It is permissive for Christians to eat meat today

pescador said:

If you want to eat what you think is appropriate based on a single verse from the Old Testament be my guest! Here is what Jesus unequivocally said about eating...

Mark 7:18-19, "He said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)" ... in context!!

Click to expand...

This is a parable. You cannot take a parable literally, it always has a deeper message, and the message is revealed in this passage:

Mark 7:17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. 18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” 20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”

It has nothing to do with Jesus declaring all foods clean and has nothing to do with food.

2BeholdHisGlory said:

Abstaining from meats unto idols and fornication is shown in Acts in respects to the Gentiles here

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

The eating things sacrficed unto idols is memtioned by Jesus in Revelation here (along with fornication) again here

Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

Whereas Paul seems to be addressing these concerns here

1Cr 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.....

He downplays that an idol is anything at all (and that there is no other God but one (I cut it there) because it talked elsewhere how had winked at peoples ignorance in times past concerning idolatry (In Acts 17:30) but was calling all men to repent of these sorts of things and Paul speaks of those not having this knowledge and some still have a conscience of the idol unto that hour in Pauls present time

1Cr 8: 7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol ((((unto this hour)))) eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

Paul does at least bring in "unto this hour" just as it speaks elsewhere of His sprinkling them with clean water and cleansing them from their idols (speaking to the conscience). They were still were deemed as necessary by the Holy Ghost in Acts 15:28 because of these current practices.

In Chapter 10 even Paul says this

1Cr 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

1Cr 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

Dont ask dont tell policy

1Cr 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

1Cr 10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?

And not your own conscience but of the other, in both cases (whether in an idols temple) or at a feast it speaks of the conscience of the other (not yours) who knows better that idols are nothing and dont raise those sorts of questions, but how peoples consciences will judge your freedom.

Just buy take out, dont risk it

Click to expand...

None of those references discussing eating rats. Its all about eating food where the only question is "was it sacrificed to idols" - not "is it what God calls an abomination in scripture in Lev 11"

Notice that in Lev 11 not only are rats in the "abomination" category so also is diseased meat. Jesus did not die on the cross so that Christians could eat diseased rat carcasses - that is not what the Gospel is about at all.

Lev 11

10 But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. 11 They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. 12 Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales—that shall be an abomination to you.

13 ‘And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, 14 the kite, and the falcon after its kind; 15 every raven after its kind, 16 the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind; 17 the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl; 18 the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; 19 the stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.

20 ‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. 21 Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. 22 These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. 23 But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you.

============================

Having said all that - the OP topic is not about permission to "eat rats" but is whether Christians can eat animal flesh at all.

BobRyan said:

1. The parenthetical text is interpolated and not in the earlier manuscript according to the translators. (hence the parenthesis)
2. the Mark 7:1-19 is not about eating rat sandwiches... it is about eating bread/wheat without first ceremonially baptizing the fingers.
3. The debate is whether food from the market place has sin on it - or if fingers of someone who went to the market place have sin on them due to contact with gentiles there. Jesus debunks the entire argument saying that is not how sin gets into someone.
4. Lev 11 regarding not eating rats has nothing in it about baptizing fingers before you eat the rats to make them "clean". IT is an entirely different topic from the issue in Mark 7 of eating bread after having come from the market place.

Bible details matter.

Click to expand...

Mark 7:19b, is a parenthetical note by the author. It is part of John's writing style but it is Scripture.

Here it is in context, "Now when Jesus had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. He said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.) [These are John's words, written by him] He said, “What comes out of a person defiles him. For from within, out of the human heart, come evil ideas, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, evil, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, pride, and folly. All these evils come from within and defile a person.”

The parenthetical text is not interpolated; it is a part of Scripture. (hence the parenthesis shows your lack of understanding).

Notice the part that I emphasized with bold text: whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him. Jesus said this and John recorded it (without parentheses).

pescador said:

Notice the part that I emphasized with bold text: whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him. Jesus said this and John recorded it (without parentheses).

Click to expand...

As noted earlier - the context for Mark 7 is about eating bread - not rats, not even meat of any kind.

You left that out .

