility to offer a refutation, but alas none will ever be forthcoming as there are none. The only fitting response is to ignore them as any attempt is to spotlight your own foolishness. This is your only saving grace. You know you have no defense for your faith.

    Teo says:
    July 4, 2017 at 9:02 pm
    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

    Reply
    Teo says:
    July 4, 2017 at 9:06 pm
    “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

    Reply
    Teo says:
    July 4, 2017 at 9:07 pm
    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

    Reply
    Teo says:
    July 4, 2017 at 9:10 pm
    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

    Reply
    Teo says:
    July 4, 2017 at 9:18 pm
    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

    Reply
    Teo says:
    July 4, 2017 at 9:22 pm
    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

    Reply
    Teo says:
    July 4, 2017 at 9:24 pm
    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

    Reply
    Teo says:
    July 4, 2017 at 9:25 pm
    ” 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

    Reply
    Teo says:
    July 4, 2017 at 9:26 pm
    “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

    Reply
    Teo says:
    July 4, 2017 at 9:27 pm
    ” 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

    Reply
    Teo says:
    July 4, 2017 at 9:28 pm
    “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

  44. Just had some Jehovah’s Witnesses drop by yesterday to “share a message”. They reminded me of you clowns. They kept on harping on how I shouldn’t let anyone deter me from reading the bible. I then told them to turn to a few key passages to refute some of their more ridiculous doctrines, but they didn’t want to look at them so I couldn’t resist the temptation to remind them that I had already taken their advice to heart and insisted that we look at what the bible actually states. I also informed them that most of their doctrines predate the formation of their organization; many are the doctrines of the papists they seem so intent on condemning.

    They think their doctrines are so unique when they’re identical to the Catholic and Protestant denominations they think are lost. The funny thing is that the only denomination I can think of that might see the law as still in effect is really just the more orthodox Jews. Unfortunately they’re still stuck on the legalistic aspects which Paul and Jesus so sharply condemned as false. So, other than Paul and Christ himself, I seem to be one of the select few on this entire deceived planet that understands that the law isn’t done away with. I dare anyone to refute me. Sadly everyone here has become a spine donor, and is unable to stand up for what they believe.

    Oh, I take that back. You do stand up for what you believe. You stand up and throw ad hominem, or straw man arguments around instead. That’s your whole faith in a nutshell; just toss out silly personal attacks to those arguments you can’t refute or even address.

    Like

  45. Snarkle van arkle or whatever you are calling yourself these dsy. Please do not confuse me with your father. He is the only clown your mother ever cheated on.

    There really is no difference between Protestants, un-Protestant Protestants or Mormans and Jehovahs Witnesses. As far as I am concerned you are all just heretics with a different stink.

    Blessings.

    You are banned from posting and placed in purgatory till March 15th.

    Like

  46. You are in purgatory until March 15th. I know you much to say. Stop with the insults and on March 16th, you ate anew.

    Like

  47. Shnarkle, the doctrines of the Church we call Catholic ate those doctrines which are true because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

    I can’t say that about your denomination, cult or sect. You debating a Jehovahs Witness does not impress me. In fact, you quoting scripture to me also does not impress me because ypur doctrines came from men and not from the Apostles or those they laid their hand upon, anointing them and sending them to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth.

    Who started your denomination? Please don’t say it was Christ. He started only one church and not churches.

    This from my notes: The Catholic Church throughout the ages has maintained a continuity of faith and love with the apostolic community which was founded by Christ and sustained by the Holy Spirit. Being guided by the Holy Spirit she has preserved and taught the historic Christian Faith, free from error and distortion, from the time of the Apostles. She also believes that there is nothing in the body of her teachings which is contrary to truth or which inhibits real union with God. The Catholic Church in her antiquity and timelessness, best characterizes the faith of Christianity and is an expression of her desire to remain loyal to the authentic Christian Faith.

    So shnarkle, nothing you can post here will be authentic Christian teaching, except what you have maintained from mother Church.

    Have a nice day and hopefully you comment on March 16th with good, honest dialogue.

    Like

  48. Shnarkle, You have been released from purgatory. I hope you will become a better man. Now, you may post and if I have time to answer you, I will. I have a business to run and sometimes I can’t get to comments as expeditiously as I would like to. No ad hominem attacks will be tolerated.

    As for the Jehovahs Witnesses, they bible has you do that you have the Truth. The problem is they were invented sometime in the late 19th or early 20th century. They are not Apostolic. I do consider them a diseased Protestant offshoot of the Post-Reformation sea of CHAOS which is a direct result of the Reformation. As for the “Law as still in effect” my scriptures tell me that the Law wasn’t abolished, but fulfilled. We are now following the Law of Christ which is the Law of Agape (Gal 6:2).

    As for “legalistic aspects,” I’m not so are I follow you. I don’t think Jews following the Law was legalistic; at least not according to Paul in Galatians 3. As I stated above, I don’t believe the Law was done away with, but is fulfilled and lived out in the life of a Christian.

    I ain’t that type of Catholic that rolls over and plays dead. My whole faith in a nutshell is this: Jesus is Lord.

    Like

  49. The Jews or “Judaisers” believed that one’s adherence to the law established their righteousness, or justified them as worthy of entrance into the kingdom; i.e. they were saved by their works. This is exactly what JW’s literature states. Their faith is established “by” their works. This is in direct contradiction to Paul’s words in his letters (e.g. “it is by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves, not by works, lest any man boast”.

    They make the same mistake most make in misunderstanding the difference between being justified by one’s works and “the doers of the law shall be justified”. The fact that one will have works after one is saved isn’t in dispute, but people tend to conflate the fact that works are still not what saves anyone. They don’t document that anyone is saved either. If that were the case then all those scribes and Pharisees Jesus debated would have been saved.

    If the law isn’t abolished then it isn’t abolished. The problem is that any number of people can make that statement and have it mean something completely different. Some understand it to mean that things like dietary laws, usury, Sabbath observance are no longer necessary while others understand it to mean that the sacrificial system is no longer what motivates the “new creature in Christ”.

    My contention is that every time Paul mentions it, he is referring to the sacrificial system, or in reference to comments from legalists who are attempting to establish their own righteousness by their works. I have challenged everyone I encounter to supply me with one single passage from scripture to support their contention that Paul is referring to the Mosaic law. No one has ever successfully complied with this request.

    Yes, love is the fulfillment of the law which means that when you love someone you don’t cheat, lie, steal, etc
    The fact that all of Christendom cherry picks the law is telling. The fact that they all seem to have no problem with it is ridiculous. Why don’t we do the same with the 7th commandment rather than the 4th? I can make the same arguments, but no one seems to see the logic in them then, Why? What’s the difference?.

    Here’s just one example: Under the Old Testament, a Jew could engage in usury with the gentiles, but not a fellow Jew. Jesus comes along and states that we are to treat our enemies as we would a fellow Jew. Instead what we have is this idea that we can now charge interest to any one, even blood relatives. In fact, it is against the law NOT to charge a relative interest on a loan in the US. If I remember correctly, the minimum is around 2 to 3 % interest.

    I don’t have a dedicated internet connection so I wasn’t able to get online until this afternoon. In effect, my time in purgatory went unnoticed. Not getting a straight answer from anyone on this forum is quite another story, and quite a bit more unsettling than your internet version of purgatory. I must confess that I’m not surprised primarily because I have asked this question of university professors in theology, Patristic studies, etc., and gotten nowhere so when those who are supposed to have an answer are mute, then it isn’t surprising that those who haven’t chosen this field as a primary vocation will fair no better.

    I honestly wish someone would come up with something reasonable to refute me.

    In Jesus’ day, he was the heretic, and even pointed out that when it came to salvation, it was the heretical Samaritan who was saved, so I am confident that I am in good company…

    Like

  50. Works can never justify you.

    Remember though that their were righteous people in Old testament times as well as the New Testament.

    I’m dealing with issues right now at my business. Will further elaborate when I am free.

    Like

  51. Yes, works can never justify or make one righteous or save, sanctify, or glorify anyone. The problem is that people automatically assume that this means the Mosaic law is now done away with when nothing could be further from the truth.

    The reason being that the Mosaic law was never meant to justify or make anyone righteous. That was never its purpose. Pointing out that the legalists have come up with a false purpose for the law doesn’t negate the actual purpose.

    Like

  52. The Jews or “Judaisers” believed that one’s adherence to the law established their righteousness, or justified them as worthy of entrance into the kingdom; i.e. they were saved by their works.

    Yes they did believe this. Yet we also see that there were righteous Jews before and during the time Jesus walked the earth. i.e. Elijah, Simeon, Zachariah, Elizabeth, Joseph, the unnamed tax-collector. These persons followed the law of God and of Moses.

