Catholics broke the Noahide law of God?

[ferdie]

Hi guys can anyone help with my discussion with two atheists?

They said that St. Paul disobeyed the decision of the Jerusalem Council regarding the “Noahide law” that was imposed on the gentiles.

They are arguing that in Acts 15:1-30, James made 4 prohibitions that are binding on all Christians. These 4 prohibitions are based on Noahide Law and not Mosaic Law. Base on Rev. 2:20, the four prohibitions are still binding. Why did St. Paul disobeyed St. James in 1Corinthians 10:28-33? They are saying that St. Paul hijacked the true meaning of Christianity and it seemed that the true Christians (I think they are talking about the followers of James or the Judaizers perished in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D that is why St. Paul’s version of Christianity survived.

I told them that three of the four prohibitions were lifted because they are dietary law and was only issued as a disciplinary decree for the unity of the Church and when the time came that it is not applicable anymore St. Paul lifted the three prohibitions but not the one that concerns sexual immorality since it is a matter of faith and morals.

Now the other atheist said that in that I am making a false distinction between discipline, faith and morals since Catholic teaching states that both faith and morals are objects of discipline, and then cited newadvent.com Discipline. They said that Acts 15:28-29 contains the Holy Spirit sanctioned decree of the Jerusalem Council that are “necessary” for the gentiles to follow. They said that I am making a false distinction between doctrine and discipline in opposition to the explicit and infallible dogma of the Jerusalem Council. No Christians have the right to repeal Gods command in Gen. 9:2-4.

So I told them that the Catholics kept the Ten Commandments and there is nothing in there about diet. Jesus declared all things good and that it’s not what goes in that makes a person impure but what goes out of that person’s heart.
One of the atheist cited The Pauline Conspiracy,

http://www.comparative-religion.com/…neconspiracy/

Where did I make a mistake and how do I proceed?

 

[VociMike]

They are right and they are wrong at the same time. Those four prohibitions were all about avoiding idolatry and other unholy manifestations of religion. Catholics are still prohibited from practicing idolatry and unholy manifestations of religion.

If they disagree about the four prohibitions, ask them what unites those particular prohibitions, and why the prohibitions didn’t include obvious ones such as avoiding murder, theft, lying, blasphemy, dishonoring one’s parents, etc.

 

[NotWorthy]

Ask your friends to read Mark Chapter 7:18-19:
He said to them, "Are even you likewise without understanding? Do you not realize that everything that goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach and passes out into the latrine?" (Thus he declared all foods clean)."

Then Jesus continues and tells us where sin comes from in verses 20-22: “But what comes out of a person, that is what defiles. From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly. All these evils come from within and they defile.”

This is the Gospel that Paul preached. It’s not dietary laws that saves us (nor circumcision), but what comes from our heart - faith, hope, love, service, charity, etc.

 

[NotWorthy]

Incidentally, your friends are incorrect about the Jewish Christians dying in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Thousands of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem escaped just before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. It is said that they knew from Jesus last week before his Passion that Jerusalem was living on borrowed time. This is why they sold their land and gave it to the Church, as we read in Acts. The money they gathered help fund their trek into the wilderness to hide while Jerusalem was destroyed.

 

[ferdie]

Ask your friends to read Mark Chapter 7:18-19:
He said to them, “Are even you likewise without understanding? Do you not realize that everything that goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach and passes out into the latrine?” (Thus he declared all foods clean)."

Then Jesus continues and tells us where sin comes from in verses 20-22: “But what comes out of a person, that is what defiles. From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly. All these evils come from within and they defile.”

This is the Gospel that Paul preached. It’s not dietary laws that saves us (nor circumcision), but what comes from our heart - faith, hope, love, service, charity, etc.

I gave that answer already but they keep coming back at Genesis 9:2-4, Acts 15:28-29 and Rev:2:20 that says something about the four prohibitions by The Holy Spirit and the Apostles. Why did St. Paul disobeyed this decree?