Mark 7:

Christ's statement is in the "Context" of eating bread - not rats. And it is about the "tradition" of the elders when it comes to eating that bread - where the tradition claims sin was getting in the person unless the hands and cup and pots were first ceremonially baptized.

You are bypassing the entire subject.

In addition in Mark 7 Christ first hammers the tradition of the Jews and shows how "Moses said" is = "God's Word" and "the Commandment of God" and as such is not to be set aside.

Hence these details that you are skipping over -

BobRyan said:

1. The parenthetical text is interpolated and not in the earlier manuscript according to the translators. (hence the parenthesis) - you can check this out for example in the NASB as it explains that fact for the reader.
2. the Mark 7:1-19 is not about eating rat sandwiches... it is about eating bread/wheat without first ceremonially baptizing the fingers.
3. The debate is whether food from the market place has sin on it - or if fingers of someone who went to the market place have sin on them due to contact with gentiles there. Jesus debunks the entire argument saying that is not how sin gets into someone.
4. Lev 11 regarding not eating rats has nothing in it about baptizing fingers before you eat the rats to make them "clean". IT is an entirely different topic from the issue in Mark 7 of eating bread after having come from the market place.

Bible details matter.

Less a given "solution" will stand up to the Bible details - the weaker that solution is. The MORE a given "solution" relies on all the Bible details - the stronger it is.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

As noted earlier - the context for Mark 7 is about eating bread - not rats, not even meat of any kind.

You left that out .

Mark 7:

The Pharisees and some of the scribes *gathered to Him after they came from Jerusalem, 2 and saw that some of His disciples were eating their bread with unholy hands, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the other Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thereby holding firmly to the tradition of the elders; 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they completely cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received as traditions to firmly hold, such as the washing of cups, pitchers, and copper pots.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk in accordance with the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unholy hands?”​

Christ's statement is in the "Context" of eating bread - not rats. And it is about the "tradition" of the elders when it comes to eating that bread - where the tradition claims sin was getting in the person unless the hands and cup and pots were first ceremonially baptized.

You are bypassing the entire subject.

In addition in Mark 7 Christ first hammers the tradition of the Jews and shows how "Moses said" is = "God's Word" and "the Commandment of God" and as such is not to be set aside.

Hence these details that you are skipping over -

Click to expand...

The specific of bread has little to do with the parenthetical statement, nor with Jesus' actual words. The Pharisee's believed that they would be defiled by eating with unwashed hands, and Jesus' words as well as the parenthetical statement point to food being unable to defile a person as defilement comes from inner character not external factors. Another point that highlights that Levitical food laws are no longer binding is Colossians 2:16, in which it is clear what is in mind is Torah restrictions given the specific naming of new moons and Sabbaths which are peculiar to Judaism and Torah observance.

Mark 7:18-19b (NASB), "And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding as well? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thereby He declared all foods clean.)"

Regardless of what Bob Ryan (or whoever) says, Mark wrote that Jesus declared all foods clean. The only thing added (for clarity in translation) is "thereby".

It couldn't be any clearer than this part of preceding verse: "whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach..."

There is nothing here that points specifically to bread. Instead it points to any and all foods.

Fervent said:

It seems you're creating a very fine line that is practically indistinguishable, and while it's fair enough to defend church/parish names I fail to see how building of shrines can be anything but worship. Prayer as well appears to me to be Biblically defined as a sacrifice(ps 15:8, Heb. 13:15, Ps. 116:17, etc) so I fail to see how offering prayers to saints/Mary are anything but worship as you defined it.

Click to expand...

First of all on the subject of Shrines, what shrines exactly are we talking about?

Secondly, there is a distinction between how Catholics, Orthodox, Assyrians and Anglicans pray to the saints vs. praying to God, in that the prayers to the saints tend to avoid making a direct request, or where the intercession of a saint is sought, the Eastern Orthodox approach is to pray something like “Through the intersessions of (a given saint), help us O Lord and have mercy.”

The other elements tend to be more hymns than prayers, which praise God for working in and through the glorified martyrs, confessors, apostles, evangelists and people of faith.