    According to NT right, the Jews were not legalistic in the sense that the Evangelical movement states. On the 8th Day Jews were circumcised to being them into the Old Covenant and they followed the Law to remain in the Old Covenant.

    The fact that one will have works after one is saved isn’t in dispute, but people tend to conflate the fact that works are still not what saves anyone. They don’t document that anyone is saved either. If that were the case then all those scribes and Pharisees Jesus debated would have been saved.

    One can have works before they are saved, but without Christ Jesus they are not efficacious, because without Him, you can do nothing. You are presenting a false dichotomy here. We see that there were the souls of the righteous found in the “Bosom of Abraham” (Luke 16:22-31). While Jesus lay lifeless in the tomb, He harrowed the Bosom of Abraham. This includes those that repented before they died in the time of Noah. Scripture says this: 52 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. Some translations say instead of SAINTS, it was the RIGHTEOUS who had fallen asleep.

    The Law wasn’t a bad thing. Following the Law did lead to being righteous otherwise the New Testament scriptures are wrong.

    The problem is that any number of people can make that statement and have it mean something completely different.

    True. This is why we have a Church which speaks with the full authority of Christ; as if Christ himself were speaking. Luke 10:16. If I believe that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father and you do not, then one of us is wrong. We both can’t be right. The Church defined the Divinity of Christ as consubstantial with the Father and the Church is divinely instituted by Christ. So it’s not anybody can make that statement and everybody can have different doctrines. Somebody is wrong. I side with the Church that Christ established on the foundation of the faith of His Apostles and prophets with Himself as the cornerstone.

    Yes, love is the fulfillment of the law which means that when you love someone you don’t cheat, lie, steal, etc

    My bible doesn’t say that. My bible says to confess your sins. We strive for that. But we are human and as John says there is a triple concupiscence which is the result of Loving the world (1 John 15-17). We are to be in the world but not of the world. Adam was standing behind Eve. He failed to stop her and give up his life. The second Adam does give up his life for His Bride, the Church.

    As for your example of usury, it is a good example. And those that are responsible for increasing interest rates (my first home was 11%), they will have to answer to God for that.

    Sorry it took so long. I have so many things on my plate of which this blog, my youtube video and running a business zaps me for time.

    Like

  53. <blockquote?Yes, works can never justify or make one righteous or save, sanctify, or glorify anyone. The problem is that people automatically assume that this means the Mosaic law is now done away with when nothing could be further from the truth.

    Remember there is a difference between Pauls “Works of Law” and the “Law of Christ.” Again, in John 15 and 17, works which we do in Christ are not our works. They are His works. Faith is a fountain of works if you obey Christ and are in Christ.

    The reason being that the Mosaic law was never meant to justify or make anyone righteous. That was never its purpose. Pointing out that the legalists have come up with a false purpose for the law doesn’t negate the actual purpose.

    Jesus actually quotes the Law in several places. Lev 19:18 and Dec 6:5. And again, the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector is an example. When the First Temple was destroyed, those being led into captivity were worried they would not be able to worship God in the following of the Law since the temple is now destroyed, (Habakkuk 2:4).

    But now in the fullness of time, God has sent the Spirit into our hears that we are now sons of God by adoption. The works we now do, we do out of obedience to our Faith in God. Remember that Jesus says in all 4 gospels, You will always have the poor with you (Lukes is a bit different, I think). James tells us John 2:15-17 a “WHAT IF” scenario. Jesus tells us to “Let your light so shine before men that they see your “Good Works” and give glory to your Father in heaven.” Are we to just turn a blind eye away? Which also answers the question of those in power who charge above 3%.

    It’s not enough to just have faith…..heck James tells us even the demons have faith in God and tremble. Can faith (alone) save you? Not according to scripture.

    John the Baptist who came to prepare the way for His coming says: He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

    Here are read Faith + Obedience. So James asks Can that faith save them? Christians are Christians because they possess love…….. but not any love. Jesus points out this:

    31. Do to others as you would have them do to you. 32. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same.…

    .

    So what kind of love is Jesus talking about? AGAPE. I’m sure you love God which all your heart, soul and might. I’m sure you love your neighbor as you love yourself. But the Church we call Catholic teaches us that
    To love our Neighbor is to Love as God loves.

    I have to remind myself every single day when I am dealing with people that they are made in the image and likeness of God and that to forget that even for a moment, is to lose sight of Gods love for them and for me.

    I came to my senses 7.5 years ago. Why didn’t I know this from why I was young.

    Like

  54. “… we also see that there were righteous Jews before and during the time Jesus walked the earth. i.e. Elijah, Simeon, Zachariah, Elizabeth, Joseph, the unnamed tax-collector. These persons followed the law of God and of Moses.”

    Very true! Cornelius was also considered righteous because he kept the law which spotlights that the Mosaic law isn’t just for Jews, or really done away with at all.

    “… the Jews were not legalistic in the sense that the Evangelical movement states.”

    I misspoke. I was referring to the “legalists” or those who insisted that one must keep the law in order to be saved. Jesus points out that the scribes and Pharisees that he is debating are “liars”, and most modern day Jewish scholars would wholeheartedly agree with Jesus.

    “… they followed the Law to remain in the Old Covenant.”

    True, but this isn’t the only reason to keep the law. If common sense were to rule the day, one would see that the law is beneficial, and to ignore its teachings is foolish. The “Law:” predated their covenant. This is easily proven by the fact that the law existed before sin because one cannot sin before the law existed. If one were to suggest that all manner of biblical sins weren’t really sin before God said they were sinful then we would have to admit that there is really nothing that is sinful at all, and that we worship a capricious god. If this isn’t clear, then a quick look at Euthyphro’s dilemma should refresh your memory of this problem. This is what I ran into with the JW’s. They literally told me that if there were no prohibition against adultery in the New Testament, it wouldn’t be considered a sin.

    “One can have works before they are saved, but without Christ Jesus they are not efficacious,”

    Very true!

    “… because without Him, you can do nothing.”

    I’m not sure this statement is relevant, except in pointing out that regardless of what one believes, or confesses, we’re all created in the image of God and therefore no one is really without Christ if they’re doing anything. Everyone is connected to Christ. We’re all created through Him. This is one place where the Catholic church got it right. I used to think there was an actual verse in the bible which said, “There is only Christ”. That verse doesn’t exist, but that idea is pervasive in scripture along with the doctrine of the Trinity.

    ” You are presenting a false dichotomy here. We see that there were the souls of the righteous found in the “Bosom of Abraham” (Luke 16:22-31).”

    Jesus is using a Pharisaic doctrine brought from the Babylonian captivity to convict the Pharisees of their hypocrisy. This is one of those passages that scholars use to support their theory that Jesus was really a Pharisee. It would be a compelling argument except for the fact that Jesus is trolling them mercilessly.

    “While Jesus lay lifeless in the tomb, He harrowed the Bosom of Abraham.”

    I doubt it. The Babylonian doctrine states that the dead went to “The Bosom of Abraham”, “under the throne of Judgement”, and one other place which my memory suddenly has failed to cough up; sorry by bad. Anyways, if we look at the statement Jesus makes at the beginning of this passage, we see that he is condemning them for their doctrines. There’s an interesting structure there that bears this out. Here it is:

    “13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”

    They serve Mammon

    “14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.”

    This is setting up his response.

    “15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.”

    The Pharisees were highly esteemed, and sought the praise of men rather than God. Jesus will then present their abominable doctrines

    “16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.”

    This is a key sentence in the structure, remember “the law and the prophets”.

    “17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.”

    This is the center of the introversion. Verse 17 mirrors the previous verse, and the following verse along with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus mirrors the doctrines which are highly esteemed of men, but are an abomination to God.

    “18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

    This is the Mosaic law, and it isn’t done away with. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a glaring condemnation of the Pharisees behavior. They are the rich man, while Lazarus is the personification of the gentile world which they have ignored to their own ruin and damnation. They have been given the oracles of God, but hoarded them to themselves. It is no coincidence that the rich man ( Judah) has “five brothers”. They would have caught that reference immediately. One shouldn’t forget that this wasn’t written less than 20 or 30 years after Jesus’ death. It was written by Jews who were still actively participating in their liturgy. Granted they were more cosmopolitan than those of Matthew, Mark, or John; nevertheless, they are adhering to the Mosaic law.