 

[ferdie]

They are right and they are wrong at the same time. Those four prohibitions were all about avoiding idolatry and other unholy manifestations of religion. Catholics are still prohibited from practicing idolatry and unholy manifestations of religion.

If they disagree about the four prohibitions, ask them what unites those particular prohibitions, and why the prohibitions didn’t include obvious ones such as avoiding murder, theft, lying, blasphemy, dishonoring one’s parents, etc.

Well I pointed out that it is not the **eating **of sacrificed food pers se that is prohibited but the offering of the sacrifice food to idols.

The four prohibitions (acts 15:19-20) are:

1. to abstain from food sacrificed to idols
2. to abstain from eating blood
3. to abstain from meat of strangled animals and
4. to abstain from illicit sexual union.

I said that the first three concerns diet that was lifted by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:23-30 and the fourth about illicit sexual union reamains in effect because it is a matter of faith and morals.

The atheists said that Acts 15:19-20 made no distinction between the four prohibitions and since it is the decree of the Holy Spirit then no man can lift it, then they cited Rev. 2:20 which was written way way after 1Corinthians. Rev.2:20 is one of the evidences that St. Paul disobeyed the Holy Spirit.

 

[ferdie]

Incidentally, your friends are incorrect about the Jewish Christians dying in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Thousands of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem escaped just before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. It is said that they knew from Jesus last week before his Passion that Jerusalem was living on borrowed time. This is why they sold their land and gave it to the Church, as we read in Acts. The money they gathered help fund their trek into the wilderness to hide while Jerusalem was destroyed.

Yes I agree with that but his point is, St. Paul’s version of Christianity is against the version of St. James and St. John.

 

[SPH1]

First, don’t give too much creedence to what atheists have to say. Their agenda is definitely different from yours or the Church’s.

Second, nobody is bound to James. It was the Council that had the authority.

Third, the truly siginificant doctrine at the Council was that laid down by Peter…who rebuked virtually the entire Council and laid down the faith of the Church: Salvation by Grace for Jew and Gentile.

Fourth, the dietary provisions were pastoral, also perhaps a bone to Judaizers? Anyway, idolatry and fornication are still sins.

Fifth, Paul did not hijack Christianity nor is Christianity that (solely) of Paul. Peter led the way regarding salvation by grace, first at Pentecost when the Jews said “what do we have to do to be saved”, through the Baptism of Cornelius, then finally laying down the faith at the Council. Salvation by Grace was the constant faith of the Church. Paul was carrying the faith of Peter and the Church, not just that of Paul alone.

Finally, it is for Paul, the other apostles and the modern magisterium of the Church to determine and interpret what the Council teachings and scriptures mean. Not private judgment and certainly not that of unbelievers.

 

[VociMike]

The atheists said that Acts 15:19-20 made no distinction between the four prohibitions and since it is the decree of the Holy Spirit then no man can lift it, then they cited Rev. 2:20 which was written way way after 1Corinthians. Rev.2:20 is one of the evidences that St. Paul disobeyed the Holy Spirit.
[/INDENT]

No man can lift it? Point out to them that the Church has been given the authority to bind and loose heaven.

As for Rev. 2:20, since when did Paul teach people to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols? I’m confused as to what point they think they’re making.

 

[ferdie]

First, don’t give too much creedence to what atheists have to say. Their agenda is definitely different from yours or the Church’s.

Second, nobody is bound to James. It was the Council that had the authority.

Third, the truly siginificant doctrine at the Council was that laid down by Peter…who rebuked virtually the entire Council and laid down the faith of the Church: Salvation by Grace for Jew and Gentile.

Fourth, the dietary provisions were pastoral, also perhaps a bone to Judaizers? Anyway, idolatry and fornication are still sins.

Fifth, Paul did not hijack Christianity nor is Christianity that (solely) of Paul. Peter led the way regarding salvation by grace, first at Pentecost when the Jews said “what do we have to do to be saved”, through the Baptism of Cornelius, then finally laying down the faith at the Council. Salvation by Grace was the constant faith of the Church. Paul was carrying the faith of Peter and the Church, not just that of Paul alone.