Finally, I would argue the line is not so fine as to be indistinguishable if the Eucharist is central to your experience of Christianity, which it is to all of the churches I mentioned above, and their members. Holy Communion becomes the apex of the Christian experience and the fact that it is God alone who facilitates through the Holy Spirit our mystical union with the Body of Christ, as in the Church, through the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion (1 Corinthians 10:1-11:34)

pescador said:

What in your opinion is the difference between "love" and "veneration"? To me, it's semantics only. I both love and venerate (greatly respect) my wife. How do you "acknowledge someone" with love anyway?

Click to expand...

It is not a question of love vs. veneration; you are supposed to love your wife. It is a question of adoration, which means something much more extreme than most people realize, more love for God, and a more stable love, than even a man has for his wife, although the altruistic love between a happily married husband and wife is among other things an icon representative of the love Christ has for His church, for the Church is His bride, and He is the bridegroom.

The Liturgist said:

First of all on the subject of Shrines, what shrines exactly are we talking about?

Secondly, there is a distinction between how Catholics, Orthodox, Assyrians and Anglicans pray to the saints vs. praying to God, in that the prayers to the saints tend to avoid making a direct request, or where the intercession of a saint is sought, the Eastern Orthodox approach is to pray something like “Through the intersessions of (a given saint), help us O Lord and have mercy.”

The other elements tend to be more hymns than prayers, which praise God for working in and through the glorified martyrs, confessors, apostles, evangelists and people of faith.

Finally, I would argue the line is not so fine as to be indistinguishable if the Eucharist is central to your experience of Christianity, which it is to all of the churches I mentioned above, and their members. Holy Communion becomes the apex of the Christian experience and the fact that it is God alone who facilitates through the Holy Spirit our mystical union with the Body of Christ, as in the Church, through the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion (1 Corinthians 10:1-11:34)

Click to expand...

The ubiqutous Marian shrines that exist within nearly every Catholic church, such as the Marian devotion at the Miraculous Medal Shrine in Philadelphia. It's quite common for even Catholic writers to slip up and admit that such shrines are built for worship.

As for the fine line, certainly in discussion they can be distinguished through theological explanations but the issue is the practical implications especially in a church setting where theological understanding is so sharply divided between laity and clergy. It's only natural that parishoners confuse those fine distinctions set out by apologists trying to explain away Maraian worship and other saint devotion as "veneration" rather than what it practically amounts to when the distinction is so ephemeral as to require complex theological justifications. There appears little practical distinction between when one crosses the threshold from veneration to worship, with the difference being theoretical rather than praxic.

covid-19v1 said:

There are two types of Catholics...
1) Those who try to follow what they are taught in their catechism
2) Those who try to hide the truth

I guess, you would rather listen to the group belonging to #2. They are the ones involved in tampering and rewriting historical books about the Catholic Church and its corrupt practices. I personally discovered one from my favorite book in high school.

This group also lie about the sexual immoralities that's been going on and being committed by their priests.

They also conditioned their members to hate the Jews thru books distorted to make it look like all the Jews were in agreement to murder Jesus Christ. I still remember when my mom used "Jew" as a curse word on me when I was a kid.

I'm not surprised if you would rather believe lies than facts.

That is a fallacy in itself. Just because you have difficulty remembering your past does not mean other people must be like yourself.

Click to expand...

You do realize that @prodromos like many converted from the Anglican Church to the Eastern Orthodox Church, neither of which is part of or subordinate to the Roman Catholic Church, and neither of which has had a problem with paedophilia among their priests, most of whom in both the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox church are married? Also, neither the Anglican nor the Eastern Orthodox church has as bad a history of anti-Semitism as the Roman Catholic Church, not even close, in fact, and many members of the Orthodox Churches in the Eastern Mediterranean are of Judaic descent, and many have Jewish last names, particularly in the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

I also met a Jew from Jerusalem who fell in love with the Eastern Orthodox church and became a novice among the monks who serve in the Holy Sepulcher.

So without wishing to criticize or insult, and begging your pardon, I just don’t understand the basis for your criticism of @prodromos , other than perhaps you are not familiar with liturgical Protestant churches such as Anglicanism, and the other ancient churches that were never a part of the Roman Catholic Church, specifically, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the other Eastern churches (the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East). I would be happy to provide you with more information and links to resources on these churches if you desire.