    The Pharisees also taught that people were paired together with someone during this life and the next. The Parable has nothing to do with the afterlife and everything to do with their false teachings and hypocrisy. Simply being rich doesn’t prevent one from entering the kingdom. A drop of water won’t relieve one of the torment of eternal damnation, and the Day of Judgment hasn’t even happened yet so the rich man’s situation would be a bit anticlimactic on Judgement Day, wouldn’t you agree?. Jesus’ last line pointing out that even if one were to be raised from the dead, it wouldn’t matter because if they won’t listen to Moses, they’re deaf. Yet another blatant reference to the fact that the Mosaic law isn’t done away with at all. Again, I would hasten to remind you that this was written decades after Jesus’ death and resurrection.

    “This includes those that repented before they died in the time of Noah.”

    The references to Noah also have nothing to do with people who have died, but to those fallen spirits who were attempting to thwart God’s will and the genealogy that Messiah would come through. This is evident in Peter’s letters and Jude which all refer to Noah. The passage in Genesis also points out that Noah’s “generations” were “pure”. This term is the same one used to describe an unblemished animal suitable for sacrifice. It is a direct reference to his pedigree. Noah wasn’t interbreeding with the fallen “sons of God” ( also a direct reference to the angelic host who sinned and rebelled). They are the ones sitting in hell (Greek “Tartarus”; not to be confused with “Hades”, or “Gehenna” which are all distinctly different)

    ” Scripture says this: 52 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. Some translations say instead of SAINTS, it was the RIGHTEOUS who had fallen asleep.”

    It’s a great picture, but probably allegory more than literal historical fact.

    “The Law wasn’t a bad thing. Following the Law did lead to being righteous….”

    No. Following the law does not lead to being righteous. IF this were true, the Pharisees and scribes would have been righteous in Jesus’ eyes; they weren’t close.

    “… otherwise the New Testament scriptures are wrong.”

    Please document what you’re referring to here. Paul is quite clear that no one is made righteous by the works of the law. No one is justified, or saved. “By grace through faith, and that not of yourselves (meaning it isn’t your faith), not by works lest anyone boast…etc.”

    The Church defined the Divinity of Christ as consubstantial ”

    I’m not sure I see the relevance of this statement to this discussion..

    Yes, love is the fulfillment of the law which means that when you love someone you don’t cheat, lie, steal, etc

    “My bible doesn’t say that.”

    “Love is the fulfillment of the law” All bibles say that.

    “For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Gal; 514

    “8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” Rom. 13:8-13

    “My bible says to confess your sins.”

    Sure, but the unregenerate can confess their sins and their confession will lead them only straight to hell. Regeneration isn’t prompted by one’s confession. Confession is prompted by regeneration. This is all outlined in Paul’s letter to the Romans. The carnal mind can’t confess to begin with; nothing that is at enmity with God counts for squat.

    ” We are to be in the world but not of the world. Adam was standing behind Eve. He failed to stop her and give up his life. The second Adam does give up his life for His Bride, the Church.”

    No argument, but I’m not sure this is a clear point your making. None of this negates the Mosaic law Adam sinned long before any covenants were made, and he couldn’t have sinned without the law. Therefore the law existed before sin.

    “As for your example of usury, it is a good example. And those that are responsible for increasing interest rates (my first home was 11%), they will have to answer to God for that.”

    Under the Mosaic law, a Jew could NOT charge ANY interest whatsoever to a fellow Jew. Jesus comes along and says to treat your enemy as your fellow Jew. This can mean nothing other than the abolition of usury altogether. The only exception I can come up with is that God doesn’t care what the heathen do with their money.

    “Sorry it took so long. I have so many things on my plate of which this blog, my youtube video and running a business zaps me for time.”

    If I can get time to get online three or four times a week, I’m doing pretty good. My computer just bit the dust so I’m using one at the library so I have no desire for a rushed response. Take your time. Give yourself time to think this through. When I get a chance I will provide a better example of the structure of that passage of Luke. I’m burning the candle at both ends now as well…

    Like

  55. Maybe I forgot to mention or distinguish that the Catholic Church teaches that there are 2 aspects of the Law. One is the Moral Law and the other is the Ceremonial Law. This may have caused some confusion.

    No. Following the law does not lead to being righteous. IF this were true, the Pharisees and scribes would have been righteous in Jesus’ eyes; they weren’t close.

    “… otherwise the New Testament scriptures are wrong.”

    Please document what you’re referring to here. Paul is quite clear that no one is made righteous by the works of the law. No one is justified, or saved. “By grace through faith, and that not of yourselves (meaning it isn’t your faith), not by works lest anyone boast…etc.”

    The Ceremonial Law does not make you righteous. The Moral Law can and does.

    The question asked by the rich young man in Matthew 19:16-22 or Mark 10-16-22, Luke 18-30, “what must I do to be saved” is answered. In Mark 12:28-34, “And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.”

    Are you familiar with 4QMMT? Works of Law?

    As for Lazarus and the Rich Man. It’s funny that you see it that way and is just another level of the narrative. I think this is the same Lazarus who died and was raised from the dead, not representing the gentiles.

    The souls of the righteous in Matthew 27 who were raised, doesn’t some like an allegory at all. It sounds like it happened. There were righteous men and women. The harrowing of Hell (the bosom of Abraham), occurs and those righteous souls are taken into heaven. What made those men and women righteous before the Law of Moses and after, was not the ceremonial law, but the moral law, written on their hearts. Love of God and Love of Neighbor.

    Thank you for your great take on this. I enjoyed reading your comments and can see that you have put an extraordinary amount of thought into this subject. Honestly, I’m not to big on the “Law” as I am on the “Law of Christ.”

    Like

  56. ” the Catholic Church teaches that there are 2 aspects of the Law. One is the Moral Law and the other is the Ceremonial Law.”

    Most mainstream Protestant denominations teach this as well; it is a common distinction among Christians. Sadly it isn’t really a fundamental distinction in the Mosaic law. What is fundamental in the Mosaic law is the law itself and those writings which “were added because of transgressions” aka “the curse” or “the penalty”. This includes the sacrificial system, but is not limited to the sacrificial system because of one other very fundamental distinction in the law; i.e. intentional verse unintentional sin. Unintentional sin is remedied by sacrifice while this was never the remedy for intentional sin. Intentional sin was remedied by “teshuva” or “repentance and restitution”. This is also reiterated in the letter to the Hebrews where we read that if one sin intentionally Christ’s sacrifice cannot save you.

    “The Ceremonial Law does not make you righteous. The Moral Law can and does.”

    Again, I’d be interested to know where you got this idea from in the bible. Do you have any way of documenting this from the biblical texts? There is no place I know of in scripture where the moral law “makes you righteous”. James points out that “it is the doers of the law that are justified”, but this isn’t the same thing as saying that one is justified “by” doing the law. It doesn’t even document that one is justified or righteous as I pointed out already.

    “The question asked by the rich young man in Matthew 19:16-22 or Mark 10-16-22, Luke 18-30, “what must I do to be saved” is answered. In Mark 12:28-34, “And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.”

    If I recall correctly, the rich young man went away sad because Jesus pointed out that after one has kept all the law, they must then sell all their possessions, give the proceeds to the poor and follow him. This is also found in Luke, 14. The rich young ruler went away sad, yet most Christians couldn’t care less. Most would say that Jesus was speaking figuratively, but the description in Acts indicates that his own disciples took him literally so it is safe to assume that this is a literal prescription for becoming a follower of Christ. The only people I know of personally who have done anything close to this are Catholic priests who have taken a vow of poverty.

    “Are you familiar with 4QMMT? Works of Law?”

    I’m not sure. What does “4QMMT” stand for?

    “The souls of the righteous in Matthew 27 who were raised, doesn’t some like an allegory at all. It sounds like it happened.”

    Yes, it sounds like it actually happened to the ears of a gentile. The problem is that the story was written to a group of cosmopolitan Jews, and Jews convey timeless truths through story telling. It was never meant to be interpreted as a literal event. Even within the text, it is presented as a parable. There is yet another structure within the text that proves this fact. I will look through my notes later and post it when I find it. The structure proves it can’t be anything other than a parable.

    ” What made those men and women righteous before the Law of Moses and after, was not the ceremonial law, but the moral law, written on their hearts. Love of God and Love of Neighbor.”

    Again, I’d like to know where you can document this from scripture. I provided a refutation from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Love of God is the first commandment of the law which Paul says cannot save anyone. Christians can’t have it both ways. They can’t say that they are made righteous by keeping the law, and then cherry pick laws to disregard

    “Thank you for your great take on this. I enjoyed reading your comments and can see that you have put an extraordinary amount of thought into this subject. Honestly, I’m not to big on the “Law” as I am on the “Law of Christ.””

