That’s true what you say but two things:
One, the fact that He was speaking of a ceremonial law being abolished (the washing of hands before eating) actually only compliments the argument(s) made on Catholic.com regarding the alleged prohibition of drinking blood still in effect today. For indeed the author of that piece made the same point to whit: since Jesus said that it is no longer “unclean” to eat before ceremonially washing one’s hands it’s indeed the dirt of one’s hands that is the subject of His edict there. So even if one doesn’t agree that blood is food, then in Mark 7:18-19 we can still see Jesus lifting the “uncleanliness” of not ceremonially washing one’s hands, which isn’t due to food per se but rather dirt. (Read the article). So if accidentally consuming dirt with one’s meal no longer makes a man unclean, then surely it can’t be said that purposefully consuming the blood of Jesus is unclean, since that contains His life.
Secondly about the lifting of all food restrictions: if accidentally consuming dirt is now ok, then surely it can’t be said purposefully consuming any food is “unclean” as St Paul later goes on to teach again. In other words St Paul wasn’t just making up what he taught about clean/unclean foods, he was just repeating what was taught by Jesus in Mark 7:18-19.
As I said before I will now say again: I won’t respond any more unless all the points in that article are addressed and I’ll say this now too: in one post. I’m not going to chase down a myriad of posts to get a cohesive reply to all those points (in the linked article above).
So even if you disagree with what I’ve said here that doesn’t change my mind since you haven’t addressed all the points there.
Actually, no. Your logic is fallacious, because you are comparing two different things as if they were the same. The prohibition against consuming blood was given by God Himself; the tradition of washing hands was developed by the priests and Pharisees. There is a WORLD of difference between overturning a man-made tradition and overturning a Law given by God.
With regard to Paul, if you read the Scripture in context, he is clearly addressing the issue of the Jewish Christians trying to make the Gentile Christians live under the Mosaic law. Paul's point is that after the Cross, we are no longer subject to the Mosaic Law because it was completely fulfilled by the life and death of Christ. Rather, the Church is governed by the grace of God. The moral laws of God are written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit, not on tablets of stone. But once again, that was AFTER and as a RESULT OF the death and resurrection of Jesus. Not before.
And as I told Arthur, I am not trying to change your mind - just allow others to see the flaws in your argument and tradition.