Fervent said:

The ubiqutous Marian shrines that exist within nearly every Catholic church, such as the Marian devotion at the Miraculous Medal Shrine in Philadelphia. It's quite common for even Catholic writers to slip up and admit that such shrines are built for worship.

As for the fine line, certainly in discussion they can be distinguished through theological explanations but the issue is the practical implications especially in a church setting where theological understanding is so sharply divided between laity and clergy. It's only natural that parishoners confuse those fine distinctions set out by apologists trying to explain away Maraian worship and other saint devotion as "veneration" rather than what it practically amounts to when the distinction is so ephemeral as to require complex theological justifications. There appears little practical distinction between when one crosses the threshold from veneration to worship, with the difference being theoretical rather than praxic.

Click to expand...

I am sorry, but that simply is not the case. You can’t presume to judge the very clear distinction between veneration and worship without having some intimate experience of a liturgical church whose worship is focused primarily on the Holy Eucharist, in which we believe our Lord is truly present, either spiritually or physically, depending on the denomination. The experience of venerating icons is entirely ancillary and secondary to the partaking of Holy Communion.

With regards to the shrines to St. Mary in Catholic churches, I see nothing wrong with them because they celebrate the Incarnation of God the Son through her voluntary consent, which is an act of absolute faith and trust in God par excellence.

The Liturgist said:

I am sorry, but that simply is not the case. You can’t presume to judge the very clear distinction between veneration and worship without having some intimate experience of a liturgical church whose worship is focused primarily on the Holy Eucharist, in which we believe our Lord is truly present, either spiritually or physically, depending on the denomination. The experience of venerating icons is entirely ancillary and secondary to the partaking of Holy Communion.

With regards to the shrines to St. Mary in Catholic churches, I see nothing wrong with them because they celebrate the Incarnation of God the Son through her voluntary consent, which is an act of absolute faith and trust in God par excellence.

Click to expand...

Reserving a single ritual hardly creates a "clear distinction." It seems you're making a distinction without a difference when it comes to "veneration" and "worship" that is a far cry from your original claim of reserving sacrifice and adoration to God. Especially since the second element of adoration is a matter of internal witness, while all of the ordinary sacrifices offered to God(prayer, repentance, honor, thanksgiving) are offered to the saints/Mary and simply redefined to claim they're not sacrifices.

Fervent said:

I did, unless there is a Biblical reason to accept the notion of a "queen of heaven" there remains only negative implications about the term. Mary worship is idolatry, simply because it is dressed in theological clothing doesn't elevate it and the only witness the Bible has towards the notion of a queen of heaven is to associate the idea with false worship.

Click to expand...

But as I have said, in complete honesty, Mary is not worshipped in these churches. Only cults like the Palmerian Catholics, who have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic churches, and also fringe groups like the Fifth Dogma people are guilty of Mariolatry.

I am not a Roman Catholic and as a neutral voice I am compelled to speak only what I have seen and observed with years of interaction with them, both in debate and fellowship.

Fervent said:

Reserving a single ritual hardly creates a "clear distinction." It seems you're making a distinction without a difference when it comes to "veneration" and "worship" that is a far cry from your original claim of reserving sacrifice and adoration to God. Especially since the second element of adoration is a matter of internal witness, while all of the ordinary sacrifices offered to God(prayer, repentance, honor, thanksgiving) are offered to the saints/Mary and simply redefined to claim they're not sacrifices.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with your argument. You are deprecating the Eucharist, which in Roman praxis is also the subject of special Adoration, a custom unique to that rite, from the most important form of worship. Also, no one I have met repents to the saints or indeed offers them divine thanksgiving - the real meaning of Eucharist is from Eucharistos, meaning Thanksgiving, and it is entirely different from what some people refer to as thanksgiving but which is in fact gratitude. These differences are important and they do matter, and I am disappointed given your excellent hamartiology, an awareness of the nature of sin which entirely agrees with my own, which reads like I wrote it, that my own explanation from a neutral vantage point as a Protestant has failed to clarify the enormous difference between the idolatrous worship of Mary that occurs at the Palmerian cult in Spain, and the Roman Catholic traditional veneration of Mary, contrasted to their worship of God through Holy Communion and Eucharistic Adoration, which one also encounters in some Anglican and Episcopal churches.