    To be “under the law to Christ” is to be under the obligation of the law; which in the new testament means the entire law. No one in the New Testament makes any distinction to the law other than to point out that there is the law itself and the law that was “added because of transgressions”

    Jesus Himself was under the ceremonial law and upheld it as well when he told the leper he had healed to go and present himself to the priests, which incidentally would have cost that leper a small fortune. Given that lepers weren’t likely to be gainfully employed, one has to wonder how that played out later. Paul also keeps the ceremonial law decades after Christ’s death. If, by the ceremonial law; you include the Sabbath, and Feast days; Paul also instructs us to keep the feasts as well. In Romans he states, “Christ is our Passover, therefore let us keep the Feast”. He is NOT referring to Passover as Passover isn’t a Feast of the Lord. He is referring to the Feast of Unleavened Bread which follows the Preparation day (passover). Christ is sacrificed which removes the leaven (a type for sin) from our lives. This is what does away with the law “that was added because of transgressions”. When the sin is removed, there is no need to offer sacrifice as one doesn’t offer sacrifice unless one sins. No sin = no sacrificial system.

    There’s also a strange parenthetical remark made in Mark 7:19; “(Thus he declared all food clean)” This could only be the declaration of a priest stating something as clean. If your doctrine is true then that statement must now be false or irrelevant.. The fact is that this parenthetical statement isn’t even found in the texts. It was originally found in the margins and migrated into the text sometime after 400 AD. JPEG pictures found online don’t even show it, and there are no interlinear translations that contain it in the Greek.

    Like

  57. For the sake of brevity.

    Again, I’d be interested to know where you got this idea from in the bible. Do you have any way of documenting this from the biblical texts? There is no place I know of in scripture where the moral law “makes you righteous”. James points out that “it is the doers of the law that are justified”, but this isn’t the same thing as saying that one is justified “by” doing the law. It doesn’t even document that one is justified or righteous as I pointed out already.

    The Catholic Church does distinguish between the ceremonial law (i.e circumcision) and the Moral Law which Christ is many places upholds, (i.e., love thy neighbor). What made those who had died righteous, was not the ceremonial law. It was the moral law, (i.e. that law inherent in our hearts). Again, Elijah, Enoch, and those who were in the “bosom of Abraham” who Christ came to liberate from Sheol. Why weren’t they in the hell of the damned?

    Jesus says “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” This entails that there were righteous people present even at the time of Jesus.

    To be “under the law to Christ” is to be under the obligation of the law; which in the new testament means the entire law. No one in the New Testament makes any distinction to the law other than to point out that there is the law itself and the law that was “added because of transgressions”

    The Law of Christ is not to be under the obligation of the whole law. The Law of Christ is given on the Sermon on the Mount. The other Gospel writers expound on this by preaching the Gospel.

    It’s why I asked you if you are familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls and 4QMMT. Works of Law was a term of art used at the time of the second temple Jews, to refer to the ceremonial law, i.e. Circumcision and such.

    As for Matthew 27:53-54, I have to believe that it wasn’t allegorical, although it may be. Its in scripture for a reason. It does present a problem because we aren’t given enough information about it. I have not looked to see how the Early Church Fathers understood it or how they interpreted it. To say it is allegory, you are certainly entitled to believe that.

    There’s also a strange parenthetical remark made in Mark 7:19; “(Thus he declared all food clean)” This could only be the declaration of a priest stating something as clean. If your doctrine is true then that statement must now be false or irrelevant.. The fact is that this parenthetical statement isn’t even found in the texts. It was originally found in the margins and migrated into the text sometime after 400 AD. JPEG pictures found online don’t even show it, and there are no interlinear translations that contain it in the Greek.

    “thus all foods are clean”. Your assertion that “this parenthetical statement isn’t even found in the texts” may be false. We don’t know this for sure. But Mark may also have come out of the text to say something which he wants us to know. Don’t forget that Mark is writing to a pagan audience. Matthew does something similar is his gospel: Matthew 13:14 (let the reader understand).

    Never heard this assertion before. By the way, St. Jerome reviewed over 400 manuscripts of the New Testament while translating the original gospels into Latin. An example that I find very interesting is the “Women caught in Adultery” was found in all 4 gospels. St. Jerome removed them and placed it in Johns gospel only. We do not know what those over 400 manuscripts contained, so we do not know what he was looking at. Many of these gospel manuscripts contained different wording and when he finished he destroyed those manuscripts. Some of these manuscripts survived (found thru the centuries) and do prove that St. Jerome was faithful in his translations.

    May I ask which one of the denominations you belong to? Sorry if I asked this before.

    I have decided to stay Catholic after leaving for many years. I still attend my non-denominational church. My small-group was told 6 years ago, that we decided to go back to the Church. We were asked to not leave the small-group. So we go to both to this very day. I was instrumental in starting a medical mission in this church and my wife still watches infants so young parents can attend the services. It’s a very large congregation which many wonderful programs. It’s all grace.

    Like

  58. As for Mark 7:19, I posted Matthew 13:14 showing how Matthew comes out of the narrator role and states in his own voice “let the reader beware or understand.”

    Here Jesus does it in the voice of the Triune God (I am assuming you believe in the Blessed Trinity here):

    Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 38. See, your house is left to you desolate. 39. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

    Like

  59. “The Catholic Church does distinguish between the ceremonial law (i.e circumcision) and the Moral Law which Christ is many places upholds, (i.e., love thy neighbor).”

    Jews would also note that circumcision marks their covenant relationship with God, but this is commanded by God, and if effectively no different than the moral law. The problem is that the legalists are claiming that it makes them righteous. It doesn’t matter what law is in question. The fact is that this just happened to be one of the examples that they were using so it’s what Paul responds to. Paul is clear that no one is justified or made righteous by the works of the law. We can sum up all of God’s law with “love of God and love of neighbor” which cuts to the quick and lets us know that to love God and neighbor will never make anyone righteous. Christianity has put the cart before the horse. It is the other way around. It is the righteous who do good works, not the good works that make one righteous.

    “What made those who had died righteous, was not the ceremonial law. It was the moral law, (i.e. that law inherent in our hearts).”

    Only God can make anyone righteous. Then and only then will one receive God’s law in their heart. Prior to that, no one has anything except wickedness and corruption in their hearts. Only those who have been redeemed know that simple fact, and can tell the difference. Paul points this out in his letter to the Romans where he states that the carnal mind is at enmity with God, and can never please Him.

    ” Again, Elijah, Enoch, and those who were in the “bosom of Abraham” who Christ came to liberate from Sheol. Why weren’t they in the hell of the damned?”

    You need to clarify what you’re referring to here. The Greek word “Hades” which is translated “hell” refers to “the grave”. We know this because Luke translates it from the Hebrew “Sheol” which is “the grave”. So this is where everyone who has ever sinned ends up because the wages of sin is death. Christ’s victory is over death, but when Peter talks about Christ “proclaiming” his victory to those who ‘sinned in the days of Noah” he is referring to those “fallen ones’ who were attempting to thwart God’s plan of salvation by corrupting “the seed of the woman” mentioned in Genesis. He isn’t spreading the gospel to the dead. He’s proclaiming his victory over death. This isn’t literal because Christ is dead at this point, but his perfect life and atoning death marks his victory over death and sin. It makes no sense to single out people from just the days of Noah for any other reason other than the fact that the sons of god seduced the daughters of men. This is explicitly stated in Peter’s letters and Jude 7; which all refer to Genesis 6 where Noah was “pure in his generations”.

    “The Law of Christ is not to be under the obligation of the whole law.”

    Sure it is. James points this fact out in his letter by pointing out that one’s faith produces works. I suppose one could make an argument that it isn’t an obligation that motivates one to keep the law. I would go along with that, but then we’re back to the real problem which isn’t the fact that what motivates the redeemed isn’t an obligation, but the grace, of God; the faith and love of Christ; the problem is the fact that you think that when love is what motivates the new creature in Christ, they will not keep God’s law. God’s law is synonymous with his will so it makes no sense to say that the redeemed continue to sin,or are given carte blanche permission to redefine what is sin and what isn’t.

    “thus all foods are clean”. Your assertion that “this parenthetical statement isn’t even found in the texts” may be false. We don’t know this for sure.”

    Sure we do. I dare you to find it anywhere. It doesn’t show up until 400 AD and it only shows up in the margins of the Codex Bezai. That’s exactly where it does show up. You can google the interlinear and it doesn’t show up anywhere at all because it isn’t in the text. It never was. Furthermore,it makes no logical sense given that the subject is ritual washing. If the disciples had been eating catfish, there would be no doubt that would have been an issue. The fact is that the disciples never ate garbage. Decades after Christ’s death, Peter is still observing the dietary laws.

