Moses: "...put it (Mosaic Law written in a book) on the side of the Ark, that it might be there for a witness against thee."
Paul: "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us...nailing it to the Cross."
See what I did there? I showed you the sabbaths which were nailed to the Cross was contained in what Moses wrote, not what God wrote on the tables of stone.
I see that the OT "place the Book of the Law beside the ark" reference is Deuteronomy 31:26. That book of the law would have included the Mosaic ten commandments.
I assume we fundamentally have a disagreement about the best approach for interpreting Col 2:14.
What counts as the "handwriting of ordinances that was against us"? One interpretation is that this is talking about the letter of the law as it was passed down. The spirit of the law (the law unto righteousness) would then still remain but the written ordinances (inclusive of the Book of Law) would be covered by Christ.
From what I can gather from your position, you are identifying different passages or instructions in the OT that somehow fall outside of the scope of the "handwriting of ordinances".
I don't understand the scheme you are using in order to make that identification possible. It would be helpful if you made that aspect of your argument clear.
If you truly believe "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused" means we must eat anything that crawls across our plate, do you have a human shoulder roast in the freezer? Would you eat a maggot sandwich with a side petri dish of E coli bacteria?
Yes. If you find someone that esteems a bug crawling across a plate to be clean to eat, he is good to go in accordance with scripture. If anyone is unnerved by eating a bucket of crickets, it is unclean to them. But since Jesus can turn a rock into bread, anything can be fit to eat (but your conscience and faith will lead you to understand whether it is or isn't).
There are some exceptions we see in the NT, but a bucket of crawling crickets can be clean to eat, yes.
I suspect that most people would inherently not esteem human flesh, blood, and maggots to be fit for consumption. The opposite can be true too. Something might esteem milk to be unfit for consumption because they are lactose intolerant and it would therefore be unfit for them (and sinful for them to consume if they doubted the cleanliness of milk for them).
It's got to be sanctified by the word of God in Leviticus.
I will again emphasis the importance for you to clearly identify the scheme you are using in order to differentiate between what was nailed to the cross and what wasn't.
if we're resting inwardly in Christ, we'll demonstrate that by resting outwardly from our labor.
What is rest? What is labour?
What are good works? How do you determine what is a good work and what is not?
These are important questions you need to address in order to make your position clear. You have brought up examples of what you felt were permissible exceptions to not outwardly resting from labour but have not thoroughly explained your position for how you make these determinations.
E.g. At what point did you make the determination that the Katrina event went from emergency to routine? And if we have a circumstance like the current SARS-2 state of emergency declared by the state, is it the state's declaration that makes it an emergency or something else?
You ignore stoning Sabbathbreakers disappeared with the theocracy when Saul was made king
Citation please.
Isaiah 66:15-17 prophesies destruction for those who claim the Bible is OK with anything that crawls across your plate.
1) Isaiah 66:15-17 is not necessarily about literal swineflesh.
2) Isaiah 66:15-17 is not necessarily a condemnation of all partakers of pork
3) Isaiah 66:15-17 necessarily does not describe sanctification of food through Christ
If you are suggesting that your quoted statement is necessarily true, that would be false. You can propose that your statement is possibly true. And you can argue that your statement is compellingly true (and then make your case for that argument).
If the reason you feel your position on Isaiah 66:15-17 is compelling is due to another argument, you need to first establish that other argument as either necessarily true or compelling.
I can show you how points 1)-3) are supported by other scripture. You should be able to do the same in order to counter those points, if you have a valid counter (which there aren't).
So, the Lord coming in fiery judgment is allegorical, too?
Yes. It is entirely possible that fire is a metaphor for an extremely unpleasant sensation that is not necessarily literal sustained chemical combustion.
Catholics have faith in Christ He will credit them with His merit to lessen their time in Purgatory...
This is branching into a different topic, but the RCC concept is that:
1) There are saved individuals (referenced as sheep and wheat in some cases)
2) There are unsaved individuals (referenced as goats and tares in some cases)
3) A person at their time of death is either saved or unsaved
4) A saved individual requires or is destined to experience purification
5) Purgatory is a purification process
6) The weight of one's sins determines the extent of a person that must be purified
7) The purification process is temporal, therefore more required purification (more sin) translates to a longer stay in purgatory
8) More time doing good works necessarily means less time doing sinful works ("idle hands are the devil's play things")
9) Conclusion: Therefore, doing good works equates to less time in Purgatory.
I don't represent the RCC, but the concept is consistent with scripture.
You can argue that you find the concept of Purgatory uncompelling, or that you find a particular iteration of Purgatory uncompelling, but the concept stands as valid by scripture alone.
which is as ridiculous as your faith that Christ died to make pork clean when He Himself told Isaiah He's coming to destroy those who eat it.
Your statement "Isaiah 66:15-17 supports the view that pork is forever bad" is not necessarily true.
Your statement "Pork was never made clean through Christ" is not necessarily true.
Nothing has ever been unclean in itself. Uncleanliness has always been a relationship between the person and object. Even in OT scripture it states "don't eat this
because it is unclean to you", and in the NT we see that anything can be sanctified (made clean for a person) by God.
The equivalent of your argument is essentially the proposition: "It is impossible for God to make pork clean for his children" which I reject on the basis that God is omnipotent and it is not outside of His options to do.
Romans 14:14 KJV was incorrectly translated "unclean of itself" instead of "common of itself"
"Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”" - 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 NIV
There is no explicit exception in Corinthians 10:25 for pork. You could add one, but it isn't a necessary addition.
"And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man." - Mark 7:18-20 KJV
This is another passage that is often brought to the forefront as evidence that all meats are clean. You could add a context about ceremonial cleansing of meats, but it isn't a necessary addition.
The word for purging in this section is "
katharizōn" which means to purify or make clean.