Now, maybe you think Roman Catholic veneration is excessive, and many do, and I can’t possiblyobject to that; if it is a preference for a more Christocentric liturgy which we see, for example, in the writings of Martin Luther. It is simply that orthodox Roman Catholics, as opposed to fringe groups like the Fifth Dogma people, do not worship Mary, but they do spend hours adoring Jesus Christ through the Eucharist.

Fervent said:

The specific of bread has little to do with the parenthetical statement, nor with Jesus' actual words. The Pharisee's believed that they would be defiled by eating with unwashed hands, and Jesus' words as well as the parenthetical statement point to food being unable to defile a person as defilement comes from inner character not external factors. Another point that highlights that Levitical food laws are no longer binding is Colossians 2:16, in which it is clear what is in mind is Torah restrictions given the specific naming of new moons and Sabbaths which are peculiar to Judaism and Torah observance.

Click to expand...

You need to read Colossians 2:14 which speaks of ordinances, not commandments. The yearly Sabbath(s) feast days is an ordinance in the law of Moses which is about food and drink and its not referring to the weekly Sabbath day that is a commandment from God Exodus 20:8-11 and part of an eternal covenant Psalms 89:34 and has nothing to do with the context of Colossians food or drink. Many confuse the different Sabbath(s) in the bible either unintentionally or intentionally. Breaking one commandment is like breaking them all. James 2:10, Mathew 5:19 Hope this helps

SabbathBlessings said:

You need to read Colossians 2:14 which speaks of ordinances, not commandments. The yearly Sabbath(s) feast days is an ordinance in the law of Moses which is about food and drink and its not referring to the weekly Sabbath day that is a commandment from God Exodus 20:8-11 and part of an eternal covenant Psalms 89:34 and has nothing to do with the context of Colossians food or drink. Many confuse the different Sabbath(s) in the bible either unintentionally or intentionally. Breaking one commandment is like breaking them all. James 2:10, Mathew 5:19 Hope this helps

Click to expand...

No, these commandments are Jewish ceremonial law. Only the Summary of the Law presented by our Lord, which is to love God with all our Heart and Mind and Soul, and to love our neighbor as ourselves, which automatically precludes murder, theft, dishonesty, and every other moral offense in the Jewish law, is in effect in the New Covenant. The Sabbath is an eternal memorial of the rest of our Lord after creating man, and recreating man on the Cross.

The Liturgist said:

No, these commandments are Jewish ceremonial law. Only the Summary of the Law presented by our Lord, which is to love God with all our Heart and Mind and Soul, and to love our neighbor as ourselves, which automatically precludes murder, theft, dishonesty, and every other moral offense in the Jewish law, is in effect in the New Covenant. The Sabbath is an eternal memorial of the rest of our Lord after creating man, and recreating man on the Cross.

Click to expand...

Colossians 2:14 speaks of ordinances, not commandments. There are two different Sabbaths in the bible. One that is special to God that started from Creation Genesis 2:2-3 and a commandment of God Exodus 20:8-11 that is part of an eternal covenant. Psalms 89:34 and has nothing to do with food or drink which is what Colossians is about if read in its proper context. Colossians 2:14 clearly says it is an ordinance. God's commandants has never been called an ordinance. The yearly sabbath(s) feasts days are an ordinance from the law of Moses and was written by Moses and is all about food or drink. God said His Sabbath is a perpetual covenant Exodus 31:16 which is why is continues eternally as promised Isaiah 66:23. You can believe as you wish but the context is right in front of you.

Also, you express your love for God with all our hearts when you obey, not disobey. John 14:15, John 15:10, 1 John 5:3, Exodus 20:6


God bless

SabbathBlessings said:

You need to read Colossians 2:14 which speaks of ordinances, not commandments. The yearly Sabbath(s) feast days is an ordinance in the law of Moses which is about food and drink and its not referring to the weekly Sabbath day that is a commandment from God Exodus 20:8-11 and part of an eternal covenant Psalms 89:34 and has nothing to do with the context of Colossians food or drink. Many confuse the different Sabbath(s) in the bible either unintentionally or intentionally. Breaking one commandment is like breaking them all. James 2:10, Mathew 5:19 Hope this helps

Click to expand...