    Again, if we take any of the clean laws which you claim are done away with, it becomes quite clear that your conclusion is a non sequitur. Let’s suppose that they came and pointed out that one of Jesus’ disciples neglected to perform the ritual washing after laying with his wife. Jesus would have said the exact same thing except he would have compared the menstrual cycle to our ontological state of defilement rather than the digestive process. A woman’s menstrual cycle cleanses her every month. “(Thus he declared all sexual activity clean)” Do you see why this makes no sense now?

    “But Mark may also have come out of the text to say something which he wants us to know.”

    See above. The problem is that food can only become unclean when it goes bad. If a goat is butchered and isn’t prepared properly, it is considered unclean. No one in their right mind would then conclude that it’s okay to eat rotten meat. What you are forgetting is that Mark’s audience is Jewish, but even if what you say were the case, Mark isn’t going to pretend that pork, or shellfish is food for the sake of his gentile audience.

    ” Don’t forget that Mark is writing to a pagan audience. Matthew does something similar is his gospel: Matthew 13:14″

    Matthew doesn’t throw marginal notes into his narrative. There are no scholars anywhere who would suppose these notes to be anything other than the writings of scribes. For one reason,they aren’t even in Greek!!! Look at them yourself.

    “Never heard this assertion before. By the way, St. Jerome reviewed over 400 manuscripts of the New Testament while translating the original gospels into Latin”

    The problem most people are woefully unaware of is that the earliest manuscripts are the worst when it comes to accuracy. It’s one of the main reasons Jerome just tossed them into thrash. The one’s that remain are ridiculous. Most scribes couldn’t even write their own name, much less comprehend what they were translating.

    “May I ask which one of the denominations you belong to? Sorry if I asked this before.”

    You, and the rest have assumed that I am a member of one of the many Protestant denominations. I’m not affiliated with any denomination. I was raised Catholic, and translated the gospels in college; a Catholic college which (to their credit) made no effort whatsoever to introduce Catholic doctrine into the discussion. Of course this left us to work out for ourselves what was really going on. It’s one of the main reasons why I’m not Catholic anymore.

    I spent years attending numerous Protestant services and discovered that they’re more like Catholicism than they would ever dream. They are lost, and completely clueless. The irony is that there are a number of doctrines of the Catholic church that now make perfect sense to me; e.g. the Trinity. Although I don’t see it quite the same. I don’t see the Father or the Holy Spirit as being persons. “In the beginning was the word” informs me that the word is the ground of being. The Father is the origin of being, but cannot exist in and of himself. The Father can only exist in and through and with the Son. A father cannot be a father without a son, therefore the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. Reality is Trinitarian.

    My recent interaction with JW’s was interesting in that they believe that the father creates the son somewhere in time which means that the father existed for eternity alone. They also have no problem personifying the father even though they know that they are attributing characteristics that do not belong to him. However, they have a problem when other denominations do this exact same thing with regards to the Holy Spirit. It’s a blatant double standard.

    Like

  60. “As for Mark 7:19, I posted Matthew 13:14 showing how Matthew comes out of the narrator role and states in his own voice “let the reader beware or understand.”

    He doesn’t write it in the margin in another language. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

    Here Jesus does it in the voice of the Triune God (I am assuming you believe in the Blessed Trinity here):

    “Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 38. See, your house is left to you desolate. 39. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

    Again,none of this is written in the margin, or in Latin,or some other language. Both examples are of Greek being written in the text itself; apples and oranges.

    Like

  61. Below, please note these structures in Luke’s gospel. The first is the structure of the book as a whole followed by the structure containing the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, and then where it fits into the structure of his rejection. These structures make it almost impossible to misinterpret the author’s intent. When an Introversion is presented it forms what is known as a “chiasma”, which is the gaping maw of a whale. I have added dots to help show what is going on. It didn’t come out as anticipated in the first example. My computer illiteracy prevents me from correcting it. The last example came out better. Hope this helps.

    Luke. The structure of the book as a whole. (Introversion)

    A. 1:1-2:52 Pre-ministerial. The Descension.

    ..B. 3:1-20 The Forerunner.

    ….C.3:21-38 The Baptism with Water.

    ……D. 4:1-14 The Temptation: In the Wilderness.

    ……..E. / F. 4:14-5:11 The Kingdom }
    …………………………………………………Proclaimed }
    …………/ G. 5:12-9:21 The King…..}
    ………………………………………………………………….}The Fourfold Ministry of The Lord
    …………/…g. 9:22-18:43 The King….}…………………}
    …………………………………………………Rejected }
    …………/.f 19:1-22:38 The Kingdom..}

    …….d. 22:39-46 The Agony: In the Garden.

    …..c. 22:47-24:12 The Baptism: Of Suffering (Death, Burial, and Resurrection).

    …b. 24:13-49 The Successors.

    a. 24:50-53 Post-ministerial. The Ascension.

    Jesus’ address to the Pharisees (Alternation)

    A.(v.15)What the Pharisees esteemed. (God’s abomination).

    .B. (v.16,17)The Law and the Prophets. Proclaimed.

    A1. (v.18-30)What the Pharisees taught (God’s abomination).

    .B1.(v.31) Moses and the Prophets Not believed.

    His rejection. (Introversion and Alternation)

    A.(1) 9:22-36 Sufferings. First Announcement

    …(2) 9:37-43 Miracle. Lunatic son.

    …..B.(3) 9:43-45 Suffering. Second Announcement.

    ………(4) 9:46-62 Disciples instructed as to the then present.

    ………..C. 10:1-24 The Kingdom nigh.

    …………D.10:25-37 Demand of the Lawyer.

    ………….E.10:38-42 Journey.

    …………..F.11:1-13 Disciples request. Prayer.

    ……………G.11:14-13:9 Miracles.

    …………….H.13:10-17 Place.Synagogue. Sabbath, Miracle.

    ……………..J.13:18-21 The Kingdom. Likeness.

    ……………..j.13:22-35 The Kingdom. Entrance.

    …………….h.14:1-24 Place. Pharisees house. Sabbath, Miracle.

    ……………g.14:25-17:4 Parables.

    …………..f.17:5-10 Disciples. Request. Faith.

    ………….e.17:11-19 Journey.

    …………d.17:20 Demand of Pharisees.

    ………..c.17:20-24 The Kingdom nigh.

    …..b.(1)17:25 Suffering. Third Announcement.

    ……..(2)17:26-18:30 Disciples instructed as to teh future.

    a.(3)18:31-34 Suffering. Fourth Announcement.

    ….(4)18:35-43 Miracle. The Blind Man.

    Like

  62. With regards to the previous post. It should be noted that the capital letters correspond to the lower case letters as a mirror. So “miracles’ correspond to “parables”. There is no reason to suppose that some of these miraculous events weren’t miraculous, or to suppose that some of the parables weren’t parables.

    These structures should also suggest that what we are reading isn’t really a historical narrative at all, but a carefully constructed narrative intended to convey the truth of the gospel. It is also constructed in such a way as to facilitate memorization. People, especially skeptics; will routinely spout off that there’s no way these people could have remembered all of this from memory. They think we’re superior in our ability to remember things, but the fact is that without google around, people were naturally superior at memorization, and these structures make it all the more easy to remember.

    Like

  63. I think that the people of Israel did not eat pork because Moses was well educated in Egypt and decided to teach his people (Israel) how to survive.
    Leviticus is a very good treatise on public health and survival in a very hostile environment (the desert)
    Things that are nowadays common, such as hand washing, boiling water, boiling the dishes, separating dairy and meat, etc were quite revolutionary on those days
    At the same time, they tested the obedience to god and somehow separated the people of YHWV and the others.
    In the case of pork, there was a chance of getting sick by eating it, especially trichinosis and ascaris, and given the low level of education of the Israelites of the time, Moses and Aaron thought (correctly) that it was better to say do not eat pork than to give conditions on when to do it.

    Ref: https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/03-leviticus/text/articles/key-levdietary61a-asa.pdf

    Like

  64. Hand washing wasn’t as uncommon as you might think. The irony here is that with the advent of Christianity, hand washing fell out of use because of these idiotic doctrines that suggested that the Mosaic law was done away with. This in turn led to the Jews being blamed for things like the Black Death because they weren’t getting sick like the silly goyim who believed they were “freed from the burden of the law”. The Jews also had the financial resources to pull up stakes and leave while the Christians ignored God’s instructions leaving them destitute of God’s wisdom; not to mention His financial advice. Christians know that Jesus saves, but they tend to forget that Moses invests. Swine are a filthy animal, as are catfish, shellfish, etc. The word in the Hebrew is “tame” which means “polluted, filthy”. It isn’t food. There is no place in the entire bible where you will find them referred to as food so the statement “Thus he declared all food clean” doesn’t even apply to these things in the first place. It can only apply to food that has gone bad. Of course this is just as ridiculous. Swine today are still quite disgusting, but nothing like they were two thousand years ago. There is no way an observant Jew would ever consider eating swine. You might as well ask them to consume human feces. I haven’t eaten any in almost two decades, and the smell alone is enough to make me want to vomit.