Finally, it is for Paul, the other apostles and the modern magisterium of the Church to determine and interpret what the Council teachings and scriptures mean. Not private judgment and certainly not that of unbelievers.

Well for them it is I who’s making the private interpretation of Acts 15:19-20, 28-29, and their’s in accordance with the Noahide law of God.

 

[ferdie]

double post

 

[Tiny_Montgomery]

…They are arguing that in Acts 15:1-30, James made 4 prohibitions that are binding on all Christians. These 4 prohibitions are based on Noahide Law and not Mosaic Law. …Why did St. Paul disobeyed St. James in 1Corinthians 10:28-33?

the letter issuing from the jerusalem council was written NOT to every gentile congregation, but rather SPECIFICALLY and ONLY to the churches in antioch, syria and cilicia where jews and gentiles mixed together.

thus we read in acts 15:23:

“…they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings.”

the letter is essentially a pastoral instruction, a prudential application of the power of binding and loosing designed to minimize friction between jewish and gentile believers, and specifically to help jewish Christians, raised under the law, not to “stumble,” as paul puts it (1 corinthians 10:32).

corinth, however, was across the ocean, and thus geographically outside the scope of the jerusalem council letter – as well as LOGICALLY outside its scope because corinth was NOT a mixed community, but rather largely or entirely gentile. thus, for both these reasons, the jerusalem council letter cannot be understood to apply to corinth (much less to all gentiles everywhere).

however, the guiding prudential considerations that undergirded the pastoral provisions in the jerusalem council letter, were applied by paul in the different context of the gentile church in corinth. thus, he instructs the corinthians to abstain from eating foods sacrificed to idols where there is a risk of giving offense, or causing another to stumble.

…Base on Rev. 2:20, the four prohibitions are still binding.

that is a very strained reading of revelation 2:20.

i think the text is better understood to mean that “Jezebel” (probably a symbolic name) was enticing Christians to eat food sacrificed to idols precisely as food sacrificed to idols – that is, for the same reason pagans ate food sacrificed to idols, and engaged in “sacred” sex acts, which “Jezebel” was also tempting the Christians to do.

in other words, it appears that “Jezebel” was tempting gentile Christians to return to their formerly pagan lifestyle.

 

[ferdie]

No man can lift it? Point out to them that the Church has been given the authority to bind and loose heaven.

As for Rev. 2:20, since when did Paul teach people to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols? I’m confused as to what point they think they’re making.

I’ve already pointed out that Jesus gave binding and loosing authority to the church, but they did not buy it since it was the Holy Spirit and the Apostles who made the infallible dogma in Acts 15: 28-29

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things,

29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you. Farewell."

As for Rev.2:20. St. Paul clearly taught that it is ok to eat food sacrificed to idols, since all things are lawful but not all are helpful.

1 Corinthians 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 fullness thereof:
29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?
30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?
31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

Their point? Sts. James and John preached the true gospel and St. Paul went against the Holy Spirit and the Apostles decision in Jerusalem Council, therefore St. Paul’s version of Christianity can not be trusted.

 

[ferdie]

the letter issuing from the jerusalem council was written NOT to every gentile congregation, but rather SPECIFICALLY and ONLY to the churches in antioch, syria and cilicia where jews and gentiles mixed together.

thus we read in acts 15:23:

“…they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings.”

the letter is essentially a pastoral instruction, a prudential application of the power of binding and loosing designed to minimize friction between jewish and gentile believers, and specifically to help jewish Christians, raised under the law, not to “stumble,” as paul puts it (1 corinthians 10:32).

corinth, however, was across the ocean, and thus geographically outside the scope of the jerusalem council letter – as well as LOGICALLY outside its scope because corinth was NOT a mixed community, but rather largely or entirely gentile. thus, for both these reasons, the jerusalem council letter cannot be understood to apply to corinth (much less to all gentiles everywhere).