Colossians is a parallel of Galatians, with the difference being that Paul is anticipating the threat of Judaizers rather than actually addressing their error. An ordinance is no different from a law and Paul makes no distinction about Sabbaths, as the special Sabbaths were just as Holy and prescribed by law as the weekly Sabbath and subject to the same restrictions. Attempting to re-establish the law is not a noble task, nor does it make one faithful but a lawbreaker after all:

“But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

The Liturgist said:

I respectfully disagree with your argument. You are deprecating the Eucharist, which in Roman praxis is also the subject of special Adoration, a custom unique to that rite, from the most important form of worship. Also, no one I have met repents to the saints or indeed offers them divine thanksgiving - the real meaning of Eucharist is from Eucharistos, meaning Thanksgiving, and it is entirely different from what some people refer to as thanksgiving but which is in fact gratitude. These differences are important and they do matter, and I am disappointed given your excellent hamartiology, an awareness of the nature of sin which entirely agrees with my own, which reads like I wrote it, that my own explanation from a neutral vantage point as a Protestant has failed to clarify the enormous difference between the idolatrous worship of Mary that occurs at the Palmerian cult in Spain, and the Roman Catholic traditional veneration of Mary, contrasted to their worship of God through Holy Communion and Eucharistic Adoration, which one also encounters in some Anglican and Episcopal churches.

Now, maybe you think Roman Catholic veneration is excessive, and many do, and I can’t possiblyobject to that; if it is a preference for a more Christocentric liturgy which we see, for example, in the writings of Martin Luther. It is simply that orthodox Roman Catholics, as opposed to fringe groups like the Fifth Dogma people, do not worship Mary, but they do spend hours adoring Jesus Christ through the Eucharist.

Click to expand...

I should clarify, I agree that as you have presented there is a distinction between the veneration of saints including Mary and true worship. My objection is that the practice, as I have seen it, often fails to make that distinction to those who do not engage with the theological elements which is the majority of parishoners in a church. While the official position creates a distinction, many I have intereacted with from the Catholic church do engage in Mary worship out of an ignorance of the official teachings combined with the excesses of Marian devotion that have been allowed to appeal to goddess cultures. This is especially prevalent among Hispanics.

Fervent said:

Colossians is a parallel of Galatians, with the difference being that Paul is anticipating the threat of Judaizers rather than actually addressing their error. An ordinance is no different from a law and Paul makes no distinction about Sabbaths, as the special Sabbaths were just as Holy and prescribed by law as the weekly Sabbath and subject to the same restrictions. Attempting to re-establish the law is not a noble task, nor does it make one faithful but a lawbreaker after all:

“But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in Galatians or Colossians that deletes the 4th commandment.

Lets look at the verse again:

Colossians 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

God's laws was not contrary to us this is a direct reference to the law of Moses that was written by Moses Deuteronomy 31:24, contained curses "contrary" Deuteronomy 29:20-21 and was placed outside the ark Deut 31:26 because it was temporary Colossians 2:14, Hebrews 8:13

God's laws is perfect Psalms 19:7, Holy Romans 7:12, Love 1 Timothy 1:5, Righteous Romans 8:4, Pure Psalms 19:8 and ETERNAL Psalms 89:34, Mathew 5:18

There is more than one Sabbath in the bible and one refers to foods and drink like in context to Colossians 2:16 that is part of the law of Moses found in Leviticus 23 the annual feast days and the other is part of an eternal covenant Psalms 89:34 and is a commandment of God Exodus 20:8-11 which has nothing to do with food or drink. It definitely did not end at the cross like our Savior promised Exodus 31:16 because it will continue to be God' s only holy day and the day we are to worship our Savior for eternity Isaiah 66:23. Jesus kept the Sabbath Luke 4:16, the disciples kept the Sabbath Acts 18:4 and its sign between our Savior and His people Ezekiial 20:20 God bless