    This isn’t a matter of conscience. It’s just plain disgusting. It also makes no sense for God to become a “respecter of persons” in this case and forbid the chosen people from consuming it while condoning its consumption for the gentile converts

    Again the book of Acts provides a clear example of the fact that this could never have been the case. It points out that the gentile converts weren’t to consume anything that hadn’t been slaughtered according to the laws of kashrut, nor to eat anything with the blood still in it. These are both clear references to the dietary laws. Under the Mosaic law, a Jew could sell or give a gentile meat that hadn’t been butchered properly. If a pig were to escape and be killed on their property, they could summon a gentile to come and get it. When a gentile converted to Judaism this was no longer the case, and the book of Acts upholds this fact in the new testament dispensation which is clear evidence that the Mosaic law wasn’t done away with. The fact that Luke points out that they didn’t just repeat the whole Mosaic law because these converts were going into the synagogues on the Sabbaths to hear the book of Moses read to them should be all one needs to be convicted of this fact. Again, the only time you will find any references to the Mosaic law being done away with will be in reference to the sacrificial system, “the curse”, “the laws added because of transgressions”, or when debating those who believe that they are made righteous or justified by their works. Paul always denies this idea.

    Liked by 1 person

  65. One of the most idiotic, moronic and downright asinine posting I have read. It is more than obvious, poster shnarkle is gish galloping on this page. The cretin poses as a Jew but has no idea as to what Jews truly believe. So perhaps the vapid poser should not refer to goyim when he is one. I have seen such obnoxious posers among Mormons and Seventh Day Assventists. I suspect Sharkle is one of these dumbasses.

    Handwashing was very common during the middle ages. It has been common throughout human history. Handwashing never fell out of disuse. Hygiene was all important to the Romans, Greeks and every culture. That is why there were bowls for washing. Numerous painting depict the washing of hands. The Mitzvot were done away with, but not the 10 commandments because the 10 commandments were based on Natural Law.

    The dumbass moron, attempts to insinuate that the Black Death was caused by not washing one’s hands. What utter hogwash!!! But that would not be surprising due to it being spouted by a garrulous dumbass. Black Death hand nothing to do with washing one’s hands in the least. Black Death, which is more precisely the Bubonic plague was caused by fleas which carried the yersinia pestis bacterium which is transmitted when the person is bitten by the fleas. The reason Jews were not as affected as the Christians was because they lived in insular communities for religious reasons.

    There is no mitzvot that I know of which required the washing of hands, in fact there was none! If you want to spout off nonsense, PROVE IT. I know each one of the mitzvot quite well. There WAS a takkanot enacted when Shammi was nassi early in the period of gadol Joseph Caiaphas in around 18 to 21 AD when the takkanot in 30 Shemot was extended to non-halevi. But that went the wayside. This was a ritualistic washing is done with a prayer Barukh atah Adonai Eloheinu melekh ha olam asher kid shanu b mitzvotav v tzivanu al netilat yadayim. Remember this is not required of by the Jews for every meal but for the shabbat and pascka as these were ritual meals.

    Jews believe that when the Messiach comes and ushers in the Olam Haba all food will be purified by Him and that is not permissible will become permissible (see Likkutei Sichot). If Christians believe the Messiach has come, the kashrut does not apply. If the Messiach has not come the kashrut does apply to the Jews.

    Many of these posers try to gish gallop those who might not be familiar with Jewish custom trying to bury you in garbage that they provide as evidence hoping you do not catch on.

    Liked by 1 person

  66. “Handwashing was very common during the middle ages. It has been common throughout human history. Handwashing never fell out of disuse. Hygiene was all important to the Romans, Greeks and every culture. That is why there were bowls for washing. Numerous painting depict the washing of hands.”

    Very true! If you had bothered to read my previous post you would have noticed that I pointed out: “Hand washing wasn’t as uncommon as you might think.”

    “The Mitzvot were done away with, but not the 10 commandments because the 10 commandments were based on Natural Law.”

    I also pointed out this false doctrine as well when I stated: “… these idiotic doctrines that suggested that the Mosaic law was done away with. This in turn led to the Jews being blamed for things like the Black Death because they weren’t getting sick like the silly goyim who believed they were “freed from the burden of the law”. Moreover, you’re contradicting yourself as hand washing is no part of the Ten commandments, and hand washing, as you’ve already pointed out; “was very common”. Therefore it couldn’t have been “done away with”.

    Furthermore, unless you’re dealing with a God of your own natural imagination, God is no part of Natural Law. Unless you have a created god, as Dawkins and others claim, you must be dealing with a transcendent God, and a transcendent God has nothing to do with Natural Law. Therefore at least the first four commandments have nothing to do with Natural Law, and cannot be based upon anything other than God Himself.

    “The dumbass moron, attempts to insinuate that the Black Death was caused by not washing one’s hands”

    An interesting insinuation, but definitely not one that I ever made. No, what I pointed out was that their ability to remain unaffected was due to their meticulous attention to the cleanliness laws which are not in any way limited by your ignorance. Instead they include keeping their clothes clean as well as their furniture, and personal items etc.

    . “. Black Death, which is transmitted when the person is bitten by the fleas. The reason Jews were not as affected as the Christians was because they lived in insular communities for religious reasons.”

    Well, yes and no. The reason they weren’t affected was because they followed God’s will religiously, and this included keeping their clothing, furniture, etc. washed and clean. The reason the goyim were affected was because they thought that they didn’t have to keep themselves and their personal possessions clean because these were a “burden” from God. As I pointed out before this is utter nonsense. God doesn’t place burdens on anyone.

    “There is no mitzvot that I know of which required the washing of hands,”

    We’re all well aware of your ignorance; no need to keep reminding us of this fact.

    ” PROVE IT. I know each one of the mitzvot quite well.”

    How many positive verses how many negative commands? Your ignorance of these commands only exceeds your ignorance of the New Testament scriptures. Jesus himself quite clearly pointed out the meticulous washing that was so conspicuous among observant scribes and Pharisees. He condemned them for their meticulous washing of pots and pans while ignoring the fact that they were “dead men’s bones” inside. See Mark chapter 7:1-19

    ” Remember this (washing) is not required of by the Jews for every meal but for the shabbat and pascka as these were ritual meals.”

    The Mosaic law points out that one should wash when on comes in contact with a corpse, blood, after defecating, nocturnal emissions, sexual congress, etc. The Mosaic law is found in the first five books of the bible, e .g. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. No one is going to be impressed with your ability to google something in Hebrew when you can’t even focus on the fact that I’m just simply referring to the Old Testament scriptures; scriptures which you’re obviously very UNfamiliar with..

    “Jews believe that when the Messiach comes and ushers in the Olam Haba all food will be purified by Him and that is not permissible will become permissible (see Likkutei Sichot). If Christians believe the Messiach has come, the kashrut does not apply.”

    Nonsense. Peter, Paul, James and John all believed that Jesus was the messiah, and none of them believed kashrut no longer applied. I’ve already supplied the relevant verses to prove this fact (which you’ve repeatedly ignored). Strangling and blood (direct references to the dietary laws) makes food unclean and is explicitly forbidden in the book of Acts. Peter points out during his vision that he’s never eaten anything unclean and this is long after Christ has been crucified, died, buried, etc.

    ” If the Messiach has not come the kashrut does apply to the Jews.”

    LOL. Your ignorance is profound. The laws of kashrut are articulated without any reference to the coming of messiah; your claim is a blatant non sequitur.

    Like

  67. “Shnarkle, the doctrines of the Church we call Catholic ate those doctrines which are true because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.”

    This makes sense, but the fact is that I’ve already pointed out that this can’t be the case with regards to a number of doctrines, e.g. the Holiness code, Sabbath observance, usury etc. If the church is guided by the Holy Spirit then it shouldn’t be a problem for the church to defend her doctrines. Perhaps a day will come when someone is able to present a defense for Catholicism that extends beyond a mere assertion of authority with nothing to back it up but the assertion itself.

    “I can’t say that about your denomination, cult or sect.”

    Probably because I belong to no denomination, cult or sect.

    ” You debating a Jehovahs Witness does not impress me.”