however, the guiding prudential considerations that undergirded the pastoral provisions in the jerusalem council letter, were applied by paul in the different context of the gentile church in corinth. thus, he instructs the corinthians to abstain from eating foods sacrificed to idols where there is a risk of giving offense, or causing another to stumble.

that is a very strained reading of revelation 2:20.

i think the text is better understood to mean that “Jezebel” (probably a symbolic name) was enticing Christians to eat food sacrificed to idols precisely as food sacrificed to idols – that is, for the same reason pagans ate food sacrificied to idols, and engaged in “sacred” sex acts, which “Jezebel” was also tempting the Christians to do.
in other words, it appears that “Jezebel” was tempting gentile Christians to return to their formerly pagan lifestyle.

This is how I understood it, as writen in The New Jerome Bible Commentary. I feel better now knowing that I presented my arguments in accordance to the teaching of the Church. I guess it does not matter to them whatever I say, since for them I am the one who is putting my private interpreatation and the theirs is in accordance with the Universal Noahide Law of God.

 

[VociMike]

I’ve already pointed out that Jesus gave binding and loosing authority to the church, but they did not buy it since it was the Holy Spirit and the Apostles who made the infallible dogma in Acts 15: 28-29

So there are now competing Persons in the Trinity, with the Holy Spirit countermanding Jesus?

Really, at some point you just need to let this drop. They’re atheists, so they don’t believe the scriptures anyway. They don’t believe the Church is divinely guided since they don’t believe in The Divine. And on top of everything else, they seem to be claiming infallibility for their own interpretation, insisting they are right and you (and the Church!) are wrong.

They’re trying to prove a point using scriptures they don’t believe. That sounds like they’re just yanking your chain. Ask them why they’re basing their argument on scriptures they don’t believe. Whatever they answer, you’ll have an opening to work on their underlying inconsistence.

 

[Tiny_Montgomery]

This is how I understood it, as writen in The New Jerome Bible Commentary. I feel better now knowing that I presented my arguments in accordance to the teaching of the Church. I guess it does not matter to them whatever I say, since for them I am the one who is putting my private interpreatation and the theirs is in accordance with the Universal Noahide Law of God.

yes, there’s probably not much you can say that will change their minds. i would emphasize the fact that the letter was clearly and expressly written only to certain church communities – that really undercuts the idea that the rules set forth in the letter apply across the board to all gentiles.

also, with respect to that phrase “necessary things” – it essentially just means requirements, i.e., that which those to whom the letter was directed were required to do.

they were indeed “necessary things” for that group of people, but you can’t infer from that phrase that the requirements of the letter apply to all gentiles everywhere.

also, VociMike’s remarks are on the money.

 

[ferdie]

Thanks to all, I’ll probably just drop it. They said that their are intelectually honest, but I doubt it.

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

the letter issuing from the jerusalem council was written NOT to every gentile congregation, but rather SPECIFICALLY and ONLY to the churches in antioch, syria and cilicia where jews and gentiles mixed together.

corinth, however, was across the ocean, and thus geographically outside the scope of the jerusalem council letter – as well as LOGICALLY outside its scope because corinth was NOT a mixed community, but rather largely or entirely gentile. thus, for both these reasons, the jerusalem council letter cannot be understood to apply to corinth (much less to all gentiles everywhere).

Ok, now you’ve got me confused. On the one hand you say that those churches closest to Jerusalem geographically were mixed communities of Jews and Gentiles, while other, such as Corinth were not. Then you contradict yourself by saying that the church at Corinth was “largely gentile” (which implies that there were some Jews), even though you cover your bases by following up with the “entirely gentile” statement. Now, which is it? You can’t say that this did’t apply to Corinth et al. because of X (not being a mixed community) and then affirm that Corinth was -X (mixed community). I’m not trying to be antagonistic here; I merely want to find the truth of this matter and know if I should be feeling guilty of eating my blood sausages or not