    It wasn’t meant to impress. JW’s aren’t what I would call adept at argumentation.

    ” In fact, you quoting scripture to me also does not impress me because ypur doctrines came from men…”

    Yep, the men who wrote the bible. That’s why I quote them directly.

    “… and not from the Apostles”

    The Apostles weren’t men???

    “Who started your denomination?”

    I’m unaffiliated with any denominations.

    ” Please don’t say it was Christ. He started only one church and not churches.”

    Then you would have to conclude that those numerous churches started and mentioned in the New Testament weren’t authorized by Christ? If the Apostles who were authorized by Christ to go out and preach the gospel and who in this process started churches aren’t now authorized as you claim then what happened to those references in your bible? Were they just simply left out?

    ” Being guided by the Holy Spirit she has preserved and taught the historic Christian Faith, free from error and distortion,”

    This is an assertion in need of deductive proof. Again, you have yet to respond to my arguments to support these assertions.

    ” She also believes that there is nothing in the body of her teachings which is contrary to truth or which inhibits real union with God.”

    I’m not denying what the church believes. I’m simply pointing out the logical fallacies which are so pervasive throughout these doctrines.

    ” The Catholic Church in her antiquity…”

    Her antiquity must include the Inquisition, the Crusades, institutionalized homosexuality, protected pedophilia etc.

    and timelessness, best characterizes the faith of Christianity…”

    I would probably agree with this assertion, but would only add hypocrisy, ignorance and blind adherence to doctrines which most have no clue to their meaning or purpose..

    “So shnarkle, nothing you can post here will be authentic Christian teaching,”

    Quite true! Mainstream Christianity is a complete joke. There’s nothing authentic about it in the first place. What I’m presenting is quite simply the facts presented in the texts from the Hebrew and Christian bible. Facts which you and others here don’t seem to be able to address much less even refute.

    Like

  68. “The Mitzvot were done away with, but not the 10 commandments because the 10 commandments were based on Natural Law.”
    I also pointed out this false doctrine as well when I stated: “… these idiotic doctrines that suggested that the Mosaic law was done away with. This in turn led to the Jews being blamed for things like the Black Death because they weren’t getting sick like the silly goyim who believed they were “freed from the burden of the law”. Moreover, you’re contradicting yourself as hand washing is no part of the Ten commandments, and hand washing, as you’ve already pointed out; “was very common”. Therefore it couldn’t have been “done away with”.
    Furthermore, unless you’re dealing with a God of your own natural imagination, God is no part of Natural Law. Unless you have a created god, as Dawkins and others claim, you must be dealing with a transcendent God, and a transcendent God has nothing to do with Natural Law. Therefore at least the first four commandments have nothing to do with Natural Law, and cannot be based upon anything other than God Himself.

    Just because a dumbass, such as yourself, says that a doctrine is false, does not make that doctrine is false. A moronic assertion is just that, a moronic assertion. A moronic assertion coming from a dumbass poser has no value what so ever. First off, you are not a Jew, stop posing as one. You lack the insight a Jew would have. No Jew is a sola scriptura turd.
    HEY IDIOT…
    Are you able to comprehend the English language??? Where is the handwashing in the Ten Commandments? Are you STUPID? WHERE WHERE WHERE idiot? Which one of the Ten Commandments has THOU SHALL WASH YOUR HANDS???
    You go around using the would goyim and you have no idea what-so-ever what the Jewish sages teach nor the history of any of the laws!!! You abject ignorance is so mind boggling. There is no contradicting in what I said. A Jew would go “Aha I get it”. Instead of that, you being a dumbass poser did not get it.
    Again you show your abject ignorance by demonstrating the lack of understanding of what Natural Law is. The drivel you posed is laughably funny.

    “The dumbass moron, attempts to insinuate that the Black Death was caused by not washing one’s hands”
    An interesting insinuation, but definitely not one that I ever made. No, what I pointed out was that their ability to remain unaffected was due to their meticulous attention to the cleanliness laws which are not in any way limited by your ignorance. Instead they include keeping their clothes clean as well as their furniture, and personal items etc.
    . “. Black Death, which is transmitted when the person is bitten by the fleas. The reason Jews were not as affected as the Christians was because they lived in insular communities for religious reasons.”
    Well, yes and no. The reason they weren’t affected was because they followed God’s will religiously, and this included keeping their clothing, furniture, etc. washed and clean. The reason the goyim were affected was because they thought that they didn’t have to keep themselves and their personal possessions clean because these were a “burden” from God. As I pointed out before this is utter nonsense. God doesn’t place burdens on anyone
    .

    Ok so I take it that you are a liar too. OK but would make you a protestant. After all, the founder of Protestantism was a proponent of lying, and you do so to honor the founder of your movement. You did insinuate it.
    HEY IDIOT, biting fleas was the cause of Black Death FLEAS! Fleas jump around. Most academic sources agree it was the physical separation of Jewish communities which provided a better chance of not coming into contact with the fleas. No Catholic considered the commandments a burden from Gd, this was a Protestant doctrine. John Piper and others, say that the Ten Commandments do not apply to the age of grace because the age of grace is not under the law. This was not a Catholic teaching.

    “There is no mitzvot that I know of which required the washing of hands,”
    We’re all well aware of your ignorance; no need to keep reminding us of this fact.

    Dumbass moron… show me the specific mizvot… SHOW ME PROVE IT PROVE IT instead of rambling like an idiot…
    ” PROVE IT. I know each one of the mitzvot quite well.”
    How many positive verses how many negative commands? Your ignorance of these commands only exceeds your ignorance of the New Testament scriptures. Jesus himself quite clearly pointed out the meticulous washing that was so conspicuous among observant scribes and Pharisees. He condemned them for their meticulous washing of pots and pans while ignoring the fact that they were “dead men’s bones” inside. See Mark chapter 7:1-19

    Dumbass WHICH MITZVOT??? WHICH MITZVOT??? WHICH ONE stop rambling nonsense. Quote me the Talmud or the Old Testament dumbass WHICH MITZVOT??? WHICH MITZVOT about washing hand. I know all the mitzvot and know none of which says anything about washing hands. Which mitzvot? All you are doing is rambling like a garrulous clown.

    ” Remember this (washing) is not required of by the Jews for every meal but for the shabbat and pascka as these were ritual meals.”
    The Mosaic law points out that one should wash when on comes in contact with a corpse, blood, after defecating, nocturnal emissions, sexual congress, etc. The Mosaic law is found in the first five books of the bible, e .g. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. No one is going to be impressed with your ability to google something in Hebrew when you can’t even focus on the fact that I’m just simply referring to the Old Testament scriptures; scriptures which you’re obviously very UNfamiliar with..

    HEY LYING MORON you cut off what “this (washing) refers to. So again WHAT IS THE MITZVOT?? WHICH ONE??? WHERE IS THE MITZVOT you are referring to? Educate me…

    “Jews believe that when the Messiach comes and ushers in the Olam Haba all food will be purified by Him and that is not permissible will become permissible (see Likkutei Sichot). If Christians believe the Messiach has come, the kashrut does not apply.”
    Nonsense. Peter, Paul, James and John all believed that Jesus was the messiah, and none of them believed kashrut no longer applied. I’ve already supplied the relevant verses to prove this fact (which you’ve repeatedly ignored). Strangling and blood (direct references to the dietary laws) makes food unclean and is explicitly forbidden in the book of Acts. Peter points out during his vision that he’s never eaten anything unclean and this is long after Christ has been crucified, died, buried, etc.
    ” If the Messiach has not come the kashrut does apply to the Jews.”
    LOL. Your ignorance is profound. The laws of kashrut are articulated without any reference to the coming of messiah; your claim is a blatant non sequitur.

    How would you know… you are not a Jew. You have no idea as to how we would read the Bible. You show great ignorance of Jewish understanding. All food in acts have been made clean. Also, try and limit yourself to terms you are familiar with.

    You sound more and more like an SDA follow of the demon possessed Ellen G. White.

    Like

  69. “The Mitzvot were done away with, but not the 10 commandments because the 10 commandments were based on Natural Law.”
    I also pointed out this false doctrine as well when I stated: “… these idiotic doctrines that suggested that the Mosaic law was done away with. This in turn led to the Jews being blamed for things like the Black Death because they weren’t getting sick like the silly goyim who believed they were “freed from the burden of the law”. Moreover, you’re contradicting yourself as hand washing is no part of the Ten commandments, and hand washing, as you’ve already pointed out; “was very common”. Therefore it couldn’t have been “done away with”.
    Furthermore, unless you’re dealing with a God of your own natural imagination, God is no part of Natural Law. Unless you have a created god, as Dawkins and others claim, you must be dealing with a transcendent God, and a transcendent God has nothing to do with Natural Law. Therefore at least the first four commandments have nothing to do with Natural Law, and cannot be based upon anything other than God Himself.

    “Just because a dumbass, such as yourself, says that a doctrine is false, does not make that doctrine is false.”

    Quite true! That’s why I supplied reasons; e.g. “I also pointed out this false doctrine as well when I stated: “… these idiotic doctrines that suggested that the Mosaic law was done away with. This in turn led to the Jews being blamed for things like the Black Death because they weren’t getting sick like the silly goyim who believed they were “freed from the burden of the law”. Moreover, you’re contradicting yourself as hand washing is no part of the Ten commandments, and hand washing, as you’ve already pointed out; “was very common”. Therefore it couldn’t have been “done away with”.
    Furthermore, unless you’re dealing with a God of your own natural imagination, God is no part of Natural Law. Unless you have a created god, as Dawkins and others claim, you must be dealing with a transcendent God, and a transcendent God has nothing to do with Natural Law. Therefore at least the first four commandments have nothing to do with Natural Law, and cannot be based upon anything other than God Himself.”

    :” First off, you are not a Jew,”

    i never claimed I was Jewish.

    “… stop posing as one.”

    I’m not posing as one. Why does it bother you so much to think that I might be Jewish? More importantly, are you ever going to stop obsessing on me rather than what I’m posting?

    ” You lack the insight a Jew would have.”

    Once again, you are quite true. Jews know that the New Testament isn’t literal history; an insight I gained from them through studying their culture; not to mention the historical fact that the Gospels originated and developed within the Jewish liturgy. A liturgy that is based on truth rather than whoever happens to be spinning their version of history.

    ” No Jew is a sola scriptura turd.”

    Quite true, but then I’m not relying on the doctrine of sola scriptura either. I’m simply pointing out what the texts state, and they clearly state that the dietary laws are still in effect as well as the Sabbath, the laws concerning usury etc.

    ” Where is the handwashing in the Ten Commandments?”

    They are nowhere to be found in the ten commandments, but then I already pointed that out already. Here’s what I posted: “… hand washing is no part of the Ten commandments, and hand washing, as you’ve already pointed out; “was very common”. Therefore it couldn’t have been “done away with”.

    “You go around using the would goyim…”

    Actually I referred to the “silly goyim” which is exactly what I meant. Anyone who is dumb enough to think that it’s a good idea to refrain from washing their hands after defecating, coming on contact with blood, a corpse, rotting flesh ( aka “unclean”, but don’t let me stop you from your feast)

    ” and you have no idea what-so-ever what the Jewish sages teach nor the history of any of the laws!!!”

    I must admit that my familiarity with the Talmud is quite weak. I’ve barely made my way through half of the Babylonian Talmud and haven’t even glanced at the Jerusalem Talmud. However, what I have read clearly suggests to me that God’s law is still just as beneficial today as it was when it was given to Israel.

    ” Most academic sources agree it was the physical separation of Jewish communities which provided a better chance of not coming into contact with the fleas.”

    Sure, because everyone knows that fleas don’t associate with Jews, right? Anyone who follows the Mosaic law will necessarily be much more clean than those who don’t, therefore observant Jewish communities were clean enough to prevent the spread of fleas, which necessarily prevented the spread of disease.

    ” No Catholic considered the commandments a burden from Gd, this was a Protestant doctrine.”

    Then why don’t Catholics keep the commandments??? No Catholic I know keeps the Sabbath, No Catholic I know believes the dietary laws are still in effect. Are Catholics taking their instruction from Protestants now?

    There are plenty of Catholics who refer to biblical passages in the New Testament which refer to the law as a “burden”. Of course these are references to the “curse” of the law, rather than the obligation of the law which only spotlights their inability to comprehend what they’re reading. The “burden” of the law refers to what motivated the observant Jew in the Old Testament. It also refers to what motivates those who think that their works will justify them. Paul clearly points out that when one is redeemed, or walks by the Spirit, they no longer are motivated by the carrot or stick method of righteousness, but rather are now motivated by the love of God which He has planted into them by the power of the Holy Spirit. When one is guided by the Holy Spirit, they feel no need to put people down or refer to them as a “dumbass; moron” etc. The Holy Spirit inspires those who are born of the Spirit to lift up those they come into contact with, rather than to put them down. They aren’t driven by their ego which knows that it has only a short time.

    ” John Piper and others, say that the Ten Commandments do not apply to the age of grace because the age of grace is not under the law. This was not a Catholic teaching.”

    And yet, Catholics can’t seem to keep from enslaving themselves to usury, and eating garbage. Why? Seems like Catholics believe in that whole grace think means they’re no longer under the law anymore. Even if this isn’t the case. There’s no effective difference in their behavior. Catholics and Protestants alike trample on the Sabbath, engage in usury, and eat garbage like it’s a delicacy. Idiots, one and all.

    “There is no mitzvot that I know of which required the washing of hands,”
    We’re all well aware of your ignorance; no need to keep reminding us of this fact.
    WHICH MITZVOT???

    Again, I would have to refer you to the Old Testament Holiness code. The cleanliness laws go into great detail on when one should wash. I’ve referred to this before, but for some unknown reason you, with your incredible understanding of Jewish law; still can’t seem to find it. Look in any copy of the Torah you might have laying around. Look under “Holiness Code”, and you will find numerous references to washing. Notice that while many of these washings are directed to priests, God also calls all of Israel to be a nation of priests (see Exodus)

    ” Remember this (washing) is not required of by the Jews for every meal but for the shabbat and pascka as these were ritual meals.”
    The Mosaic law points out that one should wash when on comes in contact with a corpse, blood, after defecating, nocturnal emissions, sexual congress, etc. The Mosaic law is found in the first five books of the bible, e .g. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. No one is going to be impressed with your ability to google something in Hebrew when you can’t even focus on the fact that I’m just simply referring to the Old Testament scriptures; scriptures which you’re obviously very UNfamiliar with..
    HEY LYING MORON you cut off what “this (washing) refers to. So again WHAT IS THE MITZVOT?? WHICH ONE??? WHERE IS THE MITZVOT you are referring to? Educate me…

    “Jews believe that when the Messiach comes and ushers in the Olam Haba all food will be purified by Him and that is not permissible will become permissible (see Likkutei Sichot). If Christians believe the Messiach has come, the kashrut does not apply.”
    Nonsense. Peter, Paul, James and John all believed that Jesus was the messiah, and none of them believed kashrut no longer applied. I’ve already supplied the relevant verses to prove this fact (which you’ve repeatedly ignored). Strangling and blood (direct references to the dietary laws) makes food unclean and is explicitly forbidden in the book of Acts. Peter points out during his vision that he’s never eaten anything unclean and this is long after Christ has been crucified, died, buried, etc.
    ” If the Messiach has not come the kashrut does apply to the Jews.”
    LOL. Your ignorance is profound. The laws of kashrut are articulated without any reference to the coming of messiah; your claim is a blatant non sequitur.

    “How would you know…”

    Because they are listed in the Torah without any reference to the coming of messiah. I would know that because, unlike you; i don’t have a reading comprehension problem.

    ” you are not a Jew.”

    I’m not a practicing Jew. I do have some Jewish blood on my mother’s side of the family, but none of them practice the faith either. However, just like Cornelius; I do see the benefits of keeping God’s law, and orthodox Jews would consider me to be righteous because of that fact. I don’t ascribe to that idea because I know that I am not made righteous or justified by carrying out the works of the law. Again, one doesn’t have to be Jewish to understand the Mosaic law. One simply need have nothing more than rudimentary reading comprehension skills.

    “You have no idea as to how we would read the Bible”

    I have no idea how you tend to read the bible, or if you even read it at all anymore. From what you’ve posted so far, I’m inclined to think you haven’t picked up a book in over a decade.

    “. You show great ignorance of Jewish understanding.”

    Not nearly as much as you.

    ” All food in acts have been made clean.”

    Yeah, we got that already. You’re not advancing an argument; you’re just repeating yourself. Again, I’ve already addressed AND refuted these claims. You have yet to provide anything other than your baseless assertions

    Like

  70. I don’t know why, but I keep forgetting to post the relevant passages to your question. I guess this lapse of memory stems from your claims that you know the bible like the back of your hand which suggests that your questions are ingenuous. Evidently I was mistaken and you are genuinely in the dark on this matter. I’ve already referred to the examples, but they can be found in the guidelines for purification found throughout Leviticus 11-15. That would be the best place to start your study to familiarize yourself with the laws concerning purification; washing, etc.

